HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I am the 47% » Reply #7
In the discussion thread: I am the 47% [View all]

Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 06:48 PM

7. I was one of the other 47%

I didn't pay Federal Income taxes in 2011, other than FICA taxes. Or in 2010, or 2009, or 2008, or 2007. In fact, in 2008 and 2009 I paid negative federal income taxes because of both the EIC and the Making Work Pay credit. Then I got a better paying job. So I will pay Federal Income taxes this year.

I wrote this about the 47%

What about the 47%?
Some in the media are trying to make a big deal out of the fact that 47% of Americans do not pay Federal Income Taxes. This is not new. In November of 2002, the Wall Street Journal wrote about the "Lucky Duckies" who were too poor to pay income taxes.

The fact is, that most years, I have been one of them, but I would love to pay income taxes instead of not pay them. Why? Because that would mean I was making more money. The tax rate is not 100%. If I paid $500 in income taxes that would mean I had an extra $5,000 in income that I do not have now. Even after FICA taxes that would leave me over $4,000 ahead.

Let's look at the larger picture though. In 1996, there were 13.2 million taxpayers with income over $10,000 and less than $15,000 and there were another 11.6 million with income less than $20,000 and another 28.5 million with income less than $10,000. Discounting the last group, which is probably mostly teenagers, those making under $20,000 paid $16.9 billion in taxes. Let's assume that the Bush tax cuts eliminated taxes for that group (which they didn't, but for the sake of argument). Those 24.8 million people (or families) would thus save an average of just $681.

Now, look at what actually happened with another group. What Bush called his base - "the haves and the have mores". In 1996, the top 1% paid an average tax rate of 28.9%. By 2006, they only paid an average of 22.79%. In 2006, their total income was $1.79 Trillion! Thus, they saved $109 billion thanks to the Bush tax cuts, an average savings of $80,313.

So, to compare, that's $16.9 billion saved by the poorer people and $109 billion saved by the richer people, and there are 24.8 million of the poor families compared to 1.36 million of the richer families.

Should we be upset because poorer families got $16.9 billion in tax cuts? Or should we be more concerned about the $109 billion going to people with incomes over $388,000? Who is luckier, somebody making $15,000 who got a tax cut of $681 or somebody making $38,000,000 who got a tax cut of over $2,300,000? Hey, doesn't Rush Limbaugh make $38 million a year?

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 11 replies Author Time Post
McCamy Taylor Sep 2012 OP
Lebam in LA Sep 2012 #1
LineNew Reply .
Liberal_in_LA Sep 2012 #2
2on2u Sep 2012 #3
McCamy Taylor Sep 2012 #9
2on2u Sep 2012 #10
Delmette Sep 2012 #4
tomm2thumbs Sep 2012 #11
RevStPatrick Sep 2012 #5
salin Sep 2012 #6
LineNew Reply I was one of the other 47%
hfojvt Sep 2012 #7
David Zephyr Sep 2012 #8
Please login to view edit histories.