Slashdot Mirror

> Your tax dollars hard at work yet again!"

If they are going to serve beer in the Whitehouse it's much cheaper to brew it themselves then to buy it. About 30 cents for a 750 mil bottle holding the equivalent of two cans. They also don't have to pay the extortionate government sales tax on alcohol. Hey hang on...

http://taxfoundation.org:81/article/state-sales-gasoline-cigarette-and-alcohol-tax-rates-state-2000-2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrewing

Blame our (great)grandparents. Had they not ratified the 16th amendment, that particular imbalance would be much more difficult.

You should probably take a look at the 2005 version of the report that fed the post you linked to. (They are also looking to update the report, but apparently don't have the funding for it.) North Dakota's numbers changed pretty sharply from one year to the next.

In their 2005 report, New Mexico, a generally blue state, had the highest ratio: 2.03. I don't think that a state's politics are really the best datum to correlate this ratio to. That the correlation exists is probably coincident to some other unaccounted factor.

Thanks for the link, by the way. The data was fun to play with, even if only for a few minutes. (I spent some time looking for that other factor that I alluded to.)

http://taxfoundation.org/article/sales-tax-rates-major-us-cities -- and with those other taxes in mind, it does hit 10pct in at least a few places. (Not sure how up to date this chart is, though.)

The tax should be even at all levels of income, period end of statement. That is the Constitutional answer, as well as the most logical and "Fair". If I pay 13%, then some person making a bazillion dollars a year should pay 13%. If that person pays 10%, I pay 10%.

What we have in the US is drastically different, unfair, and unconstitutional. There are 60,000 plus pages of tax laws to back my statement.

Fully agree.

We currently have a middle class paying upwards of 40% in taxes (FICA/Fed/State/City). We have the top 1% of wealth paying 10-17%, and that's only on the income they claim to make in the US.

Wrong. There are always a few exceptions to the rule, but the top 1% pay about 24% in income tax alone. And the average is just under $1 million in AGI, so they are paying an effective FICA/SSI rate around 1.7%. And I don't know how it is in your state, but here in CA (and other states I've lived) there is NO exemption above a certain income point, and usually a progressive tax rate applied as well.

It's a myth the rich don't pay an equivalent tax rate - they actually do. The top 1% (of which, interestingly, President Obama was firmly within back in 2008 when he ran on his populist campaign) pay, on average, a much higher total tax rate than the middle class.

Ten percent. For everybody with absolutely no deductions, classes of income (capital gains, unearned, etc) credits (refundable or none) or anything.

Not to mention the fact that the 10% would not actually bring in enough revenue.

Actually it would. Right now, based upon AGI - meaning WITH those deductions - a flat 10% would be nearly revenue-neutral ($85 billion difference between actual collected and the theoretical 10% of AGI). Eliminate the deductions and we'd definitely have more income tax revenue than we do currently.

But why go with a flat rate? How about everybody pay their fair share? Like when you go out for pizza with 3 friends - you have a $30 bill, you split it 4 ways. Let's take the $3.8 trillion budget and split it 310 million ways and give every one a $12,260 bill for their share of the Federal Government. We all benefit from roads, and the FDA, and space programs and the military. So let's go REALLY flat and equitable and equal shares - every one gets to pony up a $1000 check a month to the Feds.

Or is that not fair?

Oh god, you're a flat taxer too.

So while we save "billion" on record keeping etc, where are we going to make up all this lost income? Because that would be a HUGE tax break to me, so I can't really imagine the budget would be even vaguely balanced on the whole.

I'm somehow suspecting the answer is "fuck the poor, let them die", but I'm curious if you have an alternative.

It's not such a tax hit as you think. The AGI in 2009 (after all those deductions) was $7.8 trillion nation-wide. Ten percent of that would be $780 billion. Actual taxes paid were $865 billion - about an $85 billion difference. Chump-change in the face of $1.4 trillion deficits.

Eliminate a single deduction - mortgage interest - and you'd easily have an AGI above $9 trillion, meaning that flat 10% would actually collect MORE taxes. No hole blown in the budget.

That's incorrect.

The poor pay over 12% of their income in state and local taxes while the wealthy pay .03%.

The wealthy pay, on average, 24% of their income in Federal income taxes while the poor pay less than 2%.

All sardonic social commentary aside, tax rates, at least on the wealthiest of Americans (that's not you nor I, BTW), is the lowest it's been in over half a century.

Yet those rich pay the vast majority of income taxes, well more than their share of the total income. How much is enough?

In 2009, an AGI of $1.3 million put you in the top 1%. With an income of $5.5 million in 2009 Barak Obama was most certainly well in the 1%er category.

I'm not sure where you're getting your stereotypes about Republicans and Democrats. In fact, Bush expanded the EITC. Check it out. He cut taxes for poor people.

You need to find a way to get out of your stereotypes friend, because taxes have been cut consistently by both parties for years. Don't be deceived by the rhetoric.

Considering that the total tax for on the road gasoline in California is less than fifty cents a gallon, you might want to check your numbers. That's combined state and federal excise taxes as well as a variety of other fees added by the state.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-gasoline-tax-rates-january-1-2012

I was skeptical, and looked up some data. It seems this is indeed correct.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-spending-received-dollar-taxes-paid-state-2005

Quite interesting.

I'll never understand why people think that local politicians are somehow better than Washington politicians.

Well for one thing, local politicians are not interested in diverting my tax dollars to another state.

I would have absolutely no qualms paying 50% taxes if it meant I got some sort of services for it like they do elsewhere.

I see, so you'll only pay for it if you get something out of it? What is it you don't understand about how the other rich kids feel, again?

If you make 70k/yr, congratulations - you're making well over household median income, putting you somewhere around the 70th percentile of households. This means that you're outside the top 25%, which paid nearly 88% of all federal income tax in 2009. You want more services? Start paying more in, you can certainly afford it, Richie Rich. Household median is around 45k. Guess what - you're not going to be given more services, you're going to be ASKED TO PAY for more services. Joke's on you.

(Sources: IRS data, as shown here.)

Really? You mean Democratic state majorities in both legislative houses dating back to at least the Gray Davis administration were figments of my imagination? And, whew, that Arnold Schwarzenegger! What a government cutter!

I got my data from here. (I'm not advocating their politics, just that theirs was the first link with usable data. Which appears to be sourced right from the IRS.)

When they said taxpayers, I am assuming taxpaying "units". So yeah, married filing jointly might skew the numbers down, but not everyone files that way. The $350k is the income split point, meaning that it isn't an average, it is the lowest number in that group. Under $350k, you are in the 2% centile. In the top 1%, the 1.38 million taxpayers report $1.32 trillion in AGI, which is about a million averaged out.

Just for grins, do a bit of research to find out just how much taxes that 1% actually pays. You'll be surprised (hint - average, according to this is in the range of 20% of income. the top 0.1% is the Buffett group, paying about 8% of gross income.). The bottom 50% pay about 12% of their income - but almost 4/5 of that group actually gets subsidies back from the gov that exceed their tax payments for a net negative payment for that group.

The top 1% of income earners in the US pay about 40% of the total income tax, the top 5% about 60%. The top 25% pay 87%. The bottom 50% pay about 2.7% , but again receive more than they put in.

We also have the highest corporate tax rates in the world, ameliorated slightly by the plethora of silly loopholes and exceptions, that keep a million or so accountants busy.

I note that when the Constitutional amendment to allow the income tax was passed, the PR was that it would always be limited to the top 2% of income earners, and would be limited to 2% of their income. Obviously once the camel got into the tent, it began to eat everything in sight. Too bad the amendment didn't include any limits! At one time the entire federal government was paid for by the postage on mail, and the liquor tax. Was that so bad? When you didn't like how one state did things, you could move to another. Now the feds have their noses in everyone's behinds, sniffing to see what we had for dinner. That, IMHO is not the role of a FEDERAL government structure.

Meanwhile, the present administration's spending is (IIRC) 40% of the entire GDP. Of that, it is borrowing about 40% and of that, the Federal Reserve is buying about 60% because the number of suckers willing to buy US debt has dropped precipitously. When the Fed buys it, it is just a silent form of 'quantitative easing', in essence creating money out of thin air. Another name for that is inflation - the most regressive hidden tax there is. 60%X40%x40% = about 10% inflation PER YEAR. :)

Regardless of whose party is in, this has to stop before, like Germany a few decades ago, we will be in the boat where a postage stamp costs $5 billion (no joke - that's what happened, only marks instead of dollars.)

Leave it to those of us in "flyover country" to actively move society forward, whilst the coastal elites bicker among themselves.

Just thought you might like to know that the company that is building it for Ameren Missouri is Westinghouse, headquartered in Pennsylvania. As in George Westinghouse's corporation from New York. And they are looking for $452 million of investment funds from the U.S. Department of Energy in order to start this project ... does your state solely fund the DoE?

Also, I might point out to you that recent data shows that in 2005 for every dollar Missouri paid to the federal government you got back $1.32.

whilst the coastal elites bicker among themselves

Could you describe what bickering is happening on the coasts that isn't happening in your own state?

I'm not saying anything bad about Missouri, I applaud this movement as I don't think Wind or Natural Gas or any single solution is going to save us moving forward so I'm happy to watch this piece of the puzzle be experimented with. Just don't go patting yourself on the back too hard or you'll get me started about the massive wind farms in my home state of Minnesota (that were set up by a largely Californian company selling it to almost anyone within cable laying distance).

Energy-wise, none of us are alone and we all share very similar problems.

Tax Freedom Day this year is April 12. Today is March 21st, so everything I do today is for The State.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/

As americans we are all invested in the system.

The poorer people who don't pay any income taxes are overwhelmingly residence of red states and congressional districts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?pagewanted=all

Part of this is due to the lower wages and lower cost of living in many of these conservative states.

Similarly, the ratio of government spending to tax receipts is tilted heavily in favor republican districts and states.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf

Lastly, taxing poor people has little economic benefit. When such a large portion of their income is spent on goods, increased taxes only reduce their economic consumption and also reduce the amount they might be able to save. Similarly these people pay a higher percentage of their income on sales taxes than wealthier people. This is why sales tax and flat taxes are considered a regressive as it punishes poor people more than wealthy ones.

Wealthier people have much more discretionary wealth which they may choose to spend or invest.

We cannot forget that one of the main reasons we have a deficit is due to the huge tax breaks provided to the very wealthy. During WW2 we had a 91% top tax rate, this lowered after the war to 70% in the 1970s, 50% in the 80's and to 33% now, but with capital gains income that can go down to 15%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Historical_income_tax_rates_.281913.E2.80.932010.29

Another reason is that we never included the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget, and never found a way to pay for them, by either cutting spending or raising taxes. Notice the fiscal responsibility used during WW2 to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for defending our country. This is in stark contrast to the war we chose to start in Iraq.

From 1981 to at least 2005* Texas has paid more in federal taxes than it has received in federal spending. So, you know, suck it.

*Dont know about 2005 to 2012, but I assume the trend continues.

That says "federal spending". Does that include Social Security payments? Welfare? Medicaid?

Given that the Tax Foundation report got the federal expenditures data from the Census Bureau's 2005 Consolidated Federal Funds Report. Said report includes Social Security payments; see Table 2. Table 3 doesn't explicitly call out, for example, programs such as Temporary Assistance to Need Families and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (which are what I think most people really mean when they say "welfare"), but the "ESTIMATES FOR SUBSTATE DISTRIBUTIONS" secton does mention them, along with Medical Assistance (Medicaid). So the answer to your question appears to be "yes".

Per person in that state?

Figure 5 has per-capita figures, although they're not broken down into Social Security, "welfare", Medicaid, etc.. In any case, it's not as if the Tax Foundation did something stooopid such as doing tax receipts from the states per-capita and not doing federal spending per-capita, so it's not as if "per-capita in the state" matters here - revenues and expenditures both go up with more people.

I think the numbers would dramatically shift if that were included...

I think (with the Census Bureau's report as backing) that they already are included, and therefore that the numbers would not shift one iota if they were included....

"3. On the whole, California takes in far more in federal benefits than it pays in federal tax. Unlike your analysis, which excludes broad categories of welfare spending, I look at gross flows of funds."

Could you please provide some sort of link or other evidence to back up your claims? Every bit of evidence presented on this thread has been that California and other blue states routinely carry the deadweight of the red states. Here is evidence of that, the first from a conservative outfit, the second from a liberal one:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

Do you have anything to back up your assertions, or are you just comfortable knowing that you're right, no matter what the facts say?

3. On the whole, California takes in far more in federal benefits than it pays in federal tax. Unlike your analysis, which excludes broad categories of welfare spending, I look at gross flows of funds.

OK, so which broad categories of welfare spending did the Census Bureau exclude in the 2005 Consolidated Federal Funds Report (2005 because that's the year for the Tax Foundation's press release and their report)?

I.e., give us citations and methodology for your gross-flows-of-funds analysis, plz.

3. On the whole, California takes in far more in federal benefits than it pays in federal tax. Unlike your analysis, which excludes broad categories of welfare spending, I look at gross flows of funds.

OK, so which broad categories of welfare spending did the Census Bureau exclude in the 2005 Consolidated Federal Funds Report (2005 because that's the year for the Tax Foundation's press release and their report)?

I.e., give us citations and methodology for your gross-flows-of-funds analysis, plz.

California sees less return on federal dollars than is taken in taxes. (Who's the parasite, again?)

You sure about that? Hint: look at all the Federal expenditures in California, including welfare.

OK, let's look at, say, the 2006 report from the Tax Foundation. What it says about Federal expenditures is

Federal Expenditures Each year the Census Bureau releases the Consolidated Federal Funds Report, which estimates the amount of federal spending in each state and territory during the prior fiscal year. The latest report allocates approximately 92 percent of total FY 2005 federal spending. The 8 percent not allocated includes net interest outlays, foreign aid, and other outlays that are not allocable to the states. For the purposes of this report, the Tax Foundation uses this census data as is.

In the calculation of spending-to-tax ratios, however, an adjustment must be made to bring federal tax collections and federal spending into alignment. Therefore, a deficit is treated as an unfunded tax liability in the current year, allocated in the same fashion as the federal tax burden. Similarly, the model assumes that a surplus is used to pay down the federal debt to domestic capital holders.

The 2010 Consolidated Federal Funds Report does mention Temporary Aid to Needy Families and several other programs that I guess are what you're referring to when you say "welfare".

It's best when one chooses to support one's claims with quantitative facts rather than emotion and ideology. If the numbers agreed with you, I would too. But they don't.

Tax burden report, 2006
Tax burden report, 2009
Tax burdens by state, 1981-2005
California 2011-12 Budeget Outlook

It's best when one chooses to support one's claims with quantitative facts rather than emotion and ideology. If the numbers agreed with you, I would too. But they don't.

Tax burden report, 2006
Tax burden report, 2009
Tax burdens by state, 1981-2005
California 2011-12 Budeget Outlook

It's best when one chooses to support one's claims with quantitative facts rather than emotion and ideology. If the numbers agreed with you, I would too. But they don't.

Tax burden report, 2006
Tax burden report, 2009
Tax burdens by state, 1981-2005
California 2011-12 Budeget Outlook

Do you have a link to the reports or data that supports this? I'd like to see it.

I doubt they will be forthcoming. As you've probably already found, the data simply does not support those claims.

2009 Special Report
2006 Special Report
Tax burdens by state, 1981-2005

Do you have a link to the reports or data that supports this? I'd like to see it.

I doubt they will be forthcoming. As you've probably already found, the data simply does not support those claims.

2009 Special Report
2006 Special Report
Tax burdens by state, 1981-2005

Do you have a link to the reports or data that supports this? I'd like to see it.

I doubt they will be forthcoming. As you've probably already found, the data simply does not support those claims.

2009 Special Report
2006 Special Report
Tax burdens by state, 1981-2005

California sees less return on federal dollars than is taken in taxes. (Who's the parasite, again?)
You sure about that? Hint: look at all the Federal expenditures in California, including welfare.

Yes, we are sure. Our federal tax imbalance is similar in size to our budget deficit.
You could at least base your claims on logic and numbers instead of emotion and expectations.

[1] 2009 Tax Burden Report
[2] 2006 Tax Burden Report
[3] Tax burden by state, 1981-2005
[4] California 2011-12 Budget Outlook

California sees less return on federal dollars than is taken in taxes. (Who's the parasite, again?)
You sure about that? Hint: look at all the Federal expenditures in California, including welfare.

Yes, we are sure. Our federal tax imbalance is similar in size to our budget deficit.
You could at least base your claims on logic and numbers instead of emotion and expectations.

[1] 2009 Tax Burden Report
[2] 2006 Tax Burden Report
[3] Tax burden by state, 1981-2005
[4] California 2011-12 Budget Outlook

California sees less return on federal dollars than is taken in taxes. (Who's the parasite, again?)
You sure about that? Hint: look at all the Federal expenditures in California, including welfare.

Yes, we are sure. Our federal tax imbalance is similar in size to our budget deficit.
You could at least base your claims on logic and numbers instead of emotion and expectations.

[1] 2009 Tax Burden Report
[2] 2006 Tax Burden Report
[3] Tax burden by state, 1981-2005
[4] California 2011-12 Budget Outlook

According to the libertarian (and Koch-funded) Tax Foundation, California has paid more into federal coffers than it has taken in federal spending since 1986 ( http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html page 5). And its share that it has given has grown in relation to the amount that it has taken.

There are eighteen states that actually pay their own way, or better, according to the latest data they have collected

( http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html they're in the process of collecting funds for an updated look at more recent numbers). Seventeen of those states went for Obama / Biden in 2008.

One does not have to be a conservative to pass judgment on states leeching government money, but it helps perhaps to be in one when 94.4% of the states that do pay their own way went Democratic in the last Presidential election.

The question is therefore not "why is California spending so much more?", but why are the Red States outstripping California's spending with nothing to back up THEIR leeching ways, playing bootstrappy cowboy at the expense of people in LA, New York, Chicago, etc.?

According to the libertarian (and Koch-funded) Tax Foundation, California has paid more into federal coffers than it has taken in federal spending since 1986 ( http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html page 5). And its share that it has given has grown in relation to the amount that it has taken.

There are eighteen states that actually pay their own way, or better, according to the latest data they have collected

( http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html they're in the process of collecting funds for an updated look at more recent numbers). Seventeen of those states went for Obama / Biden in 2008.

One does not have to be a conservative to pass judgment on states leeching government money, but it helps perhaps to be in one when 94.4% of the states that do pay their own way went Democratic in the last Presidential election.

The question is therefore not "why is California spending so much more?", but why are the Red States outstripping California's spending with nothing to back up THEIR leeching ways, playing bootstrappy cowboy at the expense of people in LA, New York, Chicago, etc.?

1. Do you know for sure how much of California's state budget goes to the federal government? I do. It is $0. No state pays the federal government for anything (except for fines for various things). State governments haven't paid the federal government since the Articles of Confederation. This is a fact.

First, the GP said nothing about the state budget.

Second, that's a perfect example of the broken window fallacy. The citizens pay the Federal Government, and in so doing, give it money that cannot be spent for other things. The correct question is how much the citizens of California as a whole send to the federal government versus the amount that the federal government sends back. The answer to that is "a lot more", with the sole exception of the last couple of years (in which California has gotten more than it sent in, but so has every other state). In most years, California gets back somewhere in the ballpark of eighty cents for every dollar it sends to the feds.

2. Ah yes. Those dastardly Republicans! Why just yesterday I got my Form 1040 package in the mail, and the instructions clearly have me paying income tax at a higher rate because I live in a blue state.

Again, the amount is immaterial. What's important is the cost-benefit ratio. The blue states, on the average, get far less benefit for their federal tax dollars than the red states. This is fairly well established and can be trivially proven by examining the numbers.

Unless, of course, you consider the security benefits. Consider how the wide difference in wealth between the U.S. and Mexico has caused serious safety problems near our Southern border. Now consider what would happen if the Southern U.S. were similarly poor because California stopped propping them up. And that is why the argument of California getting less out than it puts in falls flat—not because it isn't true from a purely numbers point of view, but rather because there are unquantifiable externalities that the argument fails to take into account.

On the whole, California takes in far more in federal benefits than it pays in federal tax. Unlike your analysis, which excludes broad categories of welfare spending, I look at gross flows of funds.

That's grossly incorrect.

You completely miss the point. California, and most of the "blue" states, are "giver" states - their citizens and businesses pay more in federal tax (income and otherwise) than they receive back as services. California receives $0.78 (in things like highway dollars and education) per dollar of tax paid. source. For fun, compare "red" states with "blue" states. About 75% of Bush and Gore's electoral votes came from taker and giver states, respectively.

The GP's point was that if those 25c no longer "left" the state, California would be better off.

The best part was you complaining about ignorance and being "factually wrong".

Yeah, don't bother looking up the statistics or anything. Just make a sarcastic comment to insinuate you know what you're talking about.

In 2005, California paid $290 billion in taxes and received $240 billion in federal spending. California's deficit currently stands at $11 billion. Now, I'm no mathematician, but I'm pretty sure 290 - 240 > 11.

They pay for more in absolute dollars but they pay a far lower tax rate.
When you add in fixed taxes and license fees, the difference is even more dramatic.

Top 400 familes pay about 17.5% total tax load.
The top 2.67% pay about 23% total tax load
The folks at 60% to 80% pay about 40% total tax load.
The folks at 20% (poverty) pay about 25% total tax load.

To the wealthy, $3.70 in gasoline taxes for a tank of gasoline is basically a 0% rate. To the poor, $3.70 in gasoline taxes is about 5% of their weekly income.

Same for cigarette, phone taxes, booze, sales tax, etc.

Property tax appears in your rent or in your mortgage. It runs from about 5% for the poor (but lower as they share housing) to about 3% for the middle class to about 2% for the wealthy.

I.e.
A $1000/year property tax bill embedded in their rent for a poor person is a huge chunk of their income.
A $30,000 tax bill for the top 2.67% is about 2%.

The poor spend most of their income on taxable purchases. The wealthy do not. So an 8% sales tax load hits the poor for 8% of their income while it hits the wealthy for under 1%.

Google "who pays state taxes" and also look here http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table3

The media owned by the wealthy has really been pushing the propaganda that the lower 50% of income earners pay no taxes.

But the more accurate statement is the bottom 50% pay low or no federal income taxes ( tho that changes big time this year now that hte earned income tax credit has been removed) while the wealthy pay a much lower percentage of their income as taxes.

It is accurate to say they pay more taxes in absolute dollars. But did you realize if the tax bill for running the country was divided evenly, it works out to over $11,000 per citizen? More like $33,000 per working person. And that's ignoring social security taxes.

Today, the wealthy pay the lowest taxes than at any time in US history.

Maybe the nominal tax rate is low (and it's been lower - try any time pre-1931) but that's just part of the story. The wealthiest 1% pay a near-record share of income taxes. And the top 5% are paying nearly 60% of all income taxes. Compare that to the time pre-Bush tax cuts - it's considerably higher. Just about record levels over the last 30 years, in fact.

Facts trump rhetoric every time...

The wealthy are paying more dollars in taxes because they are making more dollars than ever. OP meant "today, the wealthy pay the lowest tax RATES than at any time in US History." Tax rates is what is relevant, not tax dollars. Yes, the top 5% pay nearly 60% of income taxes. They are also making nearly 95% of all income.

Today, the wealthy pay the lowest taxes than at any time in US history.

Maybe the nominal tax rate is low (and it's been lower - try any time pre-1931) but that's just part of the story. The wealthiest 1% pay a near-record share of income taxes. And the top 5% are paying nearly 60% of all income taxes. Compare that to the time pre-Bush tax cuts - it's considerably higher. Just about record levels over the last 30 years, in fact.

Facts trump rhetoric every time...

The wealthy are paying more dollars in taxes because they are making more dollars than ever. OP meant "today, the wealthy pay the lowest tax RATES than at any time in US History." Tax rates is what is relevant, not tax dollars. Yes, the top 5% pay nearly 60% of income taxes. They are also making nearly 95% of all income.

Hey, moron, did you read that page?

Try looking at this table.

In 1980, the top 1% paid 34.47% of their reported income in taxes.
In 2009, the top 1% paid 24.01% of their reported income in taxes.

Wow, look at that. Right there on the page you gave. They are currently paying a rate that is 70% of what they paid in 1980.

So, if they are paying a lower percentage, why are they now paying 36.73% of total income taxes instead of 19.05%?

Well, because they used to make 8.5% of all money, and now make 17% of all money, that's why.

(And their actual income is a hell of a lot higher, thanks to various abuses of the tax code and corporate resources.)

And now the stupid fucks have show up comparing what percentage to income taxes is paid to what percentage of people pay them, two completely unrelated things.

Hey, asswipe. We don't tax people, you fucktard, we tax income. The reason the top 1% pay twice as much now is that they are making something like eight times the money, and taxes are lower.

Hey asswipe, got a source for your assertion? I know you don't, because the facts speak exactly opposite - the top 1% pay the same ratio of taxes-to-income as they did back in 1980, under President Carter.

Drop the bong, get out from your OWS tent, and try educating yourself.

They also make ~80% of the income. No wonder they're so much happier these days.

BS. Source you can cite? Because a summary of IRS tax returns shows you're full of it. In fact, the top 1% pay about the same ratio of taxes-to-income now as they did in 1980, under President Carter and much higher marginal tax rates.

Your anti-wealth rhetoric is simply without merit.

The top 1% pay a greater portion of taxes now because they "earn" a greater portion of the wealth than in the Carter years. And the amount they "earn" has increased much more than the portion they pay in taxes.

The Laffer curve is junk science at the worst. Its proponents will never admit we're on the left hand side of the curve until the tax rate is 0.

In 1980, the top 1% made 8.46% of the income, and paid 19.05% of the income taxes. Now they make about 17% of the income and pay about 37% of the income taxes. It's about the same now as it was under Carter (source).

Too bad you're an AC, you could stand to use a little education...

Today, the wealthy pay the lowest taxes than at any time in US history.

Maybe the nominal tax rate is low (and it's been lower - try any time pre-1931) but that's just part of the story. The wealthiest 1% pay a near-record share of income taxes. And the top 5% are paying nearly 60% of all income taxes. Compare that to the time pre-Bush tax cuts - it's considerably higher. Just about record levels over the last 30 years, in fact.

Facts trump rhetoric every time...

Today, the wealthy pay the lowest taxes than at any time in US history.

Maybe the nominal tax rate is low (and it's been lower - try any time pre-1931) but that's just part of the story. The wealthiest 1% pay a near-record share of income taxes. And the top 5% are paying nearly 60% of all income taxes. Compare that to the time pre-Bush tax cuts - it's considerably higher. Just about record levels over the last 30 years, in fact.

Facts trump rhetoric every time...

The problem with your chart is that it is only federal dollars, not state and local dollars.

Airports are generally financed with almost entirely local money.

Citation required.

Come back with a graph that shows federal + state + local monies, and I'm relatively positive highways will be on top by a large margin.

State and Federal tax revenues for roads run about $60 billion per year.

State spending on roads averages about $20 billion per year.

The Federal Highway Administration spends about $25 billion per year on roads.

Sorry, road taxes - taxes on cars and trucks, fuel excise taxes - bring in more revenue than States and the Federal Government spend. The highway system is a net moneymaker for the Governments - and we're not even talking about the fact our economy literally runs on those roads. Passenger rail on the other hand? Big-time money loser - and it's losses are covered by those same road taxes.

Next time you're riding along in a train, look over at those cars and thank them because they're heavily subsidizing your ticket.