Slashdot Mirror

Plus, Californians send a lot more money to Washington in Federal taxes than they get back..

Given the sheer number of representative and electoral votes they represent at the federal level, they certainly do get it back in quite a few other ways, no?

Well, according to these guys, http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html, California sends a lot of money to Washington and does not get as much back. I find it ironic that Blue States basically subsidize the Red States.

... but the government needs to overhaul the system of taxation to a simple system without loopholes, and stop trying to figure out a way to tax everything we do. Once upon a time we didn't even need income taxes; times change, but having the government intrude on every aspect of our lives so that they can tax every little thing is not the way to go.

You have to ask what is the purpose of taxes to begin with; why do we need them and what's the most effective way to accomplish that, not keep coming up with new schemes that likely can have negative impacts on the economy. Every time the government creates a new tax, the cost of compliance adds to the amount that the government collects; more accountants need to be paid, more paperwork needs to be filled out.... the cost of compliance for the current system (not the taxes paid, but the resources spent figuring out what to pay). The tax foundation projects compliance costs to be in the hundreds of billions (Total Federal Income Tax Compliance Costs, 1990-2015).

There's got to be a better way - overhaul the tax system, don't keep adding to the mess it already is.

If we don't stop this nonsense, we're going to be taxed for every action we take and the fourth amendment will be a joke. You'll have a federal tax on food (eat beef? Well, beef causes global warming, so you'll have to pay), a commute to work tax; have coffee break tax; drive anywhere tax (this will be beyond what we already pay in gasoline taxes). Every time money changes hands? Is that what you really want? Lend me $20 and pay a tax? How about both of us? Lender tax and borrower tax, and then a pay-you-back (loan repayment) tax. How about a tax on getting money from your ATM? Or transferring money from one account to another? Or every time you pay a bill? It's simply ridiculous to continue along this path.

Your moaning about a "prevailing wage" was straying very much into "Libertarian" territory so I thought I had better point out where the idea of a living wage comes from - the idea of having a society better than that of a third world shithole.

Why should taxpayers pay a huge union premium for road and building projects? We have high unemployment. We could have better roads, and more building projects with more people working. Instead, we protect above-market wages for a relative few insiders.

The "prevailing wage" stuff was originally instituted so white union construction workers didn't have to compete with black construction workers who wanted jobs and were willing to work for less to get them.

The tax rate argument is of course bullshit even if it higher than Ireland and Caribbean tax havens - the USA has one of the lowest corporate tax rates of the western world.

You are incorrect: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/27609.html

And you still have no solutions to any problems.

As a current resident of Honolulu, I have to respond to some of this.

First taxes are not very high compared to mainland states. According to the Tax Foundation Hawaii has the 30th highest taxes in the nation (out of 50 obviously). http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/topic/24.html

Second, there are a lot of homeless in Hawaii. The primary cause of this is high home prices. A home in a "bad" neighborhood will cost $300k-600k, in a "good" neighborhood they go from $500k-$900k, and in the "rich" neighborhoods they are ridiculous. Unfortunately, we live on an island, so there is a limited amount of land. Couple that with regulations that prohibit apartment buildings in a lot of places because they would "ruin the view", and one economic downturn has the effect of generating a lot of homeless.

You know, after paying about 35% of all income taxes in the US, you'd think the top 1% would try to get that changed. I could give a dozen other examples, like corporate regulation, anti-trust laws, etc.

As those 1% also own 35% of all wealth, this seems normal to me.

Historically speaking, it is not at all normal. When progressive tax schemes were introduced about 100 years ago, it was really something new... which is exactly why they were called "progressive". Before then, taxes were generally levied on trade and imports (essentially a sales tax), license fees, and head taxes, all of which are quite regressive taxes.

If you go back to feudal days it was even worse. Most wealth was agricultural and was produced by the serfs, who spent most of their annual labor working for their feudal lord, who in turn owed the greater part of his profits to his overlord, and so on up the chain to the monarch. The monarch owned a hefty chunk of everything in his domain, including almost all of the land (most people were tenants at the monarch's sufferance), and paid no taxes to anyone since he himself was the government. It is as though the bottom 99% paid a tax rate of 30% and owned almost nothing while the top 0.001% paid a tax rate of 0% and owned almost everything.

Now, if you read what I wrote about the feudal system, you may think that our present system is no different. But our system is quite the reverse. Here is a summary plot which demonstrates this quite clearly. Unfortunately most people will not be convinced by the actual data since their own preconceptions are so much more comforting.

You know, after paying about 35% of all income taxes in the US, you'd think the top 1% would try to get that changed. I could give a dozen other examples, like corporate regulation, anti-trust laws, etc.

As those 1% also own 35% of all wealth, this seems normal to me.

We are? Huh, I wonder why the EPA still exists, then.

Or maybe the richest of the rich, for that matter. You know, after paying about 35% of all income taxes in the US, you'd think the top 1% would try to get that changed. I could give a dozen other examples, like corporate regulation, anti-trust laws, etc.

I am really, really sick of this meme on /. The world is not a plutocracy or an oligarchy or any of those things. The wealthy have a vast amount of power, yes, because you know what? They always have, and they always will. Because power money. Always. Even in states that try to establish communism, or in ancient Sparta (which didn't even have real money), the rich are powerful and the powerful are rich. It's a fact of life, and it will never change. The solution is not to get rid of rich people (which a lot of people seem to want now a days) because again, you can't.

What is the solution? Make it in the rich people's best interest to have everyone else moderately well off. And this is capitalism, by (part of) Adam Smith's definition. It's a simple syllogism: people can only buy stuff from capitalist corporations if they have money. Corporations only make money if people buy their stuff. Therefore corporations (and by extension rich capitalists) need to make sure people have money. Doesn't always work perfectly, and government involvement if not careful can fuck it up royal, but I'd say living in the wealthiest period of human history is pretty damn good. Why the hell should I care if people get rich off it?

Before anyone jumps in saying you don't know what you are talking about:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

Why should the people of North Dakota pay for tsunami monitoring for California? If the west coast wants earth quake and tsunami warning, they can pay for it.

The people in North Dakota aren't paying for tsunami monitoring in California, rather it's Californians who are paying for roads, schools, airports and tornado monitoring in North Dakota.http://politics.slashdot.org/story/11/10/20/1541224/ron-paul-suggests-axing-5-us-federal-departments-and-budgets#

This isn't uncommon knowledge. Here are some links:

This shows Indiana as receiving $1.05 per dollar sent to the IRS, which is admittedly not bad compared to many other states. California only gets back $0.78 per dollar sent.

And this talks about more specific places the money has been spent.

Both of these articles are a little old, but I haven't seen anything more recent that suggests that the trend has changed.

--Jeremy

You could at least not be so obvious when making up numbers.

In the US, for 2008 (the last year data is available for), the top 1% of earners (those making more than $380K AGI) paid 38% of all income taxes, paying at a rate of 23%. Those in the bottom 50% of earnings (<$33K AGI), paid 2.7% of the total, at a rate of 2.6%. Those in the "UMC," making $67-114K, (between the 10 and 25th percentiles), paid 16% of the total, at a rate of 9%.

Source - http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

If that's how you decide to paraphrase anything that I've said, you're either not reading my posts or you're completely missing the point. Nothing I've said even approaches this twisted viewpoint you claim I've espoused.

That is exactly what your viewpoint is showing. You are pushing for this "austerity" bullshit which is balanced on the backs of the poor, and stating that the rich owe absolutely nothing to society, despite the fact that it is our society that allowed them to flourish.

Meh - I hear this meme all over the place from the Left. Of course, by "society" you mean "government", and by "absolutely nothing" you mean "nothing more than the 40% of tax revenue on the 20% of the earnings that the top 1% already contribute."

Fine, I'll grant you all the tired hyperbole you want to spout, and acknowledge that these figures do not include state and local taxes, payroll taxes, consumption taxes, or any of the other taxes people pay without consideration of their income.

At least stop putting words into my mouth, it is disingenuous and unnecessary based on anything I said, even the North Korea crack. I have no interest in austerity, only in fiscal responsibility, and do not believe that granting a greater share of American's resources will suddenly prompt demonstrably-irresponsible-for-decades hegemony in Washington any new-found sense of fiscal restraint. There are plenty of ways to get back to firm financial standing without cutting anything from the most vulnerable in the country, but there are very few than I see even suggesting the measures necessary, and even less that I trust to follow through.

If that's how you decide to paraphrase anything that I've said, you're either not reading my posts or you're completely missing the point. Nothing I've said even approaches this twisted viewpoint you claim I've espoused.

That is exactly what your viewpoint is showing. You are pushing for this "austerity" bullshit which is balanced on the backs of the poor, and stating that the rich owe absolutely nothing to society, despite the fact that it is our society that allowed them to flourish.

Meh - I hear this meme all over the place from the Left. Of course, by "society" you mean "government", and by "absolutely nothing" you mean "nothing more than the 40% of tax revenue on the 20% of the earnings that the top 1% already contribute."

Fine, I'll grant you all the tired hyperbole you want to spout, and acknowledge that these figures do not include state and local taxes, payroll taxes, consumption taxes, or any of the other taxes people pay without consideration of their income.

At least stop putting words into my mouth, it is disingenuous and unnecessary based on anything I said, even the North Korea crack. I have no interest in austerity, only in fiscal responsibility, and do not believe that granting a greater share of American's resources will suddenly prompt demonstrably-irresponsible-for-decades hegemony in Washington any new-found sense of fiscal restraint. There are plenty of ways to get back to firm financial standing without cutting anything from the most vulnerable in the country, but there are very few than I see even suggesting the measures necessary, and even less that I trust to follow through.

The effective tax rates are in the page they themself cited.

Yes, Americans are nuts - especially the non-millionaires who insist on a broken country so millionaires can have a few extra thousand bucks a year to spend. Mostly spent on making more money, in a perpetual motion machine. Or spent on robbing them and breaking their country some more.

I mean really nuts. You can't show them proof, you can't ask them for compassion. It makes them bark at the moon, and wave their guns. They're wound-up suicide machines.

I make a lot of money, and I'm expecting my taxes to rise. I welcome it, when it's buying civilization. When it's just subsidizing the miseducation and pandering that creates these nuts, I have to wonder whether I'm just trapped.

All of the figures I cited are annual. And as I said, "according to your stats". Your stats, your link.

"Wealth creation activities" - just more Republican propaganda. Like trying to change the stats after you put them out, when they work against you. And failing to recognize that all the numbers are annual.

You Republicans aren't fit to argue about the most basic economics math, let alone actually set the laws governing them.

That Republican lie again.

Hahaha. Yea, if only we could get rid of all the Republicans and let the Democrats have full control, all our problems would be solved!!

Nice sources - the New York Times and the Brookings Institute. Real balance there.

Here's a clue for you: The US already has the most progressive tax policy of any first world country, bar none. That means the wealthiest already pay a greater share of the TOTAL tax revenue.

The number of families not paying income tax has risen from about 30 percent before the recession to about half

Bull Crap. It's a figure that's been steadily rising for decades. Here's another wake-up call for you: Oh, look, it seems the bottom 50% have been steadily paying less and less for at least 20 years!

This class warfare "eat the rich" bullcrap is nothing but all-out war on the middle class. And when they're gone, do you really think the wealthy elites are going to care one whit about taking care of the poor??

Not quite,

the bottom 50%(69,980,290) pay approximately 2.70% and the cut-off income is $33,048, or about $16.52/hr;
  people in the 50th - 75th percentile (34,990,145) pay 10.96% of all income tax paid and the cut-off is $67,280 or $33.64 an hour;
  people in the 75th - 90th percentile (20,994,087) pay 16.40% of all income tax paid and the cut-off is $113,799 or $56.90/hr;
  people in the 90th - 95th percentile (6,998,029) pay 11.22% of all income tax paid and the cut-off is $159,619 or $79.81/hr;
  people in the 95th - 99th percentile (5,598,423) pay 20.70% of all income tax paid and the cut-off is $380,354 or $190.18/hr;
  people in the 99th or greater percentile (1,399,606) pay 38.02% of all income tax paid.
Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

but the fact is that there isn't enough "rich" people to put a dent in the federal deficit, based on income alone, they'll have to migrate toward a federal property tax or an insanely punitive inheritance tax to make any difference.

You realize they make most of the money right? More than 60%, you knew that though right?

Often claimed, but the facts are otherwise. It is great red meat for the class warfare mill however...

As far as wealth accumulation goes, I've accumulated a lot more wealth than most would assume possible on my income, because I've lived like a cheap bastard who wants to retire when I'm 45 - not 65. I guess I should be penalized for showing such fiscal restraint as well?

The unfortunate truth is that right now the rich pay a lower tax rate than most other people.

The facts say otherwise. A little research would show "the rich" actually pay a higher rate - and pay a higher rate given their share of adjusted gross income, too.

what is California doing to attract and retain businesses?

Our property taxes per dollar value are among the lowest in the nation, thank to prop 13 (part of the reason income and sales taxes are high). Property is assessed at its original purchase price plus a 2% annual increase. Long term property holders pay a fraction of the taxes as similar holders in other states. California ranks 14th in per capita property tax collections ( http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/251.html ). New Hampshire ranks 4th, Vermont ranks 7th, Wyoming has the second highest. Are businesses fleeing these states due to high taxes?

We are the only major oil-producing state that does not tax this resource. Alaska, Texas, Wyoming, all do so.

In 2009 California passed a large corporate tax cut, providing billions of dollars in savings to the state's largest corporations: http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=xzsczul8kiltna , quoting : “This is the gutting of the state corporate tax,” said “In fact, they did it so badly that lawyers are chuckling about the opportunities for tax avoidance.”

California ranks 10th in total state taxes per capita ( http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/05staxrank.html . Alaska, Wyoming, and Minnesota all rank higher. Are businesses fleeing these states?

what is California doing to attract and retain businesses?

Our property taxes per dollar value are among the lowest in the nation, thank to prop 13 (part of the reason income and sales taxes are high). Property is assessed at its original purchase price plus a 2% annual increase. Long term property holders pay a fraction of the taxes as similar holders in other states. California ranks 14th in per capita property tax collections ( http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/251.html ). New Hampshire ranks 4th, Vermont ranks 7th, Wyoming has the second highest. Are businesses fleeing these states due to high taxes?

We are the only major oil-producing state that does not tax this resource. Alaska, Texas, Wyoming, all do so.

In 2009 California passed a large corporate tax cut, providing billions of dollars in savings to the state's largest corporations: http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=xzsczul8kiltna , quoting : “This is the gutting of the state corporate tax,” said “In fact, they did it so badly that lawyers are chuckling about the opportunities for tax avoidance.”

California ranks 10th in total state taxes per capita ( http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/05staxrank.html . Alaska, Wyoming, and Minnesota all rank higher. Are businesses fleeing these states?

The facts show that the "rich people" pay a disproportionate amount of the income taxes. For example, the top 1% earn 20% of the AGI, but pay 38% of the income taxes, while the bottom 50% earn 12.8% of the AGI and pay 2.7% of the income taxes. We actually have a very progressive tax structure in the US, but it is much too complex.

Of course you're leaving out a lot. The biggest ommission is taxes. Throughout most of the 60s, The Federal tax alone was $0.04/gal. (citation: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/1067.html).

Today it's probably close to $0.184/gal (my source leaves off in '08). On a percentage basis, we're paying much less in fuel taxes. Our infrastructure shows it.

Another factor is profit margin in the business. The lows in the 60s occured during a price war at the retail level. Today the profit margins on gas are also razor thin--they want you to buy overpriced groceries when you fill up. At other points, gasoline might have been more important to the bottom line.

That's not to say that inflation isn't a factor, and yes; if you cash out your junk silver you can indeed buy more gas today than you could ever before. It's just that it's not the end-all do-all that you make it out to be.

You're a lot more interested in this than I am. Go on and work on your data. Maybe you should write a book. I'm done for the day.

This is the best I found in five minutes of googling: http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22659.html What I also found interesting is that until 2008, CA actually had better employment numbers in every respect than Texas. After that, CA crashed massively while TX didn't. My suspicion: a lot of government workers were laid off in CA, on top of a lot of real-estate and banking related jobs. TX didn't have the real-estate bubble that CA had, and doesn't have government workers either.

1. The tax foundation.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/92.html
for an updated one. A major news outlet is about the least worthwhile source ever.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html
That is sourced from the census consolidated federal funds report from 2005.

Here is a link to that.
http://www.census.gov/govs/cffr/
Page 23 of the 2009 report should prove interesting to you.

1. The tax foundation.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/92.html
for an updated one. A major news outlet is about the least worthwhile source ever.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html
That is sourced from the census consolidated federal funds report from 2005.

Here is a link to that.
http://www.census.gov/govs/cffr/
Page 23 of the 2009 report should prove interesting to you.

Delaware bankruptcy court (specifically Judge Gross in this case) is utterly corrupt and broken. They siphon money away from creditors and towards lawyers, making sure that ALL creditors get stiffed, until there is no money left.

Whoa, whoa there hoss, what hat did you pull that crap out of? I guess you think Delaware Chancery Court was wrong, and that SCO's suit was justified?

Why do you think incorporating in Delaware is so popular?

There's two reasons. One is the laws governing credit and collections, which are among the most lax in the nation, and that's why every US bank I can think of (including the ones with other states' names like Maryland Bank and Chase Manhattan) is incorporated here. The other reason is Delaware's Chancery Court system, which is rather famous in corporate legal circles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_Court_of_Chancery

These corps don't come to Delaware to dodge taxes, you know. The state actually has fairly high corporate tax rates, compared to most US states, and it's one of only three states with a gross receipts tax. This extra tax burden is worth it to the zaibatsus because the Delaware Chancery Court is believed by corporate lawyers to be faster and more effective than any other court in the nation for resolving corporate legal battles.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/230.html

Now, if you want to argue that the rest of the Delaware state government is corrupt, you won't get any argument. We are lucky to be between New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland so our endemic political corruption seems relatively minor! But Chancery's our bread and butter, and we damn well keep it clean.

Tax the rich marginally more and all our dept problems go away.

Actually, I don't know anyone who argues that position. The Tax Foundation, while a nonprofit, can be considered a "business friendly" think tank, but it's hard to dispute its positions when they're based on plain math. According to that link, Warren Buffet's tax proposals would barely scratch the national debt (and I've never heard even Buffet claim that his proposals would erase the debt).

Tax the rich marginally more and all our dept problems go away.

The thing is though, simply taxing the rich more won't make all the problems magically go away. The top 10% already account for about 70% of all income tax paid (source). The real problem is with how badly the government mismanages it's money. Give the government more money and they'll just find more contractors to overpay. I agree that the rich could probably pay a bit more in taxes, but the problem is with how the government is spending the money, not how much money it has.

Do you have any idea how much higher that is than most states?

Yes, yes I do. If you'd clicked on the link I provided in my post you would also because it lists it all out for every single state. Apparently 34 states receive more than $0.94 for every dollar paid in taxes. In fact, 33 states receive a dollar or more for every dollar paid in taxes. Once again, this was my source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html Also, you said that Texas has "the worst education systems". According to a 2009 US News ranking of the Best High Schools by state Texas ranked 14th. I found that here: http://education.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/education/high-schools/articles/2009/12/09/americas-best-high-schools-state-by-state-statistics Is anything you say accurate?

Do you have any idea how much higher that is than most states?

Yes, yes I do. If you'd clicked on the link I provided in my post you would also because it lists it all out for every single state. Apparently 34 states receive more than $0.94 for every dollar paid in taxes. In fact, 33 states receive a dollar or more for every dollar paid in taxes. Once again, this was my source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

You could tax everyone who makes $1m or more per year (you know, the evil hated rich people) at a rate of 100% (confiscate all of their earnings for the year), and it wouldn't close the deficit - not even close!

Straw man.

a) There aren't that many making over a million a year (about 300,000).
b) Corporations.

That 38% number is meaningless out of context, as it doesn't take into account whether that 1% brings in more or less than 38% of all the taxable income.

I've noticed a trend here that people think the rich pay a less proportionate share. I guess the liberal media is doing well in its class warfare campaign. I thought /. folks were smarter than to believe what they've been fed. In 2008:

The top 1% earned only 20% of all income and paid 38% of all income taxes.

The top 5% earned 35% of all income and paid 59% of all income taxes.

The top 10% earned 46% of all income and paid 70% of all income taxes.

As you go below that it starts inverting, percentage of taxes paid equals out, and then percentage of income becomes greater than taxes paid, so that the lower-earning half in this country make 13% of the income, but pay 3% of the taxes.

Although it's not on the chart, given the trend it's most likely that when you get into the bottom third no taxes are paid, and in fact they receive money in federally-funded benefits.

Source, with links to original IRS data.

Our tax system is already quite progressive.

The top 1% spend less of their income on things that are taxable

Now you're talking about other taxes, not income tax. Of course, the things they do buy are often subject to the higher luxury taxes.

Per capita money income in past 12 months (2009 dollars) 2005-2009 $27,041;
Median household income, 2009 $50,221;
Population, 2010 308,745,538
07/27/2011 Debt Held by the Public $9,747,742,929,867.95 + Intragovernmental Holdings $4,595,076,219,736.81 = Total Public Debt Outstanding $14,342,819,149,604.76

debt $14,342,819,149,604.76 / Population, 2010 308,745,538 = $46,455.15 per capita debt;
so my statement was overly strong, but not outrageously so.
Of course with,
Number of Returns with Positive AGI 139,960,580, the 50th percentile break point is $33,048 means that at least half of the wage earners owe 1.4 times their annual salary, someone at minimum wage ($7.25 * 2000 = $14,500, 46455.15/ 14,500 = 3.2) owes 3.2 times their annual salary, while still paying 15% Medicare taxes and 15% social security! With the top 1% of taxpayers already paying 38% of all the income taxes where is all of this money supposed to come from? $67,280 is the 25th percentile point, That's middle-class in most places.

"Sure, if federal grants went away and the states had to fend for themselves, places like New York or California would just up the state tax rate by a few percent (after much political wrangling, no doubt) and be fine. Most people in those states would probably see little or no difference in their overall (state and federal combined) tax burdens, some might even see it lower. Places like Montana and Alaska would have a serious problem. "

Well, the ones that get more from the feds than they pay are mostly places like Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi and West Virginia. All the most populous states - California, New York, Illinois, Texas, even Florida pay more to the feds than they get. Some of the low-population western states such as Nevada and Wyoming don't break even, or only barely. Others such as the Dakotas, Idaho and Montana get more than they put in. Alaska has gotten more and more over the years - it wasn't breaking even on taxes in the early '80s, now they get $1.84/$. New Mexico would have a problem, as it gets about double what it puts in. The problem is that most expenditures are for salaries one way or another - Los Alamos workers in New Mexico, for instance. So even if the direct aid to the states were cut off, the apportionment of federal spending among the states would not change that much in most cases.

See: Federal Taxes Paid vs. Federal Spending Received by State, 1981-2005

>>We have among the lowest taxes in the developed world in this country, and we have the infrastructure to prove it.

Infrastructure spending is a very small percentage of our budget. All of our transportation funding hovers around 2% or so. (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/)

The "lowest taxes" thing is just a Democrat talking point. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world (second only to Japan in the OECD - http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/corptaxrates_usvsoecd_state&fed-2011-20110117.pdf). We also don't provide universal health care through our national government, as many other OECD countries do, which means you get to add health care expenses our our "tax burden" to equalize the assessments.

We're taxed quite highly, actually.

The real problem is that spending has gone up 50% in the last 5 years, while revenue has fallen 20% in the same time period (though it is estimated to break even for next year).

you are neglecting the fact that the amount of income brought in by those groups is far larger by percentage than the amount of taxes they pay.

In 2008, the top 0.1% (140,000 people) earned 10% of all income and paid 19% of all income taxes.

The top 1% (over $380,000) earned 20% of income and paid 38% of all taxes.

The top 5% (over $160,000) earned 35% of income and paid 59% of taxes.

Notice the trend, they all pay MORE in taxes than their percentage of earnings.

Now when you go below that, the top 5-10%, $114,000-$160,000, the percentage of earnings about equals the percentage of taxes paid at 11% each.

It gets flipped when you go below that, $67,000-$114,000 pays 16% of the taxes, but has 22% of the income.

$33,000 to $67,000 has 20% of the income, but pays 11% of the taxes.

You are already looking at a highly progressive tax structure.

, the top 10% owned 69.8% of the wealth (it has gotten worse since). They should be paying _at least_ 70% of the taxes.

Wouldn't you know it, the top 10% paid almost exactly 70% of the taxes, although earning only 46% of the income.

you have to wonder why they don't want to pay their taxes

Probably because they're already paying a far higher precentage than everyone else.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

All data from the IRS, raw data links on the page.

... How come now in 2011 they pay less taxes than people making 1/10th their yearly earnings? ...

1. They don't pay less, they pay more.

2. Even if you raised the top marginal tax rate to 100%, it would be insignificant to the ridiculous, unsustainable level of spending the government has had for the last two years.

Back in 1981 the top 5% paid 20.78% of all income tax collected, in 2008 (the most recent year data is available) the top 5% paid 34.73% of all taxes. In the same period the bottom 50% dropped in share of federal taxes from 17.75% to 12.75%

You are in the top 5% if you make $159,619 or more

You are in the bottom 50% if you make less than $33,048.

In 2008 the top 5% paid an AVERAGE tax rate of 20.70%, the bottom 50% paid an AVERAGE rate of 2.59%.

*source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

The beneficiaries of tax-and-spend policy are those who receive the spending, not those who pay the taxes.

Right. Unfortunately, those people also generally vote Republican: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

So you're saying that NH residents pay 3x the taxes as California residents?

I don't believe it, and to support my claim there are numerous studies on the net that indicate that NH has one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation.

The only way I can see these numbers making sense, is to distinguish between tax rates and taxes actually paid.

If businesses are required to pay sales tax, but get an "economic incentive" discount from the government, and if there are enough discounts so that very little of the sales tax gets actually paid, then overall the tax load may appear high but result in little revenue.

Are there that many businesses getting tax breaks from the CA government?

I don't doubt your numbers, but this site made the same calculations (2009) and came up with wildly differing numbers:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/336.html

If your numbers are correct, then NH overall taxes have doubled in two years. I can personally attest that this didn't happen.

Something else has to be going on here. I don't doubt your figures, but it still doesn't make any sense.

Google Scripto v. Carson.

Hrrrm

So, why does California need a new law in the first place? I guess I'm missing the distinction.

We should stop spending on you first. Too bad you Republicans elect politicians who insist on funding you until the bitter end, while cutting anyone else with less access to power than you have.

Please back up your insistence on "stop spending" by mailing in an extra check to the IRS in the amount above what you pay it in taxes that the rest of us spend in your state. Then go on about it, once you've put your money where your Republican mouth is.

My guess is that data came from here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html It's really hard to find.

California had a recession hit in 2008 which we are still experiencing. As California has a GDP of 2 trillion it's understandable we would have such a huge deficit as a result. There's a lot of money in the state. Montana on the other hand only has a GDP of 35 billion.

The reality is that the rich don't pay their fare share of taxes.

The facts don't back you up. The top 10% pay 70% of all income taxes - even though their income is 46% of the total income for the nation. They pay more than their fair share, unless by "fair" you mean more than twice the rate of anyone else...

Right now, the richest 10% pay 70% of the income tax the Federal Government receives; and they earn 46% of the total gross income. They're already paying more in taxes than most people, and paying the vast majority of income taxes.

According to a detailed study by the Tax Foundation, in 2005 individuals, businesses, and nonprofits spent an estimated 6 billion hours complying with the federal income tax code at an estimated cost of over $265.1 billion.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1281.html

"The US has some of the lowest corporate taxes in the world." No that statement is unsupported. The US corporation taxes are ranked #1 in the world. Currently, the average combined federal and state corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39.3 percent http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/22917.html

The data clearly supports what you're saying and shows that a smaller and smaller portion of the population is paying more and more of the taxes. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

The Treasury is empty and we're $14 Trillion in the hole.

Which is about equal to the amount of wealth created in the U.S. every year. The treasury is empty because the American people are unwilling to apply a sufficient fraction of that wealth to paying for the operation of their own government. Remember the last time we had a surplus? It was under moderately higher tax rates than we have today, which we could easily reinstate. Anybody who claims to be serious about deficit reduction but refuses to consider tax increases (on everybody, not just the wealthy) is a liar and a charlatan.

1. Media coverage of the walker protests were overwhelmingly pro-union excep for fox.
2. The media was very clearly against the war in Iraq.
3. It also happily trashes republicans it perceives as too far to the right as enthusiastically as any Democrat. (Paul, Palin).
4. And yet the ratio of the share of taxation borne by the top 10% to their income is higher here than in any other western nation. The last two years have seen the deficits explode beyond any previous period in the last 40 years, even after correcting for inflation. Even most of the left sees a problem with current deficits.
5. The revers was true except for a brief period where the tea party become somewhat faddish. Large liberal protests receive far more coverage per attendee than tea party protests. What coverage there has been of tea party rallies has been generally negative. My personal favorite was when MSNBC worried about white racists protesters carrying guns, and edited out the race of the black man who was carrying the rifle at the rally.
6. Hit or miss on this one. The media seems pretty schizophrenic here. Honestly, I think the media is generally pro-statist with a slight leftward bent.