Seeking Alpha
Seeking Alpha Portfolio App for iPad
Finance
(1)
Market Currents

With so many tax breaks, a lot of people have become adept at paying as little tax as possible....

  • Sunday, April 17, 2011, 8:50 AM ET
    With so many tax breaks, a lot of people have become adept at paying as little tax as possible. One think tank estimates that 45% of households will pay no federal income tax for 2010, while IRS data shows that the top 400 highest earners pay a lot less proportionally than they did in the early 1990s. Tax filing deadline is tomorrow.
Track new comments on this story

This news story has 37 comments:

  • Here is a way to fix budget problems.....No loop holes, flat tax, etc. Really not hard to do.
    17 Apr 2011, 09:20 AM Reply Like
  • I'd take a flat tax over what we deal with today but prefer a consumption tax only.

    I think it would be a significant game changer for the government, in that it would encourage a higher standard of living (or higher GDP) by trying to get people to spend money rather one that encourages social engineering or wealth redistribution.

    I'm not sure why folks would have a problem with the flat tax given that is essentially what SS & Medicare is.
    17 Apr 2011, 12:03 PM Reply Like
  • Great post. Economists all know that consumption taxes have the least detrimental effect on the economy.
    17 Apr 2011, 09:57 PM Reply Like
  • yes it is extremely hard to do when many middle class people wake up to the fact that they would have to pay much more and aren't paying much these days
    17 Apr 2011, 09:59 PM Reply Like
  • The Federal Government should be given about $2 Trillion to spend each year which I believe comes down to about a 20% flat tax on all income. Someone correct my numbers if they are a little off.

    If they cannot make it on $2 Trillion then start cutting.
    17 Apr 2011, 10:36 PM Reply Like
  • "The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992."


    Damn I want to pay 17% too....
    17 Apr 2011, 09:22 AM Reply Like
  • WOW...agree it would be great if I could pay 17%

    kmi.....where did you get those statistics??? Thanks
    17 Apr 2011, 09:32 AM Reply Like
  • What's 17% of $345 million? $58.65 million in taxes.
    The graduated tax system prevents people from becoming rich. The more you make the higher percentage you pay. Sorta like walking up hill where the hill gets steeper the higher up you go.
    17 Apr 2011, 09:32 AM Reply Like
  • The United States has the greatest income disparities and wealth concentrations in the developed world. It has the lowest tax rates as a percentage of GDP. It's marginal tax rate increases as income rises are the lowest in the developed world. Over 80% of US millionaires are first generation wealthy.

    There is no place on earth in the history of mankind where it has ever been easier to become rich.
    17 Apr 2011, 09:42 AM Reply Like
  • You said "tax rates as a percentage of GDP." What does that mean? Whatever calculation you are using, does it also take into account FICA and other payroll taxes? By at least one estimate, three-quarters of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.
    17 Apr 2011, 12:15 PM Reply Like
  • Congratulations, you reached 1000 comments.
    17 Apr 2011, 01:43 PM Reply Like
  • "There is no place on earth in the history of mankind where it has ever been easier to become rich."

    A fairly bold statement, I don't think your data really supports it.
    Tax rates being low, (if they are) does not necessarily make it easy to become rich. You still have to do the work and earn your money, working through taxes is just an additional burden.
    17 Apr 2011, 05:31 PM Reply Like
  • Follow the link (that's the BLUE text in the blurb above) where you will see:
    ========
    The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.

    Over the same period, the average federal income tax rate for all taxpayers declined to 9.3 percent from 9.9 percent.
    17 Apr 2011, 09:07 PM Reply Like
  • What was your REAL Rate this year?

    My wife and I paid 19.5% and I was pretty pissed to see this stat

    We paid some AMT

    Are you confusing real rate with your bracket or do you make 300-400K?
    17 Apr 2011, 10:00 PM Reply Like
  • You must be making a pretty high income

    Are you confusing bracket and real rate?
    17 Apr 2011, 10:01 PM Reply Like
  • Only for earned income but really only suckers born into middle class family have to worry about that

    Real players will get cap gains down to zero some day
    17 Apr 2011, 10:02 PM Reply Like
  • If you paid in 12,000 in taxes and your 1040 states you owe 10,000 you get back 2000. According to the IRS 50% do not pay taxes!! This is what they mean. Look at the data.
    17 Apr 2011, 10:44 AM Reply Like
  • The New York Times reports that 47% of households have no tax liability on their income and get back all of their payroll income tax withholdings. This is through a combination of exemptions, deductions, and credits. So the example you give would count as a household paying taxes. www.nytimes.com/2010/0...
    17 Apr 2011, 12:27 PM Reply Like
  • Bottom 90% paying massive inflation tax but are being told they are not.

    Inflation tax has never been as high as it is now in my estimation.
    17 Apr 2011, 10:51 AM Reply Like
  • Jason

    I agree and the lesson is that if not enough people want to pay taxes but the government wants to spend money like a drunken sailor then the government issues debt and drives inflation which is just like a tax.

    Right now 1/2 the population believes that some rich guy should pay for everything and they should get everything for free. The don't realize they are paying for their own greed.

    There is no free lunch.
    17 Apr 2011, 10:40 PM Reply Like
  • Good, we need to keep as much money as possible out of the hands of government.
    17 Apr 2011, 11:43 AM Reply Like
  • Um, lack of government is what got us into this current subprime mortgage crisis.
    17 Apr 2011, 10:00 PM Reply Like
  • And they leave out the fact that more and more people are just outright not paying their taxes, and that leads to even bigger problems than we currently have (tough as that is to imagine).

    Lets be straight about the current situation. Those with access to power (ie politicians) pay less in taxes than those that don't. Thats called corruption.

    We need to get rid of all the loopholes, deductions, etc for individuals and corporations. Then we could have an actual debate about how much people should pay and how big government should be.

    IMO - you spend your money how you see fit and I'll spend mine how I see fit. I have no issue with paying more than those that are poor and make a lot less than I do. But I also believe there are limits to what percentage on anyone's income should be confiscated by the government.

    It is absurd that currently when I'm filling out my worksheet from schedule D that I'm multiplying my income (minus the standard deductions) times .35 when men who shuffle papers and make billions pay .15 and on the other end 50% of the people pay 0%.

    We are seeing the results of bad tax policies. Our society is fractured. We're no longer in it together in any way, shape or form - too many just trying to game the system in their favor. I volunteer for a few organizations when they run their big fundraiser for the year. And I can say that each year there are fewer people in the community that feel they should contribute and participate. And we're not talking about controversial things (Habitat and local food banks). And that should really concern people - what is a community that doesn't interact? And a lot of it stems from the belief of a lot of people like myself that we're getting the shaft from both sides. Lots of folks living off the government and lots of folks getting rich because of the government.

    Unfortunately I don't believe the American people have the ability to understand how much change is needed for us to have a brighter future for our next generations. The government in Washington DC plays far too big a role in our lives. Its telling that the President claims that Republicans want to balance the budget on the backs of senior and the poor because "they don't have representation in Congress". Hmmm..... AARP anyone. And in the same speech he reminds us that the entitlements (which largely go to seniors) and military spending will soon account for 67% of federal spending. And then blasts Paul Ryan for a proposal to rein in the entitlement that is growing the fastest! So how can you both want to balance the budget but not cut any spending on the people that consume the majority of the spending? And the fact that people just nod their head to speeches like this tells me that the general public is simply not "up to the task" of demanding resizing our government.

    Spending on all programs has to be cut. What needs to happen is that those programs are shrunk. And instead of a program serving the bottom 20% of society it will only serve the bottom 5% - the other 15% will be told to take care of themselves (and we'd find communities are much better at helping these people than government). And yes, my mother and father will receive less money from Medicare, Social Security, etc. And yes the retirement age will be 70 very soon. And yes, we are taking four government agencies and cutting their staffing by 50% and combining them into other agencies and those receiving agencies are being cut 33%. And yes, the military will be cut, we will close bases around the world, we will shrink the size of the force. And yes, homeland security will be cut. We will release non-violent prisoners, especially those that were drug related. All these things are just the STARTING point to get things on track.

    And yes, we will still have regulations for water and air and the ground. And we will enforce those. And yes, there will still be money spent on basic health care for those that are truly disadvantaged. But adults that lead bad lifestyles will suffer the consequences of those lifestyles. Yes, we will provide a safety net for our seniors, but at a later age.

    I'm amazed at the number of politicians that go on TV and basically say that people shouldn't be expected to take care of themselves, and that its "madness" and "radical" to suggest spending cuts to programs. Where is the question that asks "isn't it madness, isn't it radical to propose budgets with 1.6 Trillion dollars in deficits?"?

    Its long past the time to stop the madness and balance the damn budget!
    17 Apr 2011, 12:46 PM Reply Like
  • And two ways to help balance the budget and reduce the deficit is to cut all spending and reinstate the Bush tax cuts. Someone explain to me why it is ok to cut spending on the elderly and the unfortunate and not repeal the massive tax break given the wealthy. Under the Republican plan, just what exactly will the wealthy give up to help balance the budget?
    17 Apr 2011, 03:40 PM Reply Like
  • If I understand the plan correctly (and since I haven't read it I could be incorrect), there will be no deductions for them to be claiming - thus their tax rate would be 25% period.

    Now personally, I'm in favor of getting rid of deductions. I'd throw in some new tax brackets at 500K, 1MM, 5MM, 50MM or something like that, with a cap of 49.99% on the top bracket with the others being 30, 35, 40% (I'm just morally opposed to the idea of taking more than half what a man has earned - even if he was "earning" it by shuffling papers on Wall Street).

    And if raising taxes back to the Clinton years is the price for all the cut spending we need - then great! But unless all the spending cuts happen then its just a smokescreen to scream and yell about the rich while continuing to spend like drunken sailors.
    17 Apr 2011, 06:06 PM Reply Like
  • "And two ways to help balance the budget and reduce the deficit is to cut all spending and reinstate the Bush tax cuts. "
    -----
    I understand the part about cutting spending to help reduce the deficit. But how does "reinstate the Bush tax cuts" come into play?

    1. The Bush tax cuts still exist, so there is no reason to "reinstate them".

    2. The savings from the Bush tax cuts (primarily for the wealthy) were SUPPOSED to trickle down and help create jobs. This did not happen. Millions of jobs were lost during the Bush admin!

    See:
    So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?
    www.tax.com/taxcom/tax...
    17 Apr 2011, 09:42 PM Reply Like
  • As a point of order, I think mowjo's point was to repeal the Bush tax cuts (i.e. "reinstate" the taxes themselves).
    17 Apr 2011, 10:35 PM Reply Like
  • I also feel sorry for the poor rich guy who has to live off 290 million after paying his 17% taxes. How do these people make it?


    I'm sure a rich guy has duly noted your support BlueOkie. If he could afford it he'd send you a thank you note.
    17 Apr 2011, 05:38 PM Reply Like
  • If we were to stop taxing productivity (a tax on incomes) and instead tax consumption then we would take away the disincentive to earn more. More people would earn more and keep all of what they make. All of us consume something so all would pay some taxes. Seems to me that would be a major improvement over the mess we have now.
    17 Apr 2011, 06:31 PM Reply Like
  • Except, the poor spend all their income on "consumption" and the wealthy don't. Once again the poor pay moreexpressed as a percentage.
    17 Apr 2011, 07:08 PM Reply Like
  • Two words: flat tax.
    No deductions.
    Graduated $0 to $30,000: 0% tax
    $30,000 to $100,000 10%
    $100,000 to $500,000 20%
    $500,000 and up 25%

    You can alter the %'s but this will work and we can cut back on enforcement costs because it can withheld at the source. There was a gentelemn named Lawmaster who proposed this in a book back in the mid 1970's
    17 Apr 2011, 08:10 PM Reply Like
  • Of course - the "poorer" always spend more on everything as a percentage of their income. The objective of a tax code shouldn't be to level out a society (unless you're into social engineering). If a wealthy person doesn't want to spend any money on goods or services and they want to live a modest lifestyle would you except him to pay as the person who lives a lavish lifestyle.

    We would pay tax when we buy stock but not when we sell it ?
    17 Apr 2011, 09:00 PM Reply Like
  • That is not revenue neutral I don't think if you are including a replacement there of payrolls
    17 Apr 2011, 10:04 PM Reply Like
  • Most people think they pay much higher REAL rates than they do but most of you are not paying much at all

    I was a little unhappy to find that my wife and I had to pay some AMT this year and our REAL rate was 19.5%, higher than the average filthy rich person.

    GOP would like to "expand the tax base" Does anyone really think they have any intentions other than making passive income tax rates zero?
    17 Apr 2011, 10:07 PM Reply Like
  • Other point is although it may make people angry that poor and working class people are not paying much and they should pay something (I tend to agree) please don't pretend that this fixes the problem.

    Real wages for most Americans have not been increasing for decades. The richest Americans are much richer than ever.

    Americans like my wife and I are making pretty good incomes and are benefiting also from globalization like the rich are, but sadly we only have access to earned income and therefore are paying higher real rates now.

    At least the way I see it, most Americans are hardly paying federal income taxes this year. In percentage terms only the upper middle classes I guess

    Seems not a good thing.

    Last thing is for some reason paying my 9.5% state taxes chaps my ass more than the 20% to the Feds. I guess I am realizing bombing A-rabs isn't cheap
    17 Apr 2011, 10:12 PM Reply Like
  • IMO we can apply a few simple principles that will really go a long ways:

    1. Get rid of all deductions and adjustments. Nobody cares how many kids someone chooses to have or if they have a mortgage. That is a personal choice. You want 20 kids? Knock yourself out. Charitable contributions are not deductible either as you should be giving it away not getting a tax deduction. This is just another way for zillionaires to shelter money.
    2. Have a flat tax on all dollars starting from dollar one. Why? Because we need everyone managing the drunken federal government including the poorest waitress up to the mogul on the top of the hill. We all need to be in the same boat.
    3. Set the flat tax at a rate to give the Fed Gov't a $2 Trillion budget. If that is not enough then slash and burn programs.
    4. All capital gains and dividend income are at the flat tax rate. If that is not good enough then your business is not healthy enough to stand on its own anyways so bugger off.
    5. Fill in the Federal Tax form on an index card and attach W2's and any income statements and mail it in. Shut down H&R Block and all the rest of the multi billion industry associated with navigating our ridiculous tax code.
    17 Apr 2011, 10:57 PM Reply Like
  • How much tax could we collect on the illegal drug traffic? Why not put more effort there? Prostitution? Underground?
    18 Apr 2011, 03:11 PM Reply Like
Other date
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)