Time to Pay Taxes, but Who Is Really Paying?

NY Times (Week in Review) ^ | April 11, 2004 | Matthew Miller

[Pharmboy]

WITH April 15, comes the perennial debate over the fairness of the tax burden. Liberals say the rich pay too little; conservatives argue that the rich get soaked. Conservatives often cite these statistics: the top 5 percent of taxpayers pay 57 percent of federal income taxes, the top 1 percent 36 percent, and the bottom 80 percent a trifling 17 percent.

But this argument ignores the payroll tax, which finances Social Security, as well as excise taxes on things like liquor or tobacco. These take their biggest bite, proportionally, from lower-income Americans. Income tax will account this year for 42 percent of federal revenue; the payroll tax, 41 percent. If you count the payroll tax paid by employers (which economists generally agree comes out of workers' wages), four in five workers pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes.

The chart at right shows what happens when you consider this data: the top 1 percent of taxpayers earn 17 percent of the income and pay 23 percent of federal taxes; the top 5 percent earn 31 percent of the income and pay 40 percent of the taxes; the bottom 80 percent make 41 percent of the income and pay 31 percent of the taxes. In other words, the tax system is modestly progressive.

Matthew Miller is a fellow at the Center for American Progress.

[Pharmboy]

Notice how the lying, misleading socialist miseries leave OUT the 17% number on the chart for per cent of income tax that the bottom 80% pay.

Now, can an economist Freeper 'splain this to me? How can this dweeb call the system "modestly" pregressive?

[counterpunch]

[Pharmboy]

Excellent!

I just wrote an email to the Times' ombudsman (Daniel Okrent) about the misleadingly non-labeled graphic--the irony is that it appeared directly above his column today!

I'll let all of you know if he writes back to me.

[White Eagle]

Probably because he thinks he personally is paying too much tax. "The only fair tax is the tax that taxes you and not me." Using this rule, as long as the unnamed "rich people" pay more that the "poor people", the tax is progressive. If this guy thinks he's paying too much, then it modestly progressive. If he could figure out a way to not pay any taxes, then the code would be "very progressive."

[Pharmboy]

Here is the auto reply I just received:

Thank you for your comments. Everything sent to this mailbox is read either by me or by my associate, Arthur Bovino.

If a reply is appropriate, you will be hearing from us shortly. When referring to a specific article please include its date, section and headline. If you do not wish for your message to be relayed to the appropriate editors and reporters please let us know.
-- Daniel Okrent
Public Editor

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Okrent's web journal can be accessed at:
www.nytimes.com/danielokrent

Unfortunately, due to the volume of mail from readers, we can not do research for the public or provide general contact information.
You can find the e-mail addresses for many reporters, editors and departments by sending a request to staff@nytimes.com or directory@nytimes.com.

The answers to many questions about The Times can be found at www.nytimes.com/faq
If you are having technical problems with NYTimes.com, please send your inquiries to help@nytimes.com.
If you are having a problem with a subscription to The Times please call customer care (1-800-NYTIMES/1-800-698-4637).

[counterpunch]

I found his logic regarding "payroll" taxes and alcohol & tobacco taxes to be pretty inane, and right out of the left's talking points.

The fact as I understand it is that Social Security does not apply to people making above a certain income, and everyone is in theory paying for their own retirement.
Is he suggesting that the rich should be responsible for the lower 80%'s retirement, too?

And then there is obvious implication that the "poor" (which apparently is 80% of the country) are all alcoholic smokers...

This argument usually has a racial element to it when advanced by the left, and references malt liquor and menthols.

[counterpunch]

Whoops, the above post^ was meant for you.

[R. Scott]

The top 20% still pays the lion's share.

[Pharmboy]

Yeah...but that's not enough for Mr. Miller.

[norwaypinesavage]

Wow, isn't it amazing. The NYT has suddenly discovered the payroll taxes paid by businesses, in the name of their employees. It's funny they don't notice that when it's time to advocate raising these taxes.

It's also amazing to note from their own data that when 20 percent of the taxpayers pay 69% of all federal taxes, it is 'mildly' progressive.

[White Eagle]

The tax stops once a worker exceeds a dollar amount each year. In 2003 I think it was 86,700, in 2002 it was 84,000, etc.

The biggest problem with Social Security is that nobody involved in setting it up thought that so many people would live long enough to collect it. The original parameters were set so that you had to exceed the average life span for an American in order to eligible to collect.

And that is why it is the third rail of American politics. Few people understand it, and nobody wants to get on the wrong side of a sound bite about it. Those people in south Florida who think they elected President Buchanan may get upset.

[marktwain]

the bottom 80 percent make 41 percent of the income and pay 31 percent of the taxes. In other words, the tax system is modestly progressive.

Notice how they do not differentiate the "bottom" 80%. If they looked at the lowest 20%, I bet you would see a huge difference, even a net negative tax!

[CasearianDaoist]

What is really funny is that when a Republican is in office they are called payroll taxes and when a Demvorat is in office they are called one's "contribution." They might also point out that is a limited sense one "gets the money back" if one lives long enough )I realize there are other ways to look at it, but the attempt to obsuce this point is dishonest here.

[R. Scott]

Ain't politics fun?
Newspeak is alive and well.

[Pharmboy]

Politics? There isn't any politics going on here--this was printed on page two of the Week in Review section of the Sunday NY Times, and not on the OP-ED page. This was objective reporting. /sarcasm

[Zeppo]

Matthew Miller is a fellow at the Center for American Progress

The Center for American Progress is simply a Communist front organization. Their self-description as "a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America that ensures opportunity for all Americans" is a blatant lie. Even an imbecile looking at the articles on their web site would not believe that they are "nonpartisan".

[CyberAnt]

Rush has had a similar chart on his website for eons! Finally, somebody is getting it!!

[Doe Eyes]

Is he suggesting that the rich should be responsible for the lower 80%'s retirement, too?

Social Security surplus's are used to fund government operations that should be paid for by federal income taxes. Do you think this money will ever be paid back? Not a chance.

[R. Scott]

Of course!
How ignorant of me. I should have realized that with today’s “esteemed” and “unbiased” news media, political opinions and propaganda are always confined to the op-ed pages. I guess I’ll never become a proper Liberal Socialist Democrat.