Tax burden not so heavy for many millionaires

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2002
Tax burden not so heavy for many millionaires
5
Fri, 10-14-2011 - 5:56pm
Tax burden not so heavy for many millionaires The report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service also casts doubts on assertions that increased taxes on the wealthiest households would imperil job creation and undermine personal savings and investment. By Lori Montgomery The Washington Post WASHINGTON — One of every four U.S. millionaires pays a smaller share of income in federal taxes than many middle-class families, according to a new congressional analysis that also casts doubts on assertions that increased taxes on the wealthiest households would hurt job creation and undermine personal savings and investment. The report, by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), found that when all federal taxes are taken into account, including taxes on wages, investment income and corporate profits, households earning more than $1 million face an average tax rate of about 30 percent, significantly higher than the roughly 19 percent rate paid by households earning less than $100,000. However, that average obscures great variation within income categories, the report says, with some millionaires paying rates as high as 35 percent and others paying as low as 24 percent. Using 2006 IRS data, the CRS found that about 94,500 households making more than $1 million a year paid a lower rate than the most heavily taxed households earning less than $100,000 year. About 10.4 million moderate-income families paid more than 26.5 percent of their earnings in federal taxes. The prime culprit, according to the report by Thomas Hungerford, a CRS specialist in public finance, is low tax rates on investment income, such as capital gains and dividends. Although ordinary earnings are subject to payroll taxes as well as income-tax rates of as much as 35 percent, investment income, which constitutes the bulk of earnings for many very wealthy households, is taxed at no more than 15 percent. This disparity has been brought to attention by billionaire investor Warren Buffett, a former Washington Post board member, who complained he pays a lower tax rate than any of the 20 employees in his office, who earn much less than he does. After Buffett wrote an op-ed piece in August in The New York Times, President Obama argued that policymakers should overhaul the tax code to ensure that millionaires pay at least as large a share of their income in taxes as middle-class families do, a principle Obama dubbed "the Buffett Rule." The CRS report demonstrates "that the current U.S. tax system violates the Buffett rule in that a large proportion of millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than a significant proportion of moderate-income taxpayers," Hungerford writes, although "not to the extent alluded to by Mr. Buffett." Republicans have attacked the Buffett Rule and a separate proposal by Senate Democrats to impose a 5.6 percent surtax on income exceeding $1 million, as "class warfare." They argue that raising taxes on millionaires would penalize many small businesses, the primary engine of job growth. They also oppose raising taxes on investment income, arguing it would discourage savings and risk-taking. The report, however, offers a withering rebuttal to both those claims. It notes that only 1 percent of tax returns with business income have adjusted gross income of more than $1 million a year. And those businesses are some of the least likely to create jobs. "Many observers claim that small businesses are the primary creators of jobs," the report says, but "most of the research cited by these observers is from the 1980s. More recent research suggests that small businesses contribute only slightly more jobs than larger business." And the main difference "appears to be due to hiring by new startup firms rather than to existing small businesses." Startup firms "generally do not generate much business income in their first years in operation; consequently, most small-business owners of startup firms are not in the top income categories and would not be affected by tax policies that observe the Buffett rule." As to savings, the report notes that private saving rates have fallen over the past 30 years while the capital-gains tax rate has dipped from 28 percent in 1987 to 15 percent today. "This suggests that changing capital-gains tax rates have had little effect on private saving." While some argue that lower capital-gains rates boost investment in high-risk projects, the report argues that most venture capital "is supplied by pension funds, college endowments, foundations and insurance companies — sources not associated with the capital-gains tax. In 2003, only about 10 percent of investors in venture capital funds were individuals and families. "Capital-gains tax-rate increases appear to increase public saving and may have little or no effect on private saving," the report concludes. "Consequently, capital-gains tax increases likely have a positive overall impact on national saving and investment."

 nwtreehugger  

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2011
Fri, 10-14-2011 - 7:29pm

I'm not sure what to believe. I know that taxes were higher in the fifties and sixties according to my parents and life was pretty good.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sun, 10-16-2011 - 12:51pm
25% of millionaires pay lower tax rates than many middle-class Americans, study says

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20120147-503544.html

Roughly 25 percent of American millionaires pay a lower tax rate than millions of middle class earners, according to a new study by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

According to the report, which was based on 2006 data, about a quarter of millionaires (about 94,500) paid less than 26.5 percent of their income in federal taxes, while about 10 percent of moderate-income taxpayers (about 10.4 million taxpayers) paid more than 26.5 percent in taxes. Moderate-income taxpayers were defined as those with an adjusted gross income less than $100,000.

The study validates claims recently touted by billionaire investor Warren Buffett, that the percentage he paid on his taxable income in a given year was "a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people" in his office. Buffett argued in an August opinion piece that lawmakers in Washington should raise taxes on the "mega-rich" who have been "coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress."

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2002
Tue, 10-18-2011 - 10:58am

>>"This is not class warfare -- it's math," <<

Love that quote!

 nwtreehugger  

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Wed, 10-19-2011 - 5:30pm

A flat tax is regressive. Those who have lower incomes will pay a greater proportion of their income on taxes. At the same time, those in the lower income brackets are presumably constrained to buy only what they need and would be in no position to do much discretionary spending.

By contrast, the very wealthy would pay peanuts--or maybe peanut shells.

Taxes should be the same on a can of Spam as on a Birkin bag? Seems out of kilter to me!

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-05-2011
Fri, 10-21-2011 - 11:30am
In the good old days when rates were high (under Eisenhower) we had 3 recessions. Nobody paid the top rate, as there were many deductions. Those who came close to 70% stopped producing income, or create income overseas to avoid taxation in the U.S.

There is not enough wealth in the U.S. to cover government spending. It just isn't there.

Once you tax the rich over 70% they either stop working, or work abroad.

The top 1% of wage earners in the U.S. already pay more than the bottom 95%. Is one wealthy person paying more than 95 others across all income ranges combined not enough taxation on the rich?

If not, how much is enough?