Middle Class--Not the Rich or the Poor--Pay Majority of Federal Taxes, Says CBO Data

Can't find it if this has been posted...

Middle Class--Not the Rich or the Poor--Pay Majority of Federal Taxes, Says CBO Data

Middle-class Americans--not the rich or the poor--pay the majority of annual tax revenues taken in by the federal government, according to data released in a new Congressional Budget Office study. Households earning less than $34,300 per year, meanwhile, actually pay a negative average federal income tax rate. Middle-class households that earned between $34,300 and $141,900 paid 50.5 percent of all federal tax revenues in 2007 (the most recent year analyzed), according to the CBO study released Thursday, and households that earned between $34,300 and $352,900 paid 66.7 percent of all federal taxes.

I don't pay a lot of attention to this area, but haven't we been hearing that the rich pay the majority? What gives?

Isn't this contrary to what we've been told?

Households earning less than $34,300 per year, meanwhile, actually pay a negative average federal income tax rate.

We are not fooled by your many tax posts. You are a troll for the rich and powerful. You are attempting to gain support that the poor should be taxed instead of the rich. Take your foolish ranting elsewhere.

You have not said a single word about the fact that Ross Perot pays an average of only 8% in taxes on his wealth. Instead you struggle to make the claim that the poor aren't paying their share. Do the poor have Non profit charities that employ their own relatives in positions getting paid 200,000 dollars a year? Do the poor have private chefs and maids that make 50,000 dollars year, all paid for from corporate expenses in order to dodge further capital gains taxes?

Instead of exposing how the rich pay only a paltry sum of their wealth, you endeavor to attempt to expose that it is the poor who are not paying their share. So, are capital gains expenses paying you to submit these posts? Instead, the poor have to defend themselves on their own dime.

Huh?

I suggest you read more slowly. And take a few deep breaths.


[edit on 27-6-2010 by ~Lucidity]

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Actually I think it was sarcasm and they were agreeing with your thread...


If you earn $1 or $1million you don't pay tax....

Its the mugs inbetween that do......

S&F 4U

Yes, it is contrary to how the facts are presented, however, it is logical. Income is (for all practical purposes) distributed in the typical "bell curve", thus, ranges near the middle (about $45k/year in this case) comprise large percentages of the overall population. I have not examined the data recently, but I would guess that the income range of $34,300 to $352,900 makes up about 85% of the overall population (but don't hold me to that).

Of course a majority segment of the population pays the majority of taxes! Add in tax cuts aimed at the wealthy and tax evading accounting practices available to the wealthy and the picture becomes more clear.

One additional note: what is "middle class" anyway?

The ranges that we typically consider middle class are often in as precarious a financial situation as those that we consider lower class. Being "one paycheck away from the poorhouse", as my old economics professor used to say, is not what I consider middle class. However, how many families with incomes above $100,000/year do you know in that position?

Personally, I know too many to count.

Class is about freedom, not necessarily income.

Shane

reply to post by virgom129

Ah...thanks. That one had me truly baffled. The mugs in between who do...indeed.


reply to post by randolrs1


Thanks. That was a great explanation...simple and in terms even I could understand. The only way I passed economics was to answer the opposite of what my logic told me, so that's saying a lot.

You read my mind about "what is the middle class." I think the middle class is the stressed, in more ways than one. I need to go back and check the CSO report out more thoroughly to get some additional answers about that.

What you say about the bell curve makes total sense to me. That is where my logic always takes me when I hear the rich pay more. But then we hear otherwise and wonder...

I too know many people in the exact position you describe...in the $100K range and struggling to keep it together. In some cases, they might be worse off than the poor because it seems things should be better, it seems they should be set, but they're not. Something's not quite right. Something about the demand on people in that range is off. And speaking from personal experience, and as a person with very few deductions, that's the range...maybe $100K-$160K...where your tax rate is

If you make 100,000 a year and you are broke then you are nothing but a fool. You, while making a large income, have spent more than you make and have lived the life of extravagance. You have overspent yourselves into the poor house. Instead of learning to invest wisely and diversify your income you have squandered your income into lavish living and massive monthly bills for items that give you nothing in return. BMW's, Big screen tv's, and three cars in the driveway and you want us to feel sorry for you?

If you make a hundred thousand dollars a year, then you should not be whining at all about your life. I knew from the very moment of your posting that your real goals in these posts were to garner more support for taxing the poor, instead of yourselves. Your recent sentiments have exposed your true self serving purpose.

Well then let me tell you the cold hard facts of life. The poor cannot be taxed more, and if you understood the tax laws then you would know why. The poor are completely under the thumb of the rich. If you tax them more then what they pay will ultimately come from the rich which are their masters. They will leave thier paltry meanial jobs for a more substantian wage elsewhere. They will go back to school to better compete with your jobs. In the end, the rich masters will, as a whole, have to pay more for the same labor and no amount of illegals will make up the gap.

Do you see now why the rich regard you worse than the poor? At least the poor have the sense not to slave 60hrs a week only to make fortunes for the rich at the expense of themselves. For your hundred thousand dollar income is a convenient lie and it is the rich themselves who have conspired to take 30 percent of what you make. It was not the poor who did this. But because of the arrogance of people in your position, you feel compelled to blame those who you consider to be beneath you (the poor) instead of realizing that it was the rich who deceived you into doing all their hard work, and paying the lions share of the taxes as well, while they keep the lions share of the profits.

The rich can replace the managers of their enterprises at a moments notice with little to no difference in cost. For there are always the foolish half educated greedly ones who are willing to sacrafice thier souls for more spending sprees and greater pride. Easily replaced are the overworked and greedy managers and middle men, too pridefull and arrogant, to see thier real place within the machine of profits for the rich owners.

Ask yourself this, you haughty and prideful pawns of the owners. It is your greed that has put you in the position to do other peoples work for pennies on the dollar compared to the profits of your labors. It is your foolish pride that has left you thinking yourselves superior while the truth remained the opposite. Who is the greater fool, the poor who make an honest wage? Or the managers who slave night and day for the owners, get taxed the most, and own nothing of value but greed and pride for all their sleepless nights.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by Hot_Wings]

reply to post by Hot_Wings

There's some truth to this. But there are also some variables. Such as how many people that money supports, the area of the country you are in, what you you have to spend to make that money (childcare, transportation, professional fees, and so on).

One of the easiest ways to get a huge tax break, is to no get married.

If you take a family of four where both wage earners make less than around 36,000 and do their taxes married and unmarried, there is a huge difference.

Married you will owe or maybe get back a few hundred dollars.

Un-married, this family of four will get $4,000 - $6,000.

Its the marriage tax, and excactly why I dont get married (or claim married) and try not to make too much $$.

Gotta find that sweet spot!

reply to post by ~Lucidity

Households earning less than $34,300 per year, meanwhile, actually pay a negative average federal income tax rate.

Someone making 50k a year actually grosses LESS than someone making 34k a year. If you subtract all relative spending, such as childcare, gas, food etc.. you will find the middle class is poorer than the poor class, the only difference is the middle class has a large access to credit.

NO person should EVER have a negative tax rate. The poor, no matter how poor, should be taxed at the same rate as the middle class, as should the rich.

Let's talk Tax Refunds:

person who is on food stamps, no job, on disablity, housing, and every available government handout federal to local.

Pays NO taxes.

REFUND: $ 4,500

Not that i'm a pro on taxes and stuff, but everyone shoud just be taxed the same, poor/rich/the inbetweeners, so on and so forth.

Isn't there like a limit on inheritances, and like after a certain point you pay tax on what you inherit ( a tax amount proportional to the amount you inherit past a certain figure ? )

Please excuse my very bad economic understandings =)

Peace !

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Historically it was the middle class the one that build this country, the one that used to support the government and pay for all the services for those that could not pay, while the wealthy rich pocket the sweat and labor of those that worked under them.

But life was good, it was productivity for those that were not highly educated and better life for those that were.

Everybody or at least everybody have means to earn a living and pass on to their children with mostly one parent working.

Rich in America is not longer those that are in between 100 and 250 K, this is the group been gouged by state and fed governmentthose are considered now high earners and the ones that own most small businesses.

Wealthy rich is those that have gotten their fortunes with inheritance or just lucky enough to hit it big in their lives.

Right now with more and more of the higher income earners losing their way of life and jobs, the nation is feeling the pinch at state level and federal level as the taxable income is shrinking.

So is many misconception of what is considered rich and wealthy rich by many that never have to deal with been in higher income level to lose it all to a bad economy.

Do your research and you will learn that the bread and butter of the nation the middle class is been robbed, decimated and killed by the two emerging classes in the nation, the poor and the filthy rich elite in power.

So after this class is gone what is next. . .




[edit on 27-6-2010 by marg6043]

UMMMM How many of you actually think this is new news???? no disrespect to anyone, but this is how its always been. I dont see the relavance of making news of this.
obviously the homeless or poor are not taxed/taxed much at all. The rich pay taxes too, but it seems the most taxes, comes form those on a modern nice salary, the more you make, the more they take* thats the classic saying all. unless you allg ang up on the FED, it will only be giving more*

reply to post by ziggy1706


The problem is that the higher income earners, no the wealthy rich are the ones that take the burden of the debt, while the wealthy rich can always hide their wealth oversea, while buying our political rats in congress with their corporate influences and get bailout when they make blunders with others people lifes savings.

Then the poor we all know what the people gets and what they give to society.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Isn't this contrary to what we've been told?

[edit on 27-6-2010 by projectvxn]

reply to post by Unium




[edit on 27-6-2010 by projectvxn]

reply to post by projectvxn

Absolutely! Who says government has to be complicated. The tax code is an abominations whose time is well past.

I think that when humans complicate things that so clearly do not need to be complicated, they're usually hiding something.

I lean more toward a consumption or consumer tax than a flat tax because I fine more fairness in that. Past a normal and REAL living wage, hyperconsumers pay more. No exceptions, no loopholes. But I'm no expert about the numbers.


[edit on 27-6-2010 by ~Lucidity]

reply to post by ziggy1706

What's news here is that the Congressional Budget Office has released a report supporting what many have known for a long time that contradicts some proponent's of fair tax. There are some very loud people in our Congress who spread the fallacy that the rich pay more taxes and they need a break while continuing to overburden the middle class and the poor.

Now arguments could probably be made that the report itself is incorrect or biased to fit someone's agenda. But I haven't seen those yet. From base experience, the CBO seems to me to be pretty fair and balanced. And part of my reasoning for that is the way Congress tends to ignore it. Backwards, I know, but hey....