In 2013, the Top 1% Will Pay Their Highest Total Tax Rate Since 1979

[ProSense]

Jordan Weissmann

In 2013, the Top 1% Will Pay Their Highest Total Tax Rate Since 1979

After all the months of agonizing, will-they-or-won't-they negotiations, the fiscal cliff deal mostly turned out to be something straightforward: A tax hike on the top 1 percent.

Thanks to the expiration of the payroll tax holiday, all Americans are going to be paying a bigger tab to the IRS this year. But as my colleague Matt O'Brien noted earlier today, the biggest increases are hitting filers with more than $500,000 of pre-tax income, which is roughly the threshold for making 99th percentile of American households.

In fact, it looks like the top 1 percent could end up paying more overall in federal taxes next year than at any time since at least 1979, as shown on the graph below. The country's richest households will be paying a bit more than 36 percent of their income to Washington -- higher than the most recent peak of 35.3 percent in 1995, or 35.1 percent in 1979.



This chart* shows the federal effective tax rate, which is Washington's actual cut of your income. Effective rates matter more than marginal rates. In 1979, for instance, the top marginal tax rate was 70 percent, but it affected very little income, so the average total tax rate for the 1 percent was about half that figure.

- more -

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/in-2013-the-top-1-will-pay-their-highest-total-tax-rate-since-1979/266764/

"Perhaps the best prism through which to see the Democrats’ gains is inequality."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022123732

[samsingh]

1. notice that the three peaks are under Democrats as they bring fairness

to the tax code, which the repugs take away when they get into power.

also, the rich pay more, but earn more under Democratic Presidents. This balance works in everyone's favor.

[Drunken Irishman]

2. I KNEW IT! OBAMA IS CARTER!

[woo me with science]

3. The rich will pay 600 billion out of FOUR TRILLION demanded by this deal.

Guess who they will come for, for the rest?

Yes, it's a typical Shock Doctrine "win."

[ProSense]

7. $444,000 more in taxes in 2013

It's a victory: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022123732

[woo me with science]

8. So what?

First of all, you know those numbers are suspect anyway, given the points made in the post below and in numerous other threads.

Second, even if they *were* accurate, they do not reflect a major sacrifice by any measure by the wealthiest. You continue to ignore that this 600 billion is even less than what Boehner *offered* during the negotiations, and it is an insultingly small portion of the FOUR TRILLION demanded by this deal. Where will that money come from? From austerity for the rest of us, which was the goal of the corporatists all along.

Nothing you have written here refutes my point that the overall deal outrageously favors the wealthy.

[ProSense]

11. "First of all, you know those numbers are suspect anyway,"

"Second, even if they *were* accurate, they do not reflect a major sacrifice by any measure by the wealthiest."

*cough* straw man.



"Third, you continue to ignore that the rest of us will be asked to make up the remaining TRILLIONS demanded by this deal, which was the goal of the corporatists all along: to impose austerity. "

What utter drivel. Deal with some facts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022123732

[BlueStreak]

9. They won't pay anything like $600 bn

Last edited Thu Jan 3, 2013, 06:41 PM - Edit history (1)

See post #4 for the reason why.

The whole thing was a charade.

Upper income WORKERS (entrepreneurs, small businessmen, doctors, high-end lawyers, and a few other professionals) will pay a lot more tax. And that is unfortunate because they are not the ones ripping off the system. The issue is not how high a person's wages are. If a person goes 8 years to medical school and then gives a good part of their life saving other people's lives, I don't begrudge them their income.

The issue is WORKERS versus people that make money by manipulating money, not from their own hard work, risk-taking, or inventiveness. And these are precisely the people who are the 0.1% and the people who are ripping off the system and freeloading. That is where we need to look for revenue, not so much from the WORKERS, even the high income workers.

[woo me with science]

17. Thank you for your excellent posts in this thread.

You are right that, by focusing on the fact that 600 billion is tiny compared to what is being asked of the rest of us, I missed the larger point, which is that the claimed 600 billion is bogus to begin with.

Yes, absolutely, the focus needs to be not on demanding more further down the income scale, but on recognizing that this deal actually only PRETENDS to make the real looters, the top 0.1 percent, pay.

I am so tired of scams.

[BlueStreak]

23. That's it. And it is maddening because the scammers do it all in plain sight

They have nothing to fear. Hell, Romney didn't even have to divulge his tax returns. We have always had freeloading aristocrats, but in the past 30 years, this has exploded to the point that these people have sheltered something like $30 TRILLION dollars offshore where it will never be taxed. That is 2 full years of the entire country's GDP !!! The numbers are staggering.

And meanwhile, they force us to pay a ridiculous amount to maintain a really outrageously bloated military that is there primarily to make in safe for these freeloaders to park their money offshore tax-free.

The system is upside down, and the "cliff deal" just locks in another piece of that freeloading to be our condition permanently, for all practical purposes. If this is what we get when the "progressive Democrat" is in charge, just think of what is in store the next time a Republican wins.

People really need to wake up, stop spiking the ball in the end-zone, and get to work trying to reverse the advance of fascism in America. Our time truly is running out.

[woo me with science]

25. "That is 2 full years of the entire country's GDP"

Everything you have written in this thread is OP material.

Thank you.

[leftstreet]

18. +1

[ProSense]

22. So now

Upper income WORKERS (entrepreneurs, small businessmen, doctors, high-end lawyers, and a few other professionals) will pay a lot more tax. And that is unfortunate because they are not the ones ripping off the system.

...you're pushing the claim that taxing the rich hurts small businesses? Were you upset when the threshold for all the expiring taxes was $250,000, which would likely have hurt more "entrepreneurs, small businessmen, doctors, high-end lawyers, and a few other professionals" (if you believe that)?

The issue is not how high a person's wagers are. If a person goes 8 years to medical school and then gives a good part of their life saving other people's lives, I don't begrudge them their income.

Wow! I mean, WOW! So if a person earns a $500,000 to $1 million a year, you want an exemption for doctors?

You should have campaigned for Romney.

[BlueStreak]

27. Look, if you don't want to have a reasonable discussion, just say so

I never said anything about a flat tax. Our tax rates were already progressive and would remain so if all WORKERS were given the same proportional relief.

The point you refuse to address is that this is chicken feed compared to the offshoring and sheltering of money by the 0.1% freeloading class -- the people who don't work for a living but instead have the power to systematically skim vast amounts of wealth out of our economy. They don't give a damn about the rates because their main game is SHELTERING the income.

If you understand this and just don't agree, then say so. If you don't understand it, then go educate yourself and stop with the fiction that the 0.1% are, in fact, paying their share. They are not, and there is nothing in the "cliff deal" that changes that one bit.

[SunSeeker]

32. LOL. I love you, ProSense!

[jeff47]

12. Um...no.

The 4 trillion is compared to raising everyone's taxes. There's no reason to actually pay that 4 trillion.

In fact, there's really no reason to give much of a damn about our current deficit, except for those seeking to use the Shock Doctrine to end social spending.

Thanks for buying into their framing! That'll make it so much easier to cut social spending.

[newthinking]

42. Isn't this OP reinforcing the Republican lie that the rich pay plenty of taxes ?

[Zoeisright]

43. Fuck no.

They own 90% of the wealth. They should pay 90% of the taxes.

[BlueStreak]

4. You continue to ignore the fact that the 0.1% shelter trillions in income every year

and this has accelerated greatly over the past 30 years. Once you account for that, yuor chart says exactly THE OPPOSITE of your headline.

Before you continue trying to make that argument, pleas, please educate yourself about how the 0.1% actually operate. Here are a few places to start:

http://truth-out.org/news/item/10647-six-things-you-should-know-about-the-$21-trillion-the-worlds-richest-people-are-hiding-in-tax-shelters

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2012/12/10/google-bermuda-shell-company-2-billion-tax-dodge/1759833/

http://triblive.com/news/2126360-74/tax-money-accounts-taxes-countries-financial-hide-billion-china-global#axzz2GwzTKZhw

http://www.businessinsider.com/tax-loophole-congress-google-apple-microsoft-2012-12

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/opinion/sunday/these-islands-arent-just-a-shelter-from-taxes.html?_r=0

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/overseas-cash-and-the-tax-games-multinationals-play/

http://www.rjmintz.com/misc/asset-protection-articles/profit-shifting-to-reduce-taxes/

I don't know if you ever listed to the State of the Union speeches, but in every one of Obama's SOU speeches, he has talked specifically about this problem. But there wasn't a single item anywhere in this "cliff" bill to address that at all. And that is why the "tax increase on the rich" is such bullshit. We will never see half of that "600 billion" . the rich will just get more aggressive with their shelters. So instead of an ACTUAL tax rate of 2% or 3%, they'll end up paying more like 1%, or nothing at all.

Please note, I am talking about the 0.1%. that's where the abuse is. I am not talking about surgeons making $1,000,000 a year or entrepreneurs that net $750K after expenses. They typically cannot afford to set up the elaborate abusive shelters, and their taxes will indeed go up. That's too bad because they aren't the freeloaders.

[ProSense]

6. They just started?

"Once you account for that, yuor chart says exactly THE OPPOSITE of your headline."

Nonsense.

[BlueStreak]

10. It has exploded in recent decades.

When did Enron start?

When did Bain start?

When did all these "derivatives" start?

It is certainly true that abuse has been around as long as taxes have been assessed, but today it has completely overtaken our economic system.

[ProSense]

13. Your entire premise

is that they won't pay because they never have. By that logic the rates could have gone up another 10 percent and you would still make that argument.

That doesn't change the fact that the rates went up, the effective rates.

[BlueStreak]

19. And we did nothing about actually taxing the 0.1%

That is the point. I don't know how to say it any more clearly.

The rates don't make a damn bit of difference. That is not where the abuse is.

[ProSense]

29. Yes,

"And we did nothing about actually taxing the 0.1%"

...we did:

On average, the top 0.1 percent of earners — whose incomes start at $2.7 million and go much higher — will pay $444,000 more in taxes in 2013 than they otherwise would have, according to the Tax Policy Center. The increases stem from both the fiscal deal and the new taxes in the health care law...the deal preserves the “compassionate conservative” part of President George W. Bush’s tax agenda — reducing federal income taxes on the working poor, sometimes to zero — while limiting the parts that most helped the affluent.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022123732

[BlueStreak]

37. "Chained" tax rates

Have you heard about "chained CPI"? The same thing works on taxes. The rates mean nothing to the 0.1%. Higher rates just give them more incentive to shelter more of their income and look for new loopholes to get the money past taxation.

We will never see half of that money.

Interesting that they are able to do those calculations for chained CPI but it never occurred to them the same thing happens in spades when we are talking about the rich laundering their incomes.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you any more. it is obvious you are in a state of denial. I have given you plenty of documentation that shows exactly how the rich play this game and yet you just ignore that. So I'm not going to waste any more time on an argument where facts don't seem to matter.

[jeff47]

14. And?

The fact that it started under much lower rates really doesn't say anything about higher rates.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Does that include capital gains? nt

[JoePhilly]

16. The bill also raises the rate on capital gains from 15% to 20%.

So that's not included in the graph above.

[MannyGoldstein]

31. So actual average rate will be 22% or so

For the wealthiest, still much lower than for many In the middle class. It's about 16% now.

[JoePhilly]

35. This is math, show your work. Don't just make up sad numbers.

[MannyGoldstein]

40. You're really accusing me of lying?

Didn't your parents teach you good manners?

Start here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6753823&mesg_id=6753910

[JoePhilly]

44. You link doesn't provide a reference to a relevant source.

You can't site something YOU said a long time ago as the support for what you said now.

Regardless, in that post of yours, you claim, the rich pay about 17% and the middle class pays over 30%.

Try this graph from September 2012 and then you might want to update your numbers.

http://media.talkingpointsmemo.com/slideshow/mitt-romney-taxes?ref=

[uponit7771]

15. Naw,....naw....Obama didn't do ish!!!

[SDjack]

20. I doubt that Mittens will pay more taxes. nt

[unblock]

26. oh he will.

there was a reason he wanted to be president instead of obama!

[BlueStreak]

28. He will only pay more on the small portion of his wealth he decides to not shelter

Did you read anything about the various schemes he has used over the years to hide income from any taxation whatsoever?

Have you forgotten "Son of boss" schemes?

Have you forgotten the "blocking corporation" abusive shelters?

Have you forgotten the $100,000,000 magic IRA in the Caymans?

And those are just the few little tidbits that slipped out. If we could audit his entire enterprise, we would find that the amount of tax has has paid over the years is way under 5% of his actual income.

[unblock]

36. i don't disagree, but i maintain that he'll pay more in taxes.

not remotely his fair share, but at least it will be a higher share than in the past.

[BlueStreak]

39. Possibly, but we're talking the difference between 2% and 3%

of ACTUAL income.

For this to be put across by all of the collaborators (Obama, Boehner, and everybody else in this little theater production) as if we are "soaking the rich" is preposterous.

Now that they has this little matter of acting like everybody got tough with the rich, they are free to return to the game of killing the programs middle class Americans depend on while making sure all our resources are drained to support the military-industrial-complex and the banksters.

[Scootaloo]

21. Slightly inaccurate... The top tax rate is NOT necessarily what is paid

You can raise the rate all you want, but so long as you preserve the writeoffs, loopholes, havens, deferments, and the like, the actual paid rate is going to be VASTLY lower.

[unblock]

24. not clear, but i think this is the average tax rate paid on taxable labor income

in particular, i don't think it takes into account the lower rates for investment income.

i don't see how the AVERAGE tax rate for the top 1% is 35% when so much of their money is taxed at only 20%.

[bvar22]

30. Figures don't lie, but.....

Like the "Unemployment Rate", I'm sure all kinds of "Adjustments" can be made to produce whatever results looks good to you.

...but until the Top Marginal Rate is reset to 70% (Top Rate in 1979),
the claim that you made in the OP doesn't pass the Smell Test.

The real Wealth Divergence, Income Disparity, and destruction of the Working Class in the USA didn't get started until the early 1980s, so to solve our problems we should be fighting FOR Pre-1979 Tax Structures, Trade Policies, Worker Protections, and Business Regulations.

The claim you made in the OP is a lot like claiming the Obama is "the most Liberal President in the last 40 years".
That doesn't say so much about Obama
as it says about how conservative our government (Democrat & Republican administrations) have been over the last 40 years, and how horribly devastating those years have been for the Working Americans.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]

[SunSeeker]

33. K&R

[Tuesday Afternoon]

34. hell to the muthafucking A!!

'bout time

[bowens43]

38. While the majority of the wealthy

Enjoy permanent tax relief....

[HiPointDem]

41. Spin. "Average" (& how would they know the average after 2012 anyway, since it hasn't happened?)

Rates were higher in clinton's first term. Hell, rates were higher under Bush 1.

And having investigated the capital gains history in more detail (& there's lots more detail), i'm still waiting for more information, because there's no way anyone can make any comparisons on the basis of what's been released in the media so far.

so bullshit on the balloons & happy cake spin.