Who Pays America's Tax Burden, and Who Gets the Most Government Spending?

[Mirdath]

Dante, I like what you’re saying, but check your math – 50% of 130 million is 65 million, not 6.5

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Blah. The more I read this, the more confused I am…I probably should just be off to bed. It’s very interesting though, because we just talked about this in AP economics today. Fun stuff .

Okay I’ll bite what is “AP” economics?

 

[Kevin42]

Advanced or honors (whatever pleases you to call it)…and technically it’s ‘macroeconomics’. I probably should have taken regular though…but it was too late to switch out. Since you asked however, we have a test tomorrow, so any prayers I could get would be greatly appreciated . Now I have taken us very of topic, so my apologies. I’m off to bed!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes, I know, that was my point. Annie talked of farmers retiring on the fat-cat program… I was saying it’s not a fat cat program for average farmers-- it’s NOT a farmer pension program!

We **are **farmers.

Of course. If you weren’t real farmers, but absentee landlords, the Department of Agriculture would be forcing money into your pockets.

The Department of Agriculture works to drive small farmers out of business – so the big farmers have no competition.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I disagree with this portion of your post.

So prove me wrong. Tell us how much the US Government paid in subsidies to rice farmers last year.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Dante, I like what you’re saying, but check your math – 50% of 130 million is 65 million, not 6.5

Ah, crud…that throws off all my numbers! And I was so careful, too!

 

[b_justb]

I was looking at this in a different way. Generally speaking and in theory: the US Democratic Party seeks in part in their ideology on Social Justice to help the poor directly through government programs; where as the US Republican Party seeks to help the poor by lessening government involvement in private citizens life and allowing each individual work out their charity as they see fit.

I find it most interesting that under the Democratic Party taxes would increase in order to meet their goal of helping the poor by government programs. In reality tax revenues decrease under this idea and the programs don’t help the poor get out of poverty but rather enslaves them to the subsistence living the programs relegate them to, even generationally.

Juxtaposed to that is when taxes are decreased it increases revenues but under the Republican ideas social programs are cut, but individual charity is encouraged and flourish.

But for some reason there is the popular viewpoint that the US Democratic Party helps the poor and the US Republican Party cares less for the poor and only for the rich. This is simply not true as the numbers point out. It seems to me to be far more charitable to the poor to enable them to get out of their poverty than to provide a means to enable generational poverty through programs that keep them at subsistence living.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I was looking at this in a different way. Generally speaking and in theory: the US Democratic Party seeks in part in their ideology on Social Justice to help the poor directly through government programs; where as the US Republican Party seeks to help the poor by lessening government involvement in private citizens life and allowing each individual work out their charity as they see fit.

I find it most interesting that under the Democratic Party taxes would increase in order to meet their goal of helping the poor by government programs. In reality tax revenues decrease under this idea and the programs don’t help the poor get out of poverty but rather enslaves them to the subsistence living the programs relegate them to, even generationally.

Juxtaposed to that is when taxes are decreased it increases revenues but under the Republican ideas social programs are cut, but individual charity is encouraged and flourish.

But for some reason there is the popular viewpoint that the US Democratic Party helps the poor and the US Republican Party cares less for the poor and only for the rich. This is simply not true as the numbers point out. It seems to me to be far more charitable to the poor to enable them to get out of their poverty than to provide a means to enable generational poverty through programs that keep them at subsistence living.

It always helps in cases like this to understand what “Social Justice” is:

Social Ministry has two main aspects: social service (also known as Parish Outreach) and **social action **

Social Service is giving direct aid to someone in need. **It usually involves performing one or more of the corporal works of mercy. **That is, giving alms to the poor, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick or imprisoned, taking care of orphans and widows, visiting the shut-ins etc. Another name for it is charity.

Social Action is correcting the structures that perpetuate the need. Another name for this is Social Justice.

Welfare, public housing, raising the minimum wage and so on are all Social Service. They are not Social Justice because they do not correct the structures that require these things.

Now, improving the education system, so poor children could get good jobs and not **need **welfare, public housing, or raising the minimum wage – that would be Social Justice.

Or to put it another way, government programs that promote Social Justice are very rare indeed.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Let’s also remember something that this statistical analysis does not address: proportion.

I’m going to round numbers to make the math easy for me (I’m an English teacher, not a math teacher):

1. Over 130 million people filed a tax return in 2003 (according to a Google source).
2. 1 percent of 130 million = 1,300,000 people.
3. 50 percent = 65,000,000 people.

The average Adjusted Gross Income in 2000 was about $170,000 (radicalrevolution.net), which multiplied by 130 million is about $22 trillion. If one percent, or 1.3 million people, earn 17 percent of the nation’s income, that translates to $2.9 million each as an average income.

The bottom 50 percent, or 65 million, earn 14 percent of the nation’s income – or about $47,000 each. Sounds like a lot, but that leaves $21,999,999,530,000 for the top 50 percent – or nearly $340,000 each.

In other words, though the richest pay more taxes than the poorest, the richest half of our population out-earns the poorest half by a proportion of over 7 to 1. This is significantly more than the proportional discrepancy in the amount of taxes each group pays.

Peace,
Dante

I’ve corrected my figures. The proportional discrepancy remains the same (if I were actually a math person, I’d have noticed that without doing all the extra math).

Peace,
Dante

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Let’s also remember something that this statistical analysis does not address: proportion.

I’m going to round numbers to make the math easy for me (I’m an English teacher, not a math teacher)…

Let me help you out a little
GDP can be defined as all income which for the US in 2005 was roughly $12,455,825,000,000, if we divide by 300,000,0000 people we get about $41,000 per person this is known as “per capita income” However if you go back to the original post with lists the first(lowest) 20% which make under $23,700 you get - The government helps out the poor! - thus it is an internally flawed report.

 

[b_justb]

vern humphrey:

It always helps in cases like this to understand what “Social Justice” is:

Welfare, public housing, raising the minimum wage and so on are all Social Service. They are not Social Justice because they do not correct the structures that require these things.
*mproving the education system, so poor children could get good jobs and not **need ***welfare, public housing, or raising the minimum wage – that would be Social Justice.This is good, Vern. If we can take this as a guide it might make looking at political candidates easier. Thanks.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is good, Vern. If we can take this as a guide it might make looking at political candidates easier. Thanks.

Let’s hope. I like to explain Social Justice by using the Parable of the Shipwreck.

A ship was wrecked and the crew and passengers were adrift in the liferafts in the middle of the ocean. A plane came over and dropped food and water. A week later, another plane dropped more food and water. And so on and so on.

That’s charity.

Social Justice would be to bring the people ashore, so they could get their own food and water.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Let me help you out a little
GDP can be defined as all income which for the US in 2005 was roughly $12,455,825,000,000, if we divide by 300,000,0000 people we get about $41,000 per person this is known as “per capita income” However if you go back to the original post with lists the first(lowest) 20% which make under $23,700 you get - The government helps out the poor! - thus it is an internally flawed report.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to point out.

In my post, I demonstrated that, although the richest pay more taxes than the poorest, the difference between how much they make as a group and how much they pay is also greater.

Peace,
Dante

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m not sure what you’re trying to point out.

In my post, I demonstrated that, although the richest pay more taxes than the poorest, the difference between how much they make as a group and how much they pay is also greater.

Peace,
Dante

Now let us calculate the value of sloth.

There are plenty of people just as healthy as millionaires and just as smart (if you don’t believe it, ask them.) But they choose not to make millions – and by so choosing, they deprive us of the taxes they would pay if they exerted themselves.

 

[Mirdath]

Now let us calculate the value of sloth.

There are plenty of people just as healthy as millionaires and just as smart (if you don’t believe it, ask them.) But they choose not to make millions – and by so choosing, they deprive us of the taxes they would pay if they exerted themselves.

How… Reaganomical of you. I don’t choose to make less than a billion dollars a year – the market for my field doesn’t support that kind of paycheck! I can live well enough on what I’m making and I love what I’m doing; why do I need to make hundreds of times my current salary? Calculate the value of satisfaction before you go into sloth – or, for that matter, bad luck, which grinds many more people down.

 

[vern_humphrey]

How… Reaganomical of you.

How defensive you are.

I don’t choose to make less than a billion dollars a year – the market for my field doesn’t support that kind of paycheck!

Then change fields!!

You chose your current field, did you not? You chose a field where you make less than you’re capable of making – and thus depriving us of the taxes you are capable of paying.

I can live well enough on what I’m making and I love what I’m doing; why do I need to make hundreds of times my current salary?

Because we need the taxes, of course!! By not maximizing your ability, you are cheating the tax man.

Calculate the value of satisfaction before you go into sloth – or, for that matter, bad luck, which grinds many more people down.

A wise man said, “We make our own luck.”

 

[Mirdath]

Then change fields!!

You chose your current field, did you not? You chose a field where you make less than you’re capable of making – and thus depriving us of the taxes you are capable of paying.

But I like my job! And if everybody in my field took your advice you’d be dusting off your card catalogs, typewriters, and paper databases, so obviously the answer is pay me more!

A wise man said, “We make our own luck.”

Perhaps, but can you deny that achieving the American Dream is far easier for some people than for others?

 

[Nurse_Joy]

The study is interesting but doesn’t acknowledge a basic assumption - that people stay in one income group throughout their lives. This is rarely true and affects your interpretation of the findings.

I can see from my own life starting at the bottom quintile and rising up as my career advances - its certainly possible my household income would hit the top quintile sometime. Especially when the kids are bigger and my spouse goes back to work. I would not consider this “super rich” to have a 2-worker family income of $100,000.

I can also imagine not staying there very long and expect my income (and standard of living) to go down at retirement time.

So the concept demonstrated in the paper - that people who are able to pay more pay more, and people who can’t afford it pay less - that sounds about right to me. I think we are on the right track.

Why shouldn’t my dad get more than he pays in during his retirement? Wasn’t that the deal when he paid into SS all those years?

Does anyone propose that 20 & 30 year olds pay for their kids educations up front? Or do I send my kids to school now, and pay school tax now (a fraction of the cost) and later when I’m 60 and have no kids in school?

 

[vern_humphrey]

But I like my job! And if everybody in my field took your advice you’d be dusting off your card catalogs, typewriters, and paper databases, so obviously the answer is pay me more!

Liking has nothing to do with it – it’s all about paying your fair share of taxes.

Perhaps, but can you deny that achieving the American Dream is far easier for some people than for others?

Yes, but that’s no excuse. After all, I confined my comments to people who are just as healthy and just as smart as millionaires.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Now let us calculate the value of sloth.

There are plenty of people just as healthy as millionaires and just as smart (if you don’t believe it, ask them.) But they choose not to make millions – and by so choosing, they deprive us of the taxes they would pay if they exerted themselves.

Vern
This is an unfair post, if you have not read or seen the PBS version of “Rich Dad, Poor Dad” I highly recommend it to everyone. He does the best job I have ever seen of explain why many people out work the rich yet live in average conditions