Washington Policy Watch

News and perspective on public policy issues affecting Washington's economy and quality of life, brought to you by the Economic Opportunity Institute.

Tax the rich: They need services too

From the Everett Herald | By John Burbank:

We’ve had a lot of talk about the privilege of the top 1 percent, and how they are grabbing more and more of our national income. Once, productivity increases were proportionally shared between corporations and workers. Now they’re mostly grabbed by companies and their top executives, while workers are left with decreased retirement savings, increased health-care costs and depressed wages.

This shift in prosperity and prospects didn’t just happen. It’s the result of conscious policy-making, including tax decreases for the wealthy, government policy that turns a blind eye to corporate union-busting, and “free trade” agreements that export jobs out of our country.

The result may appear to be manna from heaven for the wealthy, but that too is an illusion, because the wealthy need a civil society to prosper, too. They need good roads and a rail system to deliver materials to factories, and to distribute the products of these factories. They need fully functioning ports to export raw materials to factories they’ve established in China and import consumer goods to sell to Americans.

The wealthy need skilled workers for high tech and remaining industrial production — so they need good schools, community colleges and universities that are accessible to middle class students. And because workers don’t work so well when they — or their kids — are ill or injured or sick, the wealthy benefit from health coverage for the many.

Gated communities, private planes and private elite schools don’t fit the bill. The wealthy might think they can live in isolation and privilege, but the reality is, they can’t escape from the downsizing of the middle class. It hurts them too.  Read the rest of this entry »

Filed under: tax and budget, , , , , ,

To restart the American economy, end trickle-up economics for the rich

Imagine giving an extra 5% of the nation’s total annual income to the residents of Wasilla, Alaska starting in 1980, and you’ve got a good grasp of income inequality in the U.S. today. Thanks to lower tax rates for the rich and growing income inequality, $650 billion in wages that would have gone to middle-class households since 1980 has instead been siphoned off to just 5,934 households at the very top of the top 1%.

While household income for the middle class has remained flat, income inequality has increased.  In 2010, median household income was $49,445 – a slight decrease from 1997.  For the top 1%, average income increased from $517,713 in 1997 to $1,530,773 in 2011.

As wages stagnate, middle class families are struggling to keep up with the rising cost of health care, gas and groceries. According to Raghuram G. Rajan, a former IMF chief economist, household debt has doubled as low and middle-income families attempt to bridge the ever-growing gap between income and expenses.

A recent IMF report found that nations with more equitable income distribution are more likely to enjoy longer periods of economic growth. Jonathan D. Ostry, the co-author of the report, suggests that future US periods of growth may only last one-third as long as they did in the 1960s, when our income gap was smaller.

Barry Ritholtz, CEO of the investment research firm Fusion IQ, notes that the Dow took 50 years to return its pre-Depression peak, as millions of potential investors avoided the stock market for a generation. “You’re going to lose a generation of investors,” says Ritholtz. “And that’s how you end up with a 25-year bear market. That’s the risk if people start to think there is no economic justice.”

America’s wealth is being concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people – at the direct expense of middle-class families and our economy as a whole.  The rich’s rising tide has neither lifted middle class boats nor kept the economy flowing smoothly.  While some argue raising taxes on the top one percent will hurt the economy, billionaire entrepreneur and venture capitalist Nick Hanauer sums it up perfectly:

I’ve never been a “job creator.” I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.

That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small…An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.

This post by EOI volunteer Pete Stewart

Filed under: tax and budget, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bass ackwards: How America’s tax code hurts the middle class and coddles millionaires

By David Cay Johnston, excerpted from Reuters:

Everyone seems to know that about half of Americans paid no income taxes in 2009 and that the top 1 percent paid about 37 percent of the income taxes. But how many people know that households making less than $75,000 collectively paid more federal income tax than those making $1 million or more?

Or that income taxed at the next-to-lowest rate, 15 percent, brought in more government revenue than all capital gains taxes plus the two top brackets, which apply only to the top 2 percent of earners? Or that almost half of the top 1 percent made less than $500,000? Or that five out of six made less than $1 million?

The fact is that the government relies far more on the bottom 99 percent than the top 1 percent for federal income taxes.

(click to enlarge)

In 2009, the income entry point for being in the top 1 percent was slightly less than $344,000. To most Americans that is an unimaginable deal of money. But let’s put that in perspective.

DISPARITY AT VERY TOP

The median income taxpayer — half made more, half less — made slightly less than $33,000 that year (and their average adjusted gross income was under $15,300, or less than $300 per week). The median income taxpayer would need 10.6 years to earn as much as someone at the low end of the top 1 percent.

Far greater disparities exist within the top 1 percent.

The top 1 percent includes people who made many hundreds of millions of dollars and perhaps some with incomes of more than $1 billion, official government data will show when it is released in two years.

Economically, those just entering the top 1 percent have nothing in common with those in the top tenth of the top 1 percent. Someone at the entry point for the top 1 percent would need 29 years to make $10 million, and more than 2,900 years to make $1 billion.

The point is that while all those in the top 1 percent are certainly well off, the vast majority still go to work every day.

Almost half of the top 1 percent, or 1.4 million taxpayers, make $344,000 to $500,000. More than 1.1 million make $999,999 or less.

The bottom half of the top 1 percent rely on salaries for about two-thirds of their income. They get modest income from capital but rely mostly on their labor, giving them more in common with Joe Sixpack than Warren Buffett.

ONE IN A THOUSAND

A much better measure than the top 1 percent would be the top tenth of 1 percent. The government does not break out this group, but Emmanuel Saez, a University of California economist, and others have.

The Saez analysis of tax return data shows that through 2008, the top one-in-a-thousand taxpayers had average income in recent years that ranged between $5.2 million and $7.5 million annually. Just investing that much in corporate bonds will produce enough interest income to keep someone in the top 1 percent.

Furthermore, inside the top 1 percent, those with the highest incomes pay the lowest tax rates.

The top 1 percent paid an average income tax rate of 24 percent in 2009, IRS data shows. That is almost exactly the rate paid by those making $500,000 to $1 million. Those who made $1 million to $10 million paid a higher rate, 26 percent. But those making more than $10 million paid a significantly lower rate, 23.3 percent.

The top 400 taxpayers paid a much lower rate. On an average income of $270 million each, their effective federal income tax rate was 18.1 percent in 2008, the latest year for which we have IRS data. A single worker earning less than $90,000 pays a higher rate than that.

In a country with more than 300 million people, 400 taxpayers is a minute number. Yet those 400 made 1.3 cents out of every dollar of the country’s total adjusted gross income, almost doubling their share of national income since 2002.

CONCLUSION

The U.S. tax debate tends to focus on the top 1 percent — their share of income taxes and their tax rates. Anti-tax groups encourage this focus, now embraced by the Occupy demonstrators on Wall Street and across America. Problem is, the top 1 percent is a very misleading measure of who pays federal income taxes. It mixes doctors and billionaires, masking the taxes paid by the middle class and the affluent.

Continuing to focus on the top 1 percent will mislead us about who pays federal income taxes. That focus should be on the middle class and the upper middle class, and then on the top tenth of 1 percent. And on whether our tax system is helping create wealth and jobs or destroying them.

(Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh)

Filed under: tax and budget, , , , , , , , , ,

Wa Post: A quarter of U.S. millionaires pay lower tax rate than some in middle class

From the Washington Post:

A quarter of millionaires in the United States pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than many middle-class families, according to a new congressional analysis that offers fresh support for President Obama’s push to raise taxes on the nation’s wealthiest households.

The report, by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, found that when all federal taxes are taken into account — including those on wages, investment income and corporate profits — some households earning more than $1 million a year paid as little as 24 percent of their income to the Internal Revenue Service in 2006.

That’s substantially less than the share paid by many families making less than $100,000 a year that faced a top effective tax rate exceeding 26.5 percent, the report said.

All told, 94,500 millionaires paid a smaller share of their income in taxes than 10 million households with moderate incomes, the report found.

Read more from the Washington Post >

Filed under: tax and budget, , , ,

donate

Twitter Updates

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 426 other followers