That's right.

(No further comment needed.)

It's tiresome to have to repeat 200 year-old arguments. The reality of marginal utility is that 10% of a million dollars in income -- $100K -- is worth less to the person with that income than 10% of $10K -- just $1K -- is worth to the person with that income. So if fairness is to take into account how much pain a tax causes, it must be progressive.

In other words, even wealthier people are paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes it doesn't follow that the burden on them is "heavier." It isn't.

I don't know if Fleischer is informed enough about economics to understand this but most of the business people who push for a flat tax certainly are.

I don't think you said it quite right. Your graph shows that the EFTR is higher for the rich (i.e., they are "bearing a heavier burden as a percentage of their incomes"). It's just not terribly much higher (and, indeed, less high than it should be for true fairness, as per larry's comment).

hell, the real action is in the top 1%, where something like 20% of the income is concentrated.

The funny thing about Ari's solution is that it would drain what little wealth the working class has and still manage to do nothing about what portion of taxes are paid by the wealthy. Wealth is still going to concentrate into the hands of the wealthy.

Eventually the right is going to have to stop this obtuse bullshit, and actually deal with wealth inequality.

Yeah. What he said.

And you did not even mention how the rich benefit disproportionately from the infrastructure, the social stability, etc. that the rest of society provides.

It's interesting, at least, that the reliably batshit WSJ editorial dept. has switched to the flipside of the "Lucky Duckies" argument.

Perhaps they believe the economic climate is not really suited to "Laid off? Pay cut? Lucky ducky!" pieces, and settle for masturbatory sub-Randian encomia.

Ezra's chart is meaningless. What is a comparison of share of income with effective federal tax rate supposed to mean? The relevant tax statistic with respect to SHARE OF INCOME is SHARE OF TAXES, not effective tax rate. The top quintile's share of federal taxes (69.3%) is significantly HIGHER than its share of income (55.7%). The bottom quintile's share of taxes (0.8%) is significantly LOWER than its share of income (3.9%)

So, yes, the rich ARE getting a bad deal.

Why should payroll, or FICA taxes, be included, these taxes are returned to taxpayers in the form of benefits in old age? And how does the CBO adjust for the "earned income tax credit" and other subsidies and benefits?

The benefits chart resembles the inverse image of these tax charts. After taking into account benefits and subsidies most peoples contribution is negative.

Eventually the left is going to have to stop this obtuse bullshit and get their hands out of peoples pockets.

Another thing, the rich are creating a disproportionate share of the jobs in this country. How many jobs has the bottom 75% of taxpayers created relative to the top 10%.

Come on comrades the country needs jobs not just taxpayers. Get off your drug addled asses and create some.

what is that stench?
i think it is coming from up above

"Why should payroll, or FICA taxes, be included, these taxes are returned to taxpayers in the form of benefits in old age?"

I wasn't aware that other government receipts magically get thrown into a furnace and never used. Social security is the only thing people benefit from.

And that's aside from the fact that the social security trust fund is used to cover current budget shortfalls. But I'm glad you think a fucking IOU is good enough.

Another thing, the rich are creating a disproportionate share of the jobs in this country.

Oh, Shay-shay, a job ain't "created" until some working stiff actually does it. But I'm sure you think you've created 14 billion jobs in your addled, twisted head.

jt - "The top quintile's share of federal taxes (69.3%) is significantly HIGHER than its share of income (55.7%). The bottom quintile's share of taxes (0.8%) is significantly LOWER than its share of income (3.9%)"

And the fact that the top quintile has almost 15 times a bigger share of income than the bottom quintile means NOTHING in this little equation? The 20% of the population that has less than 4% of the money should pay MORE and the 20% that has over half the money should pay LESS? Really?

Mike

And the fact that the top quintile has almost 15 times a bigger share of income than the bottom quintile means NOTHING in this little equation?

Sure it does. It shows how the rich are getting screwed. The income share of the top quintile is 14 times larger than the income share of the bottom quintile, but the share of federal taxes paid by the top quintile is 86 (EIGHTY SIX) times larger than the share of federal taxes paid by the bottom quintile.

Then when you look at wealth, the top quintile's share is around 300 times larger than the bottom quintile's share.

The chart refers to income, not wealth. And where are you getting your "300 times" from?

The amount of taxes someone pays is just numbers on paper - what actually affects their standard of living is their after-tax income.

So chart before-tax and after-tax incomes by quintile and see how badly the rich are really doing under their crushing burden of taxation. (Although quintiles don't really capture the high end of the income distribution.)

You're sloppy with your editing. Ari says 10% and later you say 20%. 55% is not "almost 60%." 72.4% is not "almost 70%." Etc.

The argument is still correct (if not properly explained), but you need to be more careful.

The bottom 20% has negative wealth, so 300 is not exactly accurate. More like an imaginary number.

If a bag of money fell onto some wingnut's head, he'd say it was a well-deserved reward from God. That is what arguments against progressive taxation amount to.

We need to get rid of FICA and welfareize SS. In these comments the right inexplicably argues, that SS is a retirement plan and the left argues that it is a welfare program. It is time that we make SS explicitly a welfare (social insurance) program. The first step is to eliminate the FICA tax and fund SS from general revenue. Later we can equalize the payout to everyone over some age.

BTW IMO the more interesting question is why is income so skewed and can something be done about it. Do licensing, copyright, and patent laws play a big roll? How about different rates of saving, do they pay a big roll. Does deferred gratification play a big roll? Does cheating or aggressiveness play a big roll? How about intelligence or height? How about willingness to take risk.

Separately if you have wealth but do not spend much are helping others as much as taxes help others?

Also seeing how people love the lottery and tournament occupations, especially the poor, is the wide difference in income actually a feature rather than a bug. People (inexplicably to me) buy more lottery tickets when the pot is bigger but odds are worse. People seem happy to see Labron James get tens of millions of dollars.

the astonishing ignorance of the right wingers is always fascinating to me.

take che is dead: apparently, this paragon of wisdom thinks that there is a FICA transfer and everything else that the government collects in taxes is used in selfless ways. the idea that, for example, some of the ceo of a defense contractor's taxes are used to fund no-bid contracts with high profit margins that lead to the ceo's high salary doesn't seem to have entered che is dead's mind.

more seriously (but not too seriously, because these limited thinkers don't deserve that much seriousness), you have che is dead believing that alex rodriguez is busy creating jobs with his $25M whereas someone earning $50K a year running a restaurant can't possibly be hiring those 3 waiters who are serving customers - they must be an optical illusion or something.

as for jt, sure, the high income (at least try to understand terms here, jt: we are talking about income and not wealth - would it be too much to notice?) are getting such a bad deal that it's clear from things like statistics on pay and CEO salaries and suchlike that they are all "going galt." i mean, who wants high income - it's such a bad deal!

the stupidity....

How about different rates of saving, do they pay a big role?

I think savings rate is a symptom, not a cause.

Divide people into their quintiles, then: Consider what has happened to household or individual income since the start of the GWB economic expansion. Then factor in inflation--not the CPI inflation rate--but for housing, education, transportation, and healthcare.

The savings rate gets clearer then, I'd guess.

"It shows how the rich are getting screwed."

This must have been what it was like to try and argue economic policy with a communist. When you establish a value system that declares the top 20% of the population is "getting screwed" when it already receives over 55% of the country's total income, it becomes impossible to conduct a rational conversation.

Howard,

as for jt, sure, the high income (at least try to understand terms here, jt: we are talking about income and not wealth - would it be too much to notice?)

Er, try READING, Howard. I KNOW we're talking about income. It was "mjs" who brought up wealth. And he still hasn't provided a source for his "300 times" assertion.

the stupidity....

The illiteracy, the ignorance, the stupidity....

What Ari is engaged in is class warfare.

Come the revolution....

I hope you plan on applying this "pain" logic to everything else in society. How about progressive parking tickets? Regular folks with take-home of $25,000 pay $30, but millionaires (say with $10m a year in earnings) pay $12,000. I'd like to see you try to pass that.

This isn't about inflicting pain. Taxes should be value-neutral. Rich people shouldn't get their hard-earned money taken from them just because it is there. A flat tax of 10% on $25,000 is $2,500 and on $10m is $1m. That is real fairness.

The reality is, we'll go through another stupid orgy of spending and taxation, then a new crop of non-gay-hating Republicans will come along and reap the backlash. Plus ca change...

My thoughts exactly. When Fleisher starts agitating for capital gains to be taxed as ordinary income in exchange for a less progressive income tax, I'll listen.

Here's a hypo which shows that the "the top x% pay y% of all income taxes" argument tells us just about nothing. Imagine a society where 90% of the people make below the income tax exemption threshold. Then that other 10% pays 100% of income taxes regardless of the rate, even if they're just taxed at 1%--which would still be a low rate by anyone's standards. So the numbers touted by Fleischer tell us little because they give us zero information as to what a "fair" marginal rate would be.

When we apportion the burden of running our government, we don't look at which group will wind up paying the most. The only way the top 5% will pay 5% of income taxes is under a head tax, which no one things is fair. Even under a flat tax, if the top 5% make 30% of the income, they'll pay 30% of the tax. And since just about everyone thinks some low-income earners shouldn't pay income taxes (including Steve Forbes), few people really believe in a true flat tax either.

Now, there are good arguments for having a broad-based tax system. We want as many people as possible to have a stake in our government and not just pass along the responsibility of paying for what we want to other parties. If the system is too dependent on a single group, revenues will fluctuate wildly according to that group's fortunes and decrease fiscal stability.

But the Fleischer approach is just about useless in telling us how to apportion the tax burden. What's the alternative: tell people who are having problems paying bills, keeping jobs, or staying in their houses that it's time for them to pay more? And cutting spending doesn't resolve the issue. Just because we're spending less doesn't tell us how whatever remaining costs should be apportioned.

Klein is right: this "who pays what part of the total taxes" argument is dreck.

Just noticed that Fleischer's argument has been floating around for a while. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow made essentially the same point back in 2003 when he said that under the Bush plan, "families earning more than $100,000 would pay 73.3 percent of the total income tax burden. Families earning less than $50,000 would pay only 2.9 percent of the bill."
http://www.slate.com/id/2077089/

Of course, such numbers are pretty meaningless without knowing how much of the national income these groups make. And, as I noted above, the numbers still would not be helpful in determining what a fair effective tax rate would be.

I am in the fortunate top 20. Do I pay a lot of taxes? Damn right I do. Do I feel cheated? No. I am fortunate to be able to pay. Would I like to pay less? We all would; I think that's human nature. I am not so taxed that I am living paycheck to paycheck. I've done that...this is an easier economic road. This becomes a discussion about greed and of the rich having more for the sake of more. I don't believe we can risk tearing the wealthy apart but that is not what I see happening. I have been in every one of these income classes in my life and have family in every class and I care that consideration is given to those less fortunate than me. My needs are taken care of. I remember struggling to meet needs. That's a bad deal. Not being richer will never be a bad deal.

All moral arguments aside, on a purely analytical level this post is, um, to put it nicely - wrong.

"They are not bearing a heavier burden as a percentage of their incomes."

Um, But does your chart not show exactly that?

According to your chart, the top quintile pay a 25.8% RATE on their income to the Gov't...compared to 17.6% for the next closest. By definition, that means the top quintile are "bearing a heavier burden as a percentage of their incomes".

Ugh, this analysis is some of the worst misunderstanding (or maybe misuse?) of 7th grade statistics I've ever seen from an educated person.

On a side note, reading the comments on this board really scare me...I suspect the typical reader of this blog is pretty highly educated relative to the general population, yet so many of you seem to be completely willing to accept the lack of elementary stastistical correctness, I assume b/c it doesn't satisfy a partisan belief.

Oh well. Hard to find intellectual honesty in any corner nowadays. I suspect I'm going to be pegged as "right wing" or something now b/c I pointed out the blatant mistake.

"People hear that the top 20 percent pay almost 70 percent of the country's income taxes and nod their head. That's unfair! But it mainly seems unfair because people don't know the top 20 percent accounts for almost 60 percent of the national income."

So they make 60% of the money and pay 70% of the tax. Then I guess Ezra concedes the point that the tax code is unfair.

Really, can any of you people mount an argument in favor of taxing the rich in a disproportionate fashion that doesn't simply amount to "they've got it and we want it"?

The tax code doesn't exist to satisfy your particular vision of social justice.

Oh, and the argument that the rich benefit disproportionately from government is laughable. Do you really think that the massive federal government is all that stands between society and anarchy? If this were true, and government spending is the lubricant that greases our collective wheels, then why did welfare reform -- reducing government -- correspond with an improvement in many social indicators?

Now, I know that many of you will instantly call me an anarchist and resort to other intellectual dishonest tactics, but really think that one over. Even if you think that the rich use more resources like infrastructure the simple solution there is increased user fees.

In this debate you don't have a leg to stand on. The tax code is blatantly unfair as even Mr. Klein concedes, and I suspect what is really driving the debate here is a desire to punish the rich for their alleged crimes than any real interest in fairness.

The simple solution is a flat tax. We all pay the same percentage and I don't care what that is. The more you make the more you pay. It would also do far more to clean up government and reduce the influence of lobbyists than any other single act.

Interesting perspective that 25.8% is not the biggest number there.

Bonus Baffler: In other contexts we are routinely assured that Social Security is a Good Thing because it is, on net, progressive and redistributive. If that is so, why include the tax here, yet ignore the expected future benefit, which is proportionately greater for the lower income levels?

FOR THE WONKED OUT: The first comment includes a faux pas:

"The reality of marginal utility is that 10% of a million dollars in income -- $100K -- is worth less to the person with that income than 10% of $10K -- just $1K -- is worth to the person with that income."

The reality is that textbook economic advises against inter-personal comparisons of utility. An anhedonic poor person really will get less satisfaction from a little extra cash than a ebullient millionaire.

The correct "rule" is that for a given person, increasing their net worth by one dollar provides less increase in their utility as their net worth rises.

The chart is meaningless, as someone else pointed out. It's like comparing weight to temperature.

But I'd like to ask the guy who said that "the rich create more wealth" one thing:

Let's say I am rich, but I suck at, say, building cars. I therefore fund a team of people who CAN build cars. They build it, I pay them a decent sum of money, and they sell the car for an huge sum of money. We take the profits and split it.

Who created that wealth that came from the sale of the car? Here's a hint: it wasn't just me, the rich dude, or the buyer.

Colin,

"Then I guess Ezra concedes the point that the tax code is unfair. "

Depends on your definition of unfair I suppose.

"Really, can any of you people mount an argument in favor of taxing the rich in a disproportionate fashion that doesn't simply amount to "they've got it and we want it"?"

Refer to the law of diminishing marginal utility. It's very real.

"The tax code doesn't exist to satisfy your particular vision of social justice. "

But it does exist to satisfy yours, apparently. Kind of a non sequitur after blasting the tax code for being "unfair."

According to a 2006 article from Taxfoundation.org, the states with the highest percentage of citizens with zero fed. income tax liability are: Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, NM, Alabama, Texas, Montana, Oklahoma, SC and Georgia. With the exception of NM, all of these states consistently voted Republican in the last three presidential elections.

Conversely, the states with the lowest percentage of citizens with zero liability are: Alaska, Massachusetts, Connecticut, NH, Minnesota, Maryland, Delaware, Washington state, RI, Virginia and Wisconsin. With the exception of Alaska, NH and Virginia, all of these states voted Democratic in the last three presidential elections.

So, I agree with the conservatives. There exist too many Americans who are not paying their fair share of federal taxes. The only catch for conservatives is these free riders are overwhelmingly conservative Republicans.

Why is government the only good or service for which the price paid depends on the income of the person? As an upper middle class person, I pay thousands of dollars every month for the intangible thing called "government." It's not even a voluntary purchase; it's extracted from me on pain of imprisonment and confiscation. Don't get me wrong, I recognize the benefits of such government- law enforcement, national defense, parks and roads, etc., and I would voluntarily pay for them, just as I pay for everything else in life. Most of what passes for "government" these days is actually transfer of money that I have earned for the benefit of someone else. I recognize a moral obligation to share my bounty with less fortunately, and donate thousands every year to various charities, but I could donate a lot more if taxes were not so high, and I believe that I have the moral right to determine to whom my charity dollars go and how they are spent.
The price of a loaf of bread does not depend on my income or how hungry I am- it's the same for everyone no matter how important it is to that individual.
I know that some in this audience will flame me as a knuckle dragging Neanderthal, or even worse, a Republican, but please, a few real responses would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Please add some mathematicians to Journolist, you might avoid embarrassing yourself:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/04/reality-bites.html

You weren't a math major, were you Ezra?

Mr. Klein mistakenly or perhaps disingenuously tries to compare two different types of tax measurements in his posting, which leads to an incorrect and misleading conclusion. The figure used in his post compares the share of income earned (pre-tax) for each quintile (relative measure) with the average tax rate for each quintile. The visual implication is that lower income groups pay much higher percentages of their income in federal taxes.

If we compare relative income to relative tax burdens the conclusion is much different than Mr. Klein suggests. For example, in 2006, the latest year for which comprehensive tax data is available, the top 20 percent of income earners (after-tax) claimed 52.1 percent of income but paid 69.3 percent of all federal taxes – this includes personal income taxes, payroll taxes, corporate income taxes, and federal excise taxes. The bottom 20 percent earned 4.7 percent of income and paid a nearly non-existent 0.8 percent of federal taxes. Put differently, higher income earners pay a disproportionately higher share of the federal tax burden than their relative income requires for progressivity.

In terms of the average federal tax rates (all federal taxes) for each quintile, they are indeed progressive. The average rate for the lowest 20% is 4.3 percent while the average rate for the top 20% is 25.8% - a full 6 factors higher than the lower average rate.

Also please see: http://tinyurl.com/czcqa7

Jason Clemens
Director of Research
Pacific Research Institute

Scene: Ezra Klein, wearing glasses, holding chalk to a blackboard with this graph shown, looking over his shoulder suspiciously.

"Ezra's first hint of the conspiracy was when he realized that his percentages didn't add up to 100..."

"The EFTR is simply a households’ federal tax liability divided by its income."

25.8 > 17.6 > 14.2 > 10.2 > 4.3.

"They are not bearing a heavier burden as a percentage of their incomes."

Wow. That is embarrassing.

One question for Jason Clemens: In your computation for tax burden, you include corporate income tax; it was not my impression that individual taxpayers paid corporate taxes except perhaps indirectly in a diminution of stock dividends. Also, although most people pay federal excise tax on the phone (do gas taxes qualify as excise taxes?), these taxes are primarily use taxes and cannot be assigned meaningfully to quintile rates to assess fairness.

Now to my main comment:

"The price of a loaf of bread does not depend on my income or how hungry I am- it's the same for everyone no matter how important it is to that individual."
A true statement up to "no matter ..." Given the conservatives' insistence that every embryo be born alive, I propose a measure I term provisionally "Minimum Cost of Being Alive." It's true that this might vary region to region but it could be experimentally tested and proven that generally a lower MCBA correlates with lower incomes in a region.
I would include in the MCBA: food (general American diet not just rice and beans -- but no beer, pop, chips, etc.), shelter (including indoor plumbing and heat), basic telephone service (for safety) and electricity, transportation (not limited to bicycle and mule), non-ragged clothing and one pair of shoes a year (maybe two), health care at an effective level, and such sundries as deodorant, shampoo, toilet paper, to keep up decorum. Maybe a radio to track tornado warnings. Flaming liberals might want to add savings for the future or misfortune, a little light entertainment, dentistry (to avoid embarrassing missing teeth), and other extras. But this is a first stab at determining this MCBA.
The MCBA would determine the level below which any negative income tax would apply since NO ONE ESCAPES FICA and Medicare taxes. And, since those at this level contribute so little to either income or taxes, these folks would not be used in quintile calculations.
Folks at this MCBA level share a few characteristics: they are much less likely than those at the 3rd quintile and above to control their wage/salary levels (although their employers could not function without them accepting their wages/salaries); they usually have no wealth, such as luxury possessions to sell, pensions, houses, etc.; they rarely understand how to rise above MCBA due to "moral faults" or poor education or misfortune; they are often anxious and depressed; they have no rich relatives; and they may have been sick or have sick relatives, etc.
Obviously they do not DESERVE MORE THAN THE MCBA. Takers, not makers, and all that. Still, because they are alive, they do get the MCBA.

There but for fortune go I.

Lots of right wing predators here today.

Shorter right wing "philosophy": Me, Me, Me, Mine, Mine, Mine.

History lesson in Republican Enron math:

Republican President Reagan more than DOUBLED the US debt.

Between Republican President Reagan and Bush I they more than QUADRUPLED the US debt.

Republican President Bush II almost doubled the US debt again (and the bills Bush II charged to America's credit card are still coming due and are going to be coming due for many years ahead).

Republicans also expanded the size of government. The federal outlays increased under Republicans Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.

Republicans ran this country into debt. Even during a time of war the Republicans were demanding tax cuts.

Republicans refused to pay for the wars they started.

Republicans increased the size and expense of government.

Republicans increased the US debt by leaps and bounds.

Republican economic theories also just screwed up the global financial economy.
Oops.

Worse, between delusional Republican economic theories combined with Republican's indebting the US, the US is now in the most precarious financial circumstance it's been in on almost 80 years.

To listen to the predatory right wingers here whining about the wealthiest paying taxes is offensive. If ya'all don't like living in America, leave. Isn't that the right wing solution? Go Galt. Move to Dubai or the Caymen Islands. After your economic fantasies and Enron math created the current Great Recession, don't delude yourself that you will be missed.

There is an inherent problem with News References throw away snark, "To listen to the predatory right wingers here whining about the wealthiest paying taxes is offensive. If ya'all don't like living in America, leave. Isn't that the right wing solution? Go Galt. Move to Dubai or the Caymen Islands..." The problem is that if too many of us 'rich, evil right wingers' do move to Dubai or the Caymen's - all that will be left will be a bunch of idealogical ivory tower types who don't earn/generate enough income to keep the place running.

I luckily fall into that category of 'evil rich person' with a very large household income. And I can tell you first hand, I do everything in my power to reduce my tax BURDEN. It is absolutely crazy for me to pay enough in taxes each year to buy a very nice German luxury car. Especially when I have never used 'my fair share' of my many local or federal resources. I have never needed a police officer, nor a fireman, nor a judge (minus one speeding ticket). And I don't ask for my water to be hotter than the 'avg person', nor my roads to be smoother, nor my flights to be directed differently by the FAA, etc. Sure, I love the fact that we have a massive and mighty military - but as a small government libertarian... I think even that is overboard.

So, someone please help me to understand a solid rationale reason for me being BURDENED as I am - other than the obvious reason no one wants to admit to. That people are now using the tax code for a distribution of my (and other evil rich people's) wealth!

Colin: The simple solution is a flat tax. We all pay the same percentage and I don't care what that is. The more you make the more you pay. It would also do far more to clean up government and reduce the influence of lobbyists than any other single act.

Consider a flat tax of 20%. Is it just as easy for someone who makes $20,000 to pay $4,000 in taxes as it is for someone who makes $2,000,000 to pay $400,000? Which situation would you rather be in?

But wait: hardly anyone thinks that the poor should pay income taxes at all, since they're having problems just providing for food, shelter, etc. But if you're going to have an exemption, then it's no longer a flat tax; it's a two-rate progressive system with 0% up to the exempted amount and then the "flat" rate above it. So just about everyone believes in a progressive system; the only question is how progressive. And if it's unfair to have poor people pay any income tax, then why is it fair to bump each dollar earned up to the full rate as soon as one crosses the exemption threshold?

And having a flat or progressive system has nothing to do with lobbyists. The way to clean up government from money is with public campaign financing.

Jason Clemens: For example, in 2006, the latest year for which comprehensive tax data is available, the top 20 percent of income earners (after-tax) claimed 52.1 percent of income but paid 69.3 percent of all federal taxes

As I wrote above, citing who pays what percent of total taxes tells us just about nothing because it doesn't tell us what their effective tax rates are. You could have a system where the top 10% bear just about all of the tax burden even if their rate was only 1%. And if you don't know what the tax rates are, how can you say whether they're fair or not? (Rather than repeat the argument, please see my post above.)

To look at the tax burden in this way is simply not helpful. We can argue about how much progressivity is a good idea (and remember that every dollar not paid by the wealthy will have to be paid by someone else), but the "X% of the top earners pay Y% of the total taxes" claim just doesn't advance any real point.

No greed like liberal greed.

Seems like a few of us are waiting for Jason's reply (me and dsimon at least).

Just one more little thing to have him clarify. He says:
"The average rate for the lowest 20% is 4.3 percent while the average rate for the top 20% is 25.8% - a full 6 factors higher than the lower average rate." Actually, the comparison proves little; 6 times (not "factor")is actually a tad regressive if we use a top income of $10,000 for quintile 1 and a lowest bound for quintile 5 of $100,000. These are vaguely what I recall those bounds to be from other statistics I've seen. So a "10 factor" would be more proportional. But this question is not about upper and lower bounds of quintiles.

Fair warning, I've got a more massive comment coming but didn't want to forget this math point.

Addendum to my post of April 14, 10:42 pm re: MCBA (Minimal Cost of Being Alive).

Under category “food” I forgot: “No mandatory keeping of chickens or goats.”

As a cash-equivalent offset to the MCBA.

A lot of the comments veered off into competing interpretations of “marginal utility” and I’m no economist so I had to look it up. It does seem to be measuring something since there’s a lot of MATH involved but I don’t think it’s a measure of fairness. And isn’t that what so many of us in the upper quintile complain about, cloaked in obfuscations like marginal utility rates?

So was my MCBA proposal serious or parodic? Well, no and yes. OTOH, yes and no. Though actually it was illustrational, rather like Ezra’s chart – although his comparison (as so many assert here) might be of apples and kumquats. But he blew it by using a bar chart, which smoothes out facts and condemns us to the world of ill-differentiated quintiles; better to use a line graph though not so dramatic. My point is that this discussion, since it is about real people and real incomes, should be about practical fairness, not theoretical fairness.

But to give some fairness sugar to my very own upper quintile (no greed like liberal greed!), I pair the MCBA proposal with a “Plausible Tax Minimization Paperwork” tax credit. We have to file so many schedules to achieve plausibility! And, the more convoluted the tax minimization, the more the schedules pile up. Quite a penalty. Don’t know about a credit for the fees of the tax advisor we need, though.

Two other small points (I must learn to edit myself!):

To the flat tax advocate in another post, quite a range of circumstances in that $10K to $10mil illustration. Might there be a question of “just desserts” fairness on the face of that? And everyone in quintiles 1 to 4 already pays a flat tax, called FICA/Medicare. Pure flat tax, no deductions; if your employer withholds, you pay the rate. Only in the airy reaches of the upper quintile where I live is the tax rate not quite so flat; here at last we’re the beneficiaries, not the punished (takers, not makers). Small and obvious point I know, but mighty consequential in the world of quintiles 1 and 2.

Last (finally): in this discussion “progressive” is a descriptive, not evaluative, term. So is “regressive.” Would that liberal and conservative could be viewed that way (but we would have to behave then). And no name-calling – never never never any name-calling.

No one needs more than $100,000/year! Workers of the world, unite!

F**k Freedom and Liberty. End Poverty by ending Freedom!

My solution for wealth inequality: Work harder.

And off I go.

Rigtwing "greed": Wanting to keep your own hard-earned money.

Liberal "greed": Wanting to SEIZE BY FORCE someone elses hardearned money.

I report, YOU DECIDE! 8-)

Someone suggests that you need a math lesson. But I ask why do they call it political SCIENCE?

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/04/reality-bites.html

Apparently, those who can't do, teach, or teach teachers (where math is concerned) go into journalism. I am sure it has been pointed out in the comments above but I don't have the energy to slog through. You don't understand the concepts of "percentage" versus "absolute amount." If the tax rate were even across quintiles, the "rich" would still pay "more because they have so much more money" - that is what "percentage" means. A higher percentage means that a bigger "slice of their pie" (I am struggling to explain this in simple terms) would be paid. If you had people making equal amounts of money with the same percentile distributions above, the highest quintile would pay more despite not making any more money.

I am not aware of any state income tax which is regressive; please try to remember that the definition of regressive is that the percentage is HIGHER for lower income cohorts. A flat tax, for example, would be neither regressive nor progressive. Social security is mildly regressive in that it stops at about $95K (although that keeps going up); however, the benefit that goes along with it is wildly progressive, although that analysis assumes that the whole system is not a giant Ponzi scheme, which it is.

why is this post still up here uncorrected? ezra, you do know that the chart you posted directly contradicts the point you tried to make, right? the blue line is the percent of pre-tax income but the red line is the effective tax rate, meaning that while the rich do make a higher proportion of the nation's income they also pay a higher percentage of their income. perhaps you should look up the definition of effective tax rate.

"Coolio," above, pulls the classic right wing con job of stringing multiple fallacies together to end up falsely asserting: "if too many of us 'rich, evil right wingers' do move to Dubai or the Caymen's - all that will be left will be a bunch of ideological ivory tower types who don't earn/generate enough income to keep the place running."

First, not all rich people are right wingers.

Second, not all right wingers are evil.*

Third, "Coolio's" vanity is a central pillar of right wing elitism. A good portion of the right wing elite truly believe that they are the 'masters of the universe' and that without them everything would fall apart.

I'll take that bet. "'Rich, evil right wingers'" are welcome to leave the US. Immediately. They can follow Republican Cheney's Haliburton/KBR corporation to Dubai.
http://havenworks.com/business/research/halliburton-kbr

Or better, since "Coolio" is a libertarian, perhaps they could go to that libertarian wonderland, Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe has no functioning government to speak of. Zimbabwe is the 'Galt's Gulch' of the world.

Who would be left in the US? Well, there must be a few not-evil rich right wingers. There are also a lot of wealthy independents. And some wealthy left wingers. Plus, everyone that's been doing the hard sweat labor would be staying.

Without "Coolio's" 'rich, evil right wingers' everything would still get done. And any job that "Coolio" thought only their 'rich, evil right wingers' comrades could fill would be promptly filled by someone new.

Right wingers have created a fantasy world where high taxation will do? What? Recreate the America of the 1950's?

America's power during the 1950's was unquestioned, the vast majority of Americans were assured of a decent job, and the tax rate, for earnings over $3.2 MILLION dollars, was over 90%.

With that rate, Republican President Eisenhower was able to build all those highways that "Coolio" admits using. In fact, that INVESTMENT in national infrastructure, amongst many other things, was a big part in what provided the staging ground for many of the subsequent successes in America.

It's true, "Coolio" and their comrade "'rich, evil right wingers'" have no interest in that kind of national investment in America.

For right wingers like that it's Me, Me, Me, Mine, Mine, Mine.

The days of Republicans willing to do right by America are clearly over.

* I will concede that "evil" right wingers appear to be the LEADERS of the flock of right wingers. I will also concede that the "evil" right wing leaders are often amongst the richest 01% percent or servants of that 01% percent.

But the bulk of right wingers are NOT "evil" and if those servants of the right wing elite ever wake up and realize how much they've been conned, well, that's the right wing leadership's greatest fear.

It's why "Coolio" has to convince everyone that he and his elite right wing comrades are so essential. Get over yourself "Coolio." Buy a ticket to Zimbabwe and learn what "small government" libertarianism really means.

And don't forget to formally renounce your US citizenship, "Coolio," you clearly already have in that cold heart of yours.

Kathie Brown:
Your tag line says it all: "There but for fortune go I."
I think that in that single simple phrase, you have encapsulated the philosophical difference between liberal and conservative thought in this country.
To the liberal, those of us in greater economic comfort are there by the grace of God (or some other power). Almost like the fortunate puppy who gets plucked out of the box at the kennel, purchased by a kind upscale family and destined to lead a pampered life, compared to the next puppy who is not purchased, but is abandoned to the pound, or worse, left by the roadside to fend for itself. No consideration is given to self sacrifice, working to get an education, deferral of gratification, giving up goodies in the present so that one or one's children can have a better chance for life in the future. No acceptance of the empirical fact that children born to a married couple, one of whom has graduated from high school, statistically will do better in life by any way you want to measure it.
As one who has benefited greatly by following those principles, and who not coincidentally has been blessed with the opportunity to help thousands of others during my medical career, I am concerned that our society is not going to continue its amazing progress as we make it less attractive to be the one who gets up early to go to work, stay up late studying to get the good grades, takes a risk to see if a new product will improve the lives of everyone. In my own family, my wife, an intelligent and dedicated teacher who once was able to do amazing things in the classroom, looked at the numbers and saw that if she continued to work, >50% of her income would go to taxes (there's that math again, Ezra). She stays home, and the local kids have a less qualified, experienced and talented teacher than they otherwise would have. Our story, multiplied by millions, is why our once dominant nation is starting to fall behind others in innovation and other measures of progress.
The grace of God is not randomly distributed to a few lucky individuals in the box in the kennel. Any person fortunate enough to be in this great nation already has all of God's grace that he or she needs to be successful.
All else that is needed is whatever it takes to get up off your ass and do something productive.

Kathie Brown,

Regarding the "factor", do really not get this? If I am paying 4.3% of my $10,000, then I am paying $430. If you are paying 25.6% of your $100,000, then you are paying $25,600. So you are paying 59.5 times as much, even though you earn 10 times as much. So you are paying a higher percent of your income at a "factor" of about 6.

That seems very clear and obvious. What do you not understand about the fact that if the RATE increases as income increases, then this is progressivity. Klein's article proves the very point he is trying to disprove.

JG: I am not aware of any state income tax which is regressive

Well, then, how about doing a little research? Here's a little something from 2002, and I don't think there has been much to change the situation since then. http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/text.pdf

"Our primary finding is that most state and local tax systems take a much greater
share of income from middle- and low-income families than from the wealthy. That is,
most state tax systems are regressive.

"In fact, only four states require their best-off citizens to pay as much of their incomes in taxes as middle-income families have to pay. Only eight states tax their wealthiest residents at effective tax rates as high as the poorest taxpayers are required to pay.

"And the disparities in effective tax rates between middle- and low-income families and the welloff
are not trivial. Most states tax the wealthy at rates that are much lower than the rates
on middle- and low-income families."

Social security is mildly regressive in that it stops at about $95K (although that keeps going up); however, the benefit that goes along with it is wildly progressive, although that analysis assumes that the whole system is not a giant Ponzi scheme, which it is.

First, it's not "mildly" regressive for those who are making millions of dollars. It's also not mildly regressive for those of us who make most of our income through investments, which are not subject to wage taxes at all.

Second, it's not a Ponzi scheme. The system was solvent on an ongoing basis for decades. There is no reason why we can't raise the retirement age (people living longer and collecting benefits longer is the main reason for Social Security's long-term fiscal issues) so that outlays don't exceed receipts. Ponzi schemes are designed so that they must fail. Social Security is not; the demographics have changed which will require some adjustments, but it's not designed to collapse if we're willing to take the necessary steps.

If the tax rate were even across quintiles, the "rich" would still pay "more because they have so much more money" - that is what "percentage" means.

Klein understands this very well. His point is that Fleischer's numbers about "the top x% pay y% of total taxes" is essentially meaningless because it conflates the effects of progressivity with the fact that the top x% are there because they make more money than everyone else.

I don't even recognize my fellow citizens anymore. There was a time when the vast majority of citizens agreed with the principles of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, etc. I fear those days are long past.

Todd said:
"According to a 2006 article from Taxfoundation.org, the states with the highest percentage of citizens with zero fed. income tax liability are: Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, NM, Alabama, Texas, Montana, Oklahoma, SC and Georgia. With the exception of NM, all of these states consistently voted Republican in the last three presidential elections.

...

So, I agree with the conservatives. There exist too many Americans who are not paying their fair share of federal taxes. The only catch for conservatives is these free riders are overwhelmingly conservative Republicans."

Todd--you may be interested to know that your conclusion does not logically derive from your statistics. I live in one of those "Republican states" (SC) and I guarantee that a large majority of the people here with zero federal income tax liability voted Democratic in the last election, if indeed they bothered to vote at all.

In Pete's math examples the "rich" person takes home $74,400 dollars and the "poor" person takes home $9,570.

In the eyes of the right wing, this isn't fair, the poor should either pay more in taxes or the rich less in taxes.

In right wing world, the person that is still making 7 times as much is being unfairly burdened.

If you want to know the definition of "burdened" try getting by on $9,570.

The right wing: whiners and cry babies.

dsimon & Kathie: The posting is quite correct that individuals do not directly remit payment for corporate income taxes. However, the burden of the tax must fall on individuals since it is impossible for a piece of paper, which is all a corporation is technically, cannot incur a tax. Most distributional models of corporate taxation assume that the owners of the firm (shareholders) pay the cost of corporate income taxes in the form of lower earnings. While convenient, this assumption has largely proven incorrect in terms of who actually bears the burden of corporate income taxes. A step back though. There are three groups of people that can theoretically bear the cost of corporate income taxes: owners (lower returns), customers (higher prices), and/or workers (lower compensation). The research suggests that it is by and large workers who bear the burden of corporate income taxes in the form of less reinvestment by the company, which ultimately leads to lower productivity and thus lower wages for workers in the firm.

In terms of the second question, allocating consumption (does not exist in the U.S. federally) and user-type taxes, there is a fairly robust body of research examining consumer consumption and purchasing behavior that can be used to allocate these taxes. These surveys and databases include demographic information so that it is possible to understand how these taxes are distributed across different income groups. For instance, we have a pretty good understanding of the demographics of people who smoke. It is, therefore, possible to further understand the burden of sin taxes on cigarettes and cigars based on the consumption data of these products. I hope that helps.

Jason Clemens
Director of Research
Pacific Research Institute

Right wingers, Republicans, conservatives, and even libertarians are always the first in line for a government handout.

Republican Newt Gingrich was a perfect example, that pig gobbled up more federal money for his congressional district than anyplace else in America.

The hypocrisy and corruption of the right wing is surreal.

Instead of twisting and fudging numbers, why don't you people just start calling for laws that will reduce income? If you can reduce how much money the rich earn in the first place, you won't have to explain tax burdens to people who don't understand where you're coming from.

What you really want is to end wealth, and this progressive tax dance is just evidence of your cowardice.

End people's ability to get too rich, and you'll end wealth inequality. Simple. The President has already shown you the way with how he's stopping bankers from getting rich off TARP.

Wow you people are willfully blind.

Ezra's math proves that the rich bear a much heavier burden in taxes, both as a percentage and to how much they actually pay.

Thanks Ezra for confirming what sane people have known forever, albeit unintentionally.

Did your friends on the journolist doublecheck your math before allowing you to post this?

Pathetic, but unsurprising.

"Jason Clemens", the "Research Director" for a corporate funded front group, Pacific Research Institute, which masquerades as a libertarian think tank, currently touts on his website's front page a defense of right winger George Will's fallacious climate science article.

Did you get tired of defending selling cigarettes to children, Mr. Clemons? Now it's climate science denial and protecting rich elite right wingers?

"Jason Clemens" has no integrity and anything he writes should be read with extreme skepticism.

How much are your corporate puppetmasters paying you for your deceitful comments, "Jason Clemens?"

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Research_Institute

Right wingers here are alternately spouting absurd, fictional scenarios, Enron math, and a cry baby attitude about the richest paying taxes.

But, hey, right wingers lied the country into a war, lied the country into deregulating the banking industry that resulted in the current Great Recession, and lied the country into believing that the last three Republican Debtor Presidents were (falsely) fiscally 'conservative,'* so underestimating the power of the Neo-Con-Artists and the fools that follow them is done at the nation's peril.

* In right wing world, "fiscally conservative" means doubling the US debt every time a Republican is in office.
http://havenworks.com/us/debt

Ezra's math proves that the rich bear a much heavier burden in taxes, both as a percentage and to how much they actually pay.

First, the point of Klein's post was not that the wealthy pay more taxes. Of course they do because they make a lot more money (that's why they're considered wealthy).

His point was that the "The top X% of income earners pay Y% of total taxes" is really an irrelevant number and a pretty useless way of looking at how to attribute the costs of running government. And that point has gone essentially unchallenged.

Second, how is it unfair that the rich "bear a heavier burden" regarding taxes? Would it be better to have those who can't put food on the table bear a heavier burden? Under a straight 20% flat tax, is it an easier "burden" for someone making $20,000 to pay $4,000 in taxes or someone making $2 million to pay $400,000?

Anyone who believes in an exemption for the first X thousand dollars on income believes in a progressive tax. The only remaining question is how progressive it should be. (And the progressive rates of the 1990s obviously were obviously not a disincentive for some people to become extremely wealthy.)

"They are not bearing a heavier burden as a percentage of their incomes. They're bearing it in relation to everyone else's incomes."

Put the calculator down before you hurt yourself, Ezra.

Ezra points out that "the top 20 percent [of income earners] accounts for almost 60 percent of the national income."

But the right wingers here feel that the top 20% that get 60% of the national income pie shouldn't pay proportionally.

Why does the right wing hate the 80% of Americans who only take home only 40% of the income pie?

@pseudonymous: "Oh, Shay-shay, a job ain't "created" until some working stiff actually does it."

That's a self-serving and ridiculous statement.

jb said:
"All else that is needed is whatever it takes to get up off your ass and do something productive."

You should tell that to your lazy ass unemployed wife.

"[T]he 20% of the population that has less than 4% of the money should pay MORE and the 20% that has over half the money should pay LESS? Really?"

Finally, one of them gets it.

Quoting Kathie Brown:

"Just one more little thing to have him clarify. He says:
"The average rate for the lowest 20% is 4.3 percent while the average rate for the top 20% is 25.8% - a full 6 factors higher than the lower average rate." Actually, the comparison proves little; 6 times (not "factor")is actually a tad regressive if we use a top income of $10,000 for quintile 1 and a lowest bound for quintile 5 of $100,000. These are vaguely what I recall those bounds to be from other statistics I've seen. So a "10 factor" would be more proportional. But this question is not about upper and lower bounds of quintiles."

Notice the inclusion of the word "rate". You are confusing "6 times" greater tax rate with 6 times greater tax payment. They are not the same. Using your hypothetical $10,000 vs $100,000 income example, the person with $100,000 of income, if paying a 6 times greater tax rate, would pay a 60 times greater amount of taxes.

10 times the income, 60 times the taxes. Either you fundamentally misunderstood the math or you have a very strange definition for the word "regressive".

Quoting jb:
"Your tag line says it all: "There but for fortune go I."
I think that in that single simple phrase, you have encapsulated the philosophical difference between liberal and conservative thought in this country.
To the liberal, those of us in greater economic comfort are there by the grace of God (or some other power)."

I'm very aware of the *opportunities* that have been offered to me by society, but society didn't *give* me anything other the opportunity to direct my own life based on my intelligence, work ethic, and thrift. When I left high school, I worked as a manual laborer for years. I taught myself how to use a computer, then taught myself how to troubleshoot a computer, then taught myself how to program. The only entity that gave me any *real* aid in bettering myself was the online MSDN library. I'm now making a comfortable wage.

Now, when I see a landscaper pulling weeds or raking leaves, I don't think "there but for fortune go I", I think "damn I'm glad I taught myself to code and that I don't have to work outside in the rain anymore". I am, however, very aware of the opportunity that society has given me to take those self taught skills and use them to build a better childhood for my daughter than I had.

"The grace of God is not randomly distributed to a few lucky individuals in the box in the kennel. Any person fortunate enough to be in this great nation already has all of God's grace that he or she needs to be successful."

Exactly.

"Oh, Shay-shay, a job ain't "created" until some working stiff actually does it. But I'm sure you think you've created 14 billion jobs in your addled, twisted head..." So that is why the unemployment rate is heading north with a bullet --all those high school drop out working stiffs are just sitting around waiting to get started on those jobs they're going to create just as as soon as they get out of bed ... 10 or 11 am in late 2011 ought be about right.

"MikeMangum" apparently doesn't know that it was DARPA, a federally funded government agency, that created the internet that he's writing on.

Nor does "MikeMangum" have any historical sense of conservatism's claim of the 'divine right of kings' and the right wing belief that the rich are somehow touched by God while the poor are somehow receiving a just lesson from God.

Right wing ideology completely opposes Christ's commands to be concerned about the least amongst us.

But right wingers repudiated Christ a long, long time ago.

True Christians know that Christ was and is a liberal.

--------
The right wing's tea bagger tyranny:

"TYRRANY": first they came for the dictionaries...

I guess all I can say is 'wow'! News Reference sure seems to be a bit edgy? As the old saying goes, 'doth he protest to much? I must have really hit an exposed nerve.'

I won't waste my (and everyone else's) time going line by line and fisking his response. But I will respond to a few of the more choice attacks he leveled.

- '"Coolio," above, pulls the classic right wing con job of stringing multiple fallacies together... First, not all rich people are right wingers.
(**Never made the statement that they were - News Reference must not be very good at reading comprehension)

Second, not all right wingers are evil.* (** Well Thank God he was at least kind enough to grant that assumption!)

Third, "Coolio's" vanity is a central pillar of right wing elitism. A good portion of the right wing elite truly believe that they are the 'masters of the universe' and that without them everything would fall apart. (** I think I distinctly remember saying that I '...luckily fall into that category of 'evil rich person' with a very large household income.' Not sure how he got to where I believe I am a 'master of the universe'...again, reading comprehension)'

- Then News Reference falls back on to a classic 'leftwing' meme '...They can follow Republican Cheney's Haliburton/KBR corporation to Dubai.' Always throw out Haliburton, Cheney and KBR when you have no facts to argue! Well done. That surely plays well at the weekly hate the right parties!

- News Reference also seems to decide that because I am a libertarian, that I must take that to its absolute extreme and embrace '...Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe has no functioning government to speak of. Zimbabwe is the 'Galt's Gulch' of the world.' I think what he missed is that libertarian's love capitalism as much (if not more) than small government. Zimbabwe, I would argue, is not a capitalist's dream... but never let something like facts or reality get in the way of making a snarky attacking comment.

- And here is where News Reference really 'jumps the shark'. 'Plus, everyone that's been doing the hard sweat labor would be staying.' Talk about elitism. News Reference assumes that us 'evil rich people' don't actually do any REAL work. We likely just sit around and tell the unfortunate working poor what to do. Then we take breaks where we; steal candy from babies, then eat babies, then beat our wives, kick helpless little dogs, etc., etc, etc. I am not sure how he defines hard work - maybe it is only based on the amount of sweat one generates. If that is his only metric, then maybe I don't work super hard (although, I do sweat... I am not immune to that). But, if he doesn't believe me being up at 4am to catch a flight, busting my a$$ all day with various customer meetings, closing deals (and adding millions of dollars to my company's top line and bottom line - these dollars pay salaries)and then catching flight back to home - only to arrive after midnight thus ending a long 20 hour day... if that isn't hard work. I am not sure what they would qualify? Only laying concrete? Doing landscaping? What?

I won't go into more details because if what I have stated above doesn't make an impact - the nothing likely will.

Quoting News Reference:

"Nor does "MikeMangum" have any historical sense of conservatism's claim of the 'divine right of kings' and the right wing belief that the rich are somehow touched by God while the poor are somehow receiving a just lesson from God.

Right wing ideology completely opposes Christ's commands to be concerned about the least amongst us."

"Conservatism" the label isn't what I care about; I care about specific policies. I am extremely sympathetic to the philosophies of those who fought against the idea of the divine right of kings, whom I refer to as "classical liberals". I don't think you would have had much support for your class hatred amongst them, since they explicitly rejected the entire concept of wealth redistribution.

As far as "Christ's commands to be concerned about the least amongst us", nowhere did I say that I oppose that philosophy. I may be a horribly lapsed catholic, but I don't remember the bible being a guide to public policy so much as a guide to *individual* behavior. Generousity is freely giving to someone else, and it is a virtue. Being forced at gunpoint to hand a portion of your money to someone else is not a virtue because there is no choice involved. Robbing from Peter to give Peter's money to Paul, all the while telling Paul what a wonderful person you are for doing so is not a virtue either.

I do my charitable giving myself. I neither need nor desire to shed that responsibility and salve my conscience by advocating that other people be forced to give to charity in my stead. Nor do I desire to cloak myself in the mantle of righteousness for do so.

I can tell you from direct experience that there is nothing enlightening about being poor, nor is there anything that makes wealthy people inherently venal. I've never been rich, but I have been poor, and there is nothing in my experience digging ditches, mowing lawns, and pulling weeds that somehow made me a better person than those who made more money than I did. Refusing to take food stamps, housing support, and other government aid when it was available to me...now that did indeed make me a better person.

Right wing ideology completely opposes Christ's commands to be concerned about the least amongst us.

But right wingers repudiated Christ a long, long time ago.

True Christians know that Christ was and is a liberal.

--------

Right. That's why conservatives give more to charity than liberals do

http://blog.beliefnet.com/castingstones/2008/04/conservatives-give-more-to-cha.html

In his book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservativism (Basic Books, 2006), Brooks discovered that approximately equal percentages of liberals and conservatives give to private charitable causes. However, conservatives gave about 30 percent more money per year to private charitable causes, even though his study found liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year in income than did conservative families. This greater generosity among conservative families proved to be true in Brooks' research for every income group, "from poor to middle class to rich."

This "giving gap" also extended beyond money to time donated to charitable causes, as well. Brooks also discovered that in 2002, conservative Americans were much more likely to donate blood each year than liberals and to do so more often within a year. Brooks found "if liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply in the United States would jump by about 45 percent."

A group who owns 55% of the wealth only carrying 26% of the tax burden? I fail to see how the rich are being unfairly taxed. The lower three groups all contribute a greater percentage to our nation in taxes than they own in terms of our nation's overall wealth. The tax burden is on the three lower quintiles...not the top two.

Can't you people even read a simple graph?

Katie,

Careful with the snark. The graph says nothing about who owns what percentage of wealth, nor does it say (directly) who bears what percentage of the tax burden.

It does, however, say which quintile makes what percent of all income, and the average tax rate each quintile pays on their income.

From this, one could infer some estimates about what percent of the total tax burden is borne by each quintile:

Percent of all income paid as taxes = 55.7%*25.8% + 19.5%*17.6% + 13.2%*14.2% + 8.4%*10.2% + 3.9%*4.3% = ~20.7%

1Q: 55.7%*25.8%/20.7% = 69.4% of all taxes
2Q: 19.5%*17.6%/20.7% = 16.6% of all taxes
3Q: 13.2%*14.2%/20.7% = 9.1% of all taxes
4Q: 8.4%*10.2%/20.7% = 4.1% of all taxes
5Q: 3.9%*4.3%/20.7% = 0.8% of all taxes

Now, if it is yours (and presumably Ezra's) position that a group of people with 55.7% of the income shouldn't be paying less than 69.4% of the taxes, and a group of people with 3.9% of the income shouldn't be paying more than 0.8% of the taxes, that's fine. But you can't use Exra's claim that high income paople "are not bearing a heavier burden as a percentage of their incomes" to support that position, because it is demonstrated false by Ezra's own statistics.

Correction: all of my references to taxes are meant to refer to federal income taxes. Would love to see the same tax data including state income taxes, capital gains taxes, and SS and Medicare withholding!

If you don't know about jewelry knowledge, but want to action you can see jewelry fashion review,then maybe you can save your money!

We offer all kinds of links of london jewellery and make all your jewellery shopping easy!

If you want to buy links of london jewellery online