Payroll taxes are 7.65% for the employee and 7.65% employer, and they start from the first penny you make with no deductions or exemptions. So it would be impossible to have an effective rate of 4.3% for the bottom quintile if you accounted for payroll taxes. You have to add 15% to the numbers you listed for incomes up to whatever the SS annual maximum is (somewhere around $100k, I believe) to get the net effective Income + Payroll tax rates.
Actually, I take this back. It seems they calculate a negative income tax rate due to tax credits, so that's how it gets below the payroll tax rate. However, they do not include the 7.65% employer share of payroll taxes.
Someone didn't look at the report I linked. The CBO says the effective INCOME tax rate for the bottom quintile is -6.8% the second quintile is -.8%, and the top quintile is 14.1%. I used total effective tax rates in my earlier post. Also of interest is that the top quintile has 69.3% of the entire tax burden.
Looking a bit further, the top quintile seems to start with incomes around $100,000, which is actually far below the threshold of the Buffett Rule ($1M+) or the Dem's "let the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy" plan ($250k+). From what I can find, the top quintile makes a bit over 50% of the total income in the country, and a larger share of the country's disposable income - so their 69% tax burden is not out of whack with their income if we believe in a progressive tax system. http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Income-Distribution.php The 2nd chart is the most useful if looking at who can afford to bear the burden of taxes. The top two quintiles, with whatever tax rates they have been paying, have really been the only groups of people in the country to see their real incomes rise substantailly over the past 30 years, with the top quintile and the top 5% subset being the most significant of that. So from there, if we believe in the idea that the country is healthiest when the whole population is benefiting from economic growth, then its hard to say that they wealthy are paying too much - because in the current tax system, they are the only ones growing the majority of the new wealth. Also of note, since 2000 or so, the system hasn't worked for anyone, with real mean incomes flat or declining for all quintiles, even before the 2008 crash.
If the Senate REALLY wanted the Buffett rule, they could write it into a budget and pass it with 51 votes.
I don't know if that is true or not. I do know that this is true: If the Senate really wanted ANYTHING to get done they could stop the unprecedented practice of requiring a 60 vote super-majority to pass ANYTHING. Like so many other crappy things the GOP decided to do for the first time ever since Jan. 2009, this never happened before Obama.
Hey now, no need to get all worked up... I seems whenever Northside and I reel off a few descriptions of reserve banking and how the federal government actually funds itself, these "Obama bankrupting our country" threads get awfully quiet. The private sector is still deleveraging, a government surplus would reduce the private sector's financial assets, and the government isn't bound by a need to fund its spending via tax receipts. I'll ask a third time. Esteban, basso, please describe to me how deficit reduction at this juncture would be beneficial to anyone. If any of those three facts I listed above (and my two previous posts) are wrong, then show me why they're wrong.
Budget's only take 51 votes to pass. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/wh-chief-of-staff-errs-on-senate-budget-rules/ To answer your other ridiculous comment: Here's a list of all Senate Cloture votes since 1917. http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm Yes, the number of cloture votes has increased dramatically since the 110th conference, but the number of cloture filings has also increased dramatically. In fact, by percentage, Democrats in the Senate have killed many more bills and squashed many more nominees. Additionally, 84% of judge filibusters have been forced by Democrats. Don't pretend that Democrats never filibustered when they were in the minority.
I've never claimed the present course has been great, but it's been vastly more beneficial than fiscal restraint/austerity. Removing assets from the private sector while its trying to deleverage is a terrible idea. I'm sure the average family with an underwater mortgage would be thrilled to hear that Uncle Sam wants to raise their taxes and reduce their disposable income. IMHO, there are a lot of things wrong with the present course. My gripes are primarily with where the government is spending its money. I also prefer lower taxes to increased spending because it would put the money directly in the hands of the households instead of various federal programs that have questionable value. Your turn. Do you advocate fiscal austerity? And if so, how do you see it helping anyone?
Who has been preaching austerity? If we actually address the mandatory side of the ledger NOW, we won't have to have austerity. If we don't, austerity is coming whether you want it or not. The debt crisis is coming. It is the most preventable crisis in American history, but every time someone tries to make headway against it, people start screaming "AUSTERITY! In 10 YEARS PAUL RYAN WILL MAKE NEW SENIORS SHOP FOR THE BEST DEAL ON HEALTH INSURANCE! IT'S AUSTERITY! EVIL! EVEN THOUGH THE GOVERNMENT WILL STILL PAY THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE COSTS! EEEEK!"
So, Romney is in the middle quintile? Hey, fellas, I'm doing better than Mitt. Drinks on me next time I'm in Texas.
What debt crisis? You can reel off big scary numbers. Japan has a 200% debt-to-GDP ratio, and lower yields than Treasury debt. The only way there can be a "debt crisis" is when bond-holders get skittish and push up the marginal rate on your debt to unsustainable levels. Do you think that will happen that soon when the risk-free rate is equivalent to US Treasury yields in finance courses around the globe?
Nearly everything about the present course has been charted by private market failures, maybe we should regulate the shadow banking industry more tightly so as to prevent this from happening again?
Call me crazy, but it seems like you're preaching austerity. If you're worried about a debt crisis, then you're advocating austerity of some kind...whether it's cutting spending or raising taxes. We can argue all day about what levels of taxes people should be paying or where the government should be spending, but one thing is true: When the government taxes more than it spends, it's effectively removing financial assets from the private sector. Sectoral balances from Economics 101. Moreover, this entire insolvency debate is made all the more ludicrous when you understand the way the government funds its spending. Did you even read the links I posted about the Treasury Department's relationship with the Fed and primary dealers? Primary dealers are REQUIRED to make a reasonable offer on every single T-bill/bond sold. Even if all the investors in the world stopped buying treasuries, the primary dealers MUST. In the event the primary dealers don't have enough money to buy up all the debt, the Fed will create money out of thin air and bolster their reserves so that they can. For decades, the government has basically been funding itself this way. Where's the insolvency? Where's the debt crisis? Where's the looming bankruptcy? You're worrying about insolvency when you should be worrying about things like economic output or inflation/deflation.
