CBO: The rich pay an outsized share of taxes

Wealthy Americans earn about 50 percent of all income but pay nearly 70 percent of the federal tax burden, according to the latest analysis Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office — though the agency said the very richest have seen their share of taxes fall the past few years.
CBO looked at 2007 through 2009 — the latest years data are available, but enough to include the early effects of the last recession — and found the bottom 20 percent of American earners paid just three-tenths of a percent of the total federal tax burden, while the richest 20 percent paid 67.9 percent of taxes.
The top 1 percent, whom President Obama has made a target during the presidential campaign, earned 13.4 percent of all pre-tax income but paid 22.3 percent of taxes in 2009, CBO said. When tax burden is figured in, the top 1 percent took in only 11.5 percent of income.
But the richest 1 percent’s share of the total tax burden did drop 4.4 percentage points from 2007 to 2009 — a figure likely to bolster Mr. Obama’s calls for them to pay more by letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire.
The big losers over the past few years were the rest of the well-off — those in the 60th percent to 99th percent of earnings — who saw their tax burdens go up.
“Specifically, between 2007 and 2009, the share of taxes paid fell for the bottom three income quintiles, was close to flat for the fourth quintile, but rose for the highest quintile,” CBO said. “Within the top quintile, however, the shift was uneven; the share paid by the top percentile fell, and the share paid by the rest of the top quintile rose.”
In terms of actual earnings, the top 1 percent suffered the most in the recession, with their average earnings dropping from $1.9 million to $1.2 million. The lowest 20 percent saw their incomes drop from $23,900 to $23,500 during that time.
CBO included a wide range of measures of income including wages, employer-paid health insurance premiums and capital gains.
CBO said the top 1 percent earned an average of 1.9 million in pre-tax income in 2009, while the top 20 percent as a whole averaged $273,000. The fourth quintile averaged $98,400, the middle quintile averaged $67,600, the second quintile averaged $45,600, and the lowest quintile averaged $23,900 in income.
Mr. Obama has called for households making $250,000 a year or more to pay higher income tax rates, though he has proposed extending the Bush-era rates for those making less.
Republicans have countered that they want a one-year extension of all current rates in order to have breathing space to tackle a broader overhaul of the tax code.
CBO, the non-partisan agency that serves as Congress’ official scorekeeper, said the current tax code is progressive chiefly because of the income tax structure. On average, the lowest 40 percent of earners actually get money back through the income tax code because of refundable tax credits.
Actual changes to the tax code between 2007 and 2009 benefited the lowest earners, CBO said.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/10/cbo-rich-pay-outsized-share-taxes/

And what percentage of all wealth is owned by the top 1 percent? and the top 5?

canndo said:

And what percentage of all wealth is owned by the top 1 percent? and the top 5?

Click to expand...

bleating about this percent or that percent is demanding answers which will NEVER be provided.

economists divide the populace into fifths, not individual percentiles. those numbers would be meaningless except as fodder for populist rabblerousers and demagogues

why dont you figure it out yourself instead of demanding others do the work for you?

because you cant do the math.

rollinbud said:

Wealthy Americans earn about 50 percent of all income but pay nearly 70 percent of the federal tax burden, according to the latest analysis Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office — though the agency said the very richest have seen their share of taxes fall the past few years.

Click to expand...

The political views of The Washington Times are often described as conservative.[SUP][48][/SUP][SUP][49][/SUP][SUP][50][/SUP] The Washington Post reported: "the Times was established by Moon to combat communism and be a conservative alternative to what he perceived as the liberal bias of The Washington Post."[SUP][5][/SUP]

The Washington Times was founded in 1982 by News World Communications, an international media conglomerate associated with the Unification Church which also owns newspapers in South Korea, Japan, and South America, as well as the news agency United Press International.[SUP][1][/SUP] Bo Hi Pak, the chief aide of church founder and leader Sun Myung Moon, was the founding president and the founding chairman of the board.[SUP][2[/SUP]

ChesusRice said:

The political views of The Washington Times are often described as conservative.[SUP][48][/SUP][SUP][49][/SUP][SUP][50][/SUP] The Washington Post reported: "the Times was established by Moon to combat communism and be a conservative alternative to what he perceived as the liberal bias of The Washington Post."[SUP][5][/SUP]

The Washington Times was founded in 1982 by News World Communications, an international media conglomerate associated with the Unification Church which also owns newspapers in South Korea, Japan, and South America, as well as the news agency United Press International.[SUP][1][/SUP] Bo Hi Pak, the chief aide of church founder and leader Sun Myung Moon, was the founding president and the founding chairman of the board.[SUP][2[/SUP]

Click to expand...

What does this have to do with the CBO commenting on taxes?

Dr Kynes said:

bleating about this percent or that percent is demanding answers which will NEVER be provided.

economists divide the populace into fifths, not individual percentiles. those numbers would be meaningless except as fodder for populist rabblerousers and demagogues

why dont you figure it out yourself instead of demanding others do the work for you?

because you cant do the math.

Click to expand...

Really? I can't do the math or is it that showing the disproportionate ownership of wealth might show your argument up.

No matter what, The uber-wealthy do not pay enough. Under Eisenhauer, the rate was over 90%. That sounds more appropriate. Tax them tell they bleed, then provide social services for all, medical, food, housing, whatever it takes to level the playing field, yeah that's right, I am a total socialists. I am for social justice through balanced taxation. There is plenty of money, it is just controlled by too few.

medicineman said:

No matter what, The uber-wealthy do not pay enough. Under Eisenhauer, the rate was over 90%. That sounds more appropriate. Tax them tell they bleed, then provide social services for all, medical, food, housing, whatever it takes to level the playing field, yeah that's right, I am a total socialists. I am for social justice through balanced taxation. There is plenty of money, it is just controlled by too few.

Click to expand...

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

medicineman said:

Under Eisenhauer, the rate was over 90%. That sounds more appropriate.it is just controlled by too few.

Click to expand...

It sounds appropriate to violently steal all of a mans money to you? Interesting Viewpoint...Are you some kind of thief or murderer by trade as welll or do you only share thief ideology? Are you a thug?

[video=youtube;iw7OINGjm5c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw7OINGjm5c[/video]

deprave said:

It sounds appropriate to violently steal all of a mans money to you? Interesting Viewpoint...Are you some kind of thief or murderer by trade as welll or do you only share thief ideology? Are you a thug?

[video=youtube;iw7OINGjm5c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw7OINGjm5c[/video]

Click to expand...

No, no, and no......I figured to rile up the right, mission accomplishid..............

medicineman said:

No, no, and no.....................

Click to expand...

you said its more appropriate for the mafia to take over 90% of a mans money, I only assumed you are also a mafia thug, why else would you support that?

canndo said:

And what percentage of all wealth is owned by the top 1 percent? and the top 5?

Click to expand...

We don't tax wealth in this country, except for the repulsive estate tax. But since this thread is about income tax, what's your point?

the point in encroaching plutocracy fueled by the failure that is trickle down economics, aka upwards wealth redistribution.

also...

moar trkile dwon plze! kthxbai

BUT BUT BUT
Rollinbud
you discredit the CBO when they say Obamacare will save trillions

ChesusRice said:

BUT BUT BUT
Rollinbud
you discredit the CBO when they say Obamacare will save trillions

Click to expand...

got a link?

Yeah got a link on that one, wasn't it the CBO that discredited that one? I think the real question might be why are you lying about it?? What strain of pot do you prefer, I want to avoid it?
Analysis: Obamacare to cost $2.6 trillion over first full decade 3:40 PM 07/11/2012

President Barack Obama promised his health-care law would cost approximately $900 billion over ten years when he first proposed it.
Since then, the price tag has continued to climb. Total spending under the Affordable Care Act will reach $2.6 trillion over its first full decade, according to a Senate Budget Committee analysis, which was based on Congressional Budget Office estimates and growth rates.
The analysis was released by the committee’s ranking member Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, of Alabama.
The president announced his proposal to a joint session of Congress in 2009, saying: “[The] plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years — less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration.”
The CBO found that the president’s claim fell short by $5 billion, however, when leveled against their estimates of spending provisions necessary for the new law. Adding up costs like implementation and closing Medicare coverage gaps, the CBO estimated that the law would cost $1.4 trillion from fiscal year 2010 to 2019.
But the majority of the spending provisions do not take effect until 2014, four years into the decade Obama based his estimates on.
“Congressional Democrats delayed these provisions in order to show only six years of spending under the plan in the original 10-year budget window (from FY2010-19) used by CBO at the time the law was enacted,” said the press release.
Thus, an estimate of the law’s cost must cover 2014-2023, the first decade the Affordable Care Act will be in full swing. The Senate Budget Committee found that total spending over that period will amount to at least $2.6 trillion.
After the Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional, the CBO promised to score the law again and release that score the week of July 23.
“CBO is still assessing the effects of the Supreme Court’s decision related to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on the agency’s projections of federal spending and revenue under current law,” CBO Director Doug Elmendorf wrote in a Monday blog post.
The budget committee analysis comes the same day that House Republicans voted to repeal Obamacare.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/11/analysis-obamacare-to-cost-2-6-trillion-over-first-full-decade/#ixzz20MJhboxO

rollinbud said:

Yeah got a link on that one, wasn't it the CBO that discredited that one?

Click to expand...

March 13, 2012
In preparing the March 2012 baseline budget projections, CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have updated estimates of the budgetary effects of the health insurance coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—the health care legislation enacted in March 2010. Those provisions:

• Establish a mandate for most legal residents of the United States to obtain health insurance;
• Create insurance “exchanges” through which certain individuals and families may receive federal subsidies to substantially reduce the cost of purchasing health insurance;
• Significantly expand eligibility for Medicaid;
• Impose an excise tax on certain health insurance plans with relatively high premiums;
• Establish penalties on certain employers who do not provide minimum health benefits to their employees; and
• Make other changes to prior law.

The most recent previous estimate of those effects was prepared in March 2011. For more details on the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA, you can see CBO’s cost estimate for the health care legislation, which was issued in March 2010.
[h=4]The Estimated Net Cost of the Insurance Coverage Provisions Is Smaller Than Estimated in March 2011[/h]CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012-2021 period-about $50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period. (For comparison with previous estimates, these numbers cover the 2012-2021 period; estimates including 2022 can be found below.)
The net costs–specifically the combined effects on federal revenues and mandatory spending–reflect:

• Gross additional costs of $1.5 trillion for Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), tax credits and other subsidies for the purchase of health insurance through the newly established exchanges and related costs, and tax credits for small employers,
• Offset in part by about $0.4 trillion in receipts from penalty payments, the new excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and other budgetary effects (mostly increases in tax revenues).

Those amounts do not encompass all of the budgetary impacts of the ACA. They do not include federal administrative costs, which will be subject to future appropriation action. Also, they do not include the effects of the many other provisions of the law, including some that will cause significant reductions in Medicare spending relative to that under prior law and others that will generate added tax revenues relative those under prior law.
CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012-2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated.
[h=4]Gross Costs Are Higher, but Offsetting Budgetary Effects Are Also Higher[/h]The current estimate of the gross costs of the coverage provisions—$1,496 billion through 2021—is about $50 billion higher than last year’s projection; however, the other budgetary effects of those provisions, which partially offset those gross costs, also have increased in CBO’s and JCT’s estimates—to $413 billion—leading to the small decrease in the net 10-year tally.
Over the 10-year period from 2012 through 2021, enactment of the coverage provisions of the ACA was projected last March to increase federal deficits by $1,131 billion, whereas the March 2012 estimate indicates that those provisions will increase deficits by $1,083 billion.
The net cost was boosted by:

• An additional $168 billion in estimated costs for Medicaid and CHIP, and
• $8 billion less in estimated revenues from the excise tax on certain high-premium health insurance plans.

But those increases were more than offset by a reduction of:

• $97 billion in the projected costs for the tax credits and other subsidies for health insurance provided through the exchanges and related spending
• $20 billion in the projected costs for tax credits for small employers, and
• $107 billion in deficits from the projected revenue effects of changes in taxable compensation and penalty payments and from other small changes in estimated spending.

[h=4]The Revisions in Estimates Reflect Legislative, Economic, and Technical Changes[/h]The major sources for the differences between the March 2011 and March 2012 projections are the following:

• New Legislation. Several laws were enacted during the past year that changed the estimated budgetary effects of the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA.
• Changes in the Economic Outlook. The March 2012 baseline incorporates CBO’s macroeconomic forecast published in January 2012, which reflects a slower recovery when compared with the forecast published in January 2011 (which was used in producing the March 2011 baseline).
• Technical Changes. The March 2012 baseline incorporates updated projections of the growth in private health insurance premiums, reflecting slower growth than the previous projections. In addition, CBO and JCT made a number of other technical changes in their estimating procedures.

[h=4]The Number of the Nonelderly Uninsured Is Higher Than Previously Estimated[/h]CBO and JCT’s projections of health insurance coverage have changed since last March. Fewer people are now expected to obtain health insurance coverage from their employer or in insurance exchanges; more are now expected to obtain coverage from Medicaid or CHIP or from nongroup or other sources. More are expected to be uninsured. The extent of the change in insurance coverage varies from year to year.
Compared with prior law, the ACA is now estimated by CBO and JCT to reduce the number of nonelderly people without health insurance coverage by 30 million to 33 million in 2016 and subsequent years, leaving 26 million to 27 million nonelderly residents uninsured in those years (see Table 3 at the end of the report). The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance is projected to rise from 82 percent in 2012 to 93 percent in 2016 and subsequent years. That share rose to 95 percent in CBO and JCT’s previous estimate.
According to the current estimates, from 2016 on, between 20 million and 23 million people will receive coverage through the new insurance exchanges, and 16 million to 17 million additional people will be enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP as a result of ACA. Also, 3 million to 5 million fewer people will have coverage through an employer compared with the number under prior law
[h=4]Estimates Through Fiscal Year 2022[/h]This report also presents estimates through fiscal year 2022, because the baseline projection period now extends through that additional year. The ACA’s provisions related to insurance coverage are now projected to have a net cost of $1,252 billion over the 2012-2022 period; that amount represents a gross cost to the federal government of $1,762 billion, offset in part by $510 billion in receipts and other budgetary effects (primarily revenues from penalties and other sources).
The addition of 2022 to the projection period has the effect of increasing the costs of the coverage provisions of the ACA relative to those projected in March 2011 for the 2012-2021 period because that change adds a year in which the expansion of eligibility for Medicaid and subsidies for health insurance purchased through the exchanges will be in effect. CBO and JCT have not estimated the budgetary effects in 2022 of the other provisions of the ACA; over the 2012-2021 period, those other provisions were previously estimated to reduce budget deficits.
If we could get another stimulus program to goose the economy into quicker recovery, the cost savings would likely grow much faster. What conservative budget chopper wouldn’t prefer that solution?