Déjà vu 2008
Earlier this year I wrote an article examining the claim that increased taxation on individuals making $250K or more would curb our Federal budget deficit and pay down the debt. President Obama made that claim during the 2008 election cycle and well into his presidency. The math showed that claim to be wildly untrue and betrayed the most probable motivation for making it: Obama wanted to excite the 47% who pay no Federal income tax in order to score votes.
Here we find ourselves in 2011 entering an election cycle where Obama is vulnerable on the #1 topic on most American’s minds, the economy. Facing disenfranchised voters and a Democratic base whose support is wavering, the President has seized upon the time-honored strategy of class warfare. Now that’s a strong claim, but I’m only willing to make it if the numbers support it, and as you’ll find below, they do.
Breaking Down the Numbers
Let’s take a look at what affect a $1 million dollar earner tax would have on our deficit and national debt. All figures in the list below are based on latest available IRS tax data from irs.gov: 2009 IRS SOI Tax Stats.
- Of the 104.2 million Americans who filed 2009 tax returns, 235,665 (0.23%) earned $1 million or more
- The combined gross income of this group was $626 billion ($626,464,479,000.00 exact amount)
- The total tax revenue generated from this income group was $182 billion ($182,369,749,000.00 exact amount), which represents 19.13% of all Federal income tax revenue
- The IRS tax data shows the average effective Federal income tax rate paid by this income group was 29.11%. In contrast, the largest middle class group of wage earners (the $50,000 to $75,000 bracket) pay an effective tax rate of 14.17%, less than half that of million dollar earners. The claim by the Obama administration that million dollar earners pay taxes at a lower rate than middle class earners is absolute fiction.
The Results
Now that we’ve reduced the IRS tax data to usable figures, lets see what kind of dent we can make on the deficit and national debt:
The annual budget deficit is 1.4 trillion dollars. However, you must add back in the $182 billion in taxes from million dollar earners to create a baseline, which means our real deficit starting point is 1.582 trillion.
Let’s assume we collectively feel the current effective tax rate on million dollar earners of 29.11% is not enough and opt to grab our pitchforks and torches. Below are higher effective rates we could impose, including their effect on the deficit – remember these figures are based on effective tax rates, not loophole-riddled, deduction-filled tax brackets:
- 35% effective rate = $1.36 trillion deficit, a reduction of 2.64%
- 50% effective rate = $1.27 trillion deficit, a reduction of 9.35%
- 75% effective rate = $1.11 trillion deficit, a reduction of 20.53%
- 100% effective rate = $956 billion deficit, a reduction of 31.72%
Any claim that tax increases on million dollar earners under a Buffett Rule would reduce the national debt are demonstrably false. In fact, forget the national debt, you couldn’t even reduce the annual Federal budget deficit by a third if you took every last penny these people earned. When you include servicing the national debt, any small annual deficit reduction achieve from taking 100% of million dollar earner incomes would pale in comparison to the tidal wave of interest we will soon be drowning in.
Don’t Be Lame, Do The Math
When you hear promises from politicians of a quick economic fix of any kind, please do our democratic republic a favor and investigate it before you vote one way or another. In this case the Obama administration is using a false premise to invoke class warfare in an attempt to secure votes, what else have you fallen for? Moral of the story: Spend an evening doing the math and getting informed, it’s not rocket science.

The article cunningly avoids the *real* issue, of the super-wealthy who structure their income as investments -- "capital gains" and "carried interest". Keep all your earnings in a company, own the company -- perhaps via some trusts -- collect the money a few years later, and you can pay an absurdly low rate of tax on it. (Disclaimer: I'm not a tax specialist -- I just know enough, to give the general outline of how the dishonest wealthy are structuring their finances, while hoarding capital & complaining about taxation "killing the job creators". News: they're not creating, and won't, until consumer demand picks up.) 10% *would* be a useful deficit reduction. Don't say it's not. There are hundreds of billions, perhaps vastly more, in carried earnings. A straightforward tax of 35% on that -- would make a *real* hole in the deficit. Really, this article's a joke. Written to justify a position, by someone who couldn't find one. Deficit reduction works by finding 5% here, 10% there, a few percent in many places.. adds up.
This is what Im saying: "Buffet rule" don't target income taxes,just state bare fact,that richer U R less % of your income go for taxes! Now. let me show You with a simple math: BTW he talk about ppl making over mil dollars keep that in mind... Its a hypothetical example, OK! Let say U make 10 mil/Y and You purchase a wild yacht that cost 1 mill! Current sales tax rate being 10 % U pay 100 000 in taxes, right...very simple math, OK! Now same yacht is sale to a person that make 1 billion a year,he will also paid 100 000 in taxes right! Well, did they get taxed same ratio with their income? -No they R not! ...100 000 is 1 % of the first person Income, ...100 000 is 0.1% of the secon person Income! That just a sphere of rich people and their luxury items...it is much wider disproportion lower U get! The real Q we should be asking is not how much is fair, but how much people should pay according to the benefits they withdraw from Society! I may visit California every year once or twice while trucks that supply Vegas with seafood from California ( again hypothetical example keep that in mind) circle I/15 every day of the year! Who should carry the bigger burden of taxes that should maintain the roads? Etc,etc... Now, the second Q we should ask is: Why such a fuss about income taxes? - Cause they are the one Rich people have to pay, they are the only that are progressive! So they fight tooth and nails to legally lower them ( lobieng Congress for millions tax deduction, tax breaks, subsidies and what else! Next they have an army of lawyers to find cracks in the tax law and "save" them millions! When that
When that option is exhausted, they are able to move the income to offshore account and other gray tax aria! Now,In my views Income is not money people make working certain hours and get paid for it, that's wages! Income is money that are coming in an augmentation of invested capital: rent, interest, stocks! IMO no person that get a paycheck should EVER, EVER pay income taxes,period!Why?Coz they pay payroll, and sales taxes, and every Utility charge them taxes, and all the taxes and fees that are part of the local state budgets! As I understand,it was set that way in beginning,but then Rich people lobbing change the tax code! 1943 include wages too! From wikipedia: quote! In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The United States Supreme Court in its ruling Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. stated that the amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prevented the courts from taking the power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belongs. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.
One way the rich get to lower their rate is to include more and more people into the system so they will have more support! As for Friedman: his critique is pointed to socialism! Totally different issues. have no time and I'm not willing to go there today, OK? Not to mention that he was an Economist that I call apologetics...those who will do anything to justify the system...And he did, and he was much more successful then other Economist: Milton Friedman was a great salesperson, if U understand what I try to say! Marie
I was wondering why people who defend the falsehood of the "Buffet Rule" keep talking about income taxes when by definition, its not true! Here it is, as defined by The president! ...“that people making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay.” It say so clear that people who make more pay less of their INCOME IN TAXES, all taxes in ratio with their income... Just to let You know, and I wish You come up with some numbers that will dispute that claim... Marie