Who Doesn’t Pay Federal Income Taxes (Legally)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2011 12:07 PM GMT
    Contrary to SouthBeach's endless tirades, it appears that the primary reason why 48% of Americans pay no federal income tax is due to Republican tax policies.

    And some of those who are not paying are millionaires.

    BRUCE BARTLETTConservatives are fond of railing against those who are able to legally avoid paying federal income taxes. The Wall Street Journal routinely refers to them as “lucky duckies.”

    Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, recently asserted that it was appalling that about half of all those who file federal income tax returns pay nothing and said this was proof that income taxes must not be raised to reduce the deficit, because the burden would necessarily fall on just half of households.

    But the growth of the non-income-taxpaying population is largely a result of Republican tax policies. The earned-income tax credit is the main reason those with low incomes are largely exempted from federal income taxes. Originated by Gerald Ford, it was expanded by both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush as a better way to help the working poor than raising the minimum wage, which they believed would increase unemployment.

    According to the Tax Foundation, in 1974, before the earned-income tax credit was instituted, 19.2 percent of tax filers had no federal income tax liability. This rose to 25.2 percent in 1975 when the credit took effect.

    During the 1990s, about 24 percent of filers had no income tax liability, but this number took a big jump during the George W. Bush administration as Republicans added a large child credit to the tax code. The percentage of filers with no income tax liability rose to 36.3 percent in 2008, from 25.2 percent in 2000.

    According to new data from the Tax Policy Center, this year 46.4 percent of tax filers will have no federal income tax liability. The following table presents the data.


    As one can see, almost all of those in the bottom income quintile — those with incomes below $16,812 — will have no federal income tax liability this year. About three-fifths of those in the second income quintile will also have no liability, 30 percent of those in the middle quintile, and 7.3 percent of those in the fourth quintile. It is not only the poor who are exempt from federal income taxation; substantial numbers of households in the middle class are also exempted.

    Surprisingly, a not insignificant number of those who are clearly well off are also among the “lucky duckies.” There are 78,000 tax filers with incomes of $211,000 to $533,000 who will pay no federal income taxes this year. Even more amazingly, there are 24,000 households with incomes of $533,000 to $2.2 million with zero income tax liability, and 3,000 tax filers with incomes above $2.2 million with the same federal income tax liability as most of those with incomes barely above the poverty level.

    It is not because of the earned-income tax credit or the child credit that the ultra-wealthy are paying no federal income taxes.

    One reason, undoubtedly, is that capital gains are a huge percentage of their income and they may have losses from previous years to offset any realized gains this year. Perhaps some chose to invest all their wealth in tax-free municipal bonds.

    And, of course, a large industry of tax lawyers make their living advising the wealthy on how to minimize their tax liability by exploiting existing provisions of the tax law.

    These data look only at legal tax avoidance; they do not account for illegal tax evasion, which is quite extensive, especially at the top and the bottom of the income distribution. Those in the middle class who have only wage income are much more limited in their opportunities for evasion.

    The phenomenon of large numbers of non-federal income tax payers has long been a subject of debate. Those on the left emphasize that other taxes, such as payroll taxes, are paid by those with no income tax liability, a point I discussed last week. Those on the right often complain that it is fundamentally undemocratic for such a large percentage of the population to pay nothing to offset the federal government’s general operations. After all, everyone benefits from national military spending and other federal programs.

    Perhaps the right and left can at least agree that it is unseemly for those in the top 1 percent of income distribution, with incomes at least 10 times the median income, to pay no federal income taxes. It’s not socialism to ask them to pay something.

    Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2011 1:21 PM GMT
    Oh NO! Southbeach will be spinning in his grave!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2011 1:52 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidContrary to SouthBeach's endless tirades, it appears that the primary reason why 48% of Americans pay no federal income tax is due to Republican tax policies.

    On the totally messed up "progressive" tax system, I've never laid the blame solely at the doorstep of a single party.

    And, it's still completely ridiculous that 50% of households have zero (or negative) income tax liability (though understandable at the moment as so many people are unemployed).

    We need to redefine in the minds of the liberals what "fair share" means. It does NOT mean 50% of households pay nothing. It does not mean the "millionaires and billionaires" (i.e. single gay men earning $200,001 or more) pay even MORE in income taxes. To start with, "fair share" should mean that EVERYONE with income pays at least SOMETHING in Federal income taxes.

    Bullshit. You have long associated the progressive tax system with liberals, which may have some truth to it, but the reality is that under Clinton and other Democrats, the system was "fairer" in every way. More people paid something (a larger tax base) and those who benefited more paid more (39%).

    This also puts the lie to your "it's a spending problem" argument. I would support doing away with some of those credits, if it was tied to raising the rates for the ultra-wealthy and ending the capital gains loophole.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2011 4:20 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said those who benefited more paid more (39%).

    You are making absolutely no sense.

    I benefit LESS than those receiving government "entitlement" and "welfare" checks and other forms of government assistance simply because I do NOT receive any of that from the government.

    Benefit more from what the taxes pay for: military, infrastructure, an educated workforce, etc.