Chart of the Day: These Are The 47 Percent
inmytree
Posts: 4,741
CHART OF THE DAY: These Are The 47 Percent
Brian Beutler | October 14, 2011, 5:45AM
If the left and the right are proxies in a class war, then they're currently fighting to win a battle of public perception. Each side wants the public to see them as on the side of the beleaguered many against the powerful few.
Democrats are vying for victory by supporting tax increases on millionaires and the "Buffett Rule," which posits that all millionaires should pay at least the same effective tax rates as the middle class. The Occupy Wall Street protesters have turned "We Are The 99 Percent" into a rallying cry.
How do you argue against that? By obscuring what the fight's really about, and perpetuating the sense that hundreds of millions of people are gaming the system. To do this, conservatives and Republican elected officials are citing recent data to create the impression that a small majority of people in the country pay all the taxes, and nearly half (a large minority) pay nothing at all. It's a false impression, and when you break down who comprises this now-famous "47 percent" -- the poor, the disabled, and the elderly -- it makes you wonder why anybody thought it was a good idea to pick a public fight with them.
What's really going on here is that about 47 percent of households paid no federal income tax in 2009. Either they owed nothing, or they got as much back from the federal government as they paid -- or more.
This ignores payroll taxes, state and local taxes, gas taxes, excise taxes and much more. But to hear conservatives talk about it, you'd think these people's entire tax burden was $0.00. In April, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), citing similar data, claimed "According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 49 percent of households are paying 100 percent of taxes coming in to the federal government." Notice the absence of the key qualifier, "income." And Grassley's far from alone.
As Benjy Sarlin explained at length the Republican answer to this problem, remarkably, is that Congress should raise these people's taxes.
So who are these people? This chart, courtesy of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, explains just about everything you need to know.
Right now about one-third of the 47 percent are people who are too old to work, full time students, disability beneficiaries, long-term unemployed and other such despicable freeloaders. Because the 47 percent figure comes from using "households that file" as the denominator it includes people who have part time jobs and low paying jobs, Social Security and unemployment beneficiaries. The rest were people whose jobs paid little enough that, on net, they owed no income taxes. These people may have benefited from the stimulus' Making-Work-Pay tax credit, or saw their incomes drop enough during the recession to qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and so on.
In this regard, attacking the 47 percent for gaming the system is an implicit call for taxing Social Security income, taxing disability benefits, further taxing unemployment benefits, and so on.
Moreover, and this is key, the 47 percent is only 47 percent because of the recession. As CBPP wrote in May, the high number "reflects the unique circumstances of 2009, when the recession greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes and when temporary tax cuts created by the 2009 Recovery Act -- including the "Making Work Pay" tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits -- were in effect. Together, these developments removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired. In a more typical year, 35 percent to 40 percent of households owe no federal income tax. In 2007, the figure was 37.9 percent."
As CBPP tax expert Chuck Marr explained to me, this is a good phenomenon, and one that helped prevent the economy from sinking even further in 2009.
"The place to start on this though is that the years discussed are just not typical -- this is the worst economic climate since the Great Depression," Marr said. The numbers have been bumped by about 10 percentage points "that's what you want -- should we argue that we should raise taxes on these people to keep it at 37 percent?"
That's what a lot of Republicans seem to want. But the result would be terrible for an already weak economy.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... hp?ref=fpa
Brian Beutler | October 14, 2011, 5:45AM
If the left and the right are proxies in a class war, then they're currently fighting to win a battle of public perception. Each side wants the public to see them as on the side of the beleaguered many against the powerful few.
Democrats are vying for victory by supporting tax increases on millionaires and the "Buffett Rule," which posits that all millionaires should pay at least the same effective tax rates as the middle class. The Occupy Wall Street protesters have turned "We Are The 99 Percent" into a rallying cry.
How do you argue against that? By obscuring what the fight's really about, and perpetuating the sense that hundreds of millions of people are gaming the system. To do this, conservatives and Republican elected officials are citing recent data to create the impression that a small majority of people in the country pay all the taxes, and nearly half (a large minority) pay nothing at all. It's a false impression, and when you break down who comprises this now-famous "47 percent" -- the poor, the disabled, and the elderly -- it makes you wonder why anybody thought it was a good idea to pick a public fight with them.
What's really going on here is that about 47 percent of households paid no federal income tax in 2009. Either they owed nothing, or they got as much back from the federal government as they paid -- or more.
This ignores payroll taxes, state and local taxes, gas taxes, excise taxes and much more. But to hear conservatives talk about it, you'd think these people's entire tax burden was $0.00. In April, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), citing similar data, claimed "According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 49 percent of households are paying 100 percent of taxes coming in to the federal government." Notice the absence of the key qualifier, "income." And Grassley's far from alone.
As Benjy Sarlin explained at length the Republican answer to this problem, remarkably, is that Congress should raise these people's taxes.
So who are these people? This chart, courtesy of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, explains just about everything you need to know.
Right now about one-third of the 47 percent are people who are too old to work, full time students, disability beneficiaries, long-term unemployed and other such despicable freeloaders. Because the 47 percent figure comes from using "households that file" as the denominator it includes people who have part time jobs and low paying jobs, Social Security and unemployment beneficiaries. The rest were people whose jobs paid little enough that, on net, they owed no income taxes. These people may have benefited from the stimulus' Making-Work-Pay tax credit, or saw their incomes drop enough during the recession to qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and so on.
In this regard, attacking the 47 percent for gaming the system is an implicit call for taxing Social Security income, taxing disability benefits, further taxing unemployment benefits, and so on.
Moreover, and this is key, the 47 percent is only 47 percent because of the recession. As CBPP wrote in May, the high number "reflects the unique circumstances of 2009, when the recession greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes and when temporary tax cuts created by the 2009 Recovery Act -- including the "Making Work Pay" tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits -- were in effect. Together, these developments removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired. In a more typical year, 35 percent to 40 percent of households owe no federal income tax. In 2007, the figure was 37.9 percent."
As CBPP tax expert Chuck Marr explained to me, this is a good phenomenon, and one that helped prevent the economy from sinking even further in 2009.
"The place to start on this though is that the years discussed are just not typical -- this is the worst economic climate since the Great Depression," Marr said. The numbers have been bumped by about 10 percentage points "that's what you want -- should we argue that we should raise taxes on these people to keep it at 37 percent?"
That's what a lot of Republicans seem to want. But the result would be terrible for an already weak economy.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... hp?ref=fpa
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Whether or not you think the "rich" should be paying more taxes and paying a much higher % of their income in taxes then the "poor"... the bottom line is $ to $, it's not even close.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
70 + 17 + 13 = 100% of the 47%
does that help...?
I don't get your point...(being serious, not sarcastic)...
Yeah, nevermind.
ok...
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Just how long were you awake in math?
IF that stat IS true , then along with the 30 % mentioned it would follow that 17% of the payroll tax paying public doesnt make enough to have to pay to begin with? THAT would suggest the pay v. tax disarity and the top "wage" earners SHOULD do more , hmnm? or the tax code blows monkey balls and needs completely overhauled. OR perhaps both need done. Because clearly what happens now is sustainable.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
When people talk about 30% it is "OF 47%". That's 14.1% (47% * .3).
Here we go:
53% of the population paid federal income taxes in 2009.
47% didn't. Of the 47%, 70% of THOSE (or 32.9% of the TOTAL) paid payroll taxes. So that means 85.9% (we'll just say 86%) of EVERYBODY paid income tax and/or payroll tax.
14% paid neither payroll tax nor income tax due to the fact that they were receiving Social Security (i.e. they're old) or they are students, have disabilities, are jobless, or have very low taxable incomes. That sounds a lot different than 47%, doesn't it? Those Koch Brothers are good, I gotta say.
How is it that hard?
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Let's not mess this up with facts, okay?
The silence is deafening.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
How in the world could anyone be on the wrong side working against the best interests of these individuals?
So if they aren't paying federal income taxes, it is at times due to their low salaries or being unemployed, right? Okay; but, isn't it their fault if they're unemployed or if they don't make a lot of money? :evil:
yes!!! and Herman Cain agrees. If you aren't rich, it's your own damn fault.
no one thought that 47% of the country who don't pay taxes were rich. I don't understand the importance of the breakdown I guess. The fact is 47% don't pay income taxes. Their breakdown doesn't matter. They are brought up when people talk about how half the country supports raising taxes on those richer than they are. I don't know too many people that think they should pay more...
Can someone explain why it isn't okay to talk about the 47%?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
The point is that these people--the 47%--aren't the lowlife, stoner on the couch, tax-evading losers that the Right wants them to be or paints them to be. The 47% who "don't pay taxes" either pay in the form of payroll and sales tax OR don't have any god damn money.
Over the past 3 decades, middle class and lower class wages are stagnant; the rich have never had it better. And, many in the top tax brackets are making their money in positions that do not offer nay type of service to society or they are making it on the backs of the middle-class and the working class. Remember 2007-2009? Remember mortgage-back securities? remember credit default swaps?
I am curious to find out what income level these people are in... are some of these people self-employed? Small business owners? Working (minimum wage/part-time) poor? Uber rich? Paris Hilton?
I'm guessing it isn't Joe Ninetofive. Most reg'lur working Joe's don't have the tax shelters or Schedule A deductions to offset a regular paycheck income. But, I bet there are some of us that can... my guess it is a very small percentage of the 70% who don't pay taxes.
Hail, Hail!!!
That still doesn't explain why it isn't okay to talk about them.
I have never portrayed them as low-life, tax evading losers, nor do I get that out of most people when it is cited. It is put there by others who then portray them as the downtrodden refuse that this cruel society fucked over. I usually see the 47% talked about in response to polls that say the majority of Americans want taxes raised on the wealthy.
The rest of what you are saying doesn't apply to the argument.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I usually see it in discussions where the topic of raising taxes/eliminating certain tax cuts comes up, and the 47% is brought up to suggest that these 47% aren't paying their fair share of taxes. Too me it's a diversion and the person is basically saying "what do you mean this 1% should pay more in taxes, look at this 47% that isn't paying anything". It's often implied that they're lazy leaches, getting something they didn't pay for, and you can see it in AMT.
There is at least one that does. In fact he returns what's left of his allowed office budget to the Treasury each year.
I wasn't arguing with you, I was simply building upon what you stated.
I think it isn't okay to talk about them, because a truthful discussion of the 47% would present American with a clear picture of the inequality in this country. It also isn't okay to talk about the 47% because certain the mainstream media and the U.S. government want to use this figure to refute the call for a more for tax system. The current system has its clear beneficiaries, and the last thing they want is the truth to lead reform.
Then how would we fund our imperialistic ("God" approved) destiny?!?!?!
Answer me that!!
i suppose road funds and infrastructure and disaster relief and medicare and social security money would just grow on trees, or even better, we can just pull it out of our collective backsides...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
fair enough, I think this system does have clear beneficiaries...which is why I want people, all people to not pay a one dime more to the government...the government has and always will pick winners. Solyndra(spelling?) is a prime example. I am not even getting into the crony capitalism aspect, but they took 500 million dollars and put it into a business that by all accounts would fail. They tried to pick a winner, and supported the company further when it was shown to be a loser. That is the stuff I hate. Businesses should be left alone to rise and fall...the government takes our tax payer dollars and gives them to businesses, friends, and foreign entities in order to pick winners or promote their own selfish agendas...why anyone wants to give them more is beyond me.
And you and Go Beavers may be right, some may point to the 47% and think they are lowlifes or whatever, it is probably the same neocons I generally ignore
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
seems a lot like what they do now
no matter what they take in they always seem to spend more, don't think a situation where we do not pay income taxes would be any different..
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
State income tax, the states should fix the roads.