Synchronicity swirls and other foolishness - US Taxes

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> User Info
> my rpg writing site

September 13th, 2003


Previous Entry Add to Memories Tell a Friend Next Entry
01:01 am - US Taxes
[info]kiplet has a link to to an excellent New York Times piece about the history and structure of US taxes and the history of the tax-cut mania that has infected the US since the late 1970s. Best of all, this article is filled with excellent arguments to use against the hordes of anti-tax whiners who complain endlessly every time the state or federal government even considers raising taxes. Here's perhaps the most relevant portion:
In fact, though most Americans feel that they pay too much in taxes, they get off quite lightly compared with the citizens of other advanced countries. Furthermore, for most Americans tax rates probably haven't risen for a generation. And a few Americans -- namely those with high incomes -- face much lower taxes than they did a generation ago.

To assess trends in the overall level of taxes and to compare taxation across countries, economists usually look first at the ratio of taxes to gross domestic product, the total value of output produced in the country. In the United States, all taxes -- federal, state and local -- reached a peak of 29.6 percent of G.D.P. in 2000. That number was, however, swollen by taxes on capital gains during the stock-market bubble.

By 2002, the tax take was down to 26.3 percent of G.D.P., and all indications are that it will be lower still this year and next.

This is a low number compared with almost every other advanced country. In 1999, Canada collected 38.2 percent of G.D.P. in taxes, France collected 45.8 percent and Sweden, 52.2 percent.

Still, aren't taxes much higher than they used to be? Not if we're looking back over the past 30 years. As a share of G.D.P., federal taxes are currently at their lowest point since the Eisenhower administration. State and local taxes rose substantially between 1960 and the early 1970's, but have been roughly stable since then. Aside from the capital gains taxes paid during the bubble years, the share of income Americans pay in taxes has been flat since Richard Nixon was president.

Of course, overall levels of taxation don't necessarily tell you how heavily particular individuals and families are taxed. As it turns out, however, middle-income Americans, like the country as a whole, haven't seen much change in their overall taxes over the past 30 years. On average, families in the middle of the income distribution find themselves paying about 26 percent of their income in taxes today. This number hasn't changed significantly since 1989, and though hard data are lacking, it probably hasn't changed much since 1970.

Meanwhile, wealthy Americans have seen a sharp drop in their tax burden. The top tax rate -- the income-tax rate on the highest bracket -- is now 35 percent, half what it was in the 1970's. With the exception of a brief period between 1988 and 1993, that's the lowest rate since 1932. Other taxes that, directly or indirectly, bear mainly on the very affluent have also been cut sharply. The effective tax rate on corporate profits has been cut in half since the 1960's.
What the article doesn't say is that all of these vaunted anti-tax measures have also done absolutely nothing to help the poor or the middle class, all they have done (and they have done so quite effectively) is let the rich suck up even more of this nation's wealth and give nothing back to anyone else. Since the 1980s, it hasn't mattered if it's Republicans or Democrats running the show, we still have a government by the wealthy and for the wealthy.
Current Mood: [mood icon] angry

(Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:[info]aquamarcia
Date:September 13th, 2003 04:50 am (UTC)
(Link)
My complaints about taxes aren't so much having to pay them or how high they might be. I'm plenty happy to contribute to a government if that government provides good services and uses the money well in endeavors outside the scope of those services. What ticks me off are the overly complex tax codes which contribute both to bureaucracy bloat (cyclical feeding of the government beast is stupid) and to what you mention about taxes going easier on those with more wealth. The system is indeed rigged.

Then there's the aggravation I feel at "hidden" taxes. To reiterate and expand upon my original point, I have no problem paying taxes, coupled with the belief that these taxes should be open to easy view and only on a relatively few sorts of things. Property, income, and a few other kinds of basic taxes make sense to me. I get pissed when I start to see pervasive being-nibbled-to-death-by-cats taxes of the kind that show up on utility bills, sales taxes, restaurant food taxes, and the like. I mean, when someone decides that taxing latte sales in Seattle is a good idea, that's when I want to reach for the reset button and reboot the planet.
[User Picture]
From:[info]heron61
Date:September 13th, 2003 01:41 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I completely agree. In many cases, these taxes exist because rich people don't oppose them. Sales taxes of any form are a monumentally bad idea because they affect the poor far more than the wealthy. In addition, we have overly complex income tax codes to insure that millionaires get a deduction for each of their yachts and all five of their houses. If we could kill of 90% of all deductions and others ways of avoiding taxes we would have a far simpler system that would make people with lots of money pay their fair share while making life easier for the likes of us. I'm still intrigued by the idea that a friend of mine suggested about how a 50% tax on all income over $250,000 that anyone earns could completely replace the entirety of the Oregon income tax. I can see abosolutely no problems with or objections to this idea, and yet the odds of it happening are near zero.

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com