Think Corporations Don't Pay Enough Taxes? Joke's on You.

Of course we have to pay taxes. The question is, "What kind of taxes should we impose for maximum efficacy?"

From David Walker's book, Comeback America (hardcover, page 121): "we must realize that corporations don't really pay taxes. Rather, they pass along any tax, in the form of higher prices to consumers, lower wages to workers, and/or lower returns to shareholders."

(And last time I checked, CalPERS and many middle-class Bay Area families were shareholders.)

Current Wealth Distribution Threatens Democratic Process

Why is the unequal distribution of wealth problematic? Because it can destroy democracies.

Right now, the top 1% in America pay about 40% of the tax revenue. Far from being shining philanthropists, the reason for this particular distribution is because the top 1% make so much more money than the bottom 99%. Such a massive concentration of wealth allows rich people to single-handedly finance PACs; to use their influence to raise money quickly for their preferred candidates; and to buy all-important television airtime for their preferred candidate. As a result, modern-day candidacies require fewer people and more mass media. A candidate no longer needs all corners of his/her jurisdiction to ascend to political office--a few well-off friends can introduce a potential candidate to an entire jurisdiction by buying television ad spots.

Who Pays Taxes?

Personal FinanceSoftware – Mint.com

Tax Policy

The NYT had an interesting chart that showed--at least in 2003--total tax distribution:

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/01/20/business/21DOUBLE.chart.jpg

The breakdown, by percentage of income, was similar, supporting the idea that American tax policy was equitable.

If anyone finds a similar chart for 2008, please leave a comment with a link.

Steven Lagerfeld: We've Made a Bad Bet on Taxes

The WQ's Steven Lagerfeld opened my eyes to the risky, two-way bet of tax cuts:

In another way, today's red vistas of debt recall the era of tax cutting under Ronald Reagan. The Reagan Revolution was in part a gamble: Cut taxes, and an alarmed public will demand budget cuts in order to avoid red ink. Now we may be witnessing a kind of reverse Reaganism: Increase the size of government and gamble that an alarmed public will eventually authorize the taxes to pay for it. [From Wilson Quarterly, Summer 2009, Vol. 33, No. 3, page 4]

Mr. Lagerfeld is absolutely correct--by refusing to cut government spending, we failed to uphold our end of the tax bargain. It seems that voters will always demand the same level of services or increased services; as a result, cutting taxes--which reduces revenue available for government services--might actually be a slow suicide pact. Californians just don't seem to have the stomach to cut spending, even when the money isn't there to provide the same level of services. Perhaps some kind of counterproductive but ingrained psychology is involved--after all, once you've tasted gourmet food on a regular basis, it's almost impossible to go back to the frozen microwave dinner--even if you have less money to spend and should be cutting back.

If Mr. Lagerfeld and I are both correct--that the bet on lower taxes failed, and once spending is increased, it's almost impossible to cut services--then cutting taxes should not be the main focus of any government policy. Instead, we ought to be focusing on the following areas: first, having a consistent tax policy to attract business and minimize inflation; second, requiring all new government programs to terminate at the end of the following fiscal year if sufficient revenue to fund the program does not exist; and third, to pass a balanced budget amendment to each state's constitution.

Behind the Numbers: Top 1% Paid 40% of Total Income Taxes

Professor Greg Mankiw points out that the the top 1% of taxpayers paid 40.4% of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. See here.

I don't think we should have a "free lunch" system where millions of Americans have no financial stake in their government. At the same time, with sales taxes increasing, it's hard to argue the middle class and poor are getting a "free lunch."

It would be more fair to see what percentage of all taxes--state, local, and federal--are paid by the top 10% rather than just income taxes. According to the WSJ, the top 1% of earners pay 26% of all federal taxes. See here. Given the income and wealth disparity in this country, the 26% figure does not shock my conscience--in fact, it seems more on the low than the high side. (Update: the income tax is less than half of federal taxes and only one-fifth of taxes at all levels of government.)

Mankiw's cited statistics show that our income taxation system is inefficient and non-diversified. Any entity that relies on such a small percentage of its "customer" base for 40% of its "profits" will soon have problems. Rather than feel sorry for the super-rich, we should realize that income taxes are volatile and inconsistent sources of revenue. By relying on such a volatile source of revenue, the government isn't doing us any favors.

Mankiw's post implicitly contends that the rich have never had it worse--their 40% contribution is "the highest percentage in modern history," he says. This increased burden could mean two things: one, the rich are getting bilked; and/or two, the recession has hit the middle class and poor harder than the rich, so they are getting smaller slices of the income pie and paying less taxes as a result of receiving less income. I'm going with Door #2. I am disappointed that Professor Mankiw--normally a very thorough writer--cited the Tax Foundation's statistics without properly explaining the numbers.

Overall, we should figure out how to get more paying stakeholders into the system so we diversify revenue sources and rely on more recession-resistant revenue streams.

Update: Professor Mankiw points out that "the [tax] data predate the recession." Although the recession is not factored into the tax data, the disparity in tax burden between the rich and others may still be a result of a declining middle class.

Top 25% of Earners Paid 85% of All Taxes in 2006

The numbers the IRS released regarding tax burdens in 2006 is stunning. Basically, the top 10% pay 68% of all income taxes. That means if you're making less than $108,904, your contribution to the pool is fairly small in comparison, and if you're making more, well, thank you.

BREAKDOWN OF INCOME AND TAXES PAID BY CATEGORY
Income Category	2006 AGI			Percent of All Income			Percent of Income Taxes Paid
Top 1%	Over $388,806			22%			37%
Top 5%	Over $153,542			37%			57%
Top 10%	Over $108,904			47%			68%
Top 25%	Over $64,702			66%			85%
Top 50%	Over $31,987			87%			97%
Bottom 50%	Under $31,988			13%			3%

The above chart is from Kiplinger's:

http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/105468/What%27s-Your-Share-of-the-Nation%27s-Tax-Bill?

This reminds me of a joke I read on Greg Mankiw's (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com) blog. He told a story about a group of four friends who went out drinking. At first, they divided the bill equally, each paying 10 dollars for a pitcher of beer. Then, the four friends realized that one only made $10/hr, while another made $90/hr. They agreed the higher-earning friend should pay 20 dollars as a "fair" share. The friend agreed, everyone else paid about 7 dollars each, and everyone was happy. Everything was going well, until the other three friends demanded that the higher earner pay 30 dollars as his "fair" share. The friend got ticked off and moved out of the city. The next time the three friends went out for beers, they all paid about 14 dollars each, more than if they had been nicer to the higher wage earner.

The lesson? People will move or take other measures to avoid taxes if they are too high or unreasonable, leaving everyone else with a higher bill.

Update on April 13, 2009: more on income taxes here and here.

Update on August 10, 2012: more on overall tax burdens here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444246904577571042249868040.html?mod=e2fb  (David Wessel, August 6, 2012, The Numbers Inside a Hot-Button Issue)

"In the 1980s, the top 5% averaged 22.6% of income and paid 28.5% of taxes.

In the 1990s, the top 5% averaged 25.3% of income and paid 34.3% of taxes.

In the 2000s, the top 5% averaged 28.4% of the income and paid 40.3% of the taxes."

"Average tax rates have come down for everyone. On average, the tax bite on the rich is bigger--except for those whose income mainly comes from capital gains and dividends."

"The share of taxes paid by the bottom 40% of the population has been shrinking along with their share of income."