[300bps]

You’re correct but don’t take into consideration things like child tax credits.

I have family members that pay a total of $400 in tax yet receive a $9,000 or more “refund” due to various credits.

So yes, there is a sizable portion of the population that literally pays a negative tax rate even when factoring in all of the taxes you mentioned.

[michaelmrose]

This is probably because the top 10% earns almost half of income in America, the next 40% of America shares about 38% and the bottom HALF of Americans share less than 12% between them.

As far as wealth this bottom half also holds 2% of the net worth.

It should be unsurprising that people who have nothing aren't paying much.

[refurb]

Sure, but you’re ignoring just how progressive the US federal tax system is.

And in fact, many of the state income taxes are too. A few states have flat taxes (but with healthy exemption), the other have brackets that steeply increase.

[michaelmrose]

You mean except for all the taxes other than income tax such that people making french fries often pay a bigger percentage of their incomes to taxes than billionaires?

[adventured]

> You mean except for all the taxes other than income tax such that people making french fries often pay a bigger percentage of their incomes to taxes than billionaires?

That's a false claim. The recent propaganda being pushed - eg by ProPublica - about billionaires supposedly paying low income taxes, of course, didn't center on income taxes at all. It intentionally reframed the premise to be that billionaires weren't paying enough taxes on their wealth (assets).

For example this article con line from ProPublica:

Headline: "You May Be Paying a Higher Tax Rate Than a Billionaire"

Summary: "A new ProPublica analysis of a trove of IRS documents revealed that the richest 25 Americans pay a tiny fraction of their wealth in taxes."

So I might be paying higher taxes on my unsold stock holdings than Bezos is on his unsold stock holdings? Of course not. ProPublic is being intentionally deceptive.

The billionaires are paying a small share of their wealth in taxes every year. They pay high income taxes, when they generate high incomes. Wealth isn't income. ProPublica knows that separation, they know how the tax system works, they spun the con regardless for propaganda points. ProPublica is trying to argue in favor of wealth confiscation policies, while lying and pretending they're arguing in favor of the billionaires paying higher taxes akin to paying higher income taxes. The spin is remarkable for just how disingenuous it is.

Bezos isn't paying enough income tax on his unsold Amazon stock holdings? Golly gee.

[pseudalopex]

The ProPublica article examined effective income tax rates. It just mentioned wealth briefly. You left out the next sentence. "But even if you use the most conventional yardstick — income — the wealthiest still pay low rates."[1]

Long term capital gains are taxed less than all but the lowest income brackets. Social Security tax is capped. And the article used the IRS definition of total income tax. So it ignored taxes on goods and services.

[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/you-may-be-paying-a-highe...

[ryathal]

Capital gains are double taxation though so it makes sense that they are lower because of that fact.

[newfriend]

> They avoid forms of income, like wages, that are taxed at a high rate, 37%, and instead make most of their money via capital gains and dividends from investments, most of which is taxed at 20%

> Large charitable donations reduce taxable income.

So they reduce income by having investments and donating money. Sounds pretty nefarious.

> But now add payroll taxes. The worker paid a bit more than $3,400 directly over the course of the year; in addition, the worker’s employer paid an equivalent amount as their share of the worker’s Social Security and Medicare taxes. Government agencies and most economists typically count both contributions — a total of nearly $6,900 in this instance — as a tax that is effectively borne by workers since it’s part of the cost of paying their wages. The logic is that employers consider those costs when hiring and would hire fewer people or pay them less because of the tax burden.

> All in, our worker paid $10,700 in taxes. Taken as a percentage of the worker’s full compensation (including a typical health plan), this comes out to a rate of 19%.

Riiight.. if you include money which they aren't actually paying, then they are paying more.

[rootusrootus]

Federal income tax is somewhat progressive. All of the state taxes, last time I checked, are regressive. For a while the least regressive was Oregon (which has a progressive income tax) and the most regressive was next door, Washington, which uses a sales/use tax instead.

[credit_guy]

>> All of the state taxes, last time I checked, are regressive

Wait, what? The state tax in New York State is certainly progresive: it starts at 4% if you earn less than $8k, and goes up to 10.9% on incomes above $25 MM [1]. California is much more progressive: 1% for less than $9k, 13.3% above $1 MM [2].

[1] https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/new-york-state-tax

[2] https://www.hrblock.com/tax-center/filing/states/california-...

[rootusrootus]

I assume you are looking only at income tax, excluding any other state and local taxes? The effective tax rates in all states are regressive:

https://itep.org/whopays/

[credit_guy]

Well, at least in New York City, there's a city tax and that is progressive too. There are property taxes, and they are progressive as well. Property sales taxes are also progressive. Not sure how those ITEP guys did their analysis, but for NYC at least, it is way off. There's no way that the top 1% of the people in NYC pay only 7.4% in (non-federal) income tax. You could say that their analysis is for the state as a whole, but it's virtually guaranteed that the vast majority of the top 1% earners live in NYC.

[onlyrealcuzzo]

This shouldn't be surprising.

There have been millions of people on SNAP & HUD & Medicaid with no income for a long time. There's just more programs and a lot more people now.

This time, however, it seems like these new programs are quite massive and are more "want" based than "need" based.

It's quite obvious people with no income and kids "need" money. It's less obvious to me that people who had kids for years, and still have their jobs, suddenly need $1k per month. I don't think anyone would debate whether this $1k is improving their lives.