Thursday, August 9, 2012

An Income Tax Tipping Point

It’s easy to cut income taxes for the poor. It’s easy to say that the poor have enough burdens in life and we should spare them the burden of income taxes. People who are well off can afford to make up the difference. That’s an easy argument that our politicians love to make.

It’s also easy to raise income taxes on the rich. It’s easy to show how much more disposable income they have relative to the poor and middle class. It’s easy to highlight billionaires and their low income tax rates and make it sound like they are representative of all wealthy people. Regardless of how much the rich pay in taxes, it’s always easy to say they don’t pay enough.

In short, politically speaking, it’s just so easy to demonize the rich and raise their income taxes as well as empathize with the poor and cut their income taxes or absolve them from paying income taxes at all. It’s easy. What’s not so easy is to acknowledge the reality that we face when government spending exceeds revenue. It’s not easy to ask everyone to contribute to the system.

An Endless Cycle
This process of demonizing the rich and steadily decreasing the income taxes on the poor is an endless cycle. Every time a politician proposes income tax policy changes, we shift a little more burden to the rich and a little less burden from the poor. The process is deceptively simple, accumulates over time, and has damaged our politics.

When politicians of either party raise income taxes, they shift the tax brackets upward so that those who made enough last year to pay taxes won’t have to pay any taxes next year. It’s an incremental change that only affects a small number of individuals, but it inches up a little bit every time they change our tax policy.

When Republicans cut income taxes, they make deals with Democrats to get the lower tax brackets in exchange for shifting up the lower tax brackets. Once again, people who paid taxes before no longer have to pay taxes because the lowest threshold is slowly moved up. It’s still incremental, but it happens every time the tax brackets are adjusted.

In a nutshell, if income taxes go up, more of the poor are moved off the tax rolls; if income taxes go down, more of the poor are moved off the tax rolls. This is also referred to as heads I win, tales you lose. The cycle repeats itself until we’ve now reached a point where more than 40% of income earners pay zero income tax. (According to the IRS, in 2010 40.9% of all tax returns owed no income tax at all.)

Living Off the Minority
And that’s when a tipping point is reached. As the cycle proceeds, someday more than half the people pay no income taxes and a minority will pay the lion’s share. The majority begins to live off of the hard work and earning power of a minority.

Politicians are so used to helping the poor and so afraid of the charge that they are helping the rich that we are unable to spread the tax burden across the population. Even when it becomes a necessity, we will be unable to fix the problem that has been created. It’s shown itself in the current election with Democrats charging that Romney’s plan to “broaden the tax base” is just a way of increasing taxes on the poor.

And the charge is correct! We have been cutting taxes for the poor and middle class for so long, that we have a lopsided system that needs to be corrected. That will mean raising taxes on those near the bottom. But we got to this point by steadily shifting the burden away from the poor and the middle class, so there simply is no other way to fix the problem of everyone not paying their fair share.

Tax Everyone Who Isn’t Poor
Let’s stop relying on easy arguments and be more realistic. 40% of Americans are not poor. If the poverty line means anything, it’s worth noting that fewer than 15% of Americans live below the poverty line. That leaves 25% of those paying zero income taxes above the poverty line. If the poverty line is our definition of “poor,” then 25% of people who aren’t poor aren’t paying income tax. This is intolerable.

So let’s agree that we won’t tax the poor. We will not assess an income tax on the 15% of Americans below the poverty line. If we can agree not to tax the poor, can our politicians also agree that it’s necessary to tax everyone who isn’t poor? We can still have a graduated system with higher tax brackets for the highest income earners, but everyone who isn’t poor must pay something.

The Free Ride is Over
Politicians got us into this mess by playing class politics, steadily shifting people off of the income tax rolls, and steadily shifting the burden of government on to the rich and upper middle class. I’m no defender of the wealthy, but it’s obvious to anyone willing to acknowledge reality that our income tax system is lopsided.

The free ride is over. We’re near a tipping point where the majority begins to live off the minority, and we excuse nearly half of all Americans from paying into the system. Government services are for everyone; our government is for all the people and by all the people. It’s time we all wake up and stop the political gamesmanship. A trillion here and a trillion there and pretty soon we’re talking about real money.

14 comments:

  1. The free ride is over, but the rich should get tax cuts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you consider that after any tax cuts, the rich will still pay far more than non-rich in real dollars, in percent of income, and as an overall group in tax revenue proportion, there's no "free ride" being offered to them.

      But HR didn't even suggest cutting taxes on the rich. So you went off on nothing.

      Delete
  2. Dave, if that's all you got out of this post, I'm losing all hope for you. Do me a favor, reread my post and show me the quote where I suggest cutting taxes for the rich.

    I'll wait here patiently for your concession.

    You know, I actually like it when you engage in discussion about real ideas without resorting to the regular attacks of Fox News, nukular, Kool-Aid, and such. I made a reasonable case about not taxing the poorest 15%, but asking the other 25% who aren't paying to pay something. Do you have anything to say about that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HR said: "You know, I actually like it when you engage in discussion about real ideas without resorting to the regular attacks of Fox News, nukular, Kool-Aid, and such."

      The "nukular" thing was a perfect example of trollish bashing. Want to bet that Dave Dubya never went after Ted Kennedy for mispronouncing so many words? Of course not. Ted has a (D) after his name, which made his drunken burblings a sacred cow.

      But anyway, the "nukular" flame blew up in his face like an H-bomb. Jimmy Carter knows more about nuclear matters than he ever will, and he pronounced it this way too.

      This being said, his 'nukular' rant was perhaps his best-stated point in all of DW's recent pack of lies defending Saddam Hussein and saying how good WMD and terrorism is (nothing to worry about).

      Delete
  3. Bravo H.R.! You have written brilliantly what I have been saying for years!

    Of course changing the tax code is irrelevant if our government is going to keep spending what revenue it gets on items we cannot afford or things that they are not constitutionally authorized to spend on anyway. But that is another post in and of itself.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree, HR, everybody needs to sacrifice. And that's exactly why I support the Bowles-Simpson/Domenici-Rivlin/Gang of Six bipartisan proposals. They spread out the pain and literally leave no stone unturned.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I glanced at the spreadsheet. Your concern is the 25% above the poverty line. I don't agree at all that the poverty line should be the delimiter.

    However, I can knock off nearly three percent of your concern just using the tables you presented, as 2.9 percent of those who paid no taxes earned over 200,000, and 2% of those who paid no taxes earned more than a million. I agree with you that we do need to do something about the free-loading upper class.

    We cannot assume that all of the 25% fell into the group just above the poverty line. If we could, I be inclined to say that we should not tax a good number of them. However, I suspect the assumption is false and I suspect I agree with you that too many people earning high wages are avoiding paying their fair share of taxes on them. In order to determine who these people are, we would have to examine every category and the real world circumstances that those in these categories live.

    In the meantime, if we have a tax policy, I would hope that it did not include the destruction of a large segment of the population.

    I did not take the time to find the missing 22% or to try to come to understand their circumstances before arbitrarily implying they are "not paying their fair share," just as you did not.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Your concern is the 25% above the poverty line. I don't agree at all that the poverty line should be the delimiter."

    John, you've pointed out a key premise: If we don't agree that the poverty line defines the poor, than you won't agree with my point. Of course, I don't understand the point of the poverty line if it doesn't define poverty.

    So let's discuss the philosophical point instead of the specific numbers. Using "John Myste's definition of poverty," could you agree that 1) we shouldn't assess income taxes on the poor and 2) anyone who isn't poor should be paying income taxes?

    But I made other points as well.

    When taxes are raised, the bottom brackets are lifted; when taxes are lowered, the bottom brackets are lifted. So whenever tax policy changes, up or down, more people are allowed to stop paying taxes. In your personal crusade for the poor, is this a policy you support?

    At this rate, there will come a time when a minority of Americans will pay income taxes, so the majority will be living off the rest. What say you?

    My guess is you deny that these things are happening, but that we are on such a path is undeniable, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. HR,
    You oppose the sunset of the Bush tax cuts.

    there will come a time when a minority of Americans will pay income taxes, so the majority will be living off the rest.

    Define "living off". They certainly paid into their Social Security and Medicare. Those are the primary things they will be "living off". Blame the "job creators" for not creating jobs or not paying them well enough to have their income taxed in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dave, for the full context of this comment, see this post.

      I support keeping the current tax rates. What you call Bush tax cuts, I will gladly refer to as the Bush tax rates. Do you realize the Bush tax rates have been in effect longer than the Clinton tax rates were?

      Democrats want to raise taxes. I want to keep the status quo. The key difference here is that I'm happy with current rates and have not advocated for any new tax cuts, particularly for the rich. (Last year I outlined what I consider my ideal tax proposal, but I'm not counting that because it was an ideal, and not realistic.)

      I'm not aware of an active piece of legislation that asks for tax cuts for the rich. Republicans have voted on and passed keeping the current tax rates. Democrats would raise taxes. (I'm also excluding Romney's tax plan because right now it's a hypothetical and has not been put to a vote.)

      Delete
  8. The job creators are already peying them for the value of the work. The fair value. That's 'well enough'. You can't expect them to be welfare agencies and just hand out extra money willy-nilly to those who don't earn it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. HR,

    I consider the question of the percentage of people paying taxes to be a completely irrelevant question.

    I consider the assumption that 25% of people are above the poverty line and not paying taxes to be irrelevant also, as the poverty line when last I saw was set at an un-survivable place.

    Also, as I already pointed out, the 25% is not made up of people just above the poverty line, and includes millionaires. As I stated already, I agree that these rich people should be paying taxes. If some millionaires are paying no taxes, then some are probably paying virtually no taxes. We also need to solve that problem. Perhaps if the rich and middle class were paying their official tax rates, you would no longer be concerned the current percentage. Therefore, the first question we should ask is: why aren't they? Next we should figure out how to solve that real-world problem and then re-examine the numbers.

    If the percentage is still too high, once the new percent is really composed of people who are poor, but not technically impoverished, we need to consider our definition of impoverished, and either collect more taxes, or make our definition better.

    If in the future the phenomenon legitimately results in more than 50% of people not paying taxes, then we need to figure out why so many people are so poor and address that problem, rather than contributing to greater poverty as our solution.

    Reducing the net income of people who are barely feeding their kids now is not in my bucket of acceptable solutions.

    Had your percentage really reflected the poor bottom of Americans (and not also millionaires), not paying taxes, it would have been very telling. We need to work together to solve the problem of poverty in America. Until both parties are committed to this, we will not solve anything, because people will never be content to watch their kids starve or go without heat in the winder or cooling in the summer.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Some good points. As a result of Obama's policies, poverty is at a high (even at a 52-year high for African Americans). The President doesn't seem to care: it is off his radar. That's unfortunate. It is also unfortunate that it this problem is also off Romney's radar.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Burr Deming offers his comments at his own site:

    "The Heathen Republican makes a fairly complex case that, on taxes, the enemies of the middle class are not the rich, but the ducky ducky poor. That's not his phrase. It comes from the Wall Street Journal."

    Burr, this is completely false and I'm not sure you even read my post. I don't call anyone an enemy of the middle class, rich or poor.

    "At the heart of his argument is a premise that taxing the rich has become so easy that a tipping point has been reached and the wealthy are tapped out."

    This is not the heart of my argument; you have only picked up on half of the heart of my argument. I say that 1) eliminating the taxes on the poor is easy and 2) increasing taxes on the rich is easy.

    At no time did I claim that the rich are tapped out. I don't think the wealthy are tapped out, so I wouldn't say so. I think we've created a cycle that has steadily shifted the burden to a minority of the population. Since you haven't disputed that point, I'll assume you agree.

    "Before you can say whoa buster, he goes to this: "Every time a politician proposes income tax policy changes, we shift a little more burden to the rich and a little less burden from the poor. The process is deceptively simple, accumulates over time, and has damaged our politics."

    Again, you skipped the other half of my argument, but let's play this out.

    "Let's see. Under Eisenhower the top rate was 90 percent. Under Reagan it went to 39 percent. Under Bush it went to 35. And putting it back up to a maximum 39 percent for the extreme top sliver of the wealthy is a socialist outrage? Tapped out. Tipping point. Uh huh."

    The point has nothing to do with top tax rates. The point is that when Reagan lowered tax rates, the bottom tax brackets were shifted up so that a few less people had to pay taxes at all.

    When Bush I raised taxes, the bottom tax brackets were shifted up so that a few less people had to pay taxes at all.

    When Clinton raised taxes, the bottom tax brackets were shifted up so that a few less people had to pay taxes at all.

    When Bush II lowered taxes, the bottom tax brackets were shifted up so that a few less people had to pay taxes at all.

    In other words, when taxes are raised or lowered, a few less people are asked to pay their taxes. This is leading us to the tipping point from the title of my post.

    ReplyDelete