Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Taxing the Poor

By Paul Buchheit, AlterNet. Posted November 7, 2007.


The tax burden has shifted dramatically from wealth to work in the past twenty years.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Paul Buchheit

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Across the U.S., regressive taxes are being used at a local and national level to pay our bills, while the people who take most of the money out of the system are paying less.

Conservative groups claim that the richest U.S. households pay more than their fair share of income taxes. However, when social security and sales taxes are included, the typical wage earner pays about a 40 percent overall tax, about the same percentage as the average American millionaire. Multimillionaires pay even less. The top 400 U.S. taxpayers, with an average income of $151 million, paid 27 percent in total taxes in the year 2000. All other taxpayers, with an average income of $34,600, paid 40 percent in total taxes. The extremely regressive social security tax provides nearly 40 percent of federal revenue.

The biggest insult is what might be called the 'productivity tax.' Wage earners are not being paid what they're worth. Worker productivity has risen steadily since 1980, but compensation has remained stagnant. Every minimum wage worker in America would be making over $22 per hour if the minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO pay since 1990. But the minimum wage has crept up to just $5.85 an hour. A recent study calculates that an average two-income family today has less disposable income than one-income families had 30 years ago, largely because of escalating home mortgage, health care, and child care costs. Overtime rules have been changed by the Bush Administration, making it more likely that middle-income workers will lose pay. And studies show that people who lose their jobs are out of work longer and return to the workplace at a lower rate of pay.

Furthermore, hourly earners who don't have the money to buy stocks are unable to benefit from the 15 percent capital gains tax that lowers the overall tax rate for wealthier Americans. Since the richest 1 percent of American households own 77 percent of the stocks, this modest 15 percent tax rate mainly rewards the very wealthy. This sizable capital gains savings has come even as the stock market has grown 7 times faster than the GDP (since 1981). People with the fastest-growing financial assets have been given the opportunity to serve themselves a bigger piece of the pie.

The inequity is made more extreme with the income tax cuts. A study by Citizens for Tax Justice notes that over the ten-year period from 2001 to 2010 the richest one percent of Americans are scheduled to receive tax cuts averaging $34,000 per year. For the 20 percent of families with the lowest incomes, the average tax cut will be $77. The average tax cut for households with incomes over $1 million was $112,000 in 2006. By one estimate, rescinding the tax cuts would supply the $3.4 trillion needed for social security, fully cover Medicare costs, and provide free prescription drugs for all Americans.

And then we have - or don't have - corporate income taxes. The portion of federal revenue derived from corporate income tax has decreased from 33 percent in the 1950s to 11.9 percent in 2005, reaching a low of 7.4 percent in 2003. The General Accounting Office revealed that over 60 percent of U.S. controlled corporations with at least $250 million in assets (93 percent of all reported assets) reported no federal tax liability each year between 1996 and 2000. Eighty-two of our largest corporations paid no tax in at least one of the first three years of the Bush administration. In Illinois, according to the governor's office of management and budget, almost half of the state's corporations with sales over $50 million paid no taxes from 1997 to 2005, yet efforts to collect more corporate taxes were shot down by the business community in early 2007.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: taxes, economy

Paul Buchheit is a professor with the Chicago City Colleges, co-founder of Global Initiative Chicago (GIChicago.org), and the founder of fightingpoverty.org. He is the editor and main contributor to the forthcoming book "American Wars: Illusions and Realities" (Clarity Press).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The assertion that high US profits go to progress and R&D is overstated.
Posted by: yellow on Nov 8, 2007 12:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even this is no justification. Capitalism often justifies itself by saying progress takes money and incentive from corporate sources. The 2007 US corporate spending on R&D according to R&D Journal is $219 billion. If other non-governmental sources are added the figure goes to $338 billion. The Federal Governemtn is kicking in $98 billion so now we have $436 billion. As a ratio to GDP, however, this grand total is less 2.5% near the lowest in our post WWII history. The highest R&D to GDP ratio was in the 1953 when the ratio was 2.87%!! This was during the height of the cold war competition with the Soviet Union.

R&D spending in US society is not large compared to other countries proportionately speaking. More patents are bought than newly applied for and R&D spending is down in many corporate budgets. Huge and unprecedented corporate profits are not justified by the "progress" made by US society today. Most of the money does not go for this purpose and more would not be spent on technological and scientific research even if corporate profits doubled!! CEO salaries would get bigger and there would be more conspicuous consumption. Higher profits would also go into mergers and financial speculation.

Most technological progress is made by modestly paid scientists and technical staff. The idea that big money incentives drive progress is a myth. The distribution of income and wealth determines the direction that spending goes such as on finding cures for health problems of those that can afford the expensive medications and not on popular health needs and prevention. The profit motive has certainly not given us a healthier world or US society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]