The top 1% paid 36.89% of 2004 income taxes, compared to 34.27% in 2003, 33.71% in 2002 and 33.89% in 2001.
According to JEC Chairman Jim Saxton:
The new IRS data confirm once again that the tax burden is disproportionately borne by taxpayers in the top half. These tax data should be at the center of any future debate about tax policy. Unfortunately, a lot of discussion of tax policy is conducted without any reference to the shares of taxes actually paid by various income groups. As I have stressed for many years, the tax shares already paid by various income groups largely determine the distributional outcomes of most major tax changes, not the tax rate structure of the legislation itself.
Income Percentiles | Income Thresholds | Percentage of Personal Income Tax Paid |
Top 1% | $328,049 | 36.89% |
Top 5% | $137,056 | 57.13% |
Top 10% | $99,112 | 68.19% |
Top 25% | $60,042 | 84.86% |
Top 50% | $30,122 | 96.70% |
Bottom 50% | < $30,122 | 3.30% |
Source: IRS (Tax Year 2004)
I think if you asked the general public two questions:
1. Is a household with two income earners that reported an annual household income of $99,000 in 2004 part of the group that you would describe as "the rich"?
2. Would you consider the top 10% of American households (by income) part of the group you would describe as "the rich."
I suspect that most people would answer NO to the first question (they would think of that household income as "middle class") and YES to the second question, even though those two groups are exactly the same households!
Note that in 2004, the average weekly manufacturing wage in Flint, Michigan was about $1400 per week, or about $70,000 per year. Therefore, even the average manufacturing worker would be in the top "richest" 20% (approximately), some would likely be in the top 10%.
No comments:
Post a Comment