|
Inflation adjusted, effective income tax rates
07-02-2010, 01:49 PM
|
#1
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,142
|
Inflation adjusted, effective income tax rates
I was bored, so I decided to plot out the effective income tax rates for several years. Been wanting to do this for a long time. All dollars in constant 2010 dollars.
Effective FIT.gif
Whether one is in favor of it or not, tax rates have certainly become less progressive. As Ziggy has pointed out, this does not capture the effect of closing loopholes that came with the Reagan reductions.
If I get motivated, I might add a few more years in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
Tax data from:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.xls
CPI data from
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/data/ie_data.xls
__________________
Start by admitting
from cradle to tomb
it isn't that long a stay.
|
|
|
|
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!
Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!
|
07-02-2010, 02:44 PM
|
#2
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 26,806
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndependentlyPoor
As Ziggy has pointed out, this does not capture the effect of closing loopholes that came with the Reagan reductions.
|
Doesn't that make it all for naught?
Why not look at inflation adjusted tax receipts for various inflation adjusted income levels? That tells us what was actually paid, which tells us more than a % number on a tax bracket that is subject to revision through 'loopholes'.
Even that is questionable, as I see 'AGI' as a rather fictitious number, and I'm not sure the current receipts take into account the 'refundable tax credits'.
-ERD50
|
|
|
07-02-2010, 02:48 PM
|
#3
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,142
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50
Doesn't that make it all for naught?
Why not look at inflation adjusted tax receipts for various inflation adjusted income levels? That tells us what was actually paid, which tells us more than a % number on a tax bracket that is subject to revision through 'loopholes'.
Even that is questionable, as I see 'AGI' as a rather fictitious number, and I'm not sure the current receipts take into account the 'refundable tax credits'.
-ERD50
|
All true. I was thinking about doing the tax receipts. Might still, however, I agree that AGI has a lot of wiggle room.
OTOH, how does one form an option without some data?
__________________
Start by admitting
from cradle to tomb
it isn't that long a stay.
|
|
|
07-02-2010, 02:53 PM
|
#4
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,105
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndependentlyPoor
OTOH, how does one form an option without some data?
|
A little knowledge (data) is a dangerous thing.
__________________
Sometimes death is not as tragic as not knowing how to live. This man knew how to live--and how to make others glad they were living. - Jack Benny at Nat King Cole's funeral
|
|
|
07-02-2010, 03:03 PM
|
#5
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,142
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dex
A little knowledge (data) is a dangerous thing.
|
I'll take that as a request to post more detailed data.
__________________
Start by admitting
from cradle to tomb
it isn't that long a stay.
|
|
|
07-02-2010, 03:27 PM
|
#6
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,142
|
Rummaging around looking for better data on actual taxes paid and ran across this.
This might be close to what I was looking for, at least for 2008. Doing the same analysis for historical data is gonna be a lotta work.
From:
Are federal taxes progressive?
__________________
Start by admitting
from cradle to tomb
it isn't that long a stay.
|
|
|
07-02-2010, 03:53 PM
|
#7
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 26,806
|
Thanks, that is probably a better way to look at it. Of course, we must keep in mind that that "lowest quintile" is "of those who pay FIT". From that source:
Quote:
About 40 percent of tax units will pay no individual income tax or will receive a net subsidy for 2008;
|
-ERD50
|
|
|
07-02-2010, 03:58 PM
|
#8
|
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 22,923
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50
Of course, we must keep in mind that that "lowest quintile" is "of those who pay FIT".
|
I did not read the chart as excluding those who pay no FIT (since it includes all taxes, including payroll taxes). The quintiles are simply of "cash income". I think the fact that 40% pay no FIT is reflected in the low overall number for that quintile.
__________________
Living an analog life in the Digital Age.
|
|
|
07-02-2010, 04:01 PM
|
#9
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Oregon Coast
Posts: 16,483
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50
Thanks, that is probably a better way to look at it. Of course, we must keep in mind that that "lowest quintile" is "of those who pay FIT".
|
Not necessarily. Note that this graph includes payroll taxes (7.65% for most of us, 15.3% for the self-employed), and yet their tax burden is 1.1% *including payroll tax*. That to me suggests the group has an effective negative income tax which, when combined with payroll taxes, is +1.1%.
It's not clear whether the employer portion of payroll taxes is included here; all that would change is just *how* negative the effective income tax rate would be.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)
|
|
|
07-02-2010, 04:17 PM
|
#10
|
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 26,806
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby
I did not read the chart as excluding those who pay no FIT (since it includes all taxes, including payroll taxes). The quintiles are simply of "cash income". I think the fact that 40% pay no FIT is reflected in the low overall number for that quintile.
|
Yes, thanks - looks like you are right. I'm so used to seeing it in that form, I didn't read the fine print that included 'payroll tax' in there.
-ERD50
|
|
|
07-03-2010, 08:14 AM
|
#11
|
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,629
|
The CBO does regular reports on total effective rates. Here's one: Congressional Budget Office - Distribution of Federal Taxes
Google on: Effective Federal Tax Rates site:cbo.gov
to get more samples.
BUT, be aware of their assumptions.
1) They pick up both halves of SS and Medicare and apply them to the worker.
2) They treat refundable tax credits as negative taxes rather than as welfare.
3) The assume that 100% of corporate income tax is paid by the owners of capital.
I think (1) is very safe, (2) is questionable, and (3) is wrong.
If you're interested in the very rich, the IRS does an annual report on the 400 top reported incomes. IIRC, in the most recent year, the average income in that group was $345 million, and the average FIT rate was 16%. FICA would be trivial, the real question would be corporate income tax.
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Recent Threads
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
» Quick Links
|
|
|