[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
those ntu figures do not include payroll taxes, but i think they DO include capital gains taxes in their definition of "personal income taxes".

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The link does not give an explanation but the source is IRS which generally implies the numbers are simply total federal income tax (combo of reg rates, CG rates, credits, AMT, etc.) and do not include state taxes, sales taxes, or FICA. In fact, these aren't the best numbers to use for distributional comparisons but are often used b/c they are the most readily available (specifically, it's otherwise very tough to say much about the super-rich).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I can't just take your word on this. What are the relative sizes of total income tax revenue versus the other items? If income tax dwarfs them (which I would think it does but I have not seen any comparison) then these numbers are fine to reference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its been said that three quarters of U.S taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than income tax. And the social security tax rate isn't 7%, its double that because your employer pays a similar amount on your behalf, effectively out of pay you would have recieved if it werent for the tax. U.S. payroll taxes are over 15% up to $90k in income.

Buffett makes a great point about tax fairness that has been frequently misunderstood. Theresa Heinz Kerry pays 14% on total income north of $4m per year. But another rich guy busting his ass to make the same $4m per year in W2 income can easily pay twice the taxes as the trust fund baby Theresa Heinz Kerry. And a secretary making $50k per year can easily pay a similar percentage as the rich guy, or half that rate depending upon deductions. Our tax system has been sold to the highest bidder and they have the most advantageus rates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I know Mrs. Kerry had tax free muni's and I assume she had a significant amount of dividend income that was taxed at the corporate level. Perhaps she had some long term cap gains. We've been through this a zillion times in the politics forum so I'm not sure I'm for it again. But the problem with taxing income is that the U.S. has a diverse set of income earners. What constitutes a business expense that is deductible for one person may not be the same for another. The tax system as it currently stands is the breeding ground of special interest groups. The main reason the tax code is so complicated is due to the fact that defining taxable income for all income earners is a complicated endeavor.

As far as the payroll tax is concerned. First of all it is specifically for SS. SS payments are skewed such that the poorest wage earners will get more than their fair share when they collect SS. I realize the SS trust fund is a gimmick but if they collect SS in the future they'll get more than their fair share for what they contributed. Second of all the lowest wage earners have the EIC and that can make up for a lot of the money that they pay in payroll taxes.