The Right Opinion
The Rich Pay Their Fair Share in Taxes
and then some
Are Americans eager for higher taxes on the affluent?
Barack Obama and his allies clearly think so. The president who came to office vowing to "spread the wealth around" by raising taxes on individuals with incomes above $200,000 is doubling down, making a tax hike on the rich the centerpiece of his campaign for reelection.
"We should ask the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more," he urged a White House audience last week. "We're talking about folks like me going back to the tax rates that existed under Bill Clinton.... And here's the thing -- there are a lot of well-to-do Americans, patriotic Americans, who understand this and are willing to do the right thing, willing to do their part to make this country strong."
An Obama campaign ad summarizing "President Obama's plan" drives the point home succinctly. "Wealthy Pay More," the on-screen title says; "Middle Class Pays Less."
Meanwhile, the union-funded activist group Americans United for Change is out with a quarter-million-dollar ad blitz denouncing Republicans who won't "make the richest 2% pay their fair share in taxes." Adding to the class-warfare clamor is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, with his preposterous accusation that Mitt Romney "has not paid taxes for ten years," thanks to the "many tricks" for avoiding taxes that "people who make as much money as Mitt Romney have ... at their disposal."
Few things get liberal Democrats salivating like populist red meat. But if voters generally shared the left's weakness for soak-the-rich nostrums, Nancy Pelosi would be speaker of the House, the Occupy movement would be riding high -- and Republicans would still wince at the memory of Ronald Reagan losing the White House to Walter Mondale in a 49-state landslide.
But voters, by and large, don't yearn to see the wealthy stripped bare by the tax collector. In a new nationwide poll, Gallup asked Americans to rank a list of policy proposals for the next president to address. Respondents gave highest priority to "creating good jobs," "reducing corruption in federal government," "reducing the federal budget deficit," "dealing with terrorism and other international threats," and "ensuring the long-term stability of Social Security and Medicaid." Raising taxes on the wealthy placed last. Even among Obama supporters, no issue on Gallup's list was deemed less important.
Blasting the wealthy for not paying their "fair share" in taxes may rev up what Howard Dean called "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." But measured by any reasonable yardstick, rich Americans pay their fair share. And then some.
One reasonable yardstick might be the average rate paid when all federal taxes -- including not just income taxes but also payroll taxes -- are considered. The Congressional Budget Office reported last month that in 2009, the top 20 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 23.2 percent of their income in federal taxes -- more than double the 11.1 percent paid by the middle quintile, and 23 times the 1 percent paid by the lowest quintile. Even within the top 20 percent, average tax rates rose with income: The richest 1 percent paid 28.9 percent of their earnings in federal taxes.
Or perhaps a more reasonable yardstick would compare the share of federal taxes paid with the share of national income earned. The CBO ran those numbers too. In 2009, the bottom 20 percent of taxpayers earned approximately 5 percent of the nation's income but paid just 0.3 percent of all federal taxes. Households in the middle quintile, which earned almost 14.7 percent of national income, paid only 9.4 percent of federal taxes. Yet Americans in the top quintile, who earned 51 percent of the nation's income, paid a whopping 67.9 percent of all federal taxes.
And the much-demonized 1 percent? They took in 13.4 percent of all income in 2009 -- and shelled out 28.9 percent of all federal taxes.
Reasonable minds can debate whether income inequality is good, bad, or neutral; whether "fair" tax rates should be flat or graduated; whether income-redistribution is a legitimate function of government. But what's clear is that wealthy Americans pay plenty -- far more than plenty -- in taxes. Maybe that's why voters aren't clamoring to make them pay even more.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe. His website is www.JeffJacoby.com).

8 Comments
Howard Last in Wyoming
Wednesday, August 8, 2012 at 11:57 AM
What we need is a flat tax and not a flat percentage. By a flat tax I mean everyone pays the same exact amount. After all we are all supposed to be equal, how does paying different amounts make us equal? Having people pay different amounts was Karl Marx's idea. The only difference between the democraps and republicrats is the amount of the inequality.
wjm in Colorado
Wednesday, August 8, 2012 at 1:42 PM
So how much does someone on welfare pay? By your logic we all pay Nothing, and that would suit me fine. A flat percentage would be fair, or if we replaced the whole of the income tax, and replaced it with a National Sales Tax, then Everyone pays. Karl Marx was for a graduated tax, that is why marxists like Obamao want to soak the rich, it is all about redistribution, from those who have to those who don't. We will never have everyone pay the same ammount, for to do so, we would look to the lowest common denominator, and pay nothing. Death and taxes will always be with us, and the only "fair" way, is a flat percentage, or even more "fair", replace income tax with the sales tax. The more you consume, the more you pay.
Eugene Patrick Devany in Massapequa Park
Wednesday, August 8, 2012 at 1:43 PM
The Republicans want two income tax brackets. The 10% bracket is for those subject to the 15% payroll taxes and the 25% bracket is for those above. It amounts to a flat 25% tax except that the high earners will keep most of their tax exemptions so people like Mr. Romney will pay less than 15%.
Congress needs to be reminded:
• Ninety years ago the well-to-do enjoyed a low 25% tax rate (which was actually reduced to 24% for 1929 – congress never saw the depression coming). • Top income tax rates were increased from 24% to: 63%, 79%, 81%, 88% and finally to 94% in 1944 in order to correct the economic imbalance. • The Wealth Gap was ignored by tax reformers (today half live on only 1.1% of wealth-down from 3.6% in 1995). • High unemployment today has not been this bad since the Great Depression of 1929. • The job killing payroll taxes did not exist (Social Security began in the1930’s).
Learn the solution at www.TaxNetWealth.com
Anton D Rehling in Olympia, WA
Wednesday, August 8, 2012 at 2:19 PM
uneployment in 1929 was not the double digit that the depression is famous for. It was still in the 5% range untill government interference in the economy and attempt at economic control did what it did today ruined job creation and plunged us into a great depression as it has done today.
Joe in Texas
Wednesday, August 8, 2012 at 3:19 PM
Eugene,
Look at total net revenues from the period after the depression when FDR raised taxes. They went down! Rich people pulled money out of the markets. When taxes were lowered, gov't revenues went back up.
Read Thomas Sowell and you might learn something.
Also, research Clinton era tax rates. The '94 lanslide happened because he raised taxes to what Obama wants now. More wealthy people dropped out of the markets. It wasn't until Clinton realized his mistake and lowered capital gains taxes that gov't revenues went up and DC was able to balance the budget.
Dick Morris wrote about it. Your website is bunk.
Hugh McKeon in Rockport, TX
Wednesday, August 8, 2012 at 5:16 PM
At some point in time, a fresh look at the "Equal protection under the law" clause should be visited by the Supreme Court. The current tax system is anything but 'equal'.
Tod-the tool guy in BROOKLYN, N.Y.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012 at 7:10 PM
We, the People, could repeal the 16th Amendment, and replace the UNFAIR INCOME TAX with a CONSUMPTION TAX. Here's what Milton Friedman said:"Societies that seek equality before liberty, will get neither, but societies that seek liberty before equality, will get a high degree of both." Great empires were built with sweat, wisdom,private capital, and fossil fuels!! POTUS 44-OUT THE DOOR AND NO MORE!!!
Peter in CT
Thursday, August 9, 2012 at 9:38 AM
Warren Buffett, billionaire, pays a total tax rate (federal, state & local; personal & corporate) of 11% of his income and investment gains. A single person earning a minimum wage pays taxes amounting to 37% of her wages, triple Mr. Buffett’s rate (doubt me? see website below for spreadsheets). The top 1% in the US have gone from owning 22% to 40% of the nation's wealth in the last thirty years. This is largely due to the tax cuts for the wealthy investor class, started under Reagan, continued under Bush. They were supposed to encourage investment and strengthen the economy. Since then, the average annual GDP growth dropped by one-quarter.
The favored tax treatment for investments and the wealth concentration that resulted leads to the demand for investments exceeding the supply of worthy investments, especially in the setting of reduced consumption from the overtaxation of the middle class and working poor ... (Econ 101) ... Investment bubbles ... Recessions ... All but the wealthiest are at risk of losing their jobs, homes, retirement savings. For much more, including a proposal for comprehensive tax reform which would have everyone pay their fair share, cut middle-class taxes, reduce the deficit, improve the economy, and strengthen the nation as a force for good in the world, see http://fairsharetaxes.org