Here’s a cold reality that none of the presidential candidates want to tell you: A shrinking number of Americans are bearing an ever bigger share of the nation’s income tax burden. Is that fair? is it sticking the rich with what they deserve? Or is it a sign of a growing social problem? As you file your tax return, and as the candidates cite assorted half-truths about U.S. taxes, those questions are worth our attention – as long as we face the surprising facts.
The first surprise for most people is the large proportion of Americans who actually get money back – not a refund, but a net payment-through the income tax system is huge. In 2005 (the most recent year available for the data), the bottom 40% of Americans by income had, in the aggregate, an effective tax rate that is negative: Their households receive more money through the income tax system, largely from the earned income tax credit, than they paid.
That means that the number of people who actually pay America’s income taxes-totally almost $1 trillion in 2005-is surprisingly small. Of those who filed returns(themselves a subset of the population), just half accounted for 97% of the Treasury’s total income tax revenue. The top half’s share of total payments has been growing steadily for the past 20 years. The top 10% of taxpayers kicked in 70% of the total income tax. And the famous top %1 paid almost 40% of all income tax, a proportion that has jumped dramatically since 1986.
Wait a minute. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama rail against President Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich.” How does that square with the growing share of total tax paid by the wealthy? Are the richest Americans paying so much because they’re actually getting clobbered with a higher tax rates? No. Their effective tax rate – the total tax they pay as a percentage of their income – has declined substantially. The top 1% paid an effective tax rate of 23% in 2005, down from 27.5% in 2001.
So if the rich are paying more income tax, yet are being taxed at a lower rate, there can be only one explanation. Their incomes must be growing fast, much faster than the rest of the population’s. That is what is happening. Backing in 1985, an income of $119.000 got you into the top %1 club. By 2005 it took $365,000 to get you into the club. Those numbers are not adjusted for inflation; if corrected it turns out the price of admission still rose by 72%. By contrast the inflation adjusted definition of a median taxpayer-that is someone in the 50th percentile did not budge.
Now lets consider some of the recent heated tax controversies of recent years. Did Bush cut taxes for the rich? Yes. But he cut taxes for the poor even more. If we look at the measure that really matters, the change in effective tax rates, the bottom 50% got a much bigger tax cut than the top 1%. Did the dollar value of Bush’s tax cuts go mostly to the wealthy? Absolutely. It could hardly be otherwise. Since the well-off pay the overwhelming majority of taxes, any tax cut with a prayer of influencing the economy would have to go mostly to them. You could completely eliminate income taxes for the bottom half of the population and the Treasury would hardly notice.
The real issues here are clear. One is having a shrinking minority of citizens pay most of Washington’s bills. Social cohesion falls apart. The majority who pay nothing resent those with higher incomes; the minority who pay heavily resent those who don’t pay.
More fundamental is why some people’s incomes are growing so much faster than other people’s incomes. That, and not taxes is what the supposed tax debate is really about. Which candidate will make a substantive proposal for dealing with the issue, including how low-income citizens can get some of the earning power now going heavily to better educated. It’s a lot more complicated than changing the income tax rates.
This is mostly targeted toward the workplace and how when there isn’t a man available for the job to get a woman to work at maximum efficiency.
- Pick young married women. They usually have more sense of responsibility than their unmarried friends, they’re less likely to be flirtatious, they need the work or they wouldn’t be doing it, they still have the pep and interest to work hard and to deal with the public efficiently.
- Retain a physician to give each woman you hire a special physical examination – one covering female conditions. This step not only protects the property against the possibilities of lawsuit, but reveals whether the employee-to-be has any female weaknesses which would make her mentally of physically unfit for the job.
- Stress at the outset the importance of time the fact that a minute or two lost here and there make serious inroads on schedules. Until this point is gotten across, service is likely to be slowed up.
- Give the female employee a definite day-long schedule of duties so that they’ll keep busy without bothering the management for instructions every few minutes. Numerous studies have shown that women make excellent works when they have their jobs cut out for them, but that they do lack the initiative in finding work for themselves.
- Whenever possible, let the employee change from one job to another at some time during the day. Women are inclined to be less nervous and happier with change.
- Give every girl an adequate number of rest periods during the day. You have to make some allowances for feminine psychology. A girl has more confidence and is more efficient if she can keep her hair neat, apply fresh lipstick and file her nails several times a day.
- Be tactful when issuing instructions or in making criticisms. Women are often sensitive; they can’t shrug off harsh words the way men do. Never ridicule a woman – it breaks her spirt and cuts off her efficiency.