CBS Rues Unfairness of Rich Not Paying Enough Without Noting More Than a Third of Americans Pay Nothing
CBS News on Sunday morning managed to examine incongruities in the U.S. tax system, highlighting those – including a former New York Times reporter – who think the wealthy aren’t paying enough, but without bothering to point out the disproportionate share of the income tax paid by those at the top nor how more than a third of those who file an income tax return pay nothing or even get more back than they put in.
Reporter Seth Doane lamented the declining top tax rate: “It declined slowly through the '60s and '70s until 1982 under Ronald Reagan when it fell to 50 percent, eventually working its way down to the current rate of 35 percent.”
In his CBS News Sunday Morning piece, Doane turned to ex-New York Times reporter David Johnston for the usual liberal clap-trap: “All the data are overwhelmingly showing that for the last 30 years money has been flowing upward. It's not trickle down economics. It's Niagara up.” Including the FICA tax, Johnston complained: “If you're a single person making $500 a week, your total federal tax burden is significantly higher than someone who makes a million dollars a day.”
After allowing a Cato expert to note the economic damage caused by too-high tax burdens on the most productive, Doane countered him by touting “Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength,” a bunch of left-wing millionaires who want tax rates to be hiked for the rich: Their slogan: “We should pay more. We want to pay more.” Doane asserted: “Leo Hindery, Morris Pearl, and Dennis Mehiel don't agree that raising taxes on the rich will hurt the economy or the rich. And they should know. They're all multi-millionaires.”
Without ever addressing how a significant portion of Americans escape having to pay for government services, Doane concluded with an adage from “preeminent tax historian” Joe Thorndike who advised: “I think that filing taxes, even if it's a little bit painful, not such a bad thing because it forces people into that moment of awareness. What kind of government do I want?”
Contrary to Johnston’s narrow claim about a few multi-millionaires, the Tax Foundation last year noted “the average tax rate in 2008 ranged from around 2.6 percent of income for the bottom half of tax returns to 23.27 percent for the top 1 percent” who “paid 38.0 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 20.0 percent of adjusted gross income.”
Another 2010 Tax Foundation report determined:
A record number of the 142 million tax returns filed in 2008 resulted in no tax payment, according to a Tax Foundation analysis of IRS data. That means the tax filers got back every dollar that had been withheld from their paychecks, and often more. Roughly 51.6 million tax returns, or 36.3 percent, were filed by such “nonpayers,” people whose exemptions, deductions and credits wiped out any federal income tax due.
Though Doane missed the trend, avoidance of the federal income tax is soaring: “The number of nonpayers has increased by 59 percent in less than a decade, growing from 32.6 million in 2000 to 51.6 million in 2008. In the same time period, the total number of tax filers grew by only 10 percent.”
[UPDATE: Even more are able to avoid paying for the federal government. The Tax Policy Center estimated last year: “In 2010, 45 percent of tax returns will either remit no federal income tax or receive a net tax refund.”]
From the Sunday Morning story aired April 17, picking up after Doane empathized with an IRS taxpayer advocate over the complexity of the tax code, transcript provided by the MRC’s Brad Wilmouth:
SETH DOANE: And while frustration with our overly complex tax code might seem like a uniquely modern problem, in fact-
JOE THORNDIKE: It's one of those evergreen complaints just like, "I pay too much in taxes," "I think my taxes are too complicated." You could ask people that 200 years ago, 100 years ago or last week and you get the same answer.
DOANE: Joe Thorndike is a preeminent tax historian with a Virginia-based research firm, Tax Analysts.
THORNDIKE: Taxes were definitely a big part of the Revolution, a big part of the origin of the American nation.
DOANE: Take the Constitution, for example. Remember all that stuff about "we the people" and "ensuring domestic tranquility"?
THORNDIKE: I think that the Constitution is in many ways a tax document. It's designed to give the federal government a strong power to tax. And it does, in fact, do just that.
DOANE: For nearly 100 years, Congress didn't use that power very much - until a national crisis forced its hand.
THORNDIKE: The Civil War prompts a major change in the tax system. They introduce an income tax. They develop lots of new taxes on consumer goods.
DOANE: So we can blame the Civil War for introducing the income tax, but it was World War II that made it what it is today.
THORNDIKE: During World War II, they changed the income tax from something targeted just at rich people and they made it a middle class problem. They say it changed from a class tax to a mass tax.
DOANE: In 1944, the top tax rate was a staggering 94 percent. It declined slowly through the '60s and '70s until 1982 under Ronald Reagan when it fell to 50 percent, eventually working its way down to the current rate of 35 percent.
JOHNSTON: And all the data are overwhelmingly showing that for the last 30 years money has been flowing upward. It's not trickle down economics. It's Niagara up.
DOANE: David Cay Johnston is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter who teaches tax regulation at Syracuse University Law School.
JOHNSTON: If you're a single person making $500 a week, your total federal tax burden is significantly higher than someone who makes a million dollars a day.
DOANE: No.
JOHNSTON: Yes. You'll pay almost 22 percent of your income in income and payroll taxes or you did in the year 2007. In that year the 400 highest income taxpayers - who make $345 million on average - only paid by the same measure about 17 cents out of each dollar.
DOANE: The reason, Johnston says? Individual and corporate tax breaks, all stemming from the same source.
JOHNSTON: Political favors. Let me take one company that's been in the news, General Electric. Last year they spent $39 million lobbying Washington. That's $73,000 per member of Congress in the Senate.
EDWARDS: Well, you know, the main loopholes on the individual code are actually middle class benefits.
DOANE: Chris Edwards studies tax policy at the CATO Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington. He says, while it's easy to blame the rich, the reality is the bulk of tax breaks are for the middle class.
EDWARDS: It’s the mortgage interest deduction, the exclusion for health care insurance. It is true that wealthy people hire lawyers and accountants to benefit excessively from these tax code loopholes, but really most of the benefits go to the middle class.
DOANE: And increasing taxes on the wealthy, Edwards says, will only further cripple an already wounded economy.Story Continues Below Ad ↓EDWARDS: What happens when you raise rates for higher income people, they reduce their productive activities like working and investing and starting businesses, and they increase their unproductive activities like tax avoidance and tax evasion, so governments really shoot themselves in the foot if they raise rates too much.
LEO HINDERY, PATRIOTIC MILLIONAIRES FOR FISCAL STRENGTH: Every time I get a tax cut, I get richer. I don't put money back into the economy. I just get richer.
DOANE: Leo Hindery, Morris Pearl, and Dennis Mehiel don't agree that raising taxes on the rich will hurt the economy or the rich. And they should know. They're all multi-millionaires. We're talking about millions, each of you. Are we talking about much more than that?
HINDERY: Yes, yeah, I mean, I've been very blessed in my career, but it's been serendipity, and it was not any part of it, Seth, supposed to come from unfair tax rates.
DOANE: Media investor Leo Hindery and the others belong to Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength, a Democratic-leaning group of 200 plus millionaires who’ve signed petitions asking President Obama to raise their taxes. Dennis Mehiel is chairman of a major manufacturing company.
DOANE: Why, in your view, is paying taxes patriotic?
DENNIS MEHIEL, PATRIOTIC MILLIONAIRES FOR FISCAL STRENGTH: There are things that we want to do as a society. They're not free.
DOANE: Morris Pearl is managing director of a leading New York investment firm. Are the wealthy gaming the system?
MORRIS PEARL, PATRIOTIC MILLIONAIRES FOR FISCAL STRENGTH: Yes.
HINDERY: Every day.
PEARL: Yes, the wealthy have hugely more access to the legislators than the average American. I pick up my phone every day and get calls from members of Congress who want to talk to me, mainly because they want donations to their campaigns.
DOANE: People would love to reach their Congress person. You have them calling you?
PEARL: Unfortunately, yes.
DOANE: There's no doubt the question of how much in taxes millionaires should pay is important, but the IRS’s Nina Olson says there's an even bigger source of untapped revenue that almost no one is talking about.
NINA OLSON, IRS: Any income that is paid by check, cash, whatever that is not reported to the Internal Revenue Service, the person who mows your lawn, things like that, is the largest area of the tax gap.
DOANE: People like folks cleaning a house or running a farm stand and not reporting?
OLSEO: Restaurants, whatever. That's a bigger cash loss.
DOANE: And whether it's people skimming from the bottom or getting breaks at the top, the guy in the middle is footing the bill.
OLSON: If everybody reported their taxes properly, people would pay per person $2,200 less.
DOANE: It's enough to give every American a headache. But if you're feeling angry or bewildered this tax season, historian Joe Thorndike suggests you look at the big picture. From the Constitution forward, taxes have always been a critical part of the ebb and flow of our democracy.
THORNDIKE: I think that filing taxes, even if it's a little bit painful, not such a bad thing because it forces people into that moment of awareness. What kind of government do I want? Oliver Wendell Holmes said that taxes are the price we pay for civilization. But we have to decide over and over again how much civilization we want.
— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
- Brent Baker's blog
- Login to post comments






DOANE: For nearly 100 years, Congress didn't use that power very much - until a national crisis forced its hand.
JOHNSTON: Yes. You'll pay almost 22 percent of your income in income and payroll taxes or you did in the year 2007. In that year the 400 highest income taxpayers - who make $345 million on average - only paid by the same measure about 17 cents out of each dollar.
DOANE: Leo Hindery, Morris Pearl, and Dennis Mehiel don't agree that raising taxes on the rich will hurt the economy or the rich. And they should know. They're all multi-millionaires. We're talking about millions, each of you. Are we talking about much more than that?









Comments
The progressive income tax...
Submitted by c5then on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 9:16am.
It is designed to prevent the improvement of personal wealth from working hard and incrementally climbing the success ladder. As each new bracket is approached, there is a HUGE punishment for just barely crossing over. If you wanted to have a system of insuring that different "classes" were maintained in a society, a progressive income tax would be just about the best solution.
In fact as far a historical moral principles are concerned, a progressive income tax is just about the antithesis of the free market and libertarian principles upon which this country was founded.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
While Rome burns
Submitted by jpk3 on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 9:25am.
I read this and that is what came to mind. With all of the real world issues facing us today and we have powerful people playing the class warfare card. Follow the constitution and all this will go away. We the people got us into this mess and only we the people will get us out of it. The tax system as it has been run fails the “equal protection” clause does it not.
Taxing Income is backward in and of itself.
Submitted by Ashrak on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 9:33am.
Taxation was meant to be uniform among the several states as part of a republican form of government.
A progressive tax platform on income is Marxism at its finest. Significant damage was done to this country with the 16th and 17th Amendments and doing away with both of them will have the same affect as repealing prohibition. Individual Liberty will be restored and prosperity itself will return to this country to a path that will demonstrate unprecedented growth and improved standard of living.
If the rest of the world prefers to remain in the squalor of failed communist and socialist ideas, so be it. That they do so doesn't mean we have to.
Dubious at best
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 5:34pm.
Hmmm. Taxation was meant to be uniform among the several states? Really? You DO know how the federal government got most of its money, even for some time after the 16th Amendment was ratified, don't you?
Again, I do not understand how the 17th Amendment will change...anything. Anything at all. Instead of having popularly elected Senators who are charged with bringing home the bacon to their constituents, you replace them with Senators employed by state governments who will be under orders to get as much federal funds as possible so as not to cost the state government anything. Other than methodology, what exactly changes?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Tax Hikes
Submitted by richb313 on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 9:42am.
There seems to be a full court press going on to make sure taxes go up. It took a Constitutional Amendment to allow Income Tax in the first place and once that door was opened it was no longer our own money but somehow it became the governments money. It was and never will be the governments money.
The real debate is this, what right does the government have to private property. The answwer is none, unless you go with the public interest argument. That is a false argument to begin with because there is no objective way to define the public interest. That is a pure political question and changes faster than the wind.
Asking the question yet
Submitted by Slyrr on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 9:43am.
Asking the question yet again, because the lib-media just doesn't get it (or is playing dumb on purpose). If you liberal billionaires and wealthy liberal media types are so anxious to surrender money to your King Obama, why don't you lead by example?
Why don't the anchors, producers and owners of this network all get together, on camera, and empty their bank accounts, sell their houses, cars, jewelry, clothing, electronics and all their posessions for the whole nation to see?
Why don't they then take that money in one lump sum and lay it at the feet of their King, and SHOW the nation how its done?
Why, you wealthy liberal elitists? Why won't you do what you say?
Answer:
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 10:15am.
Because the ruling class has to make the rules to exclude the ruling class so the ruling class can continue to rule without being encumbered by the rules that are made to rule over the non-ruling class.
Asked and answered (sorta)
Submitted by Model850 on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 4:27pm.
An AP story on the subject provides one answer from one of the "more taxes on me" crowd:
Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said he has a solution for rich people who want to pay more in taxes: Write a check to the IRS. There's nothing stopping you.
"There's still time before the filing deadline for them to give Uncle Sam some more money," Hatch said.
Schoenberg said Hatch's suggestion misses the point.
"This voluntary idea clearly represents a mindset that basically pretends there's no such things as collective goods that we produce," Schoenberg said. "Are you going to let people volunteer to build the road system? Are you going to let them volunteer to pay for education?"
Is it just me or is that answer a bit of a non-sequitur? What the feathers does building roads or paying for education have to do with donating more of your money to your "church" (the government)?
Full article here.
It's better to force them?
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 4:37pm.
"This voluntary idea clearly represents a mindset that basically pretends there's no such things as collective goods that we produce," Schoenberg said. "Are you going to let people volunteer to build the road system? Are you going to let them volunteer to pay for education?"
Why not "let" people volunteer to build things or pay for them? The majority of fire fighters in America volunteer their time and efforts, do they not? No one, who actually relies upon the volunteer system, is complaining that this doesn't work.
Here's the real question: Would it be better to FORCE people to build railroads for someone else and pay for the education of someone else under the vague clime of "collective good?" According to the socialists, it is, as long as they, themselves, don't have to, you know ,actually DO the work and PAY the price, which is why they rarely volunteer for anything.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
My sister gets almost $2,000 back
Submitted by WhoIsJohnGalt on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 9:53am.
(give or take) every year from the IRS. And this is money that she has not paid into the system. She gets food stamps, gets the state of NY to pay for 2/3 of her mortgage, after they set her up with money for a down payment on a house, (even though her credit was worthless). That is, until she defaulted on that mortgage. Now she rents with the assistance of the state's Section 8 housing. She gets free health care from the taxpayer. Why? Because she doesn't want to work a full time job. She works part-time driving a school bus and is content with that.
So she gets more money back than she puts in. Extrapolate that out to see how many millionaires get THAT percentage back...I'd bet none.
Wealth is not income, and income is not wealth. Two different things, and if you think that taxing millionaire's income will generate a huge windfall, you don't understand where wealth comes from. And if you think taxing wealth will work, just look at the Kennedy's wealth. It's mostly kept offshore to avoid US taxes. That's what will happen...talk about a great sucking sound.
Make EVERYBODY pay 12% and let's see where we are then. No loopholes, no tax breaks. If we need to raise it, we raise it by the same percentage for EVERYONE. That's the only fair system.
Hey, Mr. Hindery and
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 10:04am.
Hey, Mr. Hindery and pals....you don't need a new tax structure. You are welcome to pay as much of your money, over and above what is required, to the federal government. Just write a check when you file your taxes, for whatever amount you'd like.
But of course, they won't pay more unless everyone else is forced to do so as well.
Serendipity, Mr. Hindery? So you are just one of the winners in life's lottery?
Well then "give back" just as much as makes you feel comfortable for your unearned success.
Good ole, Eddie Bernice Johnson
Submitted by texasborngranny on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 11:53am.
claims (on her FB page) to have given Neil Cavuto a good 'talking to' when he had her on last Wednesday. You'll notice it took several days for she and/or NewsHounds to come up with that spin... http://www.newshounds.us/2011/04/15/rep_eddie_bernice_johnson_gives_neil...
I saw that "talking to"
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 2:30pm.
I saw that "talking to" sometime last week. How can anyone have seriously elected this person? Talk about dense. Did you read the comments on NewsHound? My goodness!!! I wonder when the parents of those posters are going to finally cut off all internet access to them and tell them to get out of the basement and get a job!!!
Scuba
Submitted by Model850 on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 4:17pm.
I also saw that segment and laughed while she ranted on and on about "investment."
I just finished reading the comments at NewsHound. Amazing. I couldn't believe those folks actually thought that ignorant ranting from that woman was well-reasoned, intelligent argument.
I can't decide
Submitted by texasborngranny on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 12:40pm.
who is more ignorant... EBJ or those who vote for her. Same with Sheila Jackson Lee. How shameful that in Texas we have both.
FYI on Tax the Rich = Tax
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 1:54pm.
FYI on Tax the Rich =
Tax rate 39.6% under Clinton & 35% under Bush.
Over the 8 yrs. for each (average), the top 1% paid 32.76% of taxes under Clinton & 37.06% of taxes under Bush. IN other words: Rich paid more taxes as a % of taxes paid when the tax rate was dropped.
Numbers from table 6. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html data from IRS. Look at 1993-2000 for Clinton & 2001-2008 for Bush.
fyi What is top 1% level? $380K = top 1% in 2008 (table 7). Avg. min. AGI to be top 1% for Bush $343K, but $243K avg. under Clinton's 8 years.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2011/04/18/pbss-tavis-smiley-c...
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
I wonder if anyone had ever
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 2:38pm.
I wonder if anyone had ever done a study of how much revenue would be collected if we abolished this "Progressive" tax system (it's really regressive) and replaced it with a Flat Tax.
Individuals taxed at let's say 17% and corporations at 20%.
No deductions, no loopholes.
You make $1,000,000.00 you pay $170,000.00. You make $84,000.00 you pay %14,280.00. You make $10,000.00 you pay $1,700.00
EVERYONE PAYS!
How much do you think can be collected?
And of course they need to pass a balanced budget admendment and we need to go through ALL the agencies in the government and get rid of redundant and useless ones.
Sounds familiar :o)
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 5:37pm.
GMTA. :o)
You missed it. Steve Forbes was interviewed on Squawk Box today. I am proud to say I voted for him back in 1996.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)