Voters Think Their Tax Burden Is Fair
Many media reports such as this article from The Wichita Eagle are acting as if the public’s view of the “tea party” astroturf protests is some kind of unknowable mystery:
More than 750 people, including U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, are expected to gather near Wichita Mid-Continent Airport post office on Wednesday for a taxpayer “tea party” to protest the federal economic stimulus package, organizers said. [...] Supporters of President Obama and the stimulus say the protesters are a small, vocal minority, and that most families will see an $800 annual tax cut from reduced withholding that’s part of the stimulus.
One gets hoarse repeating this sort of thing, but not only do “supporters of President Obama” “say” “that most families will get an $800 annual tax cut,” it’s actually the case that most families will get an $800 annual tax cuts. It’s true that the White House says this and that many of its supporters say this, but lots of people say lots of things. This thing happens to be true.
As for the “small, vocal minority” we saw this morning that 71 percent of Americans say they have confidence in Obama’s economic policies and this other Gallup poll shows that most Americans think their current tax burden is fair and reject the tea party overtaxation argument:
Now how small a minority is Brownback standing with? Well, we’re talking about 30-40 percent of the population. So it’s not that small a minority. Hostility to Obama’s economic policies is slightly less widespread than support for legalizing marijuana—much more than a fringe view, but clearly less than a majority. But in a country as large as the United States, adherents to minority viewpoints can often convince themselves that they’re in the majority. I frequently here people say that marijuana legalization is popular, presumably because it is popular in the sort of circles they/I travel in.
33 Responses to “Voters Think Their Tax Burden Is Fair”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 14th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Huh. That’s a pretty dramatic shift from 1999 to 2009. Did Bush kill the anti-tax movement with his constant talk about his tax cuts?
April 14th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Runaway italics!!!!
April 14th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Matt, you’ve got an unclosed italic tag at the end of “Wichita Eagle” in the first line of this post.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:25 am
I don’t understand Matt’s new notion of what the purpose of a public protest is. If there was an overwhelming majority opposed to a policy it generally wouldn’t be implemented in a democracy. So there would be no need for protest. On the contrary, the purpose of a protest is generally to gather attention and, hopefully support, for a minority view (again, in a democracy; in a tyranny it’s another matter). The idea that the tea party protesters are idiots because only 40% of the populace agrees with them or that the point of a protest is to demonstrate that something is broadly unpopular is a deeply strange thing for a progressive to argue (not to say the tea party people aren’t idiots for completely different reasons). Of course, Matt doesn’t really believe this when it comes to progressive protests.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Err…this post was weirdly generous towards the tea party people. There’s no reason to identify “Person who thinks their tax burden is too high” and “Person who supports these moronic tea party protests”.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Well Duh. The small vocal minority is paying for the people who think that arrangement is just fine.
This is the dumbest post Yglesias has put up yet. The Gallup poll actually asks about income tax burden. Considering 47% of returns pay no income tax why is it a surprise they’re happy about that? Which part of “free ride” are you having trouble understanding?
If you actually wanted to have an honest result around income taxes, limit the poll to people who actually pay income taxes.
And oh yeah, the tax cuts aren’t actually cuts, they’re credits. For those in Palm Beach that means if you don’t pay taxes, you get a check anyway. You know, welfare.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Looks like the percent who think their taxes are “fair” went up during the BushCo first term. What? People like tax cuts for the rich? Or does the chart just reflect the fact that a significant percent of “taxpayers” in fact don’t pay any federal income taxes at all?
April 14th, 2009 at 11:47 am
I’m going to go with the explanation that the exploding deficit killed the anti-tax movement.
That would make sense. Maybe too much sense for public opinion.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:51 am
It would be interesting to see the chart go back another 10 years or so. I think what we see with the spike in people dissatisfied with their tax burden is the result of 6 years of screaming anti-Clinton rhetoric from the right. After a while, in spite of the actual tax rates, people start to believe that their taxes have gone up when they haven’t. This is the reason the Republicans are staging these rallies–to convince people that Obama is ripping them off. If they say it often enough, people will start to believe it.
However, I do like shooter’s comment at 10. It’s nice to see the right being so up-front about their intention to raise taxes on the poor.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:53 am
agree w/ 10. This argument is specious at best. Of course the number of people saying their taxes are “about right” is at an all-time high. The number of people not paying any income taxes are at an all-time high.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Since 40% pay no income taxes at all, and 48% think their taxes are about right, and 3% think they pay to little. We basically have 11% who actually pay taxes and think they are fair or too little vs. 46% who fell they are paying too much. Good argument.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Stupidity: People who got a tax cut rallying against tax increases.
It’s almost as if they’re just a bunch of rightwing loons who didn’t say a word when Bush took a $500 billion surplus and turned it into a $500 billion debt … or complain about putting more than $1 trillion in wars on the country’s credit card … or cry about “smaller government!” when Bush Co. created the Dept. of Homeland Security … and just like bitching when a Democrat is in office.
April 14th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Considering 47% of returns pay no income tax why is it a surprise they’re happy about that? Which part of “free ride” are you having trouble understanding?
Perhaps we’re having trouble understanding the part where they don’t pay any taxes at all, seeing as how, you know, they do. Why is it conservatives always conflate income tax as the sole method of taxation, then claim so many people don’t pay any taxes at all? Oh, right, because they’re dishonest.
Most think their current tax burden – i.e., the tax burden after the effects of the Bush tax cuts and before the effects of the Obama tax increases – is fair. It says nothing about the Tea Part overtaxation argument, which is that Obama’s inevitable tax increases are unfair.
Al, clearly very few of these protesters are in the 250k+ bracket that will ACTUALLY have their taxes go up. Which is exactly how Bush wrote the bill, by the way; this increase is an automatic sunset provision, and Obama is proposing to extend the tax cuts for the rest of us longer than Bush originally planned for them to exist.
So what, exactly, are they protesting against? “Inevitable tax increases”? What, pray tell, are these exactly? The $50 a year they might have to pay in the unlikely event cap-and-trade gets implemented? Are they just protesting potential future policies Obama hasn’t even proposed? They’re convinced Obama wants to significantly raise the working and middle-class tax burden despite years of rhetoric and action to the contrary?
Listen, we all know what the deal is. The Republican economic policy is designed first and foremost always to favor the very rich. If you *are* very rich, I could see favoring that. If you’re in Wichita and you’ll never hit six figures in your life, I have no idea why you would. And especially why you would take to the streets demanding exactly that. Or whatever it is they’re demanding.
April 14th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
40% pay no income taxes at all? That statistic sounds fishy to me. Does that include young adults going to college? If my wife and I file jointly, does that mean only one of us is paying taxes?
47% of no returns pay no taxes? Do you mean that 47% of tax returns filed end up with people getting money back because they overpaid during the year? That wouldn’t surprise me (actually I’d expect the %age would be higher), but that doesn’t mean people are not paying income taxes.
Or are these statistics, like 73% of all statistics, just made up on the spot.
April 14th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
The people who say that 40% don’t pay taxes are leaving out payroll taxes—a classic conservative trick for making it seem like only the rich pay taxes. Payroll withholdings are how most people pay most of their taxes. Don’t be fooled.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Adam Says:
April 14th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Considering 47% of returns pay no income tax why is it a surprise they’re happy about that? Which part of “free ride” are you having trouble understanding?
Perhaps we’re having trouble understanding the part where they don’t pay any taxes at all, seeing as how, you know, they do. Why is it conservatives always conflate income tax as the sole method of taxation, then claim so many people don’t pay any taxes at all? Oh, right, because they’re dishonest.
===========================================================
Well if you’d actually bother to look at the Gallup poll question you’d notice it says INCOME TAX
April 14th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
DAS Says:
April 14th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
40% pay no income taxes at all? That statistic sounds fishy to me. Does that include young adults going to college? If my wife and I file jointly, does that mean only one of us is paying taxes?
47% of no returns pay no taxes? Do you mean that 47% of tax returns filed end up with people getting money back because they overpaid during the year? That wouldn’t surprise me (actually I’d expect the %age would be higher), but that doesn’t mean people are not paying income taxes.
Or are these statistics, like 73% of all statistics, just made up on the spot.
============================================================
Actually this source says it’s about 33%
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23631.html
According to the most recent IRS statistics for 2006, some 45.6 million tax filers—one-third of all filers—have no tax liability after taking their credits and deductions. For good or ill, this is a dramatic 57 percent increase since 2000 in the number of Americans who pay no personal income taxes.
The tax code has always contained provisions that reduce the income tax burden for low-income workers, such as the standard deduction, personal exemption, and dependent exemption. Between 1950 and 1990, the percentage of tax filers whose entire tax liability was wiped out by these provisions averaged 21 percent. Since then, lawmakers have expanded credits—such as the earned income tax credit (EITC)—while creating a plethora of new credits, including the child tax credit, the HOPE credit, lifetime learning credit, and the credit for adoption expenses.
Most tax credits can only reduce a taxpayer’s amount due to zero, but the EITC and the child tax credit were also made refundable, meaning that taxpayers are eligible to receive a check even if they have paid no income tax during the year. Those tax returns have become, in effect, a claim form for a subsidy delivered through the tax system rather than a direct payment from a traditional government program like welfare or farm supports.
As shown in Table 1 below, the Tax Foundation estimates that there will be 47 million tax returns with zero income tax liability in 2009 under current law. That’s one-third of all tax returns, and those 47 million tax returns represent 96 million individuals.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
That, and because they’ve completely given up on repealing Social Security.
Remember when FICA was a crippling, unfair tax burden that robbed people of the American Dream? Well, no longer! Now, it’s not even a tax at all!
April 14th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Yeah, he’s doing a great job bailing out the money lenders who wreaked havoc on the taxpayers. Where’s the money for all those who’ve already lost their homes or who are about to? The illusions that people will swallow as they wait in line at the Food Pantry. And, as long as vapid, oleaginous sites like this coo how good Obama, Inc. is – no one’s the wiser, huh?
April 14th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
I’ve been curious about this. The 40% number gets thrown around a lot, and I believe it comes from this Congressional Budget Office chart on tax payment distribution
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/summary_table_2006.xls
It shows that for the two lowest income quintiles (yes, 40%) the share of income tax burden is a negative number, meaning people who don’t owe taxes get a subsidy like EITC. Everyone in the quintiles doesn’t get it, but it nets out that way which explains the Tax Foundation link I had saying the number is around 33%
That chart also addresses payroll taxes for SS and Medicare. The share of the two lowest quintiles for these is 14.7%. The share of the two highest quintiles is 68.5%
April 14th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Would be useful to know if the gallup poll was of people who actually pay income tax or not.
Also: it looks like a lot more than the top 1% earners in the country were happy with the Bush tax cuts.
Lastly, the other chart at the site Matt pulled this one from is a lot more interesting.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
It really isn’t too hard to get conservatives to admit that they want the restore the wealth requirements for voting.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
I am lucky enough to be in the top quintile, just barely, but I made it. I pay what I consider a large tax bill. I realize that it funds all the things that contribute to me living in a land that allows a guy like me to work hard and make it to where I am. I could probably pay even a bit more if necessary. What I don’t accept is that there are people who pay no income taxes at all. I realize that they pay Social Security and Medicare, but they pay zero towards the rest of the government. In fact, they get some of my tax dollars back each year. Everyone should pay some income taxes. The rich can pay more, but everyone should pay some. It really irks me to stand in line at the grocery store and watch someone get a grocery cart full of stuff on WIC and food stamps and then haul their stuff out to their pretty nice car and talk about what restaurant they want to eat at tonight. I’m pretty sure they were fully satisfied with their tax bill too.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
It’s all one big pot of money. Every year, the Social Security surplus, by law, gets transfered into the general fund, and the invoices for the pavement, Hellfire rockets, and Social Security checks get paid from that fund.
So everyone below a certain income pays Social Security and Medicaid and gasoline and whatever other taxes, and then at a certain income level, the income tax kicks in. I don’t see the problem.
Would you feel better if they scrapped FICA, but raised the income tax exactly the same amount on everybody? Would you be less irked at welfare recipients who aren’t experiencing as much deprivation as you’d like if they did that to the tax code?
April 14th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
It really irks me to stand in line at the grocery store and watch someone get a grocery cart full of stuff on WIC and food stamps and then haul their stuff out to their pretty nice car and talk about what restaurant they want to eat at tonight. I’m pretty sure they were fully satisfied with their tax bill too.
I seriously doubt this ever happened. Sounds like something straight out of Reagan’s “welfare queen” speech. Where do you even shop, argusx? If you earn as much as you say you do, I have my doubts that your grocery store even accepts WIC. And it’s pretty hard to tell if someone is paying with food stamps. These days they use debit cards that are indistinguishable from ATM cards, unless you’re really spying on someone, that is.
I live in a pretty poor area and I admit that I get really annoyed when I get behind someone paying with WIC. For one thing, it takes forever, and for another, I do start to question whether this person actually deserves the cheap milk, bread, and Juicey Juice they’re getting for the trouble. But you know what’s better than being on WIC? Not being poor.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
I just tell them to compare the Federal W/H on their pay stubs for March and April.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Yes, it really happened. Depends on where you live. We actually have poor people where I live- and we even shop at the same stores. OMG how can this be… get a grip. Its all relative. We all shop at Giant and Shoppers food warehouse. Sometimes our kids go to the same school and it doesn’t seem to make my kids have to go to the Drs. Imagine that. Sometimes some of you get so wrapped up in your how the world should be that you miss how it is – people from both sides. Oh, and they bought some Red bull too.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
“I seriously doubt this ever happened. Sounds like something straight out of Reagan’s “welfare queen” speech. Where do you even shop, argusx? If you earn as much as you say you do, I have my doubts that your grocery store even accepts WIC. And it’s pretty hard to tell if someone is paying with food stamps. These days they use debit cards that are indistinguishable from ATM cards, unless you’re really spying on someone, that is.” (Rob Mac)
Of course, this argusx idiocy is an obvious canard. People in the “top quintile” just don’t shop at places where po’ folks congregate. The poorest schlep at the market I shop at is probably Elliot Gould and I’ve yet to see him whip out a 50 cents off coupon for the Sri Lankan organic figs he favors.
April 14th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
I see we are in the midst of a comment pruning session. What gives? I haven’t seen any flaming. I thought that DeLong was the only one insecure enough to rewrite history on his site.
April 14th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
We actually have poor people where I live- and we even shop at the same stores.
I stand corrected then. Still, I can’t help but wonder why you are following the poorer denizens of your area out to their cars to spy on their dinner plans.
Oh, and they bought some Red bull too.
Did they buy steaks and drive Cadillacs?
Or better yet, were they wearing shoes? I mean, dahlings, how poor can you be if you’re wearing shoes?
As I said, I understand the frustration we sometimes feel when witnessing someone who’s getting a freebie from Uncle Sam that we’re not getting ourselves. I feel that way myself. But then I try to stop and remind myself that it really is better to be too rich to qualify for food stamps and WIC.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
They should simply have written:
Fair, balanced, no editorializing. Of course it’s the Wichita Eagle: not as wingnutty as the Daily Oklahoman, but definitely right wing.
April 15th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
yea nice Work
April 15th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
You are a very smart person!