Very interesting USA federal tax data via the tax foundation. Top 1% has adjusted gross income of $343,000; over $154,000 puts you in the top 5%; $112,000 puts you in the top 10% and $66,000 puts you in the top 25%.

The chart only shows federal income tax data. So the costly social security tax (which is directly based on earned income* so in reality is federal income tax but is handled in a separate account so is consistently not classified as income tax data) for outside the top 5% (income above $106,800 [for 2011] does not have to pay the social security tax) is not reflected in the rates paid here.

Looking at the data excluding social security is fine, but it is very important to remember the social security (plus medicare) tax is the largest tax for, I would guess, most people in the USA. Social security tax is 6.2% paid by the employee plus 6.2% paid by the company – a total of 12.4%. That part of the tax was capped at $106,800 in income for 2011. The medicare tax is 1.45% of income paid by the employee and 1.45% paid by the employer (and it has no cap). So that totals 2.9% (for the employee and employer tax) and brings the total to 15.3%** for most earned income.

Source: Internal Revenue Service. Table via the tax foundation.

Other interesting data shows that the top 1% earn 16.9% of the total income and pay 36.7% of the total federal income taxes. Those in the top 1-5% earn 14.8% of the total income and pay 22% of the income taxes. Those in the top 5-10% earn of the income 11.5% of the income and pay 11.8% of the federal income taxes. So once you exclude the main tax on income (social security) and use adjusted gross income the tax rates are slightly progressive (higher rates for those that are making the most – and presumably have benefited economically the most from the economic system we have).

Given that this is skewed by excluding the regressive (higher taxes paid by those earning less – social security is the same rate for everyone except those earning the very most who don’t have to pay it on their income above $106,800 [in 2011]) social security tax I believe we should have a more progressive tax system. But that is mainly a political debate. There are good economic arguments for the bad consequences of too unequal a distribution of wealth (which the USA has been moving toward the last few decades – unfortunately).

In addition to the other things I mention there are all sorts of games played by those that desire a royalty type system (where wealth is just passed down to the children of those who are rich, instead of believing in a capitalist system where rewards are given not to the children of royalty but to those that are successful in the markets). A good example of the royalty model is Mitch Romney giving his trust fund children over $100 million each. These schemes use strategies to avoid paying taxes at all. Obviously these schemes also make the system less progressive (based on my understanding of the tax avoidance practiced by these trust fund babies and those that believe it is ethical to give such royalty sized gifts to their royal heirs).

I don’t like the royalty based model of behavior. I much prefer the actions of honorable capitalist such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates that give their children huge benefits that any of us would be thrilled with, but do not treat them as princes and princesses who should live in a style of luxury that few kings have every enjoyed based solely off their birthright. Both Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have honorably refused to engage in royal seeking behavior that many of their less successful business peers have chosen to engage in. Those that favor trust fund babies are welcome to their opinion and have managed to get most of congress to support their beliefs instead of a capitalist model that I would prefer so they are free to engage in their desire to parrot royalty and honor the royalty model of behavior.

* earned income – you also don’t have to pay social security or medical tax on unearned income (dividends, capital gains, rental income…). Again this by and large favors wealthy taxpayers. Everyone is eligible for the same favorable tax treatment but only those that have the wealth to make significant amounts of unearned income get this advantage.

** the social security tax has been reduced by 200 basis points (this relief was recently extended) as part of dealing with the results of the too big to fail banking caused credit crisis. So under the temporary reduction the personal tax rate is 4.2% and the total cost is 13.2%.

Related: Taxes – Slightly or Steeply Progressive? – Taxes per Person by Country – USA State Governments Have $1,000,000,000,000 in Unfunded Retirement Obligations – Retirement: Roth IRA Earnings and Contribution Limits

For 2010 and 2011, the most that an individual can contribute to a traditional IRA or Roth IRA generally is the smaller of: $5,000 ($6,000 if the individual is age 50 or older), or the individual’s taxable compensation for the year. You have until your taxes are due (April 15th, 2011) to add to your IRA for 2010.

This is the most that can be contributed regardless of whether the contributions are to one or more traditional or Roth IRAs or whether all or part of the contributions are nondeductible. However, other factors may limit or eliminate the ability to contribute to an IRA as follows:

• An individual who is age 70½ or older cannot make regular contributions to a traditional IRA (just to make things complicated you can add to a Roth IRA) for the year.

Contributions to a Roth IRA are limited based on income. The limits are based on modified adjusted gross income (which is before deductions are taken). The Roth IRA earnings limits for 2010 are:

• Single filers: Up to $105,000; from $105,000 – $120,000 (a partial contribution is allowed)
• Joint filers: Up to $167,000; from $167,000 – $177,000 (a partial contribution)

For 2011 the earning limits increase to

• Single filers: Up to $105,000; from $107,000 – $122,000 (a partial contribution is allowed)
• Joint filers: Up to $167,000; from $169,000 – $179,000 (a partial contribution)

More details from the IRS website and earning limits details.

The income limits do not cap what you can add using a 401(k). So if you were planning on adding to a Roth IRA but cannot due to the income limits you may want to look into increasing your 401(k) contributions.

Related: Add to Your Roth IRA – Add to Your 401(k) and IRA – 401(k)s are a Great Way to Save for Retirement

Municipal bonds seem safe. But the incredible long period of irresponsible spending and taking on long term liabilities (pensions, health care costs, infrastructure to maintain) and low taxes and selling off future income streams (to consume today) leaves those bonds with questionable financial backing in many locations. Municipal bond investments should be examined more closely today in light of the problems in the market.

Video shows the State Budgets: The Day of Reckoning by 60 minutes.

Wave of Muni Defaults to Spur Layoffs, Social Unrest: Whitney

Related: USA State Governments Have $1,000,000,000,000 in Unfunded Retirement Obligations – NY State Raises Pension Age to Save $48 Billion – What the Bailout and Stimulus Are and Are Not – posts on bonds

401(k), IRAs and 403(b) retirement accounts are a very smart way to invest in your future. The tax deferral is a huge benefit. And with Roth IRAs and Roth 401(k)s you can even get tax exempt distributions when you retire – which is a huge benefit. Especially if you don’t retire before the bill for all the delayed taxes of the last 20 years starts to be paid. The supposed “tax cuts” that merely shifted taxes from those spending money the last 10 years to those that have to pay for all the stuff the government spent on them has to be paid for. And that will likely happen with higher tax rates courtesy of the last 10 years of not paying the taxes to pay for what the government was spending.

When looking at your 401(k) and 403(b) investment options be sure to pay close attention to expenses for the funds. Some fund families try to get people to investing in high expense funds, that are nearly identical to low expense funds. The investor losses big and the fund companies take big profits. Those people serving on the boards of those funds should be fired. They obviously are not managing with the investors interests at heart (as they are obligated to do – they are suppose to represent the investors in the funds not the friends they have making money off the investors).

Here is an example (that I ran across last week) expense differences for funds that have essentially identical investment objectives and plans in the same retirement plan options: .39% (a respectable rate, though more than it really should be) for [seeks a favorable long-term rate of return from a diversified portfolio selected to track the overall market for common stocks publicly traded in the U.S., as represented by a broad stock market index.], .86% [for "The account seeks a favorable long-term total return, mainly from capital appreciation, by investing primarily in a portfolio of equity securities selected to track the overall U.S. equity markets based on a market index."]. Do not rely on your fund provider to have your interests at heart (and unfortunately many companies don’t seek the best investment options for their employees either).

The .47% added expense isn’t much to miss for 1 year. However, over the life of your retirement account, this is tens of thousands of dollars you will lose just with this one mistake. Personal financial literacy is an easy way to make yourself large amounts of money over the long term. It isn’t very sexy to get .47% extra every year but it is extremely rewarding.

$200,000 at 6% for 25 years grows to $858,000
$200,000 at 6.47% for 25 years grows to $958,000

So in this case, $100,000 for you, instead of just paying the fund company a bit extra every year to let them add to their McMansions. In reality it will be much more than a $100,000 mistake for you if you save enough for retirement. But if you save far too little (as most people do) one advantage is the mistake will be less costly because your low retirement account value reduces the loss you will take.

Related: 401(k)s are a Great Way to Save for Retirement – Retirement Savings Allocation for 2010 – Many Retirees Face Prospect of Outliving Savings
Read more

Alan Greenspan made several huge errors while chairman of the Federal Reserve. Failing to deal with the massive risk taking and fraud by the member banks of the Federal Reserve was one. And supporting tax cuts for a country that was hugely in debt (while current deficits were still huge was another. Yes anyone can claim (and he did) future surpluses, but there had yet to be a single year of surplus, and obviously we would have been in deficit even before the tax cuts put us much much further in debt, history has shown .

That is either amazingly bad economic forecasting or a lie. My guess is he knew this wasn’t true. Which would make it a lie. If he really was that out of touch with economic reality, we have to question why we ever thought he had insight into the economy.

Greenspan Says Congress Should Let Tax Cuts Expire

Related: Estate Tax Repeal (2006) – Charge My Government to My Kids (2007) – USA Federal Debt Now $516,348 Per Household

Accepting that, I don’t agree with those that vilify his performance. He was Fed chairman from 1987-2006. He made some very bad decisions that cost people dearly. But it isn’t very surprising someone in such power for so long would make some very bad and costly decisions. My guess is he caved to pressure from political allies that reminded him how the current President Bush’s father blamed Greenspan’s decisions for his losing the Presidency. And so Greenspan was trying to do what he could to do what the then President Bush wanted. Not a very honorable explanation but people often do not make the most honorable choices.

In 2003 he publicly disagreed with the wisdom of additional cuts:

Politicians, eager to give favors, at the expense of the future, went ahead and passed more tax cuts – weakening the country for their (and their political allies) short term benefit.

Related: Estate Tax Repeal (2006) – Charge My Government to My Kids (2007) – USA Federal Debt Now $516,348 Per Household

Greenspan’s thoughts on the economy, from his July 16th 2010 interview:
Read more

Buffett Expects “Terrible Problem” for Municipal Debt

Related: USA State Governments Have $1,000,000,000,000 in Unfunded Retirement Obligations – Buffett on Need to Reduce Government Deficits – Politicians Again Raising Taxes On Your Children

Failing to pay for the deferred costs of current expenditures gets all those practicing credit card budget thinking in trouble. That includes lots of individuals. But it also includes many governments. They pay huge rewards to special interests and act like they think the cost doesn’t exist. Only an extremely financially illiterate society could elect so many of these people. We have not learned that in the modern financial economies financial illiteracy is a huge societal problem (along with scientific illiteracy).

Padded Pensions Add to New York Fiscal Woes

Such poor financial management by public sector organization (California is horrible also) are causing huge damage to those living in such poorly managed states.

It isn’t complicated. So long as you elect people that are financial illiterate and only care about granting favors to special interests, not the consequences of doing so, you are setting yourself up for a great deal of pain once your credit card bill comes due.

Related: NY State Raises Pension Age to Save $48 Billion – Charge It to My Kids – Bogle on the Retirement Crisis – Politicians Again Raising Taxes On Your Children

Roubini Says Rising Sovereign Debt Leads to Inflation, Defaults

I agree that the damage done by those (which is nearly all of them) countries living beyond their means is significant. The USA and many countries in Europe and Asia (South Korea and China are two exceptions) have raised taxes on the future (by default – spending more than you have necessarily increases taxes later) to consume today. The strong emerging markets are another exception, many having learned their lessons and stopped spending money they didn’t have in the 1990′s.

However the richest countries have been spending money they don’t have for decades and the increase in government debt as a portion of GDP is an increasingly serious problem. It would be nice if the government of the rich countries could behave responsibly but it does not look like many of them have citizens who will elect honest and competent leaders. As long as they elect leaders that insist on raising taxes on the future (and lying to the populace by claiming they cut taxes – because they eliminate taxes today) those countries will pay severely for the irresponsible spending.

Saying you cut taxes when you just delay them is equivalent to saying I paid off my credit card bill when all I did was get 2 new credit cards, borrow all the money I owed on my original card, pay that one off, and then borrow more to increase my debt even more. Yes it is true I did pay off my original credit card, but that is hardly the salient point. My credit card debt increase. All that has happened in the USA since the Clinton administration had a balanced budget is politicians used a credit card thinking to lower taxes while necessarily increasing them in the future. You don’t reduce debt by spending money you don’t have.
Read more

The Wall Street Journal wrote “Their Fair Share” in July of 2008 claiming that the rich are paying their fair share of taxes.

Wow. The Wall Street Journal against a tax cut? Well I guess if it is a tax on the poor they don’t support cutting those taxes. I think it may well make sense to reduce the social security and medicare taxes on the working poor (including the company share). Of all the taxes we have this is the one I would reduce, if I reduced any (given the huge amount of government debt any reduction may well be unwise). But reducing income taxes for those under the median income doesn’t seem like something worth doing to me.

They seem to ignore that income inequality has drastically increased. When you have a system that puts a huge percentage of the cash in a few people’s pockets of course those people end up paying a lot of cash per person. One affect of massive wealth concentration is that the limited people all the money is flowing to naturally will pay an increasing portion of taxes.

It is fine to argue that the rich pay too much tax, if you want. I don’t agree. I think Warren Buffett explains the issue much more clearly and truthfully when he says he, and all his fellow, billionaires (and those attempting to join the club) pay a lower percent of taxes on income than their secretaries do. He offers $1 million to any of them that prove that isn’t true.

And I guess you can say that the top 22% of the income paying the top 40% of the taxes is “steeply progressive.” I wouldn’t call that steep, but… It is nice the graphic is at least decently honest. Saying just “top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income ” is fairly misleading. It is much more honest (I believe) to say that “the top 1% (that made 22% of the income) paid…” Those with the top 22% of income paid 40% of the taxes, the next 15% payed 20%, the next 31% paid 26% the next 20% 11% and the final 12% paid 3%. That is progressive. From my perspective it could be more progressive but I can see others saying it it progressive enough.

If 22% to 40% is “steeply” progressive what is 1% to 22%? The income distribution seems to be what? very hugely massively almost asymptotently progressive? The to 1% of people, by income, take 22% of the income, the next 4% take the next 15% of the total income, the next 20% take 31%, the next 25% take 30% and the bottom 50% take 12%. This level of income inequality is much more a source of concern than any concern someone should have about a slightly progressive tax result.

Related: House Votes to Restore Partial Estate Tax on the Very Richest: Over $7 Million – IRS Tax data – Rich Americans Sue to Keep Evidence of Their Tax Evasion From the Justice Department
Read more

From Greg Mankiw’s Blog

Taxes/GDP x GDP/Person = Taxes/Person

France .461 x 33,744 = $15,556

Germany .406 x 34,219 = $13,893

UK .390 x 35,165 = $13,714

US .282 x 46,443 = $13,097

Canada .334 x 38,290 = $12,789

Italy .426 x 29,290 = $12,478

Spain .373 x 29,527 = $11,014

Japan .274 x 32,817 = $8,992

The USA is the 2nd lowest for percent of GDP taxes 28.2% v 27.4% for Japan. But in taxes per person toward the middle of the pack. France which has 46% taxes/GDP totals $15,556 in tax per person compared to $13,097 for the USA.

Related: Government Debt as Percentage of GDP 1990-2008 – USA, Japan, Germany… – Oil Consumption by Country in 2007 – USA, China and Japan Lead Manufacturing Output in 2008 – Bigger Impact: 15 to 18 mpg or 50 to 100 mpg?

Comments