Upper, Lower and Middle Class Tax Breaks
August 19, 2009 · Print This Article
Did you know that a single two-second distraction can cost you 15 minutes of your day? When your concentration is interrupted, it takes up to 15 minutes to get your focus back. Our ambient sounds help reduce the amount of noise distractions in your workplace. Take advantage of the current SALE.
Thanks for visiting. Please consider joining over 15,000 other readers in subscribing to our RSS feed or following us on Twitter.
Many people feel that rich people don’t pay enough taxes. The question of what type of tax structure is best for the economy isn’t something I want to address in this post. Instead, I’d like to talk about the idea that rich people pay less in taxes than the poor and middle class.
Part of this view is rooted in what people see as the purpose of taxes. I see the government as providing a very valuable service to me. They keep the infrastructure running and create the rules and environment that allow me to live happily and run a profitable business. I am happy to pay taxes to support the police and military to keep me safe, pave roads to drive on, help prevent the outbreak of horrible diseases, notify me if a tornado is on the way and make a reasonable attempt at creating productive economic citizens out of those who have made poor choices or undergone extreme hardship.
I do not feel that taxes should be used to redistribute money. Insuring that people do not starve while they look for a new job or try to learn a new skill is one thing. Mailing checks to people they can be used on everything from cable television to soda pop is something entirely different.
I know a lot of people are upset because they think that rich people have access to loopholes that aren’t available to the middle class. This is completely true. There are a number of things that the government wants to encourage that rich people can take advantage of. This includes things like starting businesses, creating jobs, using land for certain purposes, making capital investments, and a variety of other things that are generally good for the economy.
What is often overlooked is the fact that the middle and lower class have access to many tax breaks that are not available or useful to the upper class. For example, lets say Joe makes $40,000 per year and he puts $4,000 per year into an IRA. That $4,000 reduces his taxable income by 10% and that savings reduces the amount he has to pay at his highest tax rate. Now lets say John makes $1 million per year and puts $4,000 in an IRA. That would only reduce John’s taxable income by .4%. Hardly enough to make any type of tax savings. (I think there also may be some phase-out regulations that prevent rich people from using an IRA at all.) If you start looking at a Roth IRA for a young middle class citizen the effect is even more pronounced.
Here is another example. In 2009 and 2010, the government will give you a 30% tax credit on the first $6000 you spend on high efficiency upgrades for your home. This includes installing high efficiency heat pumps, high-efficiency windows, better insulation, efficient water heaters, roofs designed to reflect the heat of the sun, etc. Obviously these credits are designed to most benefit people in moderate sized houses. $6000 goes a long ways toward replacing old windows in a 1500 ft.² house. It does very little toward replacing windows in a 20,000 ft.² house.
Another example: If you are a first time homeowner in 2009, you can get up to $8,000 back from the government when you buy your home. (You get back 10% of what you spend up to $8,000). If you buy a $80,000 house, that lowers the price by 10%. If you are buying a $8,000,000 house, the tax break does practically nothing. (There may be some phaseouts for people in high income brackets.) Even then, the credit is designed to help people who have never owned a house–this probably doesn’t describe very many wealthy people. (Oh, and the credit is “refundable” which means you get it even if you didn’t pay $8,000 in taxes–the government will either lower your tax bill by $8,000 or just cut you a check.)
So why isn’t everyone clamoring about the middle class having too many tax breaks? Simple. The middle class doesn’t take advantage of the tax breaks that are available.
To take advantage of tax breaks, you have to live below your means. This means buying a much smaller house than what you can afford. It may mean driving an older vehicle. It may mean cutting out extra expenses like cable television. These aren’t the types of things that the middle class is particularly good at doing, but they are the things that give you the flexibility to take advantage of tax breaks just like a rich person.
Well, it is also the ability to pay accountants a good bit of money, rather than using Turbo Tax. It is also using offshore accounts and investments that are not taxed in the same way. I’m not trying to say that the rich are underhanded or inherently bad. But I think it is naive to say that all of the tax loopholes are just things that allow the rich to help the economy.
And 30% of $6000 is the same amount of absolute dollars whether you are rich or middle class. It may mean more to the middle class person, but it is the same amount of absolute dollars. So I’m not really sure how that is a benefit that is skewed toward the middle class.
@Ethel – While there are some strategies rich people can use to avoid taxes that aren’t available to middle class they are still paying a lot in taxes. 60% of the taxes in this country are paid by only 5% of its residence.
If we wanted to go to an absolute dollars type tax where everyone pays the same amount in taxes, I’m sure we’d have complaints. Since the tax is setup to tax you more the more you make (regardless of how much government you actually use) it seems that the discounts and tax rebates should do the same thing, but that isn’t the way many of them are setup. My point is that there are many, many tax advantages that really don’t benefit the rich–they are only useful to people in the middle class or lower bracket. However, many of the people in the middle class can’t take advantage of these breaks because they are maxed out on their spending.
Hi Mark – you are absolutely right that there are a lot of available tax breaks for the middle class.
The bad news is that Joe making $40K/yr – even if he has no dependents – will have a heck of a time paying to house himself, get health care (that could potentially consume 10 – 20% of his gross) and if he took the initiative to educate himself, student loans, etc – you get the idea.
We live in an era in which technical marvels are cheap and the essentials of a decent life are costly . On top of that, middle class incomes are stuck (in real terms) somewhere in the mid-80s.
So, I agree we have opportunities to save on taxes, but in reality, nearly impossible to take advantage of.
Great post, as usual!
Pity the poor rich person. If only rich people had some way to influence policy. It’s so sad to see an entire class of people disenfranchised like that. And all of this is happening as the foolish and wasteful middle class squanders the vast majority of their income on silly things like housing, transportation, food, clothing, and education.
Time for a Modest Proposal a la Jonathan Swift. Eat the middle class.
You start by talking about not wanting to discuss the optimal tax structure, and then proceed to discuss ways in which our tax structure is not optimal. I’m confused.
Then your comment above appears to be saying that the government should give you more of a tax break as your level of income increases. Do I have that right? That sounds completely insane to me so I want to be sure I’m not putting words into your mouth.
And people aren’t clamoring about the middle class getting too many tax breaks because median wages have remained stagnant for decades. I thought everyone knew this.
Wouldn’t a more complete list of all these middle class goodies have been more helpful? Or perhaps a few real life examples of living below your means?
Normally I’m with you guys 100% though, so keep up the good work.
@Mike – I meant I wasn’t going to talk about whether or not income should be taxed in the first place. My point (which evidently wasn’t very clear) is that people spend too much time complaining about rich people having tax breaks and not enough time taking advantage of the many tax breaks they have themselves.
Personally I think we would be better off if we could get back to the mindset that we pay taxes for the services our government provides us. Under that type of scenario someone who makes $50k would pay less than someone who makes $1 million, but not that much less. As it is, we have a mentality that the government owes some people and some people owe the government instead of everyone “paying for what they use.”
Thanks for your comment. It is good to get feedback on stuff like this.
@Mary – Maybe it is different where you live, but I see lots of people around here who have allocated so much of their income to buying cheap technical marvels that they don’t have anything left to pay for essentials or to take advantage of opportunities that come their way.
My husband likes to point out that we don’t really tax the rich – we tax people with high incomes. That’s not the same thing.
Generally, people with high incomes are taxed a higher rate than people with a lot of accumulated or inherited wealth. In other words, we tax the people who are working hard to become rich more than we tax the people who are already rich.
@STL Mom – Good point. It always seemed to me that having people earn money in your country is a good thing and will help the economy. I think we would be better of taxing spending. In the long term a country with many residence who are saving money is going to be more wealthy as that money will be invested in creating new opportunities (jobs, research, etc.).
Unfortunately this requires a longer term view that what government usually takes. So instead we give deductions for spending and tax people who are making money.
I have to agree with both sides of this debate. If everyone were able to take advantage of the tax breaks, they would benefit the lower classes more than the upper classes.
One issue is that the definition of “middle class” and “lower class” need to be revised. When I was growing up in the 80’s, middle class could easily mean someone making $40,000/yr. In fact my parents made about $35,000/yr and we lived fairly decently. Now, the definition needs to move up a ways.
I’ve made about $27,000 – $30,000 a year, and am barely able to make ends meet. My monthly income after taxes was around $1,100. Almost $850 of that went to reoccuring monthly bills (rent, utilities, phone, internet, cable with rent and utilities being the highest portion) which left the rest for food, gas, maintenance on my car, and whatever other expenses came up.
My point by all of this is that while in the 80’s, $1,100/month was a lot of money and got you a long ways, now it’s not very much. Especially when it takes $40.00/wk or more to fill up your car (and I have a small car– not an SUV). So while those tax breaks are there, it’s a lot easier for the “Middle class” (as it should be defined now) and the “Upper Class” to take advantage of them.
You are entirely correct though in that they need to live within their means. If you have 3 people in the house, there’s no need for a 5 bedroom 3 bathroom house. Assuming that two of them are married, a 2-bedroom or 3-bedroom is more than enough. And you don’t need an SUV or anything more than a smaller car to travel in.
I also totally agree about the food stamps and government checks going to soda pop and snack foods. There should be a strict list of things that you can buy with those. I watched three women buy 4 1-liter bottles of pop, candy, ice cream bars, and chips the other day. The two that paid used their Food Stamp cards to pay for the items. Not one of the things they purchased would be considered “good nutrition” by any means.
Sorry for the long rant, but there’s a few things I felt needed to be said.
Have a great day:)
Patrick.
@Patrick – The definition of “middle class” has a lot to do with where you live as well. $40k per year is quite a bit of money in some rural parts of America, but near the poverty level in San Francisco.
Rich maybe paying 60% of taxes but they are paying about 13% rate based on income, compared to 30% rate for most middle class. This is from a article on warren buffet’s tax return, I am unable to find the link. Rich have more loopholes, I know so because I have been on both sides.
No, no, no…. You’re forgetting a not so small detail. It’s related to what STL Mom said. It’s this: rich people have many more ways of gaining income that isn’t taxed. More money to invest makes money that isn’t taxed.
Also, this: ‘If you are buying a $8,000,000 house, the tax break does practically nothing.’ is, frankly a strange thing to say. The rich person doesn’t HAVE to buy a 8 mln dollar McMansion.
Then again, if disagree with you about taxes anyway because I do believe that hat taxes should be used to redistribute money. The rich have used the total of society to get where they are, the rest of that society should be able to reap some of the benefit it has provided for that rich person. It’s only fair.
It’s very unfair actually…and if the person who works hard for their money wants to spend 8 mil on a house…be it. I think as long as they pay close to the same % that everyone else pays…they’ve done their part. Plus a lot of rich people contribute a lot to charities and give money away already to people in need….they should pay close to the same percentage on taxes if not equal to the middle class…as for the lower class…i say they should still pay the same % as well. 10% to lower income vs 10% to upper income is still a HUGE DIFFERENCE. And if ppl live within their means…they should be fine. It’s all about working hard. You can read my husbands story below and you’ll understand why i tthink this way.
The federal income tax should be eliminated and a spending/consumption tax be put in place. If you put the tax on consumption, I believe more tax revenue will be collected than what is collected now . No more bit**in about who pays how much and who has what loopholes. BOOHOO. You receive exactly what you earn in your paycheck. Plus, you would finally be able to get taxes from all those that don’t file tax returns on their income, anyone getting paid under the table to avoid taxes, and even from all the illegal immigrants not paying. We’re a consumption nation so you would think a national tax on goods and services would already be in place.
However, this makes too much sense and will never happen, least in my lifetime.
Thanks a lot, collective stupidity.
I’m a big fan of a consumption tax. Of course it would hurt all the people with Roth IRAs. I think one of the major road blocks is that it would encourage saving and everyone in government right now seem to be very focused on the short term gains of increasing spending.
@ Jeroen and anyone else that thinks that it is only fair to redistribute the money is the one that is not being fair. First off, my husband grew up as a low income family, he worked so hard in school to get good grades, even though he was sleeping on the living room floor because he lived in a two bedroom apartment while with a family of 5 plus a elderly grandmother which makes six. He studied hard, got out loans for college (private loans that he had to pay back in full and some with interest)…graduated top of his college class because he studied like crazy while still holding down a job.
Then after college gets a full time job, while attending grad school for his masters part time at night. He studied and worked so hard that he was able to pay for grad school out of his own wallet. And he slowly paid off his student loans from undergrad. After he graduated with a master with a 4.0 (not because he’s super smart, but because he just studied his butt off at night) he got out a very huge loan (that he must pay back 100% again plus interest) to go to law school.
In law school he studied any chance he had when he wasn’t in class. (first year law students werent allowed to work, that was the rule at his school) so he devoted all his time to school…all this time couldn’t afford a laptop for law school and had to write out everything on a notepad while the entire class had a laptop (and for those who know law school..a laptop is a must have). During this time he still was sleeping on the living room floor because there was no way he can get his own place either… anyways, he ended up graduating law school in the top 10% of his class and was able to get a good job in a law firm. he started out at 125,000 per year and evenually is now at 250,000. But because of the taxes taken off… he is making roughly 144,000 after taxes. Which is fine, but he’s putting in 16 hours a day of hard mentally exhausted work in order to make that much so he can send home to his family that are still considered lower income (mainly cuz his parents are old, his brother has a medical condition etc…) Now how is giving almost half his income to people who are buying soda pop and redistributing money to those who are not working as hard as he is, FAIR? Taxing him is fine, taxing him more than others is fine, but taxing almost half, is UNFAIR especailly because he has family members to take care of.
He pays his taxes, donates as much as he can to charity or people we know who needs money, and we believe that everyone should get healthcare no matter what, and we don’t mind getting taxed more to help people who needs help, but seriously…to just redistribute the money to the middle class or whoever else so that they have more money without working as hard as he did just so it’s “FAIR”!!!!! Is simply very UNFAIR to my husband and to those who’s worked that hard to get there.
We don’t live in a huge house, or drive a reallllly nice car like people think…we just try to live within our means and help out the rest of the family or people we know. We believe that by simply taxing those with higher incomes more isn’t really going to help the people of america….it just makes it so that people who work hard there entire life to get where they are have no motivation to work hard anymore. If middle class or lower class is saying give us money, they don’t appreciate it as much…buying soda and junk food and cable tv is not appriciating the hard work someone else is doing just to end up paying higher taxes. I don’t mind helping lower class, and those who needs it…but i believe that you have to give people an incentive to work harder and eventually they can get to a point where they would understand why taxing almost half your income cuz you worked harder is unfair.
I don’t mind paying more taxes than middle class or lower income, but almost half your paycheck is just cruel when you’ve worked roughly 96 hours a week to earn it. Don’t you guys think that’s just plan cruel? What makes a person want to even work hard then. It makes no sense. 16 hours a day, 6 days a week….so he can pay back over 100,000 worth of student loans and take care of the rest of his family along with his wife and kids. now, how is that FAIR?
And if someone wants to throw out some argument on how a person from a lower income family, bad neighborhood infested by gangs and bad influences and drugs and violence have less chances of becoming successful…don’t even attempt it cuz he’s proven that it can be done. It may be harder than some people, but it’s not impossible and it’s all about hard work….Now tell me, once someone has worked that hard….is it FAIR to take close to half his income and give it away to someone else who didn’t work as hard? Now, i’m not talking about people with disabilities or medical issues that prevent them…. i’m talking about people who have two arms and two legs and a normal brain that can go to school and study and work hard.
It’s pretty sad, when someone who works 96 hours a week get paid the same amount as someone working 40 hours a week or so just because of taxes. People really need to understand that there is no incentive for some people to work hard in school if they are just handed free money….
I know my writing seems all over the place and a lot of misspellings here and there…but forgive me, it’s late where i am. i have a baby that wakes up around this time…lol.
Tessa:
If you had taxes that did redistributed wealth, he wouldn’t have those high student loans. Education would be much cheaper when payed for by taxes (like it is in every other first world nation) It basically pays back what you put in in futur tax earnings and it is better for society to have more educated people. There: classic redistribution of wealth that benefits all. What’s unfair here is the financial burden an education is in the US, and the solution is exactly what you’re railing against.
And there is also somthing wrong with your logic:
“And if someone wants to throw out some argument on how a person from a lower income family, bad neighborhood infested by gangs and bad influences and drugs and violence have less chances of becoming successful…don’t even attempt it cuz he’s proven that it can be done. It may be harder than some people, but it’s not impossible and it’s all about hard work”
first of all: 1 example tells us nothing about the frequency this happens.
Secondly: you are skipping two enormous parts of the equation: talent and plain old luck. Even with all the work in the world, you still need those two. If you don’t have academical talent, you won’t get far. If you’re plain unlucky: same thing (fr.ex: getting hit by a stray car.) Work is important, but very unfairly, you also need talent and luck.
Thirdly: the whole idea of wealth distribution is avoiding the existence of those neighbourhoods.
You say that every other nation in the world has cheaper education when they are paid for by taxes. Then why do so many people from those countries want to come to the US for an education?
Education isn’t something that is a simple commodity. For some reason, the US educational institutions seem to be in high demand. Trying to pay for it with taxes would likely reduce the differentiation that is keeping that demand high.
Plus, there are some people who aren’t going to go to college. There isn’t a good reason for them to be taxed in order to pay for people who are. People generally value things more when they are paying for it themselves. If a college education were free, how do you think that would impact students academic performance.
Regarding talent and luck: There are quite a few studies suggesting that talent is a very small component of success and often has a negative correlation. Most people succeed through hard work and that option is available to everyone.
Mark,
I don’t know how many Europeans go to the US to get an education… It’s not a trend I have seen. Of course some cross the pond, the big majority doesn’t. And there are movements in the other direction. The small brain drain to the US is mostly in very specialised fields in big name universities.
re:taxing people who don’t go to college: like I said before: they also benefit from having a country with a lot of higher educated people (better economy, more jobs, …). The are also paying for the college education of their children, if any. Not to mention the fact, that maybe they would go to college when it’s only 500 bucks a year. Also: who now pays if someone defaults on his student loans?
re: “Most people succeed through hard work and that option is available to everyone.” I never said that this isn’t true, in general. It does depend on your definition of succeeding, however. To give an extreme example: a 3 foot dwarf can practice what he want, he will never play in the NBA.
Succeeding as defined in Tessa’s post was defined as: getting through college. No matter how much work you put in, there is a base line of intelligence that is required to get academical succes. And that’s what I meant with ‘talent’ It doesn’t mean that someone without it cannot ’succeed’ in life (whatever your definition), but it won’t be in academia.
When I was on campus at Harvard I was surprised at how many people were there from Europe. Even at the small town junior college near my house, there are more people from European countries than I would expect for rural Kansas. (I realize those are just my experience and not quantitative statistics.)
Part of the problem in the US is that we try to send everyone to college. That last statistics I saw said that something like 45% of high school graduates enroll in a 4 year school. With the economic downturn the amount is probably even higher. Statistically speaking, this means pretty much everyone with an average intelligence or higher is trying to go to get a bachelor’s degree.
I’ve seen suggestions that to do well in college, you really need to have an IQ of at least 115. This is a much smaller percentage than 45%.
There is a role for vocational training and for many it is a good way to get a career without the expense of college. For example, electricians and plumbers are paid well. If they have business sense, they can be paid very well. Their educational experience is usually on the job training–they get paid to learn their skill.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t allow people with average IQs get into college. Hard work can often make up for raw mental abilities. But at the same time, I don’t think trying to get more people into college benefits them personally or society as a whole.
Quite a few of the big universities will basically let you come for free if your family makes less thank $60,000 per year and have good academic skills. Harvard and Standford both do this and I think quite a few other schools are following their lead. I worked during the summer to pay for my undergrad degree at a fairly expensive school and scholarships paid for the rest so it isn’t like people who are highly qualified academically are always graduating with huge college loans.