Category: Economic issues

California, 1936

Right-wingers cracked up on right-wing propaganda make much of the fact that almost half (around 46 percent) of Americans pay no federal income tax. It is true. The Wall Street Journal often calls these people the “lucky duckies,” and all right-wingers just know that the lucky duckies are getting a free ride off the rest of us and that it’s the lucky duckies who are eating the lunch of the middle class. What right-wingers don’t know, though, because their propaganda machine doesn’t tell them the rest of the story, is that almost all of those lucky duckies are living at or below the poverty line (defined as an income of $23,350 or less for a family of four including two children). They pay a high proportion of their income in other taxes, but they don’t pay any federal income tax because their income is so low and they have dependents. The highest income for qualifying as one of these lucky duckies is $26,400 for a couple with two children. But many of these people make less than $15,000 a year. The reason that so many Americans pay no federal income tax is that poverty is so widespread — measured as either income or assets.

(By the way, in 2011, 78,000 taxpayers with incomes between $211,000 and $533,000 paid no federal income tax. Worse, 24,000 filers with incomes between $533,000 and $2.2 million paid no federal income tax. And not only that, but 3,000 filers with incomes above $2.2 million paid no federal income tax. What were we saying about lucky duckies? You can be sure that the Wall Street Journal hasn’t reported on these lucky duckies. And it is generally assumed by those who bother to think about it for a second that the reason Mitt Romney won’t release his tax returns is that he paid no federal income tax for one or more years.)

Americans, in their bottomless ignorance and eagerness to be deceived, hold extremely warped notions of just how poor the poor are and how rich the rich are. Middle-class Americans also have a been fooled into believing that they get a much larger piece of the pie than they actually get.

My old colleague Dan Froomkin, in the Huffington Post, reports today on a study by the Congressional Research Service that shows that half of Americans hold 1 percent of the nation’s wealth. The top 1 percent hold 34.5 percent, and the top 10 percent hold 74.5 percent.

A study in 2010 by academics from Harvard University and Duke University surveyed Americans on how Americans think wealth is distributed. On average, Americans thought that the richest 20 percent hold 59 percent of the wealth. The real number is closer to 84 percent. Americans were shown pie charts showing the distribution of wealth in different countries and were asked which country they would prefer to live in. They chose Sweden, where the top 20 percent control only 36 percent of the wealth. Distribution of wealth in the United States actually is similar to Latin American countries such as Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Guyana.

Each year since the late 1970s, the rich have been eating more and more of our lunch. There are two main ways they have done this. First, they have drastically changed taxation, so that the rich pay are now paying taxes at the lowest rate in 80 years, while increasing the tax burden on the middle class. Part of the reason the right-wing propaganda machine goes on and on so loudly about taxes is to obscure those facts. Second, they have been scooping up almost all the gains from increased productivity, as this chart shows:

The most important task of Fox News and the right-wing propaganda machine is to keep Americans ignorant of these basic facts. If you keep ’em angry at the lucky duckies, they won’t notice who actually is eating their lunch.

Another peculiarity of Americans is that they have the oddest tendency to identify with the rich, even when they’re barely getting by, falling farther behind each year, and are utterly dependent on the safety net — such things as Social Security and Medicare. It’s an excellent exercise in propaganda analysis, actually, to try to figure out how this is accomplished. I believe that the two biggest factors are television (including not only the propaganda channels but entertainment channels as well) and the “prosperity gospel” prevalent among evangelicals. This “gospel” teaches people that the poor are to be blamed for their situation, that god wants them to be rich, and that giving money to the church is the first step to prosperity. It also teaches them to love war and to hate anyone who isn’t just like them, but that’s a different rant. My point is that it’s as sorry a theology as has ever been devised, which is saying something, since there are so many sorry theologies out there. But it does pack ’em in on Sundays, because they love to hear that god wants them to be rich and to consume voraciously.

But this is nothing new. John Steinbeck was aware of it:

Note: I am aware (because I always try to diligently check my facts to avoid being corrected in a comment) that some have disputed this Steinbeck quote, but whether Steinbeck said those exact words or not, the observation is a true one.

Striking It Richer: Emmanuel Saez

Charts like the one above help make it clear why the right wing hates — and fears, and demonizes — progressive economic policies like those advanced by Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression. Those policies left us with plenty of rich people, but the rich could no longer take it all. That, of course, is how the American middle class arose after World War II. By the beginning of the Reagan era, the rich got the upper hand again and started taking it all back.

Emmanuel Saez has newly updated data showing that the top 1 percent captured 93 percent of the income gains in 2010.

And yet, thanks to the right-wing propaganda machine, white working Americans in the red states are kept in a state of deep ignorance and cheer for and vote for their continuing impoverishment and marginalization.

Update: The Huffington Post has a story on this today.

Timothy Geithner

Every now and then I read dozens of versions of so-called reporting on stories that are important to the establishment, just to marvel at the shallowness of the reporting and the shocking level of co-ordination among the mainstream “news” outlets. I went through this exercise this morning on stories about President Obama calling for reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 to 28 percent.

It doesn’t matter who you read — the New York Times, any of the smaller newspaper chains with Washington bureaus, or the web sites of cable news channels including Fox — all the stories followed the same formula and included the same establishment quotes. I did not find a single mainstream story that compared Obama’s proposed corporate tax rate to individual tax rates. Some stories mentioned that Obama wants to raise taxes on millionaires and leave tax rates the same for people making under $200,000, but I did not find a single story saying what those rates are.

What all these stories is avoiding is telling readers that the establishment wants higher tax rates for individuals than for corporations. As far as I can tell, Obama wants a tax rate of 30 percent for those making more than a million a year. As for those making less than $200,000, the current tax code for individuals taxes income above $171,551 at 33 percent. No one bothered to report this. Only those of us with memories greater than 18 hours can hold such inconvenient facts in our heads at the same time.

The other thing that all the mainstream tax stories have in common this morning is that they make some sort of lame comparison with Mitt Romney’s tax plan. All the stories say that the U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest in the “developed world” other than Japan. Some of the stories even say that many corporations pay less than the nominal tax rate.

When you analyze all this “reporting” for what it is — propaganda — this is the message that they clearly want us to get: They are setting the stage for lower corporate tax rates, regardless of what happens with the presidential election. And does any reality-based taxpaying American believe that tax loopholes for corporations and the super-rich will be closed, given the corruptness of the Congress and the lobbyists who own Congress?

The other thing that the establishment and the corporate media don’t want Americans to know is that, despite all the hoopla about corporate tax rates in the U.S. being high (which is not true because no corporation pays the nominal rate), the tax on capital gains is absurdly low — 15 percent. In other developed countries, the tax on capital gains ranges from 20 percent to 35 percent and even 50 percent. Most Americans probably don’t understand that it’s the capital gains tax that rich people pay. That’s why Mitt Romney’s tax rate is 13.9 percent. Never in my working life did I pay a tax rate anywhere near that low.

Only the DailyKos shows the usual left-wing concern with reality rather than establishment blather and misdirection:

As has been widely reported for years, the effective (read: actual) corporate tax rate is far lower than the 35 percent headline rate that gets all the bad press. Last year, Citizens for Tax Justice reported on the 280 most profitable Fortune 500 companies. Findings? Thanks to tax breaks and subsidies, the average effective tax rate over the three-year 2008-2010 period was 18.5 percent and the companies enjoyed subsidies of $222.7 billion. During at least one of the three years, 78 highly profitable companies paid zero taxes and 30 actually had a negative tax rate.

But that’s not the worst of it. In 2011, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the effective corporate tax rate fell to 12.1 percent, the lowest level in 40 years. This comes at time when corporate profits are at a 60-year high.

One source reported that Rush Limbaugh says that Obama plan for corporate tax rates would actually raise corporate taxes by closing loopholes, as though that’s bad.

Update: A friend sent this link to a detailed and wonkish piece, published today, on tax policy. I am not in the least surprised that only a socialist organization is willing to do thorough, real-world reporting on tax policy. It’s very important to understand why this is so. Tax policy screws working people while favoring corporations and the rich. That’s only going to get worse, regardless of who wins the next election. The establishment media won’t report in any serious way on tax policy, because they serve the establishment. The right-wing media not only doesn’t report, but also distorts, because it serves the interests of corporations and the super-rich. So the only honest reporting about tax policy comes only from those who are getting screwed by tax policy.

Update 2: My old colleague Dan Froomkin now checks in on corporate taxes. Once again, only the left can be wonkish and thorough. Everyone else must keep on skipping — and help keep the American people the stupidest people in the developed world.