Number of those paying no federal income taxes explodes
WASHINGTON -- Amid complaints that nearly half of tax filers in the United States won't pay federal income taxes this year, this has been lost: Those making $75,000 to $100,000 a year are the fastest-growing share of people who don't pay federal income taxes.
Not working poor people -- but those who are firmly middle class.
They still make up less than 1 percent of the total number of income-tax filers who pay no tax at all, but their overall number has exploded, from fewer than 5,000 not paying taxes in 1996 to nearly 500,000 in 2009, the most recent year of available data.
The lowest-income Americans -- those who make less than $25,000 a year -- account for the largest number of those not paying any federal income tax: 76 percent as of 2009. But that share has been decreasing for years. Meanwhile, the percentage of nontaxable returns has been growing for people with higher incomes. As of 2009, more than 20,000 filers making more than $200,000 a year -- 1,470 of whom had adjusted gross income of more than $1 million -- owed no income tax, a Detroit Free Press analysis showed.
Senate Democrats have been talking up an added 5 percent tax on millionaires, a proposal Republicans almost certainly will block. But as the debate on tax revenue continues, the question of who pays -- and who does not -- is certain to keep coming up.
Tax breaks can add up for some. Consider child care credits, interest deductions, breaks for paying college tuition and caring for elderly people.
In recent years, the tax code has exploded with more ways for Americans to be forgiven part of their income tax burden, so much so that more Americans seem to avoid paying taxes at all.
Well, there are still those pesky Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, as well as various state and local sales taxes that are harder to avoid. But more middle- and even upper-income taxpayers are avoiding federal income taxes.
In recent months, estimates that as many as half of all tax filers might owe no federal income tax at all this year have caused critics to argue the issue of fairness -- especially as President Obama and Democratic members of Congress push for higher taxes on wealthier earners.
With that in mind -- and in response to readers' comments -- the Detroit Free Press looked into who doesn't pay, and why.
Q: So the reports that half the U.S. doesn't pay taxes are true?
A: No, they're not. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington, 46 percent of tax filers will owe no federal income tax this year. But when you figure in payroll taxes -- such as those for Social Security, Medicare and unemployment -- more than 80 percent of tax filers pay some kind of federal tax. And that doesn't include sales taxes, state taxes, local taxes, gas taxes, etc., which catch just about everyone.
Q: But almost half the filers don't pay federal income tax. How come?
A: It's because of the way the tax code is written. In 2010, a married couple filing jointly didn't have to pay any income taxes if their income was less than $18,700; couples older than 65, if their income was $20,900 or less. And even if you make more than that, the standard deduction -- which goes up each year -- and a myriad of other deductions and tax breaks reduce income tax exposure. In 2009, the most recent year for which Internal Revenue Service data is available, filers with adjusted gross income of less than $30,000 made up 83 percent of all the nontaxable returns. According to the Tax Policy Center's calculator, a couple with two kids younger than 13 that makes $30,000 would get $5,000 back under current laws.
Q: Isn't it poor people who aren't paying?
A: No, at least not them alone. A Free Press analysis of IRS data shows that, in 1996, people with incomes of less than $30,000 made up 99.5 percent of all the nontaxable returns. In 2009, that group made up 76 percent of those returns. On the other hand, people making more than $30,000 went from less than 1 percent of nontaxable returns in 1996 to 17 percent in 2009.
Q: But $30,000's not a big income -- is most of that growth among nonpayers coming near the bottom of that scale?
A: Much of it is. The number of nontaxable returns for filers with incomes of $30,000 to $40,000 went from about 85,000 -- about a third of 1 percent of the total -- to 4.8 million, or 8 percent of the total, by 2009. That's an increase of more than 5,000 percent. (By way of comparison, the overall number of tax returns went up by about 17 percent, and the total number of nontaxable returns doubled in that time.)
But the percentage increase was even bigger for higher wage earners. Nontaxable returns from people with income between $75,000 and $100,000 went from 4,025 in 1996 to 476,624 in 2009 -- an increase of almost 12,000 percent. More than 1,400 millionaires didn't pay income taxes in 2009, either.
Q: Why the change?
A: Tax cuts and tax breaks. As Clint Stretch, tax policy expert at Deloitte, explains it, the tax cuts won by President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003 not only reduced income tax rates, they doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000; eliminated the marriage penalty by giving couples twice the standard single deduction (rather than a slightly smaller amount), increased the earned income tax credit, cut capital gains taxes and more. All of those items -- as well as breaks like those for mortgage interest, charitable deductions and medical expenses -- can mean a huge savings.
But it didn't stop there. President Obama added other breaks, too, like the Making Work Pay credit -- worth $800 to a couple or $400 to an individual filer -- as well as the American Opportunity Credit for college, worth up to $2,500 per student, on top of the $4,000 tuition and fees deduction. "Mathematically, you're not going to pay taxes" if you have a modest income and qualify for a lot of those breaks, Stretch said.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- D.C. charges woman over armed protest
- Pirates enter Plan B with Martin off market
- For Steelers, a fight to finish for playoff berth
- Shooting victims live with bullets to survive, thrive
- Starkey: No explaining Steelers, AFC North
- Islanders outwork Penguins to sweep back-to-back meetings
- Clues to Chief Justice John Roberts’ thinking on new ObamaCare case
- Pitt beats Syracuse, snaps 3-game losing streak
- For Pitt men’s basketball team, trouble in paradise
- Egypt’s beleaguered tourism industry bounces back
- Leak of grand jury information could cost Attorney General Kane