Peter Schiff Takes on Occupy Wall Street
Posted by Wealth Wire - Friday, October 28th, 2011“I agree with the sentiment, and I agree with the fact you should be protesting. It's just my point that Washington should be the recipient of the protests. You guys should be marching on the White House and the Federal Reserve demanding your freedom back!”
- Peter Schiff to OWS protestors
http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=6660297917839456177
Peter Schiff: "Bernanke is Destorying the Dollar - Buy Gold or Invest Abroad"
http://www.wealthwire.com/news/economy/1671
Posted by Brittany Stepniak - Thursday, August 11th, 2011Wondering if zero interest rates will really help the long-term longevity of our economy? So is Peter Schiff...
According to Schiff, the Fed hasn't learned its lesson. Rather, it is merely repeating past mistakes instead of finding fresh, innovative solutions.
He explains why the short boost we may experience after this new "stimulus" is like that of a drug, giving an initial high, followed but an unpleasant low...a "hangover," you might say. Schiff states that the U.S. is about to "overdose."
Some are worried that the economy is done-for as the stocks lost 1800 points this week. What are banks doing to combat the financial problems around the world? Is the dollar doomed? Are we near an end?...
According to Schiff, the Fed hasn't learned its lesson. Rather, it is merely repeating past mistakes instead of finding fresh, innovative solutions.
He explains why the short boost we may experience after this new "stimulus" is like that of a drug, giving an initial high, followed but an unpleasant low...a "hangover," you might say. Schiff states that the U.S. is about to "overdose."
Some are worried that the economy is done-for as the stocks lost 1800 points this week. What are banks doing to combat the financial problems around the world? Is the dollar doomed? Are we near an end?...
A Message to Occupy Wall Street
Posted by Wealth Wire - Thursday, October 6th, 2011
Dear Occupy Wall Street,
http://www.wealthwire.com/news/liberty/1995
I completely understand your anger and commend you for having the courage to do something about it.
Henry Ford, founder of Ford Motor Company said nearly a century ago, "It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
And that was before the government financial system really got good at stealing from and impoverishing us. Today, if we all really had any idea as to what has been done to us by the system there’d be 6.8 billion people involved in these protests.
However, there is a very, very important piece of the puzzle that you have missed completely.
In order to understand why, you have to realize one thing. You have been brainwashed. Don’t feel too bad, we all have been.
Thomas Pynchon said, "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." And that is precisely what they have been doing for decades, using propaganda and indoctrination to confuse you as to the real source of the problems so that you never ask the right questions.
In a sound, honest world, you could do anything you want… you certainly would not have been forced into a minimum of 12 years of indoctrination (called public or private, state regulated schools) as a child. As well, practically everything in mainstream media is meant to subtly, every day, push you in the direction of supporting the nation-state.
After 12-16 years of government controlled “education” and thousands of hours of television propaganda from mainstream media that is all but one-in-the-same with the government it can be very hard to see reality.
Here is the reality. All of the problems you see are real. But you’ve been misdirected as to their cause – on purpose. Wall Street is, for the most part, corrupt and incredibly damaging to society as a whole. But, they are a SYMPTOM, not the CAUSE of the problem.
If you want to protest the real devils who have caused every major problem in the world, from wars to poverty to oppression, then you shouldn’t be in New York. You should be in Washington D.C. (District of Criminals) in front of the White House, Congress and the Federal Reserve building. That is the source of all of our problems today.
Sadly, because of all the propaganda and brainwashing you are actually asking for more government involvement in the economy as a solution to the problem CAUSED by the massive amount of government involvement in the economy. You have to realize one thing. There is a war on for your mind. At the moment, the side of reality, truth, honesty and self-responsibility is losing. The side of propaganda, corruption, theft (taxes), violence (laws against victimless crimes, wars and cages/jails or death if you do not submit to theft) and outright evil has been winning.
The tide is turning, however. Slowly people are awakening to the truth. We don’t need to fight violently, like them. We just need to say no. But this will only happen if you can see the true cause of all of the problems of today. As the younger generations we have unfortunately been completely brainwashed and indoctrinated.
We’ve been told government is good and here to protect us when the only times most of us have been accosted, tased, put in cages (jail) or beaten has been at the hand of a “police officer”.
We’ve been told taxation isn’t theft, when that is exactly what it is.
We’ve been told that democracy is freedom, when in fact it is slavery.
We’ve been brainwashed our entire lives but we can snap out of it very easily. Here are a few videos to get you started down the rabbit hole:
Once you are done those videos then you can move on to the next stage. Read these books:
- Murray Rothbard’s “For a New Liberty”
- Hans-Hermann Hoppe's "Democracy: The God That Failed"
- Morris & Linda Tannehill's "The Market For Liberty"
You will feel a lot of emotions as you awaken. You may feel, more than anything, fear. Swallow it. You are here on Earth once. Don’t allow yourself to be scared out of freedom, love and peace. Step past that feeling. Once you can quell those feelings, then you may feel angry. That is good and natural. However, we shouldn’t need to get violent to stop this slavery.
All we need to do to stop it is to stop supporting the government and spread the word to others so that they do the same. This is very easy.
Mahatma Gandhi said, "Withholding of payment of taxes is one of the quickest methods of overthrowing a government."
Be warned, this process will not be easy… we will go through a few months and maybe even a few years of virtual chaos as the entire nation-state, political control system collapses. The entire false, non-free market, thieving monetary system will collapse in the process. Everything will change. People will once again have to learn to support themselves and how to be productive.
But don’t worry. As Bill Hicks said, it’s just a ride. Once we can get rid of the devils amongst us who only can have power WHEN we CREATE that power for them to attain (governance) then they scurry like the cockroaches that they are.
Freedom is right in front of you. Prosperity like you’ve never known lies at your fingertips. All you have to do is awaken, educate yourself and follow one simple principle. A principle that is so simple and obvious that they teach it to kindergarten children. The Non-Aggression Principle. Don’t hit… don’t steal… and only resort to violence when aggressed against. And don’t allow any person, corporation or government to breach this principle.
When that stands as the center of your philosophy of being all else becomes simple. The “authorities” hope you never figure this out. Unluckily for them, but typical at the same time, they didn’t realize the internet would allow this message to get to the masses. It is typical because these people aren’t especially smart. They are scheming sociopaths and excellent conmen and women, but they aren’t especially smart. If they were they would have realized the internet would be a major problem for them years ago and have done something to stop it.
Now they are beginning to realize that the internet will facilitate their fall. People like Barack Obama speak often of the “internet kill switch” for this reason. But we have a few months still to educate, communicate and to defeat them. Act now to devour all of the real, honest information that is available to you through the internet. Look to website such as LewRockwell.com, Mises.org and watch interviews with top anarchists at Anarchast. Also, download all of this information... it will almost certainly be censored by the government very soon.
If we cannot spread the word prior to them shutting the internet down then we will lose. We will all be enslaved except for the few of us who have found a way to escape to remote islands, live discretely off of un-policed waters on sailboats or ships, small seasteads or the few who may have even escaped to outer space… things like Virgin Galactic are just now making possible.
But it is my hope that we can use this moment as our time to awaken. Pass along this post, its videos and articles to anyone and everyone you can.
Fight the power and stand up to the tyranny, but fight the root of the problem, not the symptom. The root are the governments of the world. They have created an entire, artificial financial system (which is not capitalism, it is corporatism/fascism) based on theft (taxation). It is natural, then, for the financial edifice that grows up around that system to also be based on theft and corruption.
But you cannot defeat that financial system without defeating the system that created it. Take your fight to Washington, D.C. When ten million+ occupy Washington D.C. and call for the end to institutionalized force and theft then we have an opportunity to really change the world for the better.
Youth of America, occupy Washington. Youth of the world, occupy the power centers of your own tax farms (countries). They have stolen your futures from even before you were born.
Take it back...*Post Courtesy of The Dollar Vigilante.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
The Monetary System of the Future?
A friend sends me this photo from some of the recent protests.
The sign says,
"1. End Debt-based Fiat currencies.
2. End Fractional Reserve and Compound Interest Banking.
3. End the Fed."
Question for class discussion:
What kind of monetary system would satisfy these demands?
What are the pros and cons of this alternative system?
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
The Rich Get Poorer
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/
Here is a fact that you might not have heard from the Occupy Wall Street crowd: The incomes at the top of the income distribution have fallen substantially over the past few years.
According to the most recent IRS data, between 2007 and 2009, the 99th percentile income (AGI, not inflation-adjusted) fell from $410,096 to $343,927. The 99.9th percentile income fell from $2,155,365 to $1,432,890. During the same period, median income fell from $32,879 to $32,396.
These recent numbers illustrate the broader phenomenon, discussed in this paper, that high-income households have riskier-than-average incomes.
October 24, 2011
Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 285Download a PDF of this report.
View just the data in Excel or PDF.
Jump to individual tables within the report:
The Internal Revenue Service has released new data on individual income taxes, reporting on calendar year 2009. The year saw no economic improvement from 2008 as unemployment continued to increase.
The amount of individual income tax paid steeply declined by $166 billion, twice the decline from 2007 to 2008. Nationally, average effective income tax rates were at their lowest levels since the IRS began tracking them in 1986. The average tax rate for returns with a positive liability went from 12.24 percent in 2008 to 11.06 percent in 2009.
As the data below show, incomes reported by tax returns at the high end of the income spectrum fell from 2008 to 2009, as did their share of the nation's income and income taxes paid. In 2009, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 36.7 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 16.9 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI), compared to 2008 when those figures were 38.0 percent and 20.0 percent, respectively. Both of those figures-share of income and share of taxes paid-were their lowest since 2003 when the top 1 percent earned 16.7 percent of adjusted gross income and paid 34.3 percent of federal individual income taxes.
Each year from 2005 to 2007, the top 1 percent's constantly growing share of income earned and taxes paid set a record. The 2008 reversal of this trend continued in 2009. In fact, the income share for the top 1 percent of tax returns was lower in 2009 than in 2000, largely due to differences in capital gains.
Another indicator of this reversal in the income and tax shares of the top 1 percent is that, as in 2008, the top 1 percent no longer pays a larger percentage of total income tax than the bottom 95 percent. This trend was exacerbated by the aforementioned precipitous drop in AGI in 2009. During 2009, the bottom 95 percent (AGI under $154,643) paid 41.3 percent of the total collected, a larger share than the 36.7 percent paid by the top 1 percent (AGI over $343,947).
The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI equal to or greater than $154,643), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 31.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.
Since 2001, the IRS has also been presenting data on a small subset of the top 1 percent, the top 0.1 percent (the top 10 percent of the top 1 percent). In 2009, this top 0.1 percent filed 137,982 tax returns, reporting 7.8 percent of all adjusted gross income earned and paying approximately 17.1 percent of the nation's federal individual income taxes. The average income for a tax return in the top 0.1 percent was $4.4 million in 2009, while the average amount of income tax paid was $1.07 million, indicating an average effective individual income tax rate of 24.3 percent. It is worth noting that while the average income of a taxpayer in the top 0.1 percent declined in 2009, the effective tax rate for this group actually rose from 2008 to 2009. This counterintuitive result is explained by the diminished capital gains and dividend income on high-income tax returns, income sources that are taxed at lower rates. With their 2009 income more dominated by ordinary income taxed at higher rates, their average rate on high-income consequently rose.
[Note: This very top income group actually has a lower average effective income tax rate than the rest of the top 1 percent of returns because these extremely high-income returns are more likely to have income from capital gains and dividends, which are typically taxed at lower rates. It's worth pointing out that in the case of capital gains and dividends, income derived from these sources has already been taxed once by the corporate income tax, which is not included here, meaning the average effective tax rate numbers can be somewhat misleading.]
Overall, these data on high-income tax returns appear to confirm that the continued economic stagnation had the same diminishing effect on income inequality that most recessions have, and that it occurred for the same reason: a sharp decline in income at the high end. This appears to contradict reports based upon Census data suggesting the opposite[1] that the recession increased income inequality. This inconsistency between IRS data and Census data is explained by a number of factors such as: (1) Census doesn't break down data for the extremely high-income tax returns (it typically stops at the 5 percent threshold), (2) Census income measures do not account for capital gains realizations, and (3) Census data gathered from household surveys are less reliable for income information at the high end of the income spectrum than IRS data.
The IRS data below include all of the 137.98 million tax returns filed in 2009 that had a positive AGI, not just the returns from people who earned enough to owe taxes. These figures exclude those tax returns filing a return merely to receive a stimulus check.
From other IRS data, we can see that in 2009, around 59 million tax returns were filed with either positive or negative AGI that used exemptions, deductions and tax credits to completely wipe out their federal income tax liability. Not only did they get back every dollar that the federal government withheld from their paychecks during 2009, but some even received more money back from the IRS. This is a result of refundable tax credits like the earned income tax credit (EITC), the refundable portion of which is not included in the aggregate percentile data here. (For a detailed paper on the distribution of the entire U.S. fiscal system, including all federal, state and local taxes, read "Who Pays Taxes and Who Receives Government Spending? An Analysis of Federal, State and Local Tax and Spending Distributions, 1991 - 2004."[2]
Including all tax returns that had a positive AGI, taxpayers with an AGI of $159,643 or more in 2009 constituted the nation's top 5 percent of income earners. To break into the top 1 percent, a tax return had to have an AGI of $343,947 or more, which was 10 percent lower than the 2008 threshold of $380,354. The income threshold to break into the top 0.1 percent also fell dramatically from 2008 to 2009, from about $1.8 million in 2008 to $1.4 million in 2009.
Although the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were across the board (even though certain provisions within those cuts were targeted at various income ranges), the federal individual income tax remains highly progressive. The average tax rate in 2009 ranged from around 1.9 percent of income for the bottom half of tax returns to 24.0 percent for the top 1 percent. With the possible exception of the estate tax, the federal income tax is the most progressive tax in the United States, and these numbers show why.
The source for the following charts is the Internal Revenue Service, http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html ("Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Returns Classified by Tax Percentile - Early Release").
Number of Returns with Positive AGI | AGI ($ millions) | Income Taxes Paid ($ millions) | Group's Share of Total AGI | Group's Share of Income Taxes | Income Split Point | Average Tax Rate | |
| All Tax payers | 137,982,203 | $7,825,389 | $865,863 | 100.0 | 100.0% | - | 11.06% |
| Top 1% | 1,379,822 | $1,324,572 | $318,043 | 16.9% | 36.7% | $343,927.00 | 24.01% |
| 1-5% | 5,519,288 | $1,157,918 | $189,864 | 14.8% | 22.0% | 16.40% | |
| Top 5% | 2,482,490 | $2,482,490 | $507,907 | 31.7% | 58.7% | $154,643.00 | 20.46% |
| 5-10% | 11,315,730 | $897,241 | $102,249 | 11.5% | 11.8% | 11.40% | |
| Top 10% | 13,798,220 | $3,379,731 | $610,156 | 43.2% | 70.5% | $112,124.00 | 18.05% |
| 10-25% | 20,697,331 | $1,770,140 | $145,747 | 22.6% | 17.0% | 8.23% | |
| Top 25% | 34,495,551 | $5,149,871 | $755,903 | 65.8% | 87.3% | $ 66,193.00 | 14.68% |
| 25-50% | 34,495,551 | $1,620,303 | $90,449 | 20.7% | 11.0% | 5.58% | |
| Top 50% | 68,991,102 | $6,770,174 | $846,352 | 86.5% | 97.7% | > $32,396 | 12.50% |
| Bottom 50% | 68,991,102 | $1,055,215 | $19,511 | 13.5% | 2.3% | < $32,396 | 1.85% |
Source: Internal Revenue Service
Table 2Number of Federal Individual Income Tax Returns Filed 1980-2009 (In thousands)
Year | Total | Top 0.1% | Top 1% | Top 5% | Between 5% & 10% | Top 10% | Between 10% & 25% | Top 25% | Between 25% & 50% | Top 50% | Bottom 50% |
| 1980 | 93,239 | 932 | 4,662 | 4,662 | 9,324 | 13,986 | 23,310 | 23,310 | 46,619 | 46,619 | |
| 1981 | 94,587 | 946 | 4,729 | 4,729 | 9,459 | 14,188 | 23,647 | 23,647 | 47,293 | 47,293 | |
| 1982 | 94,426 | 944 | 4,721 | 4,721 | 9,443 | 14,164 | 23,607 | 23,607 | 47,213 | 47,213 | |
| 1983 | 95,331 | 953 | 4,767 | 4,767 | 9,533 | 14,300 | 23,833 | 23,833 | 47,665 | 47,665 | |
| 1984 | 98,436 | 984 | 4,922 | 4,922 | 9,844 | 14,765 | 24,609 | 24,609 | 49,218 | 49,219 | |
| 1985 | 100,625 | 1,006 | 5,031 | 5,031 | 10,063 | 15,094 | 25,156 | 25,156 | 50,313 | 50,313 | |
| 1986 | 102,088 | 1,021 | 5,104 | 5,104 | 10,209 | 15,313 | 25,522 | 25,522 | 51,044 | 51,044 | |
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable | |||||||||||
| 1987 | 106,155 | 1,062 | 5,308 | 5,308 | 10,615 | 15,923 | 26,539 | 26,539 | 53,077 | 53,077 | |
| 1988 | 108,873 | 1,089 | 5,444 | 5,444 | 10,887 | 16,331 | 27,218 | 27,218 | 54,436 | 54,436 | |
| 1989 | 111,313 | 1,113 | 5,566 | 5,566 | 11,131 | 16,697 | 27,828 | 27,828 | 55,656 | 55,656 | |
| 1990 | 112,812 | 1,128 | 5,641 | 5,641 | 11,281 | 16,922 | 28,203 | 28,203 | 56,406 | 56,406 | |
| 1991 | 113,804 | 1,138 | 5,690 | 5,690 | 11,380 | 17,071 | 28,451 | 28,451 | 56,902 | 56,902 | |
| 1992 | 112,653 | 1,127 | 5,633 | 5,633 | 11,265 | 16,898 | 28,163 | 28,163 | 56,326 | 56,326 | |
| 1993 | 113,681 | 1,137 | 5,684 | 5,684 | 11,368 | 17,052 | 28,420 | 28,420 | 56,841 | 56,841 | |
| 1994 | 114,990 | 1,150 | 5,749 | 5,749 | 11,499 | 17,248 | 28,747 | 28,747 | 57,495 | 57,495 | |
| 1995 | 117,274 | 1,173 | 5,864 | 5,864 | 11,727 | 17,591 | 29,319 | 29,319 | 58,637 | 58,637 | |
| 1996 | 119,442 | 1,194 | 5,972 | 5,972 | 11,944 | 17,916 | 29,860 | 29,860 | 59,721 | 59,721 | |
| 1997 | 121,503 | 1,215 | 6,075 | 6,075 | 12,150 | 18,225 | 30,376 | 30,376 | 60,752 | 60,752 | |
| 1998 | 123,776 | 1,238 | 6,189 | 6,189 | 12,378 | 18,566 | 30,944 | 30,944 | 61,888 | 61,888 | |
| 1999 | 126,009 | 1,260 | 6,300 | 6,300 | 12,601 | 18,901 | 31,502 | 31,502 | 63,004 | 63,004 | |
| 2000 | 128,227 | 1,282 | 6,411 | 6,411 | 12,823 | 19,234 | 32,057 | 32,057 | 64,114 | 64,114 | |
| 2001 | 128,817 | 129 | 1,288 | 6,441 | 6,441 | 12,882 | 19,323 | 32,204 | 32,204 | 64,409 | 64,409 |
| 2002 | 128,324 | 128 | 1,283 | 6,416 | 6,416 | 12,832 | 19,249 | 32,081 | 32,081 | 64,162 | 64,162 |
| 2003 | 128,610 | 129 | 1,286 | 6,430 | 6,430 | 12,861 | 19,291 | 32,152 | 32,152 | 64,305 | 64,305 |
| 2004 | 130,371 | 130 | 1,304 | 6,519 | 6,519 | 13,037 | 19,556 | 32,593 | 32,593 | 65,186 | 65,186 |
| 2005 | 132,612 | 133 | 1,326 | 6,631 | 6,631 | 13,261 | 19,892 | 33,153 | 33,153 | 66,306 | 66,306 |
| 2006 | 135,719 | 136 | 1,357 | 6,786 | 6,786 | 13,572 | 20,358 | 33,930 | 33,930 | 67,860 | 67,860 |
| 2007 | 141,071 | 141 | 1,411 | 7,054 | 7,054 | 14,107 | 21,161 | 35,268 | 35,268 | 70,535 | 70,535 |
| 2008 | 139,961 | 140 | 1,400 | 6,998 | 6,998 | 13,996 | 20,994 | 34,990 | 34,990 | 69,980 | 69,980 |
| 2009 | 137,982 | 138 | 1,380 | 6,899 | 6,899 | 13,798 | 20,698 | 34,496 | 34,495 | 68,991 | 68,991 |
Table 3Adjusted Gross Income of Taxpayers in Various Income Brackets, 1980-2009 ($ Billions)
Year | Total | Top 0.1% | Top 1% | Top 5% | Between 5% & 10% | Top 10% | Between 10% & 25% | Top 25% | Between 25% & 50% | Top 50% | Bottom 50% |
| 1980 | $1,627 | $138 | $342 | $181 | $523 | $400 | $922 | $417 | $1,339 | $288 | |
| 1981 | $1,791 | $149 | $372 | $201 | $573 | $442 | $1,015 | $458 | $1,473 | $318 | |
| 1982 | $1,876 | $167 | $398 | $207 | $605 | $460 | $1,065 | $478 | $1,544 | $332 | |
| 1983 | $1,970 | $183 | $428 | $217 | $646 | $481 | $1,127 | $498 | $1,625 | $344 | |
| 1984 | $2,173 | $210 | $482 | $240 | $723 | $528 | $1,251 | $543 | $1,794 | $379 | |
| 1985 | $2,344 | $235 | $531 | $260 | $791 | $567 | $1,359 | $580 | $1,939 | $405 | |
| 1986 | $2,524 | $285 | $608 | $278 | $887 | $604 | $1,490 | $613 | $2,104 | $421 | |
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable | |||||||||||
| 1987 | $2,814 | $347 | $722 | $316 | $1,038 | $671 | $1,709 | $664 | $2,374 | $440 | |
| 1988 | $3,124 | $474 | $891 | $342 | $1,233 | $718 | $1,951 | $707 | $2,658 | $466 | |
| 1989 | $3,299 | $468 | $918 | $368 | $1,287 | $768 | $2,054 | $751 | $2,805 | $494 | |
| 1990 | $3,451 | $483 | $953 | $385 | $1,338 | $806 | $2,144 | $788 | $2,933 | $519 | |
| 1991 | $3,516 | $457 | $943 | $400 | $1,343 | $832 | $2,175 | $809 | $2,984 | $532 | |
| 1992 | $3,681 | $524 | $1,031 | $413 | $1,444 | $856 | $2,299 | $832 | $3,131 | $549 | |
| 1993 | $3,776 | $521 | $1,048 | $426 | $1,474 | $883 | $2,358 | $854 | $3,212 | $563 | |
| 1994 | $3,961 | $547 | $1,103 | $449 | $1,552 | $929 | $2,481 | $890 | $3,371 | $590 | |
| 1995 | $4,245 | $620 | $1,223 | $482 | $1,705 | $985 | $2,690 | $938 | $3,628 | $617 | |
| 1996 | $4,591 | $737 | $1,394 | $515 | $1,909 | $1,043 | $2,953 | $992 | $3,944 | $646 | |
| 1997 | $5,023 | $873 | $1,597 | $554 | $2,151 | $1,116 | $3,268 | $1,060 | $4,328 | $695 | |
| 1998 | $5,469 | $1,010 | $1,797 | $597 | $2,394 | $1,196 | $3,590 | $1,132 | $4,721 | $748 | |
| 1999 | $5,909 | $1,153 | $2,012 | $641 | $2,653 | $1,274 | $3,927 | $1,199 | $5,126 | $783 | |
| 2000 | $6,424 | $1,337 | $2,267 | $688 | $2,955 | $1,358 | $4,314 | $1,276 | $5,590 | $834 | |
| 2001 | $6,241 | $506 | $1,094 | $1,996 | $694 | $2,691 | $1,380 | $4,071 | $1,308 | $5,379 | $862 |
| 2002 | $6,114 | $432 | $986 | $1,868 | $686 | $2,553 | $1,382 | $3,936 | $1,309 | $5,244 | $870 |
| 2003 | $6,288 | $476 | $1,055 | $1,961 | $703 | $2,663 | $1,415 | $4,078 | $1,330 | $5,408 | $880 |
| 2004 | $6,875 | $629 | $1,306 | $2,300 | $750 | $3,049 | $1,497 | $4,546 | $1,406 | $5,953 | $922 |
| 2005 | $7,508 | $799 | $1,592 | $2,684 | $803 | $3,487 | $1,582 | $5,069 | $1,475 | $6,545 | $963 |
| 2006 | $8,122 | $911 | $1,792 | $2,978 | $865 | $3,843 | $1,693 | $5,536 | $1,570 | $7,106 | $1,016 |
| 2007 | $8,799 | $1,049 | $2,008 | $3,295 | $933 | $4,228 | $1,818 | $6,045 | $1,675 | $7,720 | $1,078 |
| 2008 | $8,427 | $839 | $1,685 | $2,927 | $930 | $3,856 | $1,822 | $5,678 | $1,674 | $7,352 | $1,075 |
| 2009 | $7,825 | $610 | $1,326 | $2,482 | $898 | $3,380 | $1,770 | $5,150 | $1,620 | $6,770 | $1,055 |
Table 4Total Income Tax after Credits, 1980-2009 ($ Billions)
Year | Total | Top 0.1% | Top 1% | Top 5% | Between 5% & 10% | Top 10% | Between 10% & 25% | Top 25% | Between 25% & 50% | Top 50% | Bottom 50% |
| 1980 | $249 | $47 | $92 | $31 | $123 | $59 | $182 | $50 | $232 | $18 | |
| 1981 | $282 | $50 | $99 | $36 | $135 | $69 | $204 | $57 | $261 | $21 | |
| 1982 | $276 | $53 | $100 | $34 | $134 | $66 | $200 | $56 | $256 | $20 | |
| 1983 | $272 | $55 | $101 | $34 | $135 | $64 | $199 | $54 | $252 | $19 | |
| 1984 | $297 | $63 | $113 | $37 | $150 | $68 | $219 | $57 | $276 | $22 | |
| 1985 | $322 | $70 | $125 | $41 | $166 | $73 | $238 | $60 | $299 | $23 | |
| 1986 | $367 | $94 | $156 | $44 | $201 | $78 | $279 | $64 | $343 | $24 | |
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable | |||||||||||
| 1987 | $369 | $92 | $160 | $46 | $205 | $79 | $284 | $63 | $347 | $22 | |
| 1988 | $413 | $114 | $188 | $48 | $236 | $85 | $321 | $68 | $389 | $24 | |
| 1989 | $433 | $109 | $190 | $51 | $241 | $93 | $334 | $73 | $408 | $25 | |
| 1990 | $447 | $112 | $195 | $52 | $248 | $97 | $344 | $77 | $421 | $26 | |
| 1991 | $448 | $111 | $194 | $56 | $250 | $96 | $347 | $77 | $424 | $25 | |
| 1992 | $476 | $131 | $218 | $58 | $276 | $97 | $374 | $78 | $452 | $24 | |
| 1993 | $503 | $146 | $238 | $60 | $298 | $101 | $399 | $80 | $479 | $24 | |
| 1994 | $535 | $154 | $254 | $64 | $318 | $108 | $425 | $84 | $509 | $25 | |
| 1995 | $588 | $178 | $288 | $70 | $357 | $115 | $473 | $88 | $561 | $27 | |
| 1996 | $658 | $213 | $335 | $76 | $411 | $124 | $535 | $95 | $630 | $28 | |
| 1997 | $727 | $241 | $377 | $82 | $460 | $134 | $594 | $102 | $696 | $31 | |
| 1998 | $788 | $274 | $425 | $88 | $513 | $139 | $652 | $103 | $755 | $33 | |
| 1999 | $877 | $317 | $486 | $97 | $583 | $150 | $733 | $109 | $842 | $35 | |
| 2000 | $981 | $367 | $554 | $106 | $660 | $164 | $824 | $118 | $942 | $38 | |
| 2001 | $888 | $143 | $301 | $473 | $103 | $576 | $160 | $736 | $117 | $853 | $35 |
| 2002 | $797 | $123 | $269 | $429 | $95 | $524 | $145 | $669 | $100 | $769 | $28 |
| 2003 | $748 | $117 | $256 | $407 | $86 | $492 | $135 | $627 | $95 | $722 | $26 |
| 2004 | $832 | $145 | $307 | $475 | $92 | $567 | $139 | $706 | $99 | $804 | $27 |
| 2005 | $935 | $180 | $368 | $558 | $99 | $657 | $147 | $804 | $102 | $906 | $29 |
| 2006 | $1,024 | $200 | $408 | $616 | $109 | $725 | $158 | $883 | $110 | $993 | $31 |
| 2007 | $1,116 | $225 | $451 | $676 | $118 | $794 | $171 | $966 | $117 | $1,083 | $32 |
| 2008 | $1,032 | $190 | $392 | $606 | $116 | $721 | $169 | $891 | $113 | $1,004 | $28 |
| 2009 | $866 | $148 | $318 | $508 | $102 | $610 | $146 | $756 | $90 | $846 | $20 |
Table 5Adjusted Gross Income Shares, 1980-2009 (Percent of total AGI earned by each group)
Year | Total | Top 0.1% | Top 1% | Top 5% | Between 5% & 10% | Top 10% | Between 10% & 25% | Top 25% | Between 25% & 50% | Top 50% | Bottom 50% |
| 1980 | 100% | 8.46% | 21.01% | 11.12% | 32.13% | 24.57% | 56.70% | 25.62% | 82.32% | 17.68% | |
| 1981 | 100% | 8.30% | 20.78% | 11.20% | 31.98% | 24.69% | 56.67% | 25.59% | 82.25% | 17.75% | |
| 1982 | 100% | 8.91% | 21.23% | 11.03% | 32.26% | 24.53% | 56.79% | 25.50% | 82.29% | 17.71% | |
| 1983 | 100% | 9.29% | 21.74% | 11.04% | 32.78% | 24.44% | 57.22% | 25.30% | 82.52% | 17.48% | |
| 1984 | 100% | 9.66% | 22.19% | 11.06% | 33.25% | 24.31% | 57.56% | 25.00% | 82.56% | 17.44% | |
| 1985 | 100% | 10.03% | 22.67% | 11.10% | 33.77% | 24.21% | 57.97% | 24.77% | 82.74% | 17.26% | |
| 1986 | 100% | 11.30% | 24.11% | 11.02% | 35.12% | 23.92% | 59.04% | 24.30% | 83.34% | 16.66% | |
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable | |||||||||||
| 1987 | 100% | 12.32% | 25.67% | 11.23% | 36.90% | 23.85% | 60.75% | 23.62% | 84.37% | 15.63% | |
| 1988 | 100% | 15.16% | 28.51% | 10.94% | 39.45% | 22.99% | 62.44% | 22.63% | 85.07% | 14.93% | |
| 1989 | 100% | 14.19% | 27.84% | 11.16% | 39.00% | 23.28% | 62.28% | 22.76% | 85.04% | 14.96% | |
| 1990 | 100% | 14.00% | 27.62% | 11.15% | 38.77% | 23.36% | 62.13% | 22.84% | 84.97% | 15.03% | |
| 1991 | 100% | 12.99% | 26.83% | 11.37% | 38.20% | 23.65% | 61.85% | 23.01% | 84.87% | 15.13% | |
| 1992 | 100% | 14.23% | 28.01% | 11.21% | 39.23% | 23.25% | 62.47% | 22.61% | 85.08% | 14.92% | |
| 1993 | 100% | 13.79% | 27.76% | 11.29% | 39.05% | 23.40% | 62.45% | 22.63% | 85.08% | 14.92% | |
| 1994 | 100% | 13.80% | 27.85% | 11.34% | 39.19% | 23.45% | 62.64% | 22.48% | 85.11% | 14.89% | |
| 1995 | 100% | 14.60% | 28.81% | 11.35% | 40.16% | 23.21% | 63.37% | 22.09% | 85.46% | 14.54% | |
| 1996 | 100% | 16.04% | 30.36% | 11.23% | 41.59% | 22.73% | 64.32% | 21.60% | 85.92% | 14.08% | |
| 1997 | 100% | 17.38% | 31.79% | 11.03% | 42.83% | 22.22% | 65.05% | 21.11% | 86.16% | 13.84% | |
| 1998 | 100% | 18.47% | 32.85% | 10.92% | 43.77% | 21.87% | 65.63% | 20.69% | 86.33% | 13.67% | |
| 1999 | 100% | 19.51% | 34.04% | 10.85% | 44.89% | 21.57% | 66.46% | 20.29% | 86.75% | 13.25% | |
| 2000 | 100% | 20.81% | 35.30% | 10.71% | 46.01% | 21.15% | 67.15% | 19.86% | 87.01% | 12.99% | |
| 2001 | 100% | 8.10% | 17.53% | 31.99% | 11.12% | 43.11% | 22.12% | 65.23% | 20.96% | 86.19% | 13.81% |
| 2002 | 100% | 7.06% | 16.12% | 30.55% | 11.22% | 41.77% | 22.61% | 64.37% | 21.40% | 85.77% | 14.23% |
| 2003 | 100% | 7.57% | 16.77% | 31.18% | 11.18% | 42.36% | 22.50% | 64.86% | 21.15% | 86.01% | 13.99% |
| 2004 | 100% | 9.14% | 19.00% | 33.45% | 10.90% | 44.35% | 21.78% | 66.13% | 20.46% | 86.58% | 13.42% |
| 2005 | 100% | 10.65% | 21.20% | 35.75% | 10.70% | 46.44% | 21.08% | 67.52% | 19.65% | 87.17% | 12.83% |
| 2006 | 100% | 11.22% | 22.06% | 36.66% | 10.66% | 47.32% | 20.84% | 68.16% | 19.33% | 87.49% | 12.51% |
| 2007 | 100% | 11.93% | 22.83% | 37.44% | 10.61% | 48.05% | 20.66% | 68.71% | 19.04% | 87.74% | 12.26% |
| 2008 | 100% | 9.96% | 20.00% | 34.73% | 11.03% | 45.77% | 21.62% | 67.38% | 19.86% | 87.25% | 12.75% |
| 2009 | 100% | 7.80% | 16.93% | 31.72% | 11.47% | 43.19% | 22.62% | 65.81% | 20.71% | 86.52% | 13.4800% |
Table 6Total Income Tax Shares, 1980-2009 (Percent of federal income tax paid by each group)
Year | Total | Top 0.1% | Top 1% | Top 5% | Between 5% & 10% | Top 10% | Between 10% & 25% | Top 25% | Between 25% & 50% | Top 50% | Bottom 50% |
| 1980 | 100% | 19.05% | 36.84% | 12.44% | 49.28% | 23.74% | 73.02% | 19.93% | 92.95% | 7.05% | |
| 1981 | 100% | 17.58% | 35.06% | 12.90% | 47.96% | 24.33% | 72.29% | 20.26% | 92.55% | 7.45% | |
| 1982 | 100% | 19.03% | 36.13% | 12.45% | 48.59% | 23.91% | 72.50% | 20.15% | 92.65% | 7.35% | |
| 1983 | 100% | 20.32% | 37.26% | 12.44% | 49.71% | 23.39% | 73.10% | 19.73% | 92.83% | 7.17% | |
| 1984 | 100% | 21.12% | 37.98% | 12.58% | 50.56% | 22.92% | 73.49% | 19.16% | 92.65% | 7.35% | |
| 1985 | 100% | 21.81% | 38.78% | 12.67% | 51.46% | 22.60% | 74.06% | 18.77% | 92.83% | 7.17% | |
| 1986 | 100% | 25.75% | 42.57% | 12.12% | 54.69% | 21.33% | 76.02% | 17.52% | 93.54% | 6.46% | |
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable | |||||||||||
| 1987 | 100% | 24.81% | 43.26% | 12.35% | 55.61% | 21.31% | 76.92% | 17.02% | 93.93% | 6.07% | |
| 1988 | 100% | 27.58% | 45.62% | 11.66% | 57.28% | 20.57% | 77.84% | 16.44% | 94.28% | 5.72% | |
| 1989 | 100% | 25.24% | 43.94% | 11.85% | 55.78% | 21.44% | 77.22% | 16.94% | 94.17% | 5.83% | |
| 1990 | 100% | 25.13% | 43.64% | 11.73% | 55.36% | 21.66% | 77.02% | 17.16% | 94.19% | 5.81% | |
| 1991 | 100% | 24.82% | 43.38% | 12.45% | 55.82% | 21.46% | 77.29% | 17.23% | 94.52% | 5.48% | |
| 1992 | 100% | 27.54% | 45.88% | 12.12% | 58.01% | 20.47% | 78.48% | 16.46% | 94.94% | 5.06% | |
| 1993 | 100% | 29.01% | 47.36% | 11.88% | 59.24% | 20.03% | 79.27% | 15.92% | 95.19% | 4.81% | |
| 1994 | 100% | 28.86% | 47.52% | 11.93% | 59.45% | 20.10% | 79.55% | 15.68% | 95.23% | 4.77% | |
| 1995 | 100% | 30.26% | 48.91% | 11.84% | 60.75% | 19.62% | 80.36% | 15.03% | 95.39% | 4.61% | |
| 1996 | 100% | 32.31% | 50.97% | 11.54% | 62.51% | 18.80% | 81.32% | 14.36% | 95.68% | 4.32% | |
| 1997 | 100% | 33.17% | 51.87% | 11.33% | 63.20% | 18.47% | 81.67% | 14.05% | 95.72% | 4.28% | |
| 1998 | 100% | 34.75% | 53.84% | 11.20% | 65.04% | 17.65% | 82.69% | 13.10% | 95.79% | 4.21% | |
| 1999 | 100% | 36.18% | 55.45% | 11.00% | 66.45% | 17.09% | 83.54% | 12.46% | 96.00% | 4.00% | |
| 2000 | 100% | 37.42% | 56.47% | 10.86% | 67.33% | 16.68% | 84.01% | 12.08% | 96.09% | 3.91% | |
| 2001 | 100% | 16.06% | 33.89% | 53.25% | 11.64% | 64.89% | 18.01% | 82.90% | 13.13% | 96.03% | 3.97% |
| 2002 | 100% | 15.43% | 33.71% | 53.80% | 11.94% | 65.73% | 18.16% | 83.90% | 12.60% | 96.50% | 3.50% |
| 2003 | 100% | 15.68% | 34.27% | 54.36% | 11.48% | 65.84% | 18.04% | 83.88% | 12.65% | 96.54% | 3.46% |
| 2004 | 100% | 17.44% | 36.89% | 57.13% | 11.07% | 68.19% | 16.67% | 84.86% | 11.85% | 96.70% | 3.30% |
| 2005 | 100% | 19.26% | 39.38% | 59.67% | 10.63% | 70.30% | 15.69% | 85.99% | 10.94% | 96.93% | 3.07% |
| 2006 | 100% | 19.56% | 39.89% | 60.14% | 10.65% | 70.79% | 15.47% | 86.27% | 10.75% | 97.01% | 2.99% |
| 2007 | 100% | 20.19% | 40.41% | 60.61% | 10.59% | 71.20% | 15.37% | 86.57% | 10.54% | 97.11% | 2.89% |
| 2008 | 100% | 18.47% | 38.02% | 58.72% | 11.22% | 69.94% | 16.40% | 86.34% | 10.96% | 97.30% | 2.70% |
| 2009 | 100% | 17.11% | 36.73% | 58.66% | 11.81% | 70.47% | 16.83% | 87.30% | 10.45% | 97.75% | 2.25% |
Table 7Dollar Cut-Off, 1980-2009 (Minimum AGI for tax return to fall into various percentiles; Thresholds not adjusted for inflation)
