• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Government Will Take Almost Half Your Paycheck in 2013

    How high is the marginal tax rate on each additional dollar the average American earns? In other words, if you got a raise of one dollar, how much of that dollar would be taxed away? These rates are already high, and they’re getting higher next year.

    A middle-class taxpayer’s income is subject to a 25 percent federal income tax. Then there is the federal Social Security and Medicare payroll tax of 13.3 percent in 2012—5.65 percent of that is removed from the employee’s paycheck, and the remaining 7.65 percent is paid by the employer. (In reality, the employee pays the entire 13.3 percent, because the employer’s portion of the tax does not affect the cost of labor: The employer would pay the employee 7.65 percent more if there were no employer’s portion of the payroll tax.)

    So the 25 percent federal income tax plus 13.3 Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes equals 38.3 percent going to federal taxes in 2012.

    And then there are state taxes. According to the Tax Foundation, the average state’s income tax rate for the middle-class taxpayer is 4.82 percent, which brings the total to 43.12 percent in federal and state taxes. And it’s going higher, thanks to the nearly $500 billion in tax increases for 2013 that some have called Taxmageddon. In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent. This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent.

    When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

    It is outrageous that any dollar earned by a middle-class taxpayer would go as much to taxes as to supporting the taxpayer’s family. The government didn’t earn the taxpayer’s paycheck and shouldn’t be entitled to it.

    See the table below to see how your state compares to the national marginal tax rate of 43.1 percent in 2012 and 48.1 percent in 2013.


    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    166 Responses to Government Will Take Almost Half Your Paycheck in 2013

    1. Tom Kulaga says:

      So wake up all you flat tax people, the facts are in.

      • Jeff says:

        Sorry dont get what you are saying are you for flat tax or not and would you please say why I would like to know thank you

      • gerry says:

        think of all the other taxes also…. gas tax (.50per gal,) sales tax(5%), property tax, taxes on bills(phone, cable etc.), we probably pay close to 60% to 65% of our income to taxes!

      • Earl Carter says:

        Unfortunately this analysis only includes the VISIBLE taxes you pay and thus does not include taxes embedded in products nor does it include compliance costs which occur at all levels whether or not you have an actual tax liability.

      • Just-John says:

        Same bs don't know about you but state taxes are deducted fron your income when figuring fed tax.? You need to find a better job that pays more then taxes won't bother you you,ll end up paying a pro to do them but will end ou paying way less than 14 precent .Mitt showed he paid 14 percent because the was the most he ever paid

    2. Daryl Davis says:

      As long the argument continues to bear upon the proper rate at which to tax income, rather than the propriety of the income tax itself, that rate will be a political football year in and year out.

      If Romney and Ryan win–and Republicans win both houses–real reform may come.

      Otherwise, a more "radical" reform may be necessary:

    3. Can you define who the "middle-class" is in this article and the statistics? It is a fluid term.

      • William Braudis says:

        Megan, according to obama, Union Members are Middle-Class and that is why he continues to pure our TAX MONEY into their cause. According to obama, Middle Class are those who earn between $ 43,000.00 to $ 250,000.00 annually.
        ( NOTE: to the democrats $ 43,000.00 is the high end of Poverty and $ 250,000.00 is the low end of Riches )

      • BestCom says:

        Sociologists define average middle class income at $90,000 in 2010

      • Phil F says:

        For these numbers to work, middle class has to be between $85,651 (the lowest household income that would be taxes at 28% should the Bush tax cuts expire) and $110,100 (the highest income that is subject to the OASDI payroll tax).

    4. Bobbie says:

      Someone better stop this thievery on the basis of many things instigating criminal tendencies with mental instability in the highest office, needing more safety nets to protect him and his costly favorites that doesn't generate revenue, then the people he pretends to serve would ever lower themselves to depend on him.

    5. gbabbitt22 says:

      So much specious analysis here. Where to start?

      "The employer would pay the employee 7.65 percent more if there were no employer’s portion of the payroll tax.)"
      - Says who? Asserting that the employer's 7.65% is necessarily coming out of the employee's pocket is disingenuous at best. More likely that money would be retained to support operations or increase profits.

      • steve says:

        You can't dispute their assertion and then assume the exact oppossitte is true.

        • Paul Balga says:

          Steve, suggesting an alternative possibility is a generally accepted way to dispute something.

      • Thomas Ross says:

        I will assume you have little regard for our free market system. That,s to bad. If deregulation were to be addressed and reforms were acted on swiftly our free market would create incentives for employees to be rewarded for performance. Your negative outlook is liberal talk which got us to the point were at today.

        • SkepticalTexan says:

          We don't have a free market system. Many think we do, but we do not. Free market leads to tyranny.

          And it is not liberal to think businesses will take every penny they can to line the Execs' pockets or invest back into the business. They see taxes as a cost of business, not part of compensation. It's what the government charges them to have employees. If that goes down, very few employers will pass it along to the employees.

          Anyway, we are already near 50% and have been since the last GOP was in office. This is a stupid FUD piece of writing.

          • liberal_slayer says:

            It shows that income taxes (federal+state but not local city or county income taxes) are already very high but not high enough for liberals that really want 100% of the income and then can dole it out to us peons as they see fit.. When I lived in Columbus, OH I also had to pay a 2% city income tax on gross earnings and another 1% for schools this is not factored into the tax analysis.

            We have a spending problem in this country and the federal budget needs to get back down to 20% of GDP and the tax revenues need to increase on the bottom 50% that are currently paying nothing or getting gov't rebate checks from a slew of welfare programs. Everyone in this country should be paying a minimum income tax of at least 5% on gross earnings just like they do on SS and medicare taxes and most state income taxes. There should be no free riders (meaning zero taxes paid) in this country and everyone needs to have skin in the game and then at least we will feel like we are all in this together instead of pitting brother against brother.

            • William Hale says:

              The bottom 50% pay nothing? You must be smoking some REALLY good dope. I am IN the bottom 50% and I guarantee you I pay a HUGE portion of my income in taxes, income and others. That whole myth is ludicrous!

      • cp74 says:

        "Asserting that the employer's 7.65% is necessarily coming out of the employee's pocket"
        You're obviously not an economist. That 7.65% is factored into the fully-burdened cost of that employee and is decisive in whether the employee is hired, and continued to be employed, by the employer.

      • Scott says:

        You are dead wrong! I'm an employer (small business owner). I would definitely pass that 7.65% on to my employees. The free market controls not only cost of goods sold, but also employment compensation. There is intense competition for good employees and the good employees go to where the money/compensation is. I pay the absolute most I can to my employess and still remain in business. The free market demands it, to retain them, promote loyalty and productivity, and attract new candidates. It's a myth that businesses in general are greedy and rip off their employees any chance they get. They would lose all of their best people to their competition, that compensates more. By the way, I would never hire you, your attitude sucks.

    6. gbabbitt22 says:

      Part II:
      "A middle-class taxpayer’s income is subject to a 25 percent federal income tax. "
      - Not the whole income. With deductions, exemptions and credits it's often far less. Ask Mitt Romney.And the same argument applies to state incmoe taxes – plus there is often an offset for federal taxes paid.

      • ORtaxpreparer says:

        That is what I was just thinking. The rates of tax may be correct but they are not assessed on 100% of any taxpayers income. Thank you for being a voice of sanity!

      • cp74 says:

        This article is referring to the *marginal* tax rate, and economic decisions are made on the margin. I.e. should I risk expanding my business when I know that 50% of the (hopefully) increased profit will be taxed away?

        • Because 50% of something is better than 50% of nothing.

        • David K says:

          Not just that 50% of total profits/income is better than 0% of profits/income. But it's not 50%. If you make $87,850 which is the highest of the brackets that I feel like is the top of what should be considered middle class, (Keep in mind that this is single filer that's not head of household and before any possible deductions), You will currently pay 30.83% of your income in taxes. That is according to the numbers in this article which I double checked at irs dot gov. If the tax rates for the middle class expire then the amount would be 35.83%. It is even less for those who deduct mortgage interest or use a child tax credit or file jointly or as head of household, or deduct anything else. These numbers are for a single man or woman with no deductions. And deductions are applied to the top of your income so they remove income that is taxed at the highest rate so the % would go down accordingly, not up.

          This article is misleading because it does not take into account the fact that it is a progressive tax structure. But it is Heritage so they're going to be a little bias, just like most places.

      • Ken Watson says:

        Maybe you geniuses missed the part where the whole thing was prefaced with "How high is the marginal tax rate on each additional dollar the average American earns?" Try reading the first line sometimes. Occasionally there is an important tidbit in there.

      • Neal says:

        While the author is careful to use the term "marginal tax rate," so he is technically correct, he continues to imply the misleading assumption that 50% of a taxpayer's total income is going to taxes. While this may be true for some in the U.S., it's certainly not true for the vast majority of the population. Unfortunately, public understanding of how the federal income tax system works is so poor that most people believe they're being taxed at a much higher rate than they actually are.

    7. gbabbitt22 says:

      Also – nice framing in this gem: "…the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent."
      - Don't you mean "…is scheduled to *return* to 28 percent" etc? Because they've been that high (and much higher) in the past.

      • Karl Quick says:

        Ok. So they are "returning". Can we return spending to the 2001 level too? Nice try at distracting from the reality of the problem!

        • liberal_Slayer says:

          EXCELLENT POINT lets get gov't spending back to the wonderful Clinton era of 18% of GDP not the 25% we have under Obama.

      • prettyduckplease says:

        I agree. There is so much misleading and incomplete information here. I know so many people that accept this narrative at face value.

      • cp74 says:

        'Don't you mean "…is scheduled to *return* to 28 percent"'
        Arguing semantics shows desperation. Whether it 'rises' or 'returns' is irrelevant: it is still 28% and your argument fails.

    8. gbabbitt22 says:

      And the best for last, capping off the manufactured outrage: "The government didn’t earn the taxpayer’s paycheck and shouldn’t be entitled to it."
      -So much wrong here: The taxpayer could not earn that paycheck *without* the government – ask any Somali.

      So it's not a matter of entitlement (another nice frame), it's a matter of presenting a bill for services rendered, which I think any capitalist would agree is only right and proper.

      • Jim says:

        Same logic as Obama's "You didn't build that" statement.

      • PissedOff2012 says:

        The bill is a little high, don't you think? Americans should not be paying for all this crap we don't want or need. Why should I have to pay for people who voluntarily don't contribute to society? Or truck loads of fruitless wars? Or lifelong pensions for politicians aka "public SERVANTS." That's bullcrap.

      • KADIE says:

        Wow. No wonder this country is in such a mess when there are intelligent people like you who believe the government is entitled to "take" ever increasing amounts in taxes from its citizens and tell them that their doing so is for "their own good". Your thinking is backwards, at least as far as my view of America is concerned. This is a two-way street here. Our "government" CANNOT exist without the citizens paying taxes, and citizens CANNOT flourish and prosper under a government that strangles their economic growth with higher and higher tax burdens. Are you really okay with 50% of an American's income being conviscated by the government? Do you really believe that 50% of what ANY American makes at their job is a fair "bill" for "services rendered" by the government? Conservatives are not against paying taxes to keep our government running, our borders safe, and our infrastructure sound. Conservatives are against the WASTE that is going on in Washington, and the idea that government "stimulus" is the only way to get our economy moving again.

      • BTCat says:

        Your definition of government and mine would be totally different. You insinuate that government is this great benevolent institution – the all-giving. In fact, the United States was founded on, and hopes to reestablish the principle “…that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

        You are fundamentally wrong. Until you understand that, you can’t make a legitimate argument.

      • BTCat says:

        Your definition of government and mine would be totally different. You insinuate that government is this great benevolent institution – the all-giving. In fact, the United States was founded, and hopes to reestablish the principle “…that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
        You are fundamentally wrong. Until you understand that, you can’t make a legitimate argument.

      • jer says:

        So much wrong in the last statement….where to start….."presenting a bill for services rendered". Most are willing to pay for services rendered…..unfortunately many of the services rendered are unwanted, and overpriced."the taxpayer could not earn a paycheck without the government" Semi true….however I would think that the argument here is not between having zero government and our current beauracracy, rather it is an argument of what level of government is appropriate. Many believe that the current level is extreme and radical.

      • Please tell me how the government produces any income other than taxes. The roads the government provides were funded by….TAXPAYERS. The bridges were funded by …..TAXPAYERS. The trains were funded by ….TAXPAYERS. The schools were funded by…..TAXPAYERS… Anything stand out yet???? You assume that taxpayers don't appreciate the services rendered. Tell ya what…go to FRANCE….pay the 75% tax rate being proposed by their new President and then tell me how that feels and if you got services rendered. Taxes are necessary but taxes are not "earned" by the government. Let all the taxpayers stop working and see how long the government continues to provide those services.

      • The Hawk says:

        Bill For Services Rendered – Are you kidding me? The Federal Government is one of most inefficient Institutions on the planet, and you want me to cough up over 50% of my paycheck to support this beast – Why?

        So tell me, how much is my fair share? How much more of my Labor/Life should I surrender to support Big Government? Why don’t I just mail my entire Paycheck directly to the Government and then let the Government decide what my fair share is? And what the hell do you think happens to a Country when all of its Productive members are stifled by taxation – it collapses , like Europe.

        I don’t know if you’re an American or not, but just like Obama – your ideas clearly are not. Move to Europe and worship the State – America is not the place for you.

      • prettyduckplease says:

        Dude, you scratched the surface of BS here, I just wish you could really take this a part more fully. I follow the issues, and know what both sides say, but not enough of a nerd to really dissect this baloney. You are one of the few reasonable people even on this page. There is not enough healthy debate in politics now days, just lots of finger pointing, and shouting at each other. Thanks for taking the time to try to show the rest of the picture, and offer the rest of the information carefully omitted from this screed.

      • routeabout says:

        The govt is not entitled to any paycheck. How can you say we could not earn them without the govt? Govt is the problem…not the answer. With views such as yours…you too are part of the problem. We are at war for this Country…you utopian statists vs America…and what made this Country great. We left England to get away from taxes and tyranny, and yet you would return. Your pseudo-intellectual analysis is laughable. There is much wrong here…and you are part of it.

      • Ken Watson says:

        I want to see an invoice for those services.

    9. girlybird says:

      Tennessee does not have an income tax on earned income, only unearned (interest, dividends) income so the above chart is incorrect.

      • sdfkjklfsdj22 says:

        There is an asterisk next to the income tax rate. Look at the bottom of the chart and you will see that it applies to interest and dividends only.

      • Sheila Leith says:

        If you look again, Tennessee has an * by the number and at the bottom, it states that it is on interest and dividends, so the chart is correct.

      • Karl Quick says:

        note "*" and associated footnote… Table correct (or corrected?)

      • taxslave says:

        it says interest and dividend income only

      • Ron says:

        So they are going to tax someone for helping the economy. I would not have a savings account in that state I will keep my money in Florida and maybe working in TN is not a good idea.

    10. kevy99 says:

      So how much tax do you think is fair?

    11. Grandma Baer says:

      Very interesting!

    12. carlito says:

      Not so sure that all employers would be so generous as you think and would not pay the employee the extra 7.65%!

      Even so, if you live long enough, you will get back the money you put in to Social Security and Medicare (and probably more given the long life expectancy of Americans).

      Also, the states make a lot of money off of sales taxes, property taxes, professional license taxes, estate taxes, etc., so the overall tax rates are probably even higher than on your chart.

      What were the total tax percentages during previous administrations? Higher or lower? I know that the top federal rate was about 70% at one time for millionaires. A comparison would be useful.

      • Scott Batten says:

        And at that time there were MANY MANY more loopholes to use. A lot of those were closed when Reagan did the lower tax rates and broader bases(getting rid of a lot of the rich loopholes). Even if the employer gave a raise of half of that 7.65%, would that not help?

        Sorry, but unless you are already retired you WILL NOT get back more than you pay in for Medicare(it will be flat broke in 2023 without overhaul), or SSDI(that will go broke in 2033). http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/benefit6.cgi
        This is for 50,000 now you get(based on its assumed inflation) roughly 3300.

        If you take the total 16.5% of the 50K earning over your 40 years of working that will get you 8,250*40=$330,000. Now, if you took only half of that 165,000 and invested it yourself at the paltry return of 8%(the general average is between 10-12% in a broad based 401K) it gets you $1,200,000 in savings. $334 a month for 40 years at an 8% compounded monthly.

        Now here is where it gets good. You OWN the latter money. The "SSDI" is only a 'promise' by the government to pay it to you. Now, which is better a "promise" from the government that they will pay you $3,300($39,600 annual) in the future, OR your own investment paying you $5,816 ($69,800 annual)? DUH. You can invest your own money(that is yours) and make almost DOUBLE with minimal risk involved. Note, upon reaching 65 the rate of return should drop to 5%(risk averse) that you can get easily from many different investment vehicles(even in this economy).
        1,200,000 for 35 years at 5%. If you live past 100(not likely), then you might have a problem(but even this can be fixed by investing half of the difference(so only living on 55K a year not 70K) and it will last into your 120th year or so.

      • you will get back the money you put in to Social Security and Medicare (and probably more given the long life expectancy of Americans).

        I laughed my butt off when I read that line. The government is more concerned in giving illegal immigrants our Medicare and Social Security instead of U.S. natives who busted their butts all their lives. By the time I retire, Social Security will be bankrupted and nonexistant.

      • liberal_slayer says:

        "Even so, if you live long enough, you will get back the money you put in to Social Security and Medicare (and probably more given the long life expectancy of Americans). "

        Yeah and Bernie Madoff was a great guy who got people big money returns all they had to do is continue to scam other people.

        SS is the worlds biggest Ponzi Scheme.

    13. John simon says:

      Your tax table below is incorrect for the state of Tennessee, There is no state income taxes in this state….only sales and property.

    14. Sharon Watson says:

      Its difficult to understand what's the Government motive behind this increase. Surely it can't be for public benefits.

    15. J_T says:

      You are using a false and misleading assumption to pump up the total marginal tax rate. If the entire Social Security/Medicare tax was repealed, employees would definitely get to keep the 7.65% that they had been paying into the failing system. But, unless the repeal contained specific language mandating otherwise, the majority of businesses would keep the other 7.65%. Why should they give it to the employee who just got a 8.28% bump in their gross pay?

      • Scott Batten says:

        No, they are not. Learn the definition of MARGINAL. Marginal means the tax paid on the NEXT dollar of earning. Explained in the very first sentence of the article.

      • Vicky Hebel says:

        why should an employer pay anything into his employee's social security? The employer has to pay the whole 13% for his own and is expected to pay half for each employee. No incentive to hire anyone.

    16. Irving says:

      Add to that sales tax, special jurisdiction taxes, and licensing and permit fees. I just sold my house – boy that was fun – at least the government made lots of money…

    17. Taxes too high says:

      Good info, but it's 15.3% not 13.3%,

      "Then there is the federal Social Security and Medicare payroll tax of 13.3 percent in 2012.."
      The table is correct.

    18. Taxes too high says:

      Oh, I forgot the 2% cut for 2012. 13.3% is correct.

    19. O_Henry says:

      The Roman Empire collapsed under a 20% taxation rate….

      At what rate does the citizenry of the USA consider taxation confiscatory?

      • prettyduckplease says:

        The Roman Empire was also corrupt, and favored the wealthy above the needs of the many. It kept expanding, and got to big to manage logistically, when all the powerful wanted to do was blow money on themselves.

        • CharlieBrown says:

          “prettyduckplease says:

          August 19, 2012 at 9:20 am

          The Roman Empire was also corrupt, and favored the wealthy above the needs of the many. It kept expanding, and got to big to manage logistically, when all the powerful wanted to do was blow money on themselves.”

          LOL! Did that start with the 10th Congress, or did it wait a couple of years more?

      • Concerned American says:

        Very good question! Anyone have a comment on this one?

      • T Ferrari says:

        Can you provide a reliable source for the Roman Empire taxation rate?

    20. Gene says:

      Tn doesn't have a state income tax.

      • IndyMason says:

        If you take a closer look, you will see that the 6% listed for TN is for interest and dividends only.

      • Jeff says:

        Yes its on the chart that it dont have state income tax read the notes under the chart

      • Steve says:

        Not entirely correct. TN doesn't have an earned income tax. The Hall Income tax is paid on certain interest and dividend receipts.

    21. Rick says:

      The chart lists California Income Tax at 6%….It is over 9%!

    22. Tom says:

      Cost-of-governments constitutes about 65% of the personal and household cost-of-living for the typical family of four that consists of two working adults and two dependent children. Some of that cost is embedded and buried so deeply in the prices that we pay and it is there is so many hundreds or thousands of very small amounts that it would be virtually impossible to ferret it out and break it out into seperate line items.

      "Our" aggressively parasitic governments get away with their underhanded practices simply because average people are unware of just how badly they are being abused by the treacherous and untrustworthy few in whom all of us have placed greater trust than they deserve. Then the Blind-Eye Media who ignores what is happening is also accorded greater trust than they deserve.

    23. Bigron says:

      they used to say give me the tax and you keep the check well it is a reality, this government is going to bring this country to its knees any way they they can, you had better jump off the Obama Train

    24. smiileysa says:

      What is missing in this report: I would imagine that all states collect some type of property tax, and counties and cities collect sales taxes about state sales taxes. And so, factor in these to show the true nature of taxes on us. As in Texas, there is no income tax but we pay extra on property taxes so that by the chart we pay a lower tax rate but chart does not take into account for higher property taxes. By my perspective all these facts and figures are bogus!

    25. Robert says:

      This doesn't include the crazy real estate taxes that we pay here in Illinois…so it is over 50% in taxes for us.

    26. Shawn D. says:

      Tennessee does not have a state income tax (I know, I live there).

    27. P. Ang says:

      No way that's right. Oregon's tax rate is FAR HIGHER than the already oppressive 9% it shows here. With all the little fees, additional taxes, add-ons and penalties, it's easily another 4%

      • Sort of, but it's a bit more complex than that.

        Oregon charges a base tax of $4,200 (or so) for those who make under $125k, PLUS 9% of any amount over $50,000 for all taxable income. So for a $100k earner, the total comes to around just over 9%.

    28. Can We stand it, Nope.

    29. If We don't get rid of Oboma, this is what we will see.

    30. ncrdbl1 says:

      I think some of the information is not factual. Tennessee has no state income tax.

    31. Guest says:

      Other than what you say is the planned increase next year, would you agree that the figures you quoting for 2012 are in fact lower than what they were under George Bush due to the reduction in Payroll Tax (read: middle class tax cut) under Obama?

      • Annie Liz says:

        Please note: The "reduction in payroll tax" of which you speak was actually a reduction in social security tax. But the wordsmiths in the Obama administration spun it as "the middle class tax cut". Too bad few people realized what it was. (And this is important because it meant less money going toward Social Security benefits, which means it could run out of money even faster than it was already set to do.) Those outrageous Bush Tax Cuts [for the rich]? Those were actual middle class tax cuts. Yes, the rich benefited as well, but as a middle class earner, I was thrilled to get that tax reduction.

        • Guest says:

          So, to answer the question: Yes. Because Obama lowered the SocSec tax, and because it is included in this report, the figures in this report ARE less under Obama than they were under Bush.

          FURTHERMORE, the "planned" tax increase next year is only the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Obama would prefer to extend them for the middle-class (again, the subject of this report).

          • Bobbie says:

            what's your point to recognize a report and not reality? what does 2012 have to do with what it's going to be in 2013? Obama should prefer to extend all tax cuts permanently. There's nothing more denigrating than having to file for government rebates from personal income already earned that better leadership wouldn't have taken in the first place. Lots of ridiculous inefficiency. Wastes of time and paperwork with more needless, government intrusion.

    32. Robert says:

      Tennessee has a hall income tax but it is not based on income. Employees are not paying the entire 15.3% payroll tax. Before you lose me as a supporter both financially and as a reader please be factual that is why I have supported you.

      • "Employees are not paying the entire 15.3% payroll tax."

        Actually, that was explained in the article. Employees are paying the whole thing no matter the laws – your salary is cut down by that much, due to employers counting that cost (ostensibly to them) in their FTE cost for your position. In other words, the company budgets $x per employee in a given job position, and what you get is whatever is left after all the stuff is removed (SS contribution, insurance contributions, etc), minus any slop factor that you have to negotiate out when you get that initial offer.

        No matter how you dress it up, it is a tax that you end up paying, even if you never see the money directly.

        • Guest says:

          This logic is so fuzzy my cat, Fluffy, is jealous.

          Your employer isn't going to pay you anymore than it has to to keep you happy. If the payroll deductions ended tomorrow you can bet that your employer would be just as happy to keep their share as you would be to keep yours.

          • Biz owner says:

            The argument that companies would keep the 7.65% if just as lame, if not more so, than they would raise your pay by that rate. My guess is it WOULD become a raise. Maybe not immediately, but when 1 company does it and uses it as a carrot to hire the people they want, the others will follow suit. Let's just say it's a gamble I'm willing to take vs. the status quo.

    33. The high price of free stuff hits the middle class again. For every entitlement given to the non-producing my standard of living has gone down. My car is 16 years old and I wonder how so many drive cars less than 6 years old. Just go to the grocery store and you will see how they do it. I pay for my own groceries, and my taxes pay for theirs. I hear the propaganda from the progressives, soak it to the rich. You soak it to the rich My milk, goes up, my bread, and utilities, gas clothing, literally everything. The rich don't suffer. That's stupid. They won't lower their standard of living one iota. They just pass the extra costs on to the middle class. Look at the way Obama and Michelle live. See any difference between them and any other rich person. NO and your not going to either. They live like royalty taking vacation after vacation and golf trip after golf trip. Do you think for one minute he has a clue as to what his Socialism is doing to the people that work for a living. he's been taken care of his whole life. This man lies and we pay for it.

      • Paul Balga says:

        Based on your post and its rhetoric, I'm surmising the "propaganda from the progressives" you're hearing is simply being fed to you. Vacations, socialism, right. You forgot Kenya, dog-eating, fake birth cirtificate, staged Aurora shooting, etc.

      • David Baugus says:

        The percentage of the population depending on public assistance has remained at a constant level for the past thirty years but the GDP has grown substantially in that time. Besides, all of the tax collected from you to go toward food stamps is used to subsidize the farmers and producers of the food. Any tax you paid that went to welfare ends up in the hands of producers and retailers within the month it is issued to needy families, you act like people are sitting on welfare money, they are not, they are spending all of it, immediately if not sooner. No one want to "soak it to the rich," we just want them to pay their taxes like everyone else.

    34. Len says:

      Not factual. Marginal tax rates of 28% do not translate to effective tax rates. As the simplest example, Romney's effective tax rate in 2010 was 14%, not 28% plus 15.3 payroll taxes. The chart is intentionally misstating the facts. It is fine to support lower tax rates, but don't make sh*t up to support your arguments. Argue fairly. T

      • David Baugus says:

        You can't have a percentage as a marginal tax rate anyway. A marginal tax rate is used by economist and looks like this: f(x) = I(x) subscript (t-1) – Alpha(x) subscript (g-1)^2 It is the partial derivative of a progressive tax rate line to show the rate on the smallest unit of money at a very specific time. This idiot that wrote this article must have studied economics at G.W. Bush's Backyard University/Ranch.

    35. Dr. Jean Howard-Hill says:

      How can Tennessee have a 6% tax, when there is NO state income tax?

    36. Mike says:

      The top 1% of income earners in the nation pay 39% of the entire Federal Tax liability. The top 10% of the income earners pay 70% of the entire Federal Tax liability. 50% of the population pays no Federal taxes. So our entire Federal Tax proceeds come from 1/2 of the population with 10% of those picking up 70% of the entire tab. So, I'm not sure I get the "it's time for the wealthy to pay their fair share" messaging going on.

      • Adam H says:

        Growth of the top 1%'s share of total taxes is a result of them receiving more income since the recession while the vast majority of Americans are earning less. Because the tax system is partly progressive, more income results in a higher rate on the raise, while making less puts you in a lower bracket. The 1% and the 99% are taking marginal leaps in opposite directions. This is weak support for the argument that the wealthy pay their fair share. Because the 1% is capturing so much of the recovery (they got 93% of the additional income paid in 2010 compared to 2009), their share of total tax would be going up even if marginal rates were flat or regressive. 39% of the tax liability sounds like a lot until it's in the context of facts like the 6 heirs to the Wal-Mart empire controlling as much wealth as the bottom 30% of earners. 50% paying no federal taxes makes sense if you know the median HOUSEHOLD income is under $50K and dropping.

        • Paul Balga says:

          Adam H, excellent analysis. Facts speak volumes more than a lot of the sophistry here, main article included.

    37. Greg says:

      Robert… economists are all pretty much in consensus that employees bear the full cost of payroll taxes because it is figured into total payroll costs. If I'm hiring someone at one of my businesses I look at their total cost per hour including how much my additional tax burden and insurance burden will be. For instance, I just hired someone. I thought about paying them $15 an hour but after looking at the expense of payroll taxes and workers comp I settled on $12 an hour. It hurt him not me.

    38. Bob says:

      All Maryland Counties charge an income tax as well that is collected by the state on your state income tax return. Montgomery County is 3.2% in addition to the State's 4.8%. So the real State tax is 8% (higher for higher income brackets, up to 9.2%). Some of the other Maryland Counties are slightly less.

    39. Bob Williams says:

      All Maryland Counties piggyback their income tax with the State's tax return. Montgomery County outside of DC has a 3.2% income tax in addition to the above stated 4.8%. The 4.8% doesn't represent the whole story because the tax is on a sliding scale with the highest earners at 6%+ the 3.2% or 9.2% total. Quite a bit more than the 4.8% listed by the Tax Foundation.

    40. Adam says:

      This headline is appalling. Even if the numbers were accurate, which they obviously aren't, and even if we allowed the little sleight of hand that increased the numbers by 7.65% (my salary apparently just jumped by 7.65% without me even realizing it! What a lucky day for me!), to say the government would take half your paycheck, period, without admitting that you're referring to marginal tax rates is downright horrible. Honestly, Patrick Tyrrell should not be allowed to play with words or numbers anymore. If words or numbers play with Patrick Tyrrell, they are going to get hurt.

    41. Nancy says:

      New Hampshire has no State Income Tax…. I know, I live there…. you have it rated at 5% State Income Tax…. your figures are off….

    42. Nancy says:

      New Hampshire has no State Income Tax…. I know… I live there…

    43. Debbie says:

      My liberal friends are saying this is a lie. How can I prove it isn't????

      • Chuck says:

        You can't, because it IS a lie. He is using MARGINAL tax rates and claiming that they are the same as EFFECTIVE tax rates, counting on low-information people not knowing the difference. It's downright despicable actually.

    44. Allen Gibson says:

      I think all these lawyers that are in office are dirty they have always been that way but we the people keep putting people like that in, we need to run working people for president. The people of Kentucky and Va, Ohio, Wva have started a new group its called United for coal across the nation.com go to our site. We are showing the people of our nation that these presidents, congressmen and all the rest of these crooks work for us not their selfs. We will vote as one vote and we will make a difference. If Obama shuts our coal operations down it will distroy our part of the country. We need your help to keep our people off welfare vote against Obama please we have to pay bills just like everyone else and feed our kids. We dont want hand outs from anyone just leave us alone and let us work. We dont need you polititions telling us your lies you need to here what the people have to say . Then show us some results. Thankyou Allen Gibson Elkhorn City Kentucky

      • Chris Curry says:

        Obama is not shutting down the coal industry, do some reading and stop listening to the corporate coal companies misleading you.

      • Bobbie says:

        yeah, he's only making them too expensive to run because of man made global warming that doesn't exist! Just in time for the winter freeze!

    45. marshall says:

      are goverment sucks,always screwing the poor n middle class workers,wont be long, we will be work for free,giving the greedy goverment are whole check,always making up taxes so they can have more money for what,nothing but lies.

    46. MiddleclassinKY says:

      What about sales tax? That's another 6-9% in most states. Plus as others have mentioned local income taxes (1-2% in some places) The gas tax (not just the actual gas tax, but the amount of various taxes that "big oil" pays to state, local and federal government before the gas tax is applised). And then all of the little costs that get added to utility bills, etc. that are not allowed to be called taxes. I was figuring I paid about 53% of my income in taxes, but given the table, it's probably a little bit more. When you figure in the fact that my health insurance costs used to be a benefit, but now according to the Supreme Court, they are a tax, I'm probably paying about 65-70%.

    47. Cat says:

      These taxes are not money that is given to the govt and pocketed. Not in theory anyway. How else would you want to pay for every road you drive on, bridge you cross, park your kids play at, hospitalization and payroll checks in your retirement years, etc. etc.? You want to pay a toll every time you drive? and pay your own health insurance and paycheck when you're 75? I don't know ANY 20 year olds that start saving for retirement, and few can still work in their declining years. You get alot for your taxes if you think about it. AND, the numbers ARE off.

    48. Paul says:

      I don't stay up nights worrying about the national debt or taxes, I stay up worrying about how I'm going to make a living and what will happen if I get sick at age 57 without health insurance.

    49. Jeff says:

      People, please remember that most states also have sales tax and a gasoline tax as well. So when you figure out all of the taxes that we pay I would guess the actual tax rate is around 75-80% of your pay. when people say Freedom is not Free they are so right. We pay dearly for your Freedoms! Let's all go out and get hurt so we can get long-term disability and SSI. I personally know people that make more money than I do that are on disability and SSI and I work a full-time job.

    50. LIAR says:

      Upon first reading this, I said to myself, " Wow! This guy is real DumbAss! He doesn't understand our progressive tax code and the difference between marginal and effective tax rates."; but then I dug deeper and linked his conservative news policy site, The Foundry, with the Heritage Network (all of which is freely reported as fact ForAmerica ) which is one of the largest conservative think tanks. It is so large and ‘credible’ that Steve Forbes sits on the board. So, certainly this guy understands the tax code. Right? Perhaps he just thinks you are too stupid to do the math. Perhaps he thinks you’ll see the headline and simply hit “Like”. Hell, perhaps he just thinks you are the dumbass and is counting on you to not read critically and do your own homework! Who knows!?! Please folks, be careful with what you read on the internet!

    51. Patrick Donovan says:

      This is somewhat disingenuous, as it doesn't take into account deductions, exemptions, etc. No one pays state or federal taxes on 100% of income, no one. Furthermore, what defines "middle-class?" The lower your income, the lower your tax rate. Furthermore, there's nothing that says that if an employer didn't have to pay into Social Security he'd be passing that money on to his employees. Why should he? Most are no longer unionized and thus have no voice in their employment conditions. So while I'm no tax fan, the actual percentage totals of taxes paid would be lower than these totals by a pretty good amount.

    52. Jas says:

      You also have to figure in the hundreds of small bites that are hidden or small. But added together they become fairly large. 15 years ago I added every single tax or fee that the governments charge me so the rate actually came to 52%. The taxes I added were only the ones I knew about!

    53. redclay says:

      Romney paid 14% on capital gains. So he paid income taxes, state and local, all the rest ad infinitum on the money before he invested it. And then paid 14% in addition to the taxes he had already paid.

    54. Stacey says:

      This article lost its legitimacy completely when it espoused middle class income earners are taxed at a 25% rate. Because I'm a middle class income earner and I can look at my own paycheck and know that is a made up fact. Nice try, Heritage. Stop trying to scare people and slinging around incorrect "facts."

    55. Matt says:

      And while middle class citizen is paying anywhere between 45-50% people like Mitt Romney are paying less than 15%. Do you really think that Romney has the middle class people's best interest in mind as he runs for president? He's playing you all for fools and you're falling for it. When Bush II was running for president, he offered his tax cuts to the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation who said that his tax cuts would cost over $1 trillion dollars. Romney/Ryan plan to keep those tax cuts and slash another 20% on top of that but are expecting you people to believe that it won't add a single dollar to the deficit. Can one of you please explain how that's possible?

      Plain and simple, it's not. Now can someone also please explain why it's fair that the middle class pay upwards of 50% while other people who make significantly more than you or me only pay 20% (including state taxes)? I don't know if anyone has told you this before, but you're not going to be as rich as Romney some day. It's just not going to happen. So his plan is going to increase the already problematic income disparity in the US. Based on Romney's wealth he's been called a "job creator." So he doesn't deserve to be taxed as the same rate us commoners do. What jobs has he created since 2002? He is getting massive tax breaks because he's worked the system to his favor. Normal middle class people cannot do that.

      I am just baffled that you all think that Romney is the saviour and yet he flat our refuses to tell you how he plans to do anything. He's running on mythical numbers to try to appeal to you and you're all too dumbfounded by his money to realize that it will ultimately cost you more. He has obviously put himself above anyone else for his entire life, why do you assume he's going to look out for the middle class as president?

    56. Fred B says:

      Is the heritage foundation stupid or are they intentionally being decietful. 1. Have they never heard of deductions? Of course the Ryan plan eliminates the mortgage deduction. 2. The income tax is progreesive. i.e. You pay the lowest rate on your first stage then when you hit the next level of income you start paying the next level of tax. 3. Really? My employer would just give me the part they pay in SS. 4. You eventually get at least a portion of SS and medicare back when you retire. 5. As a pretty good example, last year I made $125,000. When I devided my total tax paid it was 20%. I incuded state and local tax in that calculation. I think that is pretty fair.

      • Brent says:

        RE: getting Soc.Sec. back when you retire. If you die one day after you retire, all your money does NOT go to your family. It is lost to the "system". THIS, is why I want to be in control of my own retirement account. At least I can give the money to my spouse, charity, kid, etc. As it is now, my late father-in-law collected about 3 months worth. Tell me that is fair. W/O doing the calculations, my gut tells me that the majority of people will NOT collect the money they put into SS. Heck, charge me 1%/year as a tax I'll never see and let ME keep control of my retirement. But then again, I'm responsible to do this, and many are lazy and won't do it, thus the downward spiral of SS that we are now in. Self control goes a long way people.

        • David Baugus says:

          You are wrong, widowed wife's are entitled to higher social security payments. Did you also know that you only pay Social Security tax up to $107k/year and any income after that ceiling is not subject to social security tax? Did you also know that on average, people making more that $107k per year live considerably longer than those under this ceiling, probably because they can afford better health care and live in better environments? So the rich folks that payed a smaller portion of their income to social security receive the highest amounts of social security benefits, because the reward is based on income, for considerably longer time periods due to their better healthcare they are able afford, and what is deemed the "middle class" pays a higher percentage of their income into the system, and no one can figure out how to make social security work for everybody? It should be obvious to anyone able to do simple math. If the social security ceiling was removed, and everyone paid the same percentage of their income into the system, the social security system would never fail, ever, ever, ever.

    57. Jay Futrell says:

      This is incorrect information. The author is trying to pass of a marginal tax rate as the final tax liability. There will be a rise in income tax levels in 2013 but not as dramatic as is stated here. The tax rate on the first $17,400 a married couple filing joint will be raised from 10% to 15%, taxes for income between $17,400 and $70,700 will remain the same at 15%, and income between $70,700 and $142,700 will rise from 25% to 28%. The American middle/working class makes on average between $42,000 and $55,000 depending on many different variables. For the sake of illustration, a married couple filing jointly for 2012 who earned $50,000 would have a federal pre-deduction/credit tax burden of 13.2% or $6,630. For 2013, this will increase to 15% or $7,500; or a net increase of 1.8% ($870). If you add in state earned income taxes (mine is for Louisiana) it raises the initial tax burden from 16.26% ($8,120) to 18% ($9,000). This article also misstates Louisiana's earned income tax levels as 4%. My state works on a progressive tax schedule similar to the federal government; the first $25,000 of income is taxed at 2%, income between $25,000 and $100,000 is taxed at 4%.

      Even if you added in the dubious figure of employee responsible payroll tax of 5.65% this gives a total pre-deduction/credit tax burden of 23.65%; a far cry from the <40% claimed here.

      Regardless of who you support or how your political feelings lean, educate yourself.

      • Paul Balga says:

        Jay, I like that you are showing real numbers and results, unlike the original article. However, I could argue that the tax bill itself is 13% higher than what was paid previously, and that is the perceived net increase. To have a meaningful discussion, you really nead to add deductions to the analysis and look at the resulting effective tax rates at various income levels.

    58. Echiefe says:

      What would you do if the government took your 401k? They have been trying to figure out how to do it since 2010! People in the U.S. need to wake up and realize that the status quo in Washington DC needs to be flushed for all new members, those that do not give a rip about democrat or republican but about America!

    59. Bob says:

      Then there is the gas tax, and all sales taxes, personal property taxes, licenses and all fees involved. And those jackasses think we need to pay more taxes? You can bet the stupid liberals will vote for candidates that want to raise your taxes even more.

    60. Bill says:

      Going back to JFK, and then to: Reagan, GW Bush, it has been proven that when tax rates are cut government revenues increase. Why raise taxes and kill the economy? It is real simple cuts in taxes stimulates the economy.

    61. Andy says:

      NH also has no state income tax. the 5% is only on interest and dividends. This chart is not very accurate.

    62. lauren gardner says:

      HOLY COW!!!

    63. Don't you love our elected officials. Can't manage money so they tax us to make up the difference. And then they use those tax dollars in such a responsible way.

    64. Tim says:

      New Hampshire has no State Income tax, this mentions 5.0%.

    65. jer says:

      I would like to propose a new tax……..I believe we should tax all political controbutions to any candidate or pac at a 50% rate…..this takes some money out of politics and….lets face it….the majority of Americans would be totally unaffected by it.
      I also propose that if you have an elected position of any kind that you also pay a surtax on income from that position.
      It will never work…..because it would work.

    66. Tim says:

      Taxes in and of themselves are not evil, in fact they are necessary. The evil lies in the way they are spent, our governments federal and state do not spend with any sort of thrift. This is the problem, no amount of tax increase will fix this problem, only responsible spending by our elected officials.

    67. Chuck says:

      This article is completely ridiculous in so many ways… The 25% tax bracket doesn't even start until you are earning more than $35,300 in TAXABLE income, and it's a MARGINAL tax so you only pay that 25% on income OVER $35,300. All income below that amount is taxed at either 15% or 10%. So even if you earn $100,000 in TAXABLE INCOME (upper-middle class), you pay 10% on your first $8,700, then 15% on your next $26,600, then 25% on your next $64,700. Given the many deductions, $100,000 in taxable income probably translates to at least $150,000 in actual income, so a person making $150,000 actually ends up paying around $21,000 in taxes which is around 14% effective federal income tax rate. Yeah that and the other arguments about how an employer would certainly not pass on that extra payroll tax to the employee. Again, utterly ridiculous article.

      • David Baugus says:

        You hit it on the head, he added the percentage of FICA taxes taken out of people's paychecks knowing this goes down as a credit when taxable income is figured. You don't pay income tax on the Social Security tax you have already paid?!? Giving a percentage figure as a marginal tax rate is ridiculous anyway, Marginal tax rates can only be expressed as mathematical functions and the actual marginal tax rate of a specific dollar at a specific time is the partial derivative of that function for only that exact second in time. This author is a Moron!

    68. Chuck says:

      Not to mention that they are being deliberately misleading here… They even post that "middle-class taxpayers face high MARGINAL tax rates", I guess thinking that most people don't know what the word marginal means. You have to make at least $85,650 in TAXABLE income to even BEGIN paying the 28% rate. Income taxes are determined by after-tax income, and with the many deductions available, a person making more than $86,000 in taxable income would probably have used tens of thousands of dollars in deductions, putting their actual income well over $100,000. A person making around $100,000 could probably still be considered middle-class, but I would definitely say upper middle-class.

    69. Kratoklastes says:

      And guess what else: the marginal tax rartes discussed, are NOT ENOUGH to pay for the outlays of .gov. That is to say, .gov will rape paypackets to the tune of almost half, but will SPEND MORE THAN THAT, and will saddle future generations with the servicing cost of debt.

      That is why T/Y (tax as a share of income) is NOT a relevant metric. It ought to be (T+NPSBR)/Y (taxes plus the net public sector porrowing requirement), as the NPSBR reflects the proportion of gross income that is required to be set aside for the additional public-sector borrowings to be funded.

      And if you want a real horror story, add in the unfunded liabilities for future entitlements (promises made by .gov over the decades, but for which no accrual-accounting is required). And just for the kicker, note that at the same time .gov is adding to the stock of money, which will, in due course, feed through to a fall in the purchasing power of money that will precede any concomitant increase in wages (because new money is given preferentially to favoured sectors, i.e., banking, thus giving them 'first mover' advantage in the monetary-policy transmission mechanism).

      Not one person in a hundred is capable fo properly assessing how much .gov costs – and this article is further proof of that. To properly trace this sort of thing you need to have a first-rate training in economics (and econometrics, in my view), without having fallen into the maw of the .gov courtiers. (I spurned the advances of our own Central bank while an undergraduate, and have progressively hardened my view since then).

    70. This article doesn't take into account any of the tax code that legally allows deductions. If you are paying that much in taxes I would suggest using turbo tax or hiring an accountant.

    71. Larry says:

      Last I new New Hampshire didn't have a state Income tax why does this chart show 5%

    72. David Baugus says:

      Every economist and accountant in America thinks you are the biggest idiot in the world right now. Your article proves you know absolutely nothing about the tax structure of the United States. Your summations of the Social Security tax and income tax as the determining factors into your "average marginal tax" is laughable. First off, the taxes people pay in the US can either be expressed as an average rate or a marginal rate, and to find a person's marginal rate, you have to wait until taxes are filed. After either standard or itemized deductions, a person's taxable income is determined, then the marginal rates of whatever that number may be is applied to taxable income. YOU ARE COMBINING TAX RATES OF FICA TAXES WHICH ACT AS A CREDIT WHEN TAXABLE INCOME IS DETERMINED. Everyone should know that Social Security taxes paid during the year is not taxable income. YOU ARE A MORON!

    73. David Baugus says:

      You fascist site admins! You are no different than the Nazi's that hindered free speech in the 1930's. You are afraid of informed readers that point to obvious flaws in the author's reasoning and knowledge. You support the false propaganda machine of the right-wing with your censorship of reader comments. You are the pigs proud American soldiers slaughtered in Eastern Europe to ensure individual rights and freedoms to those who created these liberties for themselves, the French, the Brits, and the Americans. Please know my Scottish ancestors fearlessly fought against the tyranny of nobles and elites as far back as the 16th century and when you start burning books and/or invade Poland, your fate will be the same as all those before that opposed freedom.

    74. Dave Gell says:

      I haven't read all the comments above, so somebody has hopefully said already what I'm about to say and that's that … I'm disappointed in the Heritage Foundation! This article is a crock! What about these …

      The inheritance tax..
      Building Permit Tax
      CDL license Tax
      Cigarette Tax
      Dog License Tax
      Excise Taxes
      Fishing License Tax
      Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
      Hunting License Tax
      Inheritance Tax
      Inventory Tax
      Liquor Tax
      Luxury Taxes
      Property Tax
      Real Estate Tax
      Road Usage Tax
      Recreational Vehicle Tax
      Sales Tax
      School Tax
      State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
      Telephone Federal Excise Tax, Federal Universal Service FeeTax, Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes, Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax, State and Local Tax, Usage Charge Tax
      Utility Taxes
      Vehicle License Registration Tax
      Vehicle Sales Tax
      Workers Compensation Tax

      Ultimately, We the People pay ALL of these, don't we?

    75. Pointer76 says:

      Good article, but lacking. While some major taxes are mentioned (Fed and State income Taxes, State Slaes tax, most smaller taxes that eat up ones "disposable" income are not, and a major tax – Property Tax whic includes local school, fire and other muicipal taxes is not. To be fair to the issue, one must consider all taxes to arrive at an estimate of percentage of earnings.

    76. pointer76 says:

      Here is a sample list of those NOT considered that should have been:
      Accounts Receivable Tax, Building Permit Taxes, Local County project Impact fees, CDL license Tax
      Cigarette Taxes, Corporate Income Tax, Animal/Dog License Tax, Excise Taxes, Environmental impact Taxes, Waste Disposal Taxes, FAA ticketing/booking taxes, Federal Income Tax, Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA), Fire protection Tax, Fishing License Tax, Food License Tax, Fuel Permit Tax, Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon), Gross Receipts Tax, Hunting License Tax, Inheritance Tax, Income Taxes: Federal, State, Interest and Dividend Income Taxes, Inventory Tax, Impact Fees and Taxes on Real Property, IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax), Liquor Taxes, Luxury Taxes, Marriage License Tax, Medicare Tax, Municipal School District Tax, Obama HealthCare – ruled a tax by US Supreme Court, & $2,500 penalty fee if you don't have it,

    77. pointer76 says:

      Personal Property Tax, Property Taxes by state, county, city/municipality, Real Estate Tax, Service Charge Tax, Social Security Tax & income tax on "excess" social security income , Road Usage Tax, Sales Taxes (especially local county and city (mine are at 8.1%), Recreational Vehicle Tax, School Taxes, State Income Tax, State Unemployment Tax (SUTA), Telephone Federal Excise Tax, Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax, Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes, Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax, Telephone State and Local Tax, Telephone Usage Charge Tax, Utility Taxes, Vehicle License Registration Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax, Water Usage Tax, Watercraft Registration Tax, Waste Displosal Tax, water hookup/usage tax, Well Permit Tax, Workers Compensation Tax, Coming: Internat usage tax, email tax…..
      When all taxes are considered, the amount certainly exceeds 50% of earnings.
      Taxed Enough Already!

    78. JOHN PAUL JONES says:

      I calculated my taxes last year adding in sales tax, property tax, and gas tax. I pay 55% now.

    79. Nick C. says:

      Add in gasoline tax, tolls, sales tax, property taxes, car registration and license fees, and take a look at any of your energy and phone bills. You will see hidden taxes on all of these bills. 50% is a joke, it's more like 60% to 65%. Eventually the government will take all of our money and then decide how much you are entitled to for working all year. Something has to give here, we can't just keep going down this path.

    80. w santora says:

      why do we need an income tax the goverment will only make foolish programs to spend it God only requires 10% i will give them 10 cents on every dollar i make with no right offs.providing the goverment cut all the riidiculious rules and regulations so that our economy can boom again and have full emplyment and everybody can pay their fare share even those evil rich people who provide the jobs. and congress would only have to meet one week a year to sign the check to run our new lean goverment they would not even need a salary only enough to pay their hotel bill. if we go to a cashless society you wont even need the IRS.

    81. GrayArea says:

      I thought we were talking about marginal rates. The headline seems a little incendiary considering that we aren't talking about effective tax rates. We all pay pretty much the same on whatever taxable income we earn leading up to that highest marginal rate. Make one dollar in that higher tax bracket, and that one dollar is taxed at the higher rate, it doesn't claw all the way back down to the first dollar you made that year.

    82. T Ferrari says:

      Question. Do we have a firm definition of middle income? What is the income range?

    83. Slimy says:

      It would be cheaper for the US to directly pay all the poor people in mexico $100 a week instead of the billions of dollars that the US pays to the mexican government (which does not benefit the mexican people at all). Why not make mexico part of the US. Then the mexicans can pay taxes, receive benefits (welfare, unemployment, education, healthcare, etc.), be subject to our laws (like labor laws, minimum wage standards, etc.), they will use US currency, then they don't have come to America, they can stay home with their families and still be successful! This would also help the border security issues. The best way to deal with a liabilty is to make it an asset.

    84. Lidia Fontaine says:

      This needs to be updated and the writer of this particular post (this is a blog) is a naysayer. You, sir, are a bag of dicks.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.