From the article
Quote:
|
Of course, income taxes don't tell the whole story. Workers are also subject to payroll taxes, which support Social Security and Medicare.
|
Quote:
|
When considering federal income taxes in combination with payroll taxes, the percent of households with a net liability of zero or less is estimated to be 24% this year, according to the Tax Policy Center's estimates.
|
that makes no sense to me- SS increases the taxes I pay, not lower them... so if SS is included, I would think the 47% goes up...
Quote:
|
"As the number [of nonpayers] becomes larger, we have to question whether we'll make good decisions about how to allocate resources," economist George Zodrow, a professor at Rice University. "Most people don't understand how skewed the tax distribution is."
|
I nominate him for any key advisor position he wants...
---
The table was "no tax liability" which appears to be defined as the income tax liability on the federal tax return.
If I have 0 liability on my tax return, but still owe SS taxes, that makes sense... but if this is how you define "no tax liability" realize that what this means is this
24% of people qualify for 100% of the EIC, which is supposed to give the working poor credit for 100% of their SS contributions as a tax refund (if I understand the theory behind the EIC correctly).
the other 23% have 0 tax liability because of deductions and credits, but still have to pay their SS.