… you can show them this chart, courtesy of the Congressional Budget Office, via Greg Mankiw:
Lowest quintile: 4.3 percent
Second quintile: 9.9 percent
Middle quintile: 14.2 percent
Fourth quintile: 17.4 percent
Percentiles 81-90: 20.3 percent
Percentiles 91-95: 22.4 percent
Percentiles 96-99: 25.7 percent
Percentiles 99.0-99.5: 29.7 percent
Percentiles 99.5-99.9: 31.2 percent
Percentiles 99.9-99.99: 32.1 percent
Top 0.01 Percentile: 31.5 percent
Here is Mankiw’s accompanying note:
The C.B.O. has released a new report on effective tax rates (total taxes divided by total income). Compared with previous reports, it includes more information about thin slices at the top of the income distribution. [These] are the total effective federal tax rates for 2005, the most recent year available … N.B.: These figures include all federal taxes, not just income taxes.
Remember that these are percentages and not amounts, which makes it pretty hard to keep making the argument that the rich are dumping their tax burden on the middle class and the poor. Yes, it is true that the top .01 percentile pays slightly less than the fraction of taxpayers just poorer than them, but if that is the extent of the rich-don’t-pay-enough-taxes argument, then … oy vey.
Also this morning comes word of an Obama plan for a $300 billion tax cut, fully half of which will “provide credits up to $500 for most workers.” One can assume that “most workers” includes people far below the 99th percentile.
If this still leaves you needing to scratch that hate-the-rich itch, consider one of the largest effects of the Great 2008 Financial Meltdown: income inequality — which many Americans fear more than fear itself — has been substantially leavened since the biggest losers of the meltdown have been high-income and high-net-worth individuals.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the US federal income tax code knows that Mankiw is baisically right, but there are several additional factors at play that strongly affect the progressivity of taxes.
1) Total payroll taxes need to be included in the calculation. While I’m not 100% sure, I belive the calculations above include only the portion of social security and Medicare tax paid by the employee, which is only half the total. Because taxation on these items is limited to the first $100k-ish in income, it is regressive. Unless I am a minimum wage worker, I would make more money if my employer did not have to pay a portion of the payroll tax, thus it is effectively a tax on me that I pay indirectly.
2) State and local taxes represent a significant tax burden for most people, and the sales and property taxes relied upon by states and municipalities are regressive. In my state, Minnesota, the lowest taxed group (as a percentage of income) is the highest quintile.
3) The typical argument for progressive taxes are that rich people can afford to pay a higher percentage of their income. While that’s fine as far as it goes, I think a more potent argument for progressive taxes are that rich people benefit more from government spending than poor people do.
Who pays for the roads over which suburban travelers drive? Who pays for the police to protect property? Who pays for airports that people fly from? Who protects us from foreign nations? Who pays to educate the vast majority of workers whose labor enriches the wealthy? Who offers a plethora of high wage/high prestige jobs to scions of important families? Who provides corporate welfare? Taxes pay for all of these and many more projects that disproportionaly benefit wealthy Americans, and some (like agriculture subsidies) that actively hurt poor Americans.
Because of the nature of non-excludable public goods, most government services can’t be fee-for-service. But if they were, I strongly suspect that the tax burden would be even more highly skewed towards those with higher incomes than it currently is.
Ok, so this includes all Federal Taxes (which I assume includes capital gains taxes). Does it include FICA (and the “employer” half of FICA), property taxes, sales tax and state taxes. If you only include the progressive parts of our tax system and leave out the flat and regressive parts, of course you get a progressive tax plan. When all forms of taxation are included, the results are flat, not progressive.
Here is why people hate the rich.
A percentage of NET income that is disposable may, and I stress may, look something like this.
Lowest quintile: 5 percent
Top 0.01 Percentile: 98 percent
Filthy rich x 68% = still filthy rich.
Also, lets look at the relative contributions of each population segment. Absolute numbers are generally misleading when applied to a “progressive/regressive” discussion
The flat tax is still the most fair tax system in my view–everyone would pay the same rate! Is there anyone left to champion that system? I guess the above chart illustrates the old saying “the more you make, the more they take.”
I don’t buy the “rich benefit more from government” argument. The poor disproportionately benefit from government transfers, free education, social services, free libraries (at least in theory – if they choose not to peruse it that’s not government’s fault), and police presence where they live, which tend to be high-crime areas. The only aspect in which the rich benefit more is from national defense, since they have more assets to lose.
i think this post is intellectually dishonest. just because the federal side of taxes is progressive does not mean that we as a society truly practice progressiveness in principle. i recall a scientific american article from several years ago that concluded that the true effective total tax rates, including, state, local, sales, property, etc., for all 50 states, were regressive or flat at best. perhaps this conclusion is debatable given various assumptions, so i would be interested in the freakonomics team’s thoughts on the TRUE total effective tax rates in this country, rather than merely repeating the CBO’s self-aggrandizement. the internet and the blogosphere are an echo chamber; i expect more value-added analysis from “high-quality” blogs such as this one. if there is an intellectually honest reason for excluding non-federal taxes from the “progressiveness” discussion, please include one.
You can’t be serious.