Federal Taxes Paid by Income

 Posted by  Taxes  Comments Off on Federal Taxes Paid by Income
Apr 242014
 
Share

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in December 2013 presented estimates on “the distribution of household income and federal taxes in 2010.” The 2010 estimate was released in 2013.

  • The bottom 20% of income earners had an average tax rate of 1.5%.
  • The top 20% of income earners had an average tax rate of 24%.
  • “The top 1 percent of all households in the United States had an average federal tax rate of 29.4 percent in 2010.”
  • “Households in the top quintile [top 20% of earners] (including the top percentile) paid 68.8 percent of all federal taxes, households in the middle quintile [top 40% – 60% of earners] paid 9.1 percent, and those in the bottom quintile [bottom 20% of earners] paid 0.4 percent of federal taxes.”

Click on the chart below to see an enlarged, clearer chart.

Average Federal Tax Rates, by Income Group, 2010

  • The bottom 20% of earners received 5.1% of before-tax income, and after paying taxes, they received 6.2% of after-tax income.
  • The middle 20% of earners received 14.2% of after-tax income and 15.4% of after-tax income.
  • The top 20% of earners received 51.9% of before-tax income and 48.1% of after-tax income.

Click on the chart below to see an enlarged, clearer chart.

Change in Before-Tax Income, by Income Group, 2009 to 2010

  • “Even with the increases in average federal tax rates in 2010, the average rate for each income group was below the rate that prevailed for that group in the 1990s and most of the 2000s”
  • “The exception was households in the top 1 percent, whose average federal tax rate in 2010 was significantly above its low in the mid-1980s.”

Click on the chart below to see an enlarged, clearer chart.

Average Federal Tax Rates, by Income Group, 1979 to 2010 and Under 2013 Law

According to the CBO, tax rule changes between the years 2010 and 2013 will affect average federal tax rates in the following ways:

  • “Tax rates will increase overall as a result of the changes in tax rules, with the largest increases at either end of the income distribution”
  • The lowest quintile is projected to experiance average tax rate increases by 1.6 percent
  • The middle quintile is projected to experiance average tax rate increases by 1.0 percent
  • The top quintile is projected to experience average tax rate increases by 4.2 percent.
  • “For most income groups, average tax rates under 2013 law are projected to remain below those in 2007, the year before the recession began, and well below those for most of the past three decades. For the top 1 percent of households, however, average rates under 2013 law will be higher than in any year since 1997.”

To read the entire report, click on The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2010.


Propane Shortage Chills the Rural Midwest

 Posted by  Miscellaneous Issues  Comments Off on Propane Shortage Chills the Rural Midwest
Jan 312014
 
Share

 Rural Midwesterners are buckling down as propane prices skyrocket and temperatures plummet.  Propane prices reached a high of nearly $6.00 in  locations throughout the Midwest this week.

DSCN9298Less than a month ago, prices for residential propane in Iowa averaged less than $2.00 per gallon.  The average propane price in Iowa for the 4th week of January was, at $4.709, more than $2.00 higher than the previous price record.  (Click here for Iowa Residential Propane Weekly Price Chart).

As temperatures drop below zero throughout the Midwest, propane supplies are quickly used.  Homeowners who can’t afford the astronomical price of refilling propane tanks are doing their best to conserve fuel, turning down furnace thermostats while turning on space heaters to try to keep pipes from freezing.

The fuel shortage is also hitting turkey and pork farmers hard.  Turkey farmers must keep the temperature at 90 degrees for young turkeys and 45-50 degrees for mature birds.  Swine must also be kept at warm temperatures.

Iowa Governor Branstad has created a Propane Shortage and Heating Assistance webpage to keep Iowans updated on the emergency and advise citizens on available aid and fuel conservation tips.

Propane is used to heat over 12 million households in the U.S., according to industry statistics.  Thirty-three states have declared energy emergencies, the United States Department of Transportation has issued a regional declaration of emergency, and Texas Governor Rick Perry and Lt. Gov. Dewhurst ordered a waiver on many state regulations to expedite propane delivery and alleviate the shortage in effected states.

Oct 022013
 
Share

Annually, the World Economic Forum presents its Global Competitiveness Report to highlight strengths and weaknesses of countries, their overall business climate, and priorities for policy change. The 2013-2014 report ranked the U.S. as follows:

  • Number 5 overall out of 148 countries.
  • #35 in institutions
  • #15 in infrastructure
  • #117 in macroeconomic environment
  • #34 in health and primary education
  • #7 in higher education and training
  • #20 in goods market efficiency
  • #4 in labor market efficiency
  • #10 in financial market development
  • #15 in technological readiness
  • #1 in market size
  • #6 in business sophistication
  • #7 in innovation

The report listed the following as the top 6 most problematic factors for doing business in the U.S.:

  • Tax regulations,
  • Tax rates,
  • Inefficient government bureaucracy,
  • Access to financing,
  • Restrictive labor regulations,
  • and Inadequately educated workforce.

Furthermore, the report mentioned the following:

  • The “business community continues to be rather critical, with trust in politicians still somewhat weak (50th), concerns about the government’s ability to maintain arms-length relationships with the private sector (54th), and a general perception that the government spends its resources relatively wastefully (76th).”
  • “The country’s social sustainability score is somewhat lower than that of other advanced economies because of high income inequality and relatively high youth unemployment (17.3 percent).”
  • “In terms of environmental sustainability, the below-par performance of the United States is the consequence of several factors that include the country’s lack of commitment to joining international treaties, its limited political will to firmly improve on critical environmental issues, the high pressure on its water resources for agriculture, its relatively high CO2 emissions, and limited protected land area.”

To read the entire report, click on The Global Competitiveness Report 2013 – 2014.


The 2008-2009 report ranked the U.S. as follows:

  • The US was #1 in overall global competitiveness.
  • The US was #66 in macroeconomic stability.
  • The US was #34 in health and primary education.

The top 4 most problematic factors for doing business were:

  • tax rates,
  • tax regulations,
  • inefficient government bureaucracy,
  • and, inadequately educated workforce.

To read the entire report, click on The Global Competitiveness Network or click on The Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009.


Sep 152013
 
Share


Chuck Marr and Chye-Ching Huang in September 2012 from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reported on the percentage of people that pay taxes. The types of taxes are broken into different categories from income taxes, to payroll taxes, to state and local taxes.

Federal Income Taxes

  • In 2007, 40 percent of households did not owe federal income tax.
  • In 2009, 51 percent of households did not owe federal income tax.
  • In 2011, 46 percent of households did not owe federal income tax.
  • According to the report, the higher percentage of households post-2007 that did not owe federal income tax is due to the economic downturn significantly increasing the number of people with low incomes. The 2007 “figure more closely reflects the percentage that do not owe income tax in normal economic times.”

Payroll Taxes

  • In 2007, 14 percent of households did not pay federal income tax or payroll tax.
  • In 2009, 17 percent of households did not pay federal income tax or payroll tax.
  • In 2007, “the poorest fifth of households paid an average of 4.0 percent of their incomes in federal taxes”
  • The average income of the poorest fifth was $18,400 in 2007.
  • “The next-to-the bottom fifth — those with incomes between $20,500 and $34,300 in 2007 — paid an average of 10.6 percent of their incomes in federal taxes.”

State and Local Taxes

In 2011, the poorest fifth of households paid 12.3 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes.

Total Taxes (Including Federal, State, and Local Taxes)

“When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average. The second-poorest fifth pays about 21 percent.”

To read the entire article, click on Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes.


According to the Tax Policy Center, 37.8% of tax units do NOT pay income taxes. In fact, 4.1% of tax units that make over $100,000 annually, do not pay income taxes. Tax units can be singles, couples, or families. The table may be found by clicking on Distribution of Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax Liability by Cash Income Level, 2009.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, even though a tax unit might not pay income taxes, they would still pay other federal taxes, including Social Security, Medicare, and excise taxes. The table may be read by clicking on Effective Federal Tax Rates, 2004 and 2005.

 

A Shift in Public Opinion: Study Shows More Americans Are Concerned About Privacy Than Potential Terrorist Attack.

 Posted by  Corruption, Miscellaneous Issues  Comments Off on A Shift in Public Opinion: Study Shows More Americans Are Concerned About Privacy Than Potential Terrorist Attack.
Jul 302013
 
Share

In the latest Pew Study 47% of Americans have become more concerned with their civil liberties over a potential terrorist attack, saying that the government’s anti-terrorism policies have gone too far in restricting civil liberties. This has been a major shift in public opinion since 2004 when 49% said that the policies haven’t gone far enough to protect the country and in 2010 when that number rose to 58%, compared to 29% and 27% respectively.

Along with this, 53% agreed that the media reports too much information that could harm the anti-terror programs, 56% agreeing that the government keeps too much information about the programs secret from the public.

What should be noted is the difference in age groups. 60% of those 18-29 said that the government has gone too far in restricting civil liberties compared to 48% of those 30-49, 44% of those 50-64, and 33% of those 65 and older. Although the age difference on this issue is apparent, the percentages of young people approving and disapproving of the NSA’s actions are nearly identical, 46%-49% respectively.

United States & Russia to Arm Opposing Sides in Syria

 Posted by  Miscellaneous Issues  Comments Off on United States & Russia to Arm Opposing Sides in Syria
Jul 242013
 
Share

U.S. officials have announced their intentions of going ahead with the administration’s plans of arming the Syrian rebels.  “We believe we are in a position that the administration can move forward,” House of Representatives Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers told Reuters.  The CIA will be arming the Syrian rebels within the next few weeks.

Meanwhile, Syrian Deputy Prime Minister Qadri Jimal left a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow, stating that “All agreements between Russia and Syria in the area of arms deliveries are in place…The contracts continue and are in force.”  These weapons include S-300 air-defense batteries which would make Western enforcement of a no-fly zone over Syria very difficult.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stated that enforcing a no-fly zone over Syria would cost U.S. taxpayers $1 billion per month, would be considered an act of war, and would endanger U.S. jets attempting to enforce it.  However, Senator John McCain, one of the most ardent supporters of arming Syrian rebels and enforcing a no fly zone, argued, “We wouldn’t be starting a war.  We’d be trying to stop a massacre that’s going on.”

Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yalon warned Russia this May that Israel would consider the delivery of the anti-aircraft batteries a threat and is prepared to use force to stop the delivery–a threat which, if affected, could lead to Russian casualties.  It has been confirmed that on July 5th, Israeli warplanes conducted an airstrike on Latakia, Syria targeting weapons shipments.

Former deputy Israel Defense Force chief of staff Dan Harel has said that the situation in Syria “could explode at any moment…and pose a direct challenge to us.”  He isn’t the only one concerned.  David Shedd, deputy director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency has warned that the conflict could last “many many months to multiple years.”

In the face of the volatile world spectrum, Americans remain divided as to whether the decision to send arms to Syria was a wise one.  A Gallup poll taken in June revealed that only 37% of American adults agreed with President Obama’s decision to send military aid to Syria; 54% disapproved.

The American or international reader’s view on whether the rebels or the Syrian government under Assad are the protagonists or villains may vary in part with his or her news sources.

The Obama administration claims that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against the rebels, the New York Times reports.  President  Obama has called the use of chemical weapons a “red line,” which if crossed would call for action from the United States.

However, Russian findings indicate that the rebels, not the government, were responsible for the Khan al-Assal incident where chemical weapons led to the death of 30 people.

On July 7th, the Syrian military claimed it raided a rebel storehouse, confiscating “281 barrels filled with dangerous, hazardous chemical materials.”  Syrian UN Ambassador Bashar Ja’afari reported that the chemicals were “capable of destroying a whole city, if not the whole country.”

A senior United Nations team responsible for investigating the use of chemical weapons arrived in Damascus Wednesday  to discuss terms of a possible probe into the attacks.

A UN report has indicted Syrian troops for torturing children and using them as human shields on tanks.   UN special representative Radhika Coomaraswamy has described conditions as “horrific” and says that children as young as 10 years old are tortured in detention.   The report also criticized the rebels for endangering children on the front lines.

The Vatican news agency, Agenzia Fides, reported that in Homs, Syria, 800 civilians including 400 Christians–mostly women and elderly–were used as human shields by rebels to prevent attack by Syrian government forces.  (As the battle at Homs continues, the Red Cross has been negotiating without success for the past 20 days to bring supplies to 2000 civilians trapped in the city and warns of “tragic” consequences if they are not given the go-ahead by Syrian authorities.)

The rebels have publicly carried out mass executions in Daraa, Aleppo, and other locations and are also known to have beheaded government soldiers.  Government-affiliated militia are not spotless either, having been linked to the killings of dozens of women and children in the Sunni village of al-Bayda.

Last month at a Downing Street press conference, Russian Premier Putin  warned British Prime Minister Cameron that while blood was on the hands of both parties in Syria, “one does not need to support the people who not only kill their enemies, but open up their bodies and eat their organs in front of the public and cameras.”  Premier Putin was referring to video footage posted online by a rebel showing a comrade eating a dead rival’s heart.

 Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has issued a call for the Syrian government and opposition to cooperate in expelling all “terrorists and extremists from Syria.”

Flag_of_Syria_svg

With atrocities rampant on both sides of the struggle, some believe it would  have been prudent for the United States and Russia to refrain from taking sides.  With many hands in the fray, some see it possible that the situation could easily escalate into global conflict.  Others believe involvement in the conflict is necessary to avoid further humanitarian disaster.

Our prayers go out for peace in Syria.  More than 100,000 people have been killed in the Syrian civil war over the past two years, and sadly a peaceful conclusion is not in sight.

Putting A Face On Revolving Door Politics

 Posted by  Corruption, Government Spending, Health Care  Comments Off on Putting A Face On Revolving Door Politics
Jul 152013
 
Share

Where does a Congress member or Senator go when they leave the Hill; be it a calculated exit or otherwise? It’s true they have opulent post-employment compensation plans but even with a sturdy safety net many aren’t necessarily ready to trade in their careers or ambitions for leisurely weekday afternoons on the golf course, senior’s cruises and early bird dinners. Like many Americans, this transition usually means they either have another gig lined up if it was a planned departure or they are scrambling to find one if it came unexpectedly.

For many former politicians their new endeavor usually means they end up with a very familiar work commute—right back to Capitol Hill. Equally comforting and advantageous for both the new employee and their employer it usually means a lot of time spent speaking with old, familiar faces—though now it’s from the opposite side of the desk. It certainly doesn’t hurt that the pay also tends to be much more lucrative. And though they’ll likely still be referred to by the honorary title of Senator or Congressman or Congresswoman, their new professional title would be lobbyist or consultant.

This transition from elected public servant to well paid influence peddler is commonly referred to as “Revolving Door Politics” and its ubiquity and acceptance in the contemporary mechanics of Washington is often cited as one of the major contributing factors to political/corporate cronyism and the bastardization of our representative government.

Current participants in revolving door politics would likely argue that there is nothing inherently unethical about their new careers; they’re merely earning a living using their experience and expertise to navigate within the confines of a complicated system. And it certainly isn’t illegal in any way, they might add. There is one gentleman who has been extremely successful in the post-Congressional lobby occupation that would likely be the first to offer up this particular defense of the practice.

Meet former Louisiana Congressman Billy Tauzin:

Congressman Tauzin, “the Cajun in the Capitol”, began his formal political career way back in 1972 when he won a seat in the Louisiana State House of Representatives. He served there until 1980 when a series of fortuitous events catapulted him to a seat in the US House of Representatives. Eventually, in 2001Tauzin landed the chairman position of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. This powerful committee has an exceptionally broad jurisdiction, but one particular area of oversight it’s charged with is the pharmaceutical industry. The pharmaceutical industry also happened to be a big campaign contributor to Congressman Tauzin—contributing over $200,000 throughout his 20+ year congressional career though $91,500 of it came in 2002, just shortly after he landed the chairmanship.

While chairing this committee, Congressman Tauzin co-sponsored and steered a rather large bill through the House titled the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. With Tauzin’s help, the bill eventually passed through the House (by a razor thin margin) and the Senate and was signed into law. The bill radically altered Medicare, turning much of the business of caring for America’s seniors and disabled people to private insurance companies. Part of the bill, known as Medicare Part D, mandated that the Federal government cover a significant portion of prescription drug costs for beneficiaries under Medicare. It simultaneously dictated that the Federal Government could not negotiate in any way for lower costs of prescription drugs for the program as it had been allowed to in other programs like the Veterans Health Administration. It also restricted the Medicare system from purchasing cheaper, imported drugs from other countries like Canada and Mexico.

So, plainly stated for anyone not fully understanding the implications, this bill provided the pharmaceutical industry with an absolutely massive expansion in its customer base—with the deepest pockets in the world picking up a large portion of the tab—while at the same time guaranteeing they got to dictate, without protest or the slightest hint of competition, what the prices would be for these new customers. Calling it a sweetheart of a deal would be a serious understatement. Whether they said so or not, the heads of the pharmaceutical industry must have been greatly appreciative of Tauzin’s effort to steer the bill through to completion.

Two months after the Medicare Modernization Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush, Tauzin resigned his chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee and announced that he would not seek reelection for his House seat. Tauzin had a new gig. Citing a successful battle with cancer and his new found appreciation for the pharmaceutical industry, it seems that Congressman Tauzin was called to do even greater work as the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the largest lobbying entity for the pharmaceutical industry in Washington. The new position came with a modest salary increase of course. As a congressman, Tauzin had a base salary of $154,700 in 2003. His starting salary at PhRMA was $2,000,000. Phenomenal timing on his part since he probably needed a more reliable way to pay for the lavish 1.1 million dollar Texas ranch he had just purchased months prior.

Tauzin would go on to head PhRMA until 2010, ultimately amassing a total of $19,359,927 in pay— $11.6 Million of which he received in his last year with the organization. (There are varying explanations as to why Tauzin left, but it’s largely irrelevant here.)  Following his departure from PhRMA, Tauzin once again decided against retirement. Perhaps closing out his winter years languidly on his Texas ranch, hunting deer and comparing ATM receipts with old colleagues seemed a bit unfair to all those poor souls who needed him and his expertise the most. So instead, in addition to heading his own lobbying firm, Tauzin lathered up in elbow grease and found more work with the lobbying firm Alston & Bird where he parlayed what could have been a new found respect for fossil fuels into crusading on the Hill for companies like ConocoPhillips.

Nobody on Capitol Hill or K Street so much as batted an eye during any of this. Why should they? Tauzin is just another name in a long list of lawmakers who have behaved similarly. I’ll take a second to note here that there is a somewhat analogous profession where this behavior would not be tolerated.

The Model Code of Judicial Conduct dictates that, “[a] judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities”. There is a very important reason that the court system wants to avoid even the appearance of impropriety: It reflects the serious and warranted concern that, “…some conduct which is in fact ethical may appear to the layman as unethical and thereby could erode public confidence in the judicial system or the legal profession”.

The conduct of Congressman Tauzin following his departure from his congressional seat doesn’t necessarily constitute an unquestionable impropriety—there is some chance that it was all completely above board—but it would be a difficult to argue that it doesn’t, at the very least, bear some appearance of impropriety. It’s incredible that these types of immediate and questionable employment and pay-grade transitions are not only common but generally accepted as business as usual in Washington. Congressman Tauzin’s brand of revolving door politics is a major contributing factor in the American People’s eroded confidence in the Congress. The legislative branch should have the same concern about maintaining public confidence in their institution as the court system does.

Solar Impulse Completes Transcontinental Flight

 Posted by  Environment  Comments Off on Solar Impulse Completes Transcontinental Flight
Jul 092013
 
Share

Final Flight For Solar Impulse On July 6

via

The NASDAQ opening bell this morning was rung by Solar Impulse pilots and co-founders Bertrand Piccard and Andre Borschberg who completed the first transcontinental flight powered solely by solar energy late Saturday evening, landing at New York City’s John F. Kennedy International Airport.

Solar Impulse took off from the San Francisco area on May 3rd.  Pilots Piccard and Borschberg flew alternating legs of the trip, stopping in Phoenix, Dallas, St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Washington D.C.   They set a new record for the longest distance for a solar-powered flight by flying 958 miles (1,541 kilometers) non-stop between Pheonix and Dallas.

The 3511 miles of the trip took 105 hours 41 minutes  to complete.  The plane has a 63 meter wingspan and weighs only 3500 lbs. (1600 kg).  It is powered by nearly 12,000 silicon solar cells, and its propellers charge 800 lbs. of lithium-ion batteries to enable night flying.   The Solar Impulse can soar up to 30,000 feet; its maximum speed is 50 miles per hour (80 kilometers per hour).  Since it is not powered by fuel, it makes no noise, affording a peaceful journey to the pilots who often listened to music as they travelled across the country.

At their website, the Solar Impulse team states that the “Solar Impulse was not built to carry passengers, but messages…Our primary objective was to show that today’s technological innovations can achieve incredible things like flying day and night powered only by solar energy without using any fuel, nor producing emissions.”

The next goal for the Solar Impulse is to fly around the world in 2015.   Let’s wish them the best as they continue to demonstrate the power of private enterprise in advancing technology.

Credits: MarketWatch.com , National Geographic, SolarImpulse.com

Jul 082013
 
Share

The Office of Management and Budget annually provides a report on U.S. federal government spending and revenue.

The first set of numbers uses Table 1.3 of the budget. The numbers are inflation adjusted, displaying all dollar amounts in constant fiscal year 2005 dollars, as provided by the Office of Management and Budget. Therefore, dollar amounts prior to year 2005 are inflated and dollar amounts after 2005 are deflated. For example, U.S. federal government expenditures in 1940 were $9.5 billion dollars; that spending level is the equivalent of $117.8 billion in 2005 dollars. Likewise, U.S. federal government expenditures in 2009 were $3,517.7 billion dollars; that spending level is the equivalent of $3,176.8 billion in 2005 dollars.

  • In 2012, total U.S. federal government expenditures were $3,022,200,000,000, or $3.02 trillion.
  • In 2012, total U.S. federal government revenue was $2,093,400,000,000, or $2.09 trillion.
  • The deficit in 2012 was $929 billion ($2.09 trillion – $3.02 trillion).
  • In 2007, total federal government expenditures were $2,564,100,000,000, or $2.56 trillion.
  • If the federal government spent the same, inflation adjusted, in 2012 as it did in 2007, it would have had a deficit of $471 billion ($2.09 trillion – $2.56 trillion). Therefore, the U.S. federal government deficit, inflation adjusted, was almost double what the deficit would have been had the government increased spending by the rate of inflation.
  • In 2007, total U.S. federal government revenue was $2,413,100,000,000, or $2.41 trillion.
  • The deficit in 2007 was $151 billion ($2.41 trillion – $2.56 trillion).
  • In 1997, total U.S. federal government expenditures were $1,915,200,000,000, or $1.92 trillion.
  • If the federal government spent the same, inflation adjusted, in 2007 as it did in 1997, it would have had a surplus of $498 billion ($2.41 trillion – $1.92 trillion) instead of a deficit of $151 billion.

The following numbers (second set of this article) use Table 2.1 of the budget in addition to Table 1.3 and are NOT inflation adjusted.

  • In 2012, total U.S. federal government revenue was $2,450,200,000,000, or $2.45 trillion.
  • Of that $2.45 trillion in revenue in 2012, revenue from individual income taxes was $1,132,206,000,000, or $1.13 trillion.
  • In 2012, total federal government expenditures were $3,537,100,000,000, or $3.54 trillion.
  • The deficit in 2012 was $1.09 trillion ($2.45 trillion – $3.54 trillion).
  • In 2007, total federal government expenditures were $2,728,700,000,000, or $2.73 trillion.
  • If the federal government spent the same in 2012 as it did in 2007, without collecting any individual income taxes, it would have had a $1.41 trillion deficit ($2.45 trillion – $1.13 trillion – $2.73 trillion). Therefore, if the U.S. federal government in 2012 ABOLISHED ALL INCOME TAXES and spent the same in 2012 as it did in 2007, its deficit would have been $324 billion dollars higher than it was with income tax revenue ($1.41 trillion – $1.09 trillion).
  • In 2007, total U.S. federal government revenue was $2,568,000,000,000, or $2.57 trillion.
  • Of that $2.57 trillion in revenue in 2007, revenue from individual income taxes was $1,163,472,000,000, or $1.16 trillion.
  • In 2007, total federal government expenditures were $2,728,700,000,000, or $2.73 trillion.
  • The deficit in 2007 was $161 billion ($2.57 trillion – $2.73 trillion).
  • In 1997, total federal government expenditures were $1,601,100,000,000, or $1.60 trillion.
  • If the federal government spent the same in 2007 as it did in 1997, without collecting any individual income taxes, it would have had a $197 billion deficit ($2.57 trillion – $1.16 trillion – $1.60 trillion). Therefore, if the U.S. federal government in 2007 ABOLISHED ALL INCOME TAXES and spent the same in 2007 as it did in 1997, its deficit would have been $36 billion dollars higher than it was with income tax revenue ($197 billion – $161 billion).

To view the source data, click on Budget of the United States Government.