Lucky duckies

Last updated

Lucky duckies is a term that was used in Wall Street Journal editorials starting on 20 November 2002 to refer to Americans who pay no federal income tax because they are at an income level that is below the tax line (after deductions and credits). The term has outlived its original use to become a part of the informal terminology used in the tax reform and income inequality debates in the United States.

Contents

The term's meaning has split depending on political persuasion. For many conservatives, the term has become part of a political theory that the US is developing an increasingly large 'moocher' class who depend on government benefits paid for by taxes from richer or harder-working citizens, pay no taxes themselves and vote themselves higher benefits paid for from the taxes of others. This has led prominent conservative politicians such as Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann to propose that poorer citizens should have their taxes increased to make them more aware of the problems of excessive taxation and big government. [1] 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney commented that "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote liberal no matter what... believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That's an entitlement. The government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what... 47% of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect... I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." Perry, announcing his presidential campaign, commented "Spreading the wealth punishes success... we're dismayed at the injustice that nearly half of all Americans don't even pay any income tax." [2]

The term was, meanwhile, immediately criticized by liberals and some conservatives for suggesting that people are 'lucky' to be so poor that they are not eligible to pay tax. It has also been used to suggest that the WSJ and, by proxy, conservatives lack real awareness of poverty or intend to raise taxes on poor people for the benefit of richer taxpayers, a suggestion that has been described as 'reverse class warfare'. [3] It has also been argued that as many red states are particularly poor, many individuals who pay no income tax are in fact generally conservative voters, while many rich residents of blue states consistently vote liberal. [4]

Original argument

The Journal defined the term in this way:

Who are these lucky duckies? They are the beneficiaries of tax policies that have expanded the personal exemption and standard deduction and targeted certain voter groups by introducing a welter of tax credits for things like child care and education. When these escape hatches are figured against income, the result is either a zero liability or a liability that represents a tiny percentage of income. [5]

The worry of the Journal's editorialist was that "as fewer and fewer people are responsible for paying more and more of all taxes, the constituency for tax cutting, much less for tax reform, is eroding. Workers who pay little or no taxes can hardly be expected to care about tax relief for everybody else. They are also that much more detached from recognizing the costs of government." [5]

For example, according to the editorial:

Say a person earns $12,000. After subtracting the personal exemption, the standard deduction and assuming no tax credits, then applying the 10% rate of the lowest bracket, the person ends up paying a little less than 4% of income in taxes. It ain't peanuts, but not enough to get his or her blood boiling with tax rage. [5]

The Journal published three articles using the phrase "lucky duckies": "The Non-Taxpaying Class", the original article, on 20 November 2002; [5] "Lucky Duckies Again" (20 January 2003); [6] and "Even Luckier Duckies" (3 June 2003). [7]

Expansion and limits of the original argument

In recent years, the number and percentage of Americans who pay no federal income tax has increased. According to a 2007 report by the Statistics of Income division of the Internal Revenue Service, [8] in 2006 the Internal Revenue Service received 134,372,678 individual income tax returns, of which 90,593,081 (67.42%) showed that they paid or owed federal income tax for 2005. That is, 32.58% of those Americans who filed income tax returns did not owe any federal income tax at all for 2005. This percentage increased substantially in 2008, and for 2009 was 47%.

The federal income tax is only one of several taxes Americans pay. Americans who pay zero federal income taxes do pay other taxes, such as payroll taxes (a.k.a. FICA), excise taxes, sales taxes, gift taxes, unemployment taxes, state income taxes, property taxes, and self-employment taxes.

Federal payroll taxes are imposed on nearly every American with income from employment (there are exceptions for certain students, certain religious objectors, and certain state/local government employees who participate in a state/local pension). Federal self-employment taxes are imposed on nearly every American with net income from self-employment above $400 (again with exceptions for certain religious objectors). So almost all Americans with some earned income do pay some federal taxes. However, the US also allows earned income tax credits to certain individuals, which can lower their income taxes below zero. When these refundable tax credits equal or exceed other federal taxes, the individual is said to pay "no net federal taxes."

As of 2006, according to New York Times columnist David Leonhardt, approximately 10% of Americans paid no net federal taxes. [9] Leonhardt did not have figures for 2010, and there were several refundable tax credits which were created or expanded between 2006 and 2010.

According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, [10] the lowest earning 20% of Americans (24.1 million households earning an average of $15,900 in 2005) paid an "effective" federal tax rate of 3.9%, when taking into account income tax, social insurance tax, and excise tax. For comparison, the same study found that the highest earning 1% of Americans (1.1 million households earning an average of $1,558,500 in 2005) paid an "effective" federal tax rate of 21.9%, when including the same three types of taxes.

In 2011, British financial journalist Ian Cowie argued that people who do not earn enough to pay tax should be stripped of the right to vote as they should not have the right to control how others' money is taxed and spent: "Their contribution is not just negative in financial terms – they take out more than they put in – but likely to be damaging to the decisions taken by democracies." His colleague Benedict Brogan described the idea as 'intriguing' and 'worth checking out'. [11]

Precedents

In 2001, U.S. Representative Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) told The New Yorker :

I think we've got a major crisis in democracy ... We assume that voters will restrain the growth of government because it becomes burdensome to them personally. But today fewer and fewer people pay taxes, and more and more are dependent on government, so the politician who promises the most from government is likely to win. Every day, the Republican Party is losing constituents, because every day more people can vote themselves more benefits without paying for it. The tax code will destroy democracy, by putting us in a position where most voters don't pay for government. [12]

Criticism

From liberals

The Journal was frequently mocked for its use of the term "lucky duckies" to refer to people whose lack of a federal income tax burden is the direct result of their lower income. This attitude was satirized as "let them eat cake"-style myopia.

Ruben Bolling's Tom the Dancing Bug comic in Salon magazine, for instance, periodically features a poor duck who keeps "outwitting" a fat, top-hatted oligarch by cleverly submitting to the misfortunes of his economic class.

Jonathan Chait, in The New Republic, reacted to the Journal editorial by writing:

One of the things that has fascinated me about The Wall Street Journal editorial page is its occasional capacity to rise above the routine moral callousness of hack conservative punditry and attain a level of exquisite depravity normally reserved for villains in James Bond movies. [13]

And one "lucky ducky" wrote to the Journal editor, offering to share his luck (in a form of logical argument sometimes known as a modest proposal):

I will spend a year as a Wall Street Journal editor, while one lucky editor will spend a year in my underpaid shoes. I will receive an editor's salary, and suffer the outrage of paying federal income tax on that salary. The fortunate editor, on the other hand, will enjoy a relatively small federal income tax burden, as well as these other perks of near poverty: the gustatory delights of a diet rich in black beans, pinto beans, navy beans, chickpeas and, for a little variety, lentils; the thrill of scrambling to pay the rent or make the mortgage; the salutary effects of having no paid sick days; the slow satisfaction of saving up for months for a trip to the dentist; and the civic pride of knowing that, even as a lucky ducky, you still pay a third or more of your gross income in income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes and property taxes. [14]

From conservatives

Conservatives have also criticized the argument. Writing in 2011, Ramesh Ponnuru commented that "conservatives should seek to remedy the problem by cutting benefits rather than by raising taxes in the hope it will make people more eager to cut benefits. To seek to raise taxes on poor and middle-class people would be a terrible mistake. The idea is bound to be unpopular. And it would alter the character of conservatism for the worse [into a] creed openly focused on helping one group at the expense of another, a kind of mirror image of egalitarian liberalism". [15]

Writer W. James Antle said of the thresholds enabling poorer individuals to pay no income tax: "Conservatives supported all of these policies ... [and the poor] are not exactly 'lucky duckies' ... it seems to me that a conservative vision of personal responsibility would entail having people living on subsistence-level incomes support themselves and their families before they support the government." [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

A poll tax, also known as head tax or capitation, is a tax levied as a fixed sum on every liable individual, without reference to income or resources. Poll is an archaic term for "head" or "top of the head". The sense of "counting heads" is found in phrases like polling place and opinion poll.

A tax is a mandatory financial charge or levy imposed on a taxpayer by a governmental organization to support government spending and public expenditures collectively or to regulate and reduce negative externalities. Tax compliance refers to policy actions and individual behavior aimed at ensuring that taxpayers are paying the right amount of tax at the right time and securing the correct tax allowances and tax relief. The first known taxation occurred in Ancient Egypt around 3000–2800 BC. Taxes consist of direct or indirect taxes and may be paid in money or as labor equivalent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social Security (United States)</span> American retirement system

In the United States, Social Security is the commonly used term for the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program and is administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA). The Social Security Act was passed in 1935, and the existing version of the Act, as amended, encompasses several social welfare and social insurance programs.

Supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory postulating that economic growth can be most effectively fostered by lowering taxes, decreasing regulation, and allowing free trade. According to supply-side economics theory, consumers will benefit from greater supply of goods and services at lower prices, and employment will increase. Supply-side fiscal policies are designed to increase aggregate supply, as opposed to aggregate demand, thereby expanding output and employment while lowering prices. Such policies are of several general varieties:

  1. Investments in human capital, such as education, healthcare, and encouraging the transfer of technologies and business processes, to improve productivity. Encouraging globalized free trade via containerization is a major recent example.
  2. Tax reduction, to provide incentives to work, invest and take risks. Lowering income tax rates and eliminating or lowering tariffs are examples of such policies.
  3. Investments in new capital equipment and research and development (R&D), to further improve productivity. Allowing businesses to depreciate capital equipment more rapidly gives them an immediate financial incentive to invest in such equipment.
  4. Reduction in government regulations, to encourage business formation and expansion.

A tax credit is a tax incentive which allows certain taxpayers to subtract the amount of the credit they have accrued from the total they owe the state. It may also be a credit granted in recognition of taxes already paid or a form of state "discount" applied in certain cases. Another way to think of a tax credit is as a rebate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Progressive tax</span> Higher tax on richer source

A progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases. The term progressive refers to the way the tax rate progresses from low to high, with the result that a taxpayer's average tax rate is less than the person's marginal tax rate. The term can be applied to individual taxes or to a tax system as a whole. Progressive taxes are imposed in an attempt to reduce the tax incidence of people with a lower ability to pay, as such taxes shift the incidence increasingly to those with a higher ability-to-pay. The opposite of a progressive tax is a regressive tax, such as a sales tax, where the poor pay a larger proportion of their income compared to the rich.

The Social Security debate in the United States encompasses benefits, funding, and other issues. Social Security is a social insurance program officially called "Old-age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance" (OASDI), in reference to its three components. It is primarily funded through a dedicated payroll tax. During 2015, total benefits of $897 billion were paid out versus $920 billion in income, a $23 billion annual surplus. Excluding interest of $93 billion, the program had a cash deficit of $70 billion. Social Security represents approximately 40% of the income of the elderly, with 53% of married couples and 74% of unmarried persons receiving 50% or more of their income from the program. An estimated 169 million people paid into the program and 60 million received benefits in 2015, roughly 2.82 workers per beneficiary. Reform proposals continue to circulate with some urgency, due to a long-term funding challenge faced by the program as the ratio of workers to beneficiaries falls, driven by the aging of the baby-boom generation, expected continuing low birth rate, and increasing life expectancy. Program payouts began exceeding cash program revenues in 2011; this shortfall is expected to continue indefinitely under current law.

Optimal tax theory or the theory of optimal taxation is the study of designing and implementing a tax that maximises a social welfare function subject to economic constraints. The social welfare function used is typically a function of individuals' utilities, most commonly some form of utilitarian function, so the tax system is chosen to maximise the aggregate of individual utilities. Tax revenue is required to fund the provision of public goods and other government services, as well as for redistribution from rich to poor individuals. However, most taxes distort individual behavior, because the activity that is taxed becomes relatively less desirable; for instance, taxes on labour income reduce the incentive to work. The optimization problem involves minimizing the distortions caused by taxation, while achieving desired levels of redistribution and revenue. Some taxes are thought to be less distorting, such as lump-sum taxes and Pigouvian taxes, where the market consumption of a good is inefficient, and a tax brings consumption closer to the efficient level.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Income inequality in the United States</span>

Income inequality has fluctuated considerably in the United States since measurements began around 1915, moving in an arc between peaks in the 1920s and 2000s, with a 30-year period of relatively lower inequality between 1950 and 1980.

The history of taxation in the United States begins with the colonial protest against British taxation policy in the 1760s, leading to the American Revolution. The independent nation collected taxes on imports ("tariffs"), whiskey, and on glass windows. States and localities collected poll taxes on voters and property taxes on land and commercial buildings. In addition, there were the state and federal excise taxes. State and federal inheritance taxes began after 1900, while the states began collecting sales taxes in the 1930s. The United States imposed income taxes briefly during the Civil War and the 1890s. In 1913, the 16th Amendment was ratified, however, the United States Constitution Article 1, Section 9 defines a direct tax. The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution did not create a new tax.

Income splitting is a tax policy of fictionally attributing earned and passive income of one spouse to the other spouse for the purposes of assessing personal income tax, thus reducing tax rates paid by the spouse who earns more and increasing rates paid by a spouse who earns less.

The phrase Bush tax cuts refers to changes to the United States tax code passed originally during the presidency of George W. Bush and extended during the presidency of Barack Obama, through:

The hidden welfare state is a term coined by Christopher Howard, professor of government at the College of William and Mary, to refer to tax expenditures with social welfare objectives that are often not included in discussions about the U.S. welfare state. Howard's terminology implies that "visible" social welfare programs are designed to help the neediest, but the "hidden" programs often offer benefits to wealthier individuals and companies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Negative income tax</span> Proposed tax reform

In economics, a negative income tax (NIT) is a system which reverses the direction in which tax is paid for incomes below a certain level; in other words, earners above that level pay money to the state while earners below it receive money. NIT was proposed by Juliet Rhys-Williams while working on the Beveridge Report in the early 1940s and popularized by Milton Friedman in the 1960s as a system in which the state makes payments to the poor when their income falls below a threshold, while taxing them on income above that threshold. Together with Friedman, supporters of NIT also included James Tobin, Joseph A. Pechman, and Peter M. Mieszkowski, Jim Gray and even then-President Richard Nixon, who suggested implementation of modified NIT in his Family Assistance Plan. After the increase in popularity of NIT, an experiment sponsored by the US government was conducted between 1968 and 1982 on effects of NIT on labour supply, income, and substitution effects.

The healthcare reform debate in the United States has been a political issue focusing upon increasing medical coverage, decreasing costs, insurance reform, and the philosophy of its provision, funding, and government involvement.

Taxation in Puerto Rico consists of taxes paid to the United States federal government and taxes paid to the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Payment of taxes to the federal government, both personal and corporate, is done through the federal Internal Revenue Service (IRS), while payment of taxes to the Commonwealth government is done through the Puerto Rico Department of Treasury.

Tax expenditures are government revenue losses from tax exclusions, exemptions, deductions, credits, deferrals, and preferential tax rates. They are a counterpart to direct expenditures, in that they both are forms of government spending.

To measure the impact that illegal immigrants is hard to accurately display for a plethora of reasons. Not only are we using rough estimations on the number of illegal immigrants in our country but also having to decipher who many resources they are using and if their children are also using the resources that are handed out. Some research shows that illegal immigrants increase the size of the U.S. economy/contribute to economic growth, enhance the welfare of natives, contribute more in tax revenue than they collect, reduce American firms' incentives to offshore jobs and import foreign-produced goods, and benefit consumers by reducing the prices of goods and services. On the other hand, there is data that shows that illegal immigrants are using programs that the government provides.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tax Cuts and Jobs Act</span> U.S. federal tax legislation

The Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018, Pub. L. 115–97 (text)(PDF), is a congressional revenue act of the United States originally introduced in Congress as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), that amended the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The legislation is commonly referred to in media as the Trump tax cuts. Major elements of the changes include reducing tax rates for corporations and individuals, increasing the standard deduction and family tax credits, eliminating personal exemptions and making it less beneficial to itemize deductions, limiting deductions for state and local income taxes and property taxes, further limiting the mortgage interest deduction, reducing the alternative minimum tax for individuals and eliminating it for corporations, doubling the estate tax exemption, and reducing the penalty for violating the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to $0. The New York Times has described the TCJA as "the most sweeping tax overhaul in decades".

The state and local tax deduction is a United States federal itemized deduction that allows taxpayers to deduct certain taxes paid to state and local governments from their adjusted gross income.

References

  1. ↑ Foley, Elise (10 November 2011). "Michele Bachmann Income Tax Plan: Everyone Should Pay Two Happy Meals' Worth". Huffington Post.
  2. ↑ Perry, Rick. "Presidential Candidacy Announcement". American Rhetoric. Retrieved 30 November 2014.
  3. ↑ Galupo, Scott. "Demolishing the GOP's Tax "Freeloader" Myth". U.S. News & World Report.
  4. ↑ Goldman, Samuel (18 September 2012). "Where Do the 47 Percent Live?". The American Conservative. Retrieved 29 November 2014.
  5. 1 2 3 4 "The Non-Taxpaying Class: Those lucky duckies!". Opinion Journal . 20 November 2002. Archived from the original on 7 February 2003.
  6. ↑ "Lucky Duckies Again: Look at who won't pay taxes under Bush's plan". Opinion Journal . 20 January 2003. Archived from the original on 7 February 2003.
  7. ↑ "Even Luckier Duckies: When a tax cut becomes a welfare check". Opinion Journal . 3 June 2003. Archived from the original on 1 August 2003.
  8. ↑ "SOI Tax Stats - Individual Income Tax Returns Publication 1304 (Complete Report)". Internal Revenue Service. November 12, 2008. Archived from the original on May 6, 2009.
  9. ↑ Leonhardt, David (13 April 2010). "Who Doesn't Pay Taxes?". The New York Times .
  10. ↑ Congressional Budget Office (December 2007). "Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2005" (PDF).
  11. ↑ Cowie, Ian. "A tax-based alternative to the Alternative Vote". Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 5 May 2011. Retrieved 28 November 2014.
  12. ↑ Lemann, Nicholas (19 February 2001). "Bush's Trillions: How to buy the Republican majority of tomorrow". New Yorker. Archived from the original on 2003-08-24.
  13. ↑ as quoted in Manjoo, Farhad (21 December 2002). "March of the 'lucky duckies'". Salon. Archived from the original on 2008-05-15.
  14. ↑ Petersen, Pier (June 12, 2003). "Fowl Play". The New Republic Online. Archived from the original on June 26, 2003.
  15. ↑ Ponnuru, Ramesh (21 November 2011). "The Freeloader Myth". National Review. Retrieved 29 November 2014.
  16. ↑ Antle, W. James (22 November 2011). "Why Conservatives Shouldn't Tax The Poor". American Spectator. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.