Triple your income? Pay 10 TIMES as much toward national defense and food stamps, but Obama tax-day 'receipt' website makes it nearly impossible to find out
The Obama administration disclosed
Monday, perhaps inadvertently, that a taxpayer earning $240,000 per year
is paying into the national defense budget what an $80,000 earner
contributes. The same is true of food stamps, veterans benefits, public
health services and government pensions.
But Americans will have to know how to file someone else's tax return to see for themselves.
The administration rolled out a 'tax receipt' Web page on Monday, coinciding with the deadline day for Americans to file their annual returns. But while the White House made it easy to see how much -- or how little -- lower-income and middle-class earners pay to Uncle Sam, it made it difficult for ordinary taxpayers to learn how much the wealthy pay toward federal spending.
The online receipt was set up to itemized what Americans' income, Social Security and Medicare taxes actually pay for, broken down along a long list of categories. It also provides a handful of example calculations.
The
White House's typical $80,000 earner who is married and filing jointly,
for instance, pays $4,590 in federal income tax. Of that, more than
$1,130 is devoted to national defense, another $1,030 for health
care-related costs, and $792 to a category that includes food stamps,
housing assistance and unemployment insurance.
The calculator makes it easy to see numbers associated with its $80,000 example, along with four others ranging in income down to $25,000.
But no examples are provided for upper-income earners, despite the President's frequent argument for a 'Buffett Rule' tax that would ensure Americans who make $1 million or more would pay at least 30 percent of their income to the federal government.
While taxpayers who make more than $80,000 per year can consult their own tax returns for the numbers required to operate the calculator, lower-income earners would need to know how to use several online tools in order to estimate those numbers for someone who earns dramatically more than they do.
It took MailOnline 35 minutes to
calculate the taxes paid by a hypothetical $240,000 salaried earner who
is married and filing taxes jointly with a spouse, using the same
conditions as in the White House's example for an $80,000 earner.
That $240,000 salaried employee, would contribute toward every federal program more than 10 times what the $80,000 employee chips in, despite earning just three times as much money.
Under the same assumptions as the White House used, his or her $48,287 in federal income taxes would include $11,897 for national defense, $10,840 spent on health care-related costs, and $8,334 for the broad 'Job and Family Security' spending category.
The White House website doesn't provide a way to easily determine the tax burden for a given income level, which can depend on several factors including charitable giving, dependent children, tax-deferred savings, and unreimbursed job expenses.
All the calculations provided
by the White House describe national defense as the largest federal
government spending program, although Social Security and Medicare
entitlement spending is, collectively, larger. Those entitlement
programs are administered through payroll taxes, which the White House
calculator treats as separate from other tax dollars.
The Obama administration is attempting to 'cut data from the spending side, likely to avoid showing how much SS and Medicare take out of the budget,' National Taxpayers Union spokesman Douglas Kellogg told MailOnline, 'with the added bonus of [Department of] Defense spending appearing to be government's biggest expense.
'Workers and business owners who are paying Social Security and Medicare taxes right out of their paychecks are likely not interested in separating them into a special category and pretending they never happened,' Kellogg added.
MailOnline's $240,000 earning example presumed, as the White
House's did, that the taxpayer set aside 5 per cent of income
in a 401(k) or other qualifying retirement program and did not itemize
deductions.
Americans collecting that much in salary do not qualify for the child tax credit applied to the examples on the White House website.
Obama spokesmen Joshua Earnest and Bobby Whithorne both declined to respond on the record to questions about why the administration made it a challenge for citizens to learn how much the rich are paying in taxes.
They also wouldn't comment on whether the calculator, now in its third year in one form or another, was only intended to help taxpayers generate information on the destinations of their own tax dollars.
But in an accompanying blog post. White House Director of Digital Content Colleen Curtis indicated that the administration didn't mean for ordinary Americans to learn about how the federal government spends the money it collects from taxpayers whom the president has excoriated for failing to 'pay their fair share.'
'You deserve to know how your tax
dollars are being spent,' Curtis wrote. She made no mention of learning
how much taxes are collected from earners in other tax brackets, or how
that money is applied to federal spending.
'As long as he’s in office,' she added, referring to President Obama, 'every hardworking taxpayer will be able to jump online to see exactly how their tax dollars are being spent.'
But Americans will have to know how to file someone else's tax return to see for themselves.
The administration rolled out a 'tax receipt' Web page on Monday, coinciding with the deadline day for Americans to file their annual returns. But while the White House made it easy to see how much -- or how little -- lower-income and middle-class earners pay to Uncle Sam, it made it difficult for ordinary taxpayers to learn how much the wealthy pay toward federal spending.
The online receipt was set up to itemized what Americans' income, Social Security and Medicare taxes actually pay for, broken down along a long list of categories. It also provides a handful of example calculations.
The calculator makes it easy to see numbers associated with its $80,000 example, along with four others ranging in income down to $25,000.
But no examples are provided for upper-income earners, despite the President's frequent argument for a 'Buffett Rule' tax that would ensure Americans who make $1 million or more would pay at least 30 percent of their income to the federal government.
While taxpayers who make more than $80,000 per year can consult their own tax returns for the numbers required to operate the calculator, lower-income earners would need to know how to use several online tools in order to estimate those numbers for someone who earns dramatically more than they do.
The National Debt Clock in New York City showed a
debt of about $14.4 trillion in July 2011. That number was more than
$16.2 trillion as Tax Day 2013 arrived and Americans focused on how much
they are paying each year for government spending
President Obama took credit in January for tax
legislation that averted much of the damage from the so-called 'fiscal
cliff,' but the national debt continues to climb and Republicans argue
that the coming higher tax rates will stifle economic growth
That $240,000 salaried employee, would contribute toward every federal program more than 10 times what the $80,000 employee chips in, despite earning just three times as much money.
Under the same assumptions as the White House used, his or her $48,287 in federal income taxes would include $11,897 for national defense, $10,840 spent on health care-related costs, and $8,334 for the broad 'Job and Family Security' spending category.
The White House website doesn't provide a way to easily determine the tax burden for a given income level, which can depend on several factors including charitable giving, dependent children, tax-deferred savings, and unreimbursed job expenses.
'You deserve to know how your tax dollars are
being spent,' wrote White House Director of Digital Content Colleen
Curtis. But Americans don't seem to deserve to know how the government
spends other taxpayers' contributions
National Taxpayers Union spokesman Douglas
Kellogg criticized the administration for treating entitlement programs
as though they consumed less of Americans' overall tax obligations than
defense spending
The Obama administration is attempting to 'cut data from the spending side, likely to avoid showing how much SS and Medicare take out of the budget,' National Taxpayers Union spokesman Douglas Kellogg told MailOnline, 'with the added bonus of [Department of] Defense spending appearing to be government's biggest expense.
'Workers and business owners who are paying Social Security and Medicare taxes right out of their paychecks are likely not interested in separating them into a special category and pretending they never happened,' Kellogg added.
White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary
Josh Earnest (L) wouldn't talk about why the administration made it so
challenging for Americans to learn how much wealthy taxpayers contribute
toward federal spending programs
Americans collecting that much in salary do not qualify for the child tax credit applied to the examples on the White House website.
Obama spokesmen Joshua Earnest and Bobby Whithorne both declined to respond on the record to questions about why the administration made it a challenge for citizens to learn how much the rich are paying in taxes.
They also wouldn't comment on whether the calculator, now in its third year in one form or another, was only intended to help taxpayers generate information on the destinations of their own tax dollars.
But in an accompanying blog post. White House Director of Digital Content Colleen Curtis indicated that the administration didn't mean for ordinary Americans to learn about how the federal government spends the money it collects from taxpayers whom the president has excoriated for failing to 'pay their fair share.'
Write caption here
'As long as he’s in office,' she added, referring to President Obama, 'every hardworking taxpayer will be able to jump online to see exactly how their tax dollars are being spent.'