IRS Data on 2009 Incomes

August 5, 2011
Posted by Jay Livingston

The gist of yesterday’s post was that while retailers that serve the rich are doing very well, those that serve the rest of us are not. The obvious reason is that the rest of us aren’t spending money, and we’re not spending it because we don’t have as much of it.

Tax figures from 2009 give some of the bleak details. (But in the comparisons, remember that 2007 was the last good year, the year before the recession.)
(Reuters) - U.S. incomes plummeted again in 2009, with total income down 15.2 percent in real terms since 2007, new tax data showed on Wednesday.
Average income in 2009 fell to $54,283, down $3,516, or 6.1 percent in real terms compared with 2008, the first Internal Revenue Service analysis of 2009 tax returns showed. Compared with 2007, average income was down $8,588 or 13.7 percent.
In various comments on this blog and elsewhere, some people have complained about the many earners who pay no income tax. Now there’s even more of them to complain about.
While the number of people who earned enough income to file a tax return fell, the share of those filing who paid no income tax rose to 41.7 percent of tax returns, up from 36.4 percent in 2009.
The Wall Street Journal has referred to these nonpayers as “lucky duckies.” Here’s how lucky they are:
The average income of those filing but paying no tax was $14,483.
Not all nonpayers are poor, just most of them. But there were some truly lucky duckies, and there were more of them as well.
No income tax was paid by 1,470 of the 235,413 taxpayers earning $1 million or more in 2009, compared with the 959 taxpayers with million-dollar-plus incomes who paid no income taxes in 2007.
There was really bad news, at least for those who believe that’s what’s best for the country is what’s best for the wealthy
The number of Americans reporting incomes of $10 million or more also plunged even more than the steep drop in income for the population as a whole.

Just 8,274 taxpayers reported income of $10 million or more in 2009, down 55 percent from 18,394 in 2007. Compared with 2007, total real income of these top earners in 2009 fell 58.6 percent to $240.1 billion, but average income slipped just 8.1 percent to $29 million.
Things are tough all over. If you want to read the whole grim Reuters story, go here.

HT: Global Sociology

3 comments:

Bob S. said...

The gist of yesterday’s post was that while retailers that serve the rich are doing very well, those that serve the rest of us are not.

You talk about the retailers not doing well but you don't provide any facts, figures or evidence.

Is there something else to support this other then your esteemed and highly valued opinion?


The obvious reason is that the rest of us aren’t spending money, and we’re not spending it because we don’t have as much of it.

And how is that a bad thing?

Way too many people spend more then they make, don't you agree?

Way too many people spend so much they have no or little savings. Which means in an emergency they have no reserve and have to borrow money. Increased debt is a bad thing, wouldn't you agree?

It isn't a matter of how much you make but of how much you keep.
That is simple financial education.

Didn't you claim that the money the rich were spending wasn't 'flowing to the rest of us'?

The data showed an alarming drop in the number of taxpayers reporting any earnings from a job -- down by nearly 4.2 million from 2007 -- meaning every 33rd household that had work in 2007 had no work in 2009.

Yet those people still used the roads, still were protected by the military & police, still had city services, etc.

How is that not getting benefit from the money the 'rich' spent?

The average income of those filing but paying no tax was $14,483.

Not all nonpayers are poor, just most of them. But there were some truly lucky duckies, and there were more of them as well.


Again...any facts, figures or evidence to support your statement?

There is a difference, which you should know, between average and median. Where does the median lie?

One is the drop in incomes because a married couple does not pay income tax until they make at least $18,300, and families with two children pay no income tax until they make more than $40,000 under policies started in 1997 and since expanded at the behest of Congressional Republicans, many of whom complain that too many households do not pay income taxes

So many people don't even pay taxes until they are over the 'average'. How many people are over the average, eh?

Not all nonpayers are poor, just most of them. But there were some truly lucky duckies, and there were more of them as well.

No income tax was paid by 1,470 of the 235,413 taxpayers earning $1 million or more in 2009, compared with the 959 taxpayers with million-dollar-plus incomes who paid no income taxes in 2007.


And would you care to guess why those people didn't pay taxes?

Could it be that they received tax breaks for starting businesses?
Could it be they received tax breaks for donating money,services or goods to charity?
To help the every people they are already employing, supporting through their spending, etc?

Knowing some people didn't pay taxes is just pushing class warfare UNLESS you know why they didn't pay.

Your socialism and cluelessness are showing again.

Jay Livingston said...

1. we’re not spending it because we don’t have as much of it.

Bob S.: And how is that a bad thing?

Whether something is good or bad is a value judgment. I expect that most people would think that a lower income is not as good as a higher income and that a salary cut or a loss of job is indeed a bad thing. Maybe you don’t share that view.

As for the idea that less spending is a good thing, you’ll get some agreement from a few folks in the eco-frugal movement and perhaps elsewhere, but not from most economists or most businesspeople. (Or George W. Bush). It’s certainly not good for traditional measures of how the economy is doing, which is why Bush encouraged people to spend.

2. As far as I can tell, the median income for nonpayers of income tax is fairly close to the mean.

brandsinger said...

Totally agree with Jay that the economy is f---d up and people are suffering. We need a new president and new Senate leaders who know what they're doing. Waging war against Boeing (as the Obama-appointed NLRB is doing) is exactly the kind of policy that impedes enterprise, depresses economic growth and job creation, and stifles innovation. Obama is a reactionary -- old thinking, old ideas -- supported by leftists who are acting according to discredited policies. Implications of Jay's figures are right - we need a change of leadership.