Tennessee’s attorney general is saying that online retailers do have to collect sales taxes if they open warehouses in the state, in a ruling that could impact the debate over the tax treatment of Amazon.
Attorney General Robert Cooper said in a ruling released Tuesday that current state law requires retailers that have distributing houses or warehouses in the state to collect sales taxes, provided they are not owned by a subsidiary and serve customers elsewhere.
Cooper also said that state officials do not have the power to waive the sales tax requirement for certain retailers, but they do have right to interpret the law as they see fit.
“Nonetheless the Commissioner of Revenue possesses substantial discretion in determining the best measures to take to enforce Tennessee’s tax laws,” Cooper’s opinion says. “The exercise of such discretion is particularly appropriate where the enforcement of a tax may be debatable.”
The ruling appears to give support to arguments made by opponents of Amazon. The online retailer had been assured by officials in the administration of Gov. Phil Bredesen that it would not have to collect sales taxes on Tennessee customers if it opened distribution centers near Chattanooga and Nashville.
Big-box retailers and some state lawmakers have challenged that promise, saying it gives Amazon an unfair advantage and could erode Tennessee’s tax base.
“As more facts and information are made public, it is becoming increasingly clear that Amazon.com’s argument against sales tax collection is evaporating,” Mike Cohen, a spokesperson for the Alliance for Main Street Fairness said in a statement.
“A recent opinion by Tennessee’s attorney general proves that under the law as written Amazon has a physical presence in the state and should be collecting sales taxes when its distribution centers open.”
On September 8, 2011, a Judge in the Jefferson District Court granted a motion prepared by associate attorney, Jonathan Hodge, for a client his motion to suppress the Commonwealth’s evidence obtained from a breath alcohol analysis (breath test). The Court found that the Defendant submitted to breath analysis upon his arrest for charges of driving under the influence and was subsequently refused his statutory right to receive an independent blood test from a physician of his choosing.
Under KRS 189A.103(7), “after the person has submitted to all alcohol concentration tests… requested by the officer, the person tested shall be permitted to have a person… administer a test or tests in addition to any test administered at the direction of the peace officer.” Under Commonwealth v. Cook and Commonwealth v. Philbin, the courts have identified that due to the nature of the proceedings, a defendant in police custody does not have the liberty of arranging for the test himself, so KRS 189A.103(7) requires an arresting officer to make “reasonable efforts” to inform the arrestee of a known nearby alternative testing site and to provide transportation to said site. It is important to note that the individual will be financially responsible for the cost of the independent test.
In this particular case, our client did request an independent test however the court found that no reasonable efforts were made to facilitate his taking the test. Accordingly, the Commonwealth’s breath analysis evidence, i.e. the breathalyzer results, are suppressed from evidence in the client’s trial for charges of driving under the influence.
The Commonwealth’s breath analysis evidence is the single-most important piece of proof used to show the driver was intoxicated. While the prosecution will often present the officer’s testimony, the field sobriety tests, and video of the arrest in support of its contention that the driver was operating under the influence, they will generally have no scientific evidence conclusively proving that the driver was intoxicated.
Police Lineups Start to Face Fact: Eyes Can Lie
By ERICA GOODE and JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: August 28, 2011
The decision by New Jersey’s Supreme Court last week to overhaul the state’s rules for how judges and jurors treat evidence from police lineups could help transform the way officers conduct a central technique of police work, criminal justice experts say.
Rex C. Curry for The New York Times
Senior Cpl. Chris Daniels, left, and Lt. David Pughes of the Dallas police homicide unit simulating a sequential photo lineup.
In its ruling, the court strongly endorsed decades of research demonstrating that traditional eyewitness identification procedures are flawed and can send innocent people to prison. By making it easier for defendants to challenge witness evidence in criminal cases, the court for the first time attached consequences for investigators who fail to take steps to reduce the subtle pressures and influences on witnesses that can result in mistaken identifications.
“No court has ever taken this topic this seriously or put in this kind of effort,” said Gary L. Wells, a professor of psychology at Iowa State University who is an expert on witness identification and has written extensively on the topic.
Other courts are likely to follow suit, and in November the United States Supreme Court will take up the question of identification for the first time since 1977.
But changing how the nation’s more than 16,000 independent law enforcement agencies handle the presentation of suspects to witnesses will be no easy task, many experts say.
Around the country, the notion of change has met with resistance from police officers who remain skeptical about the research and bridle at the idea that they could affect the responses of witnesses, even unintentionally, which studies find is how most influence occurs.
In many communities, lineups are conducted in the same way they have been for decades, although typically these days they involve photos, not actual people. According to some estimates, only about 25 percent to 30 percent of jurisdictions have police departments that have revised their policies to protect the integrity of lineup procedures.
Although some states are studying revisions or require single changes in procedure, only two — New Jersey and North Carolina — mandate the two practices that researchers regard as most important: lineups that are blinded, that is, administered by someone who is not familiar with the suspect and who is not one of the primary investigators on the case; and photo arrays that are presented sequentially rather than as a group. Both practices, studies find, decrease the pressure on witnesses to pick someone and guard against influence.
The idea that human memory is frail and suggestible has gradually gained acceptance among leaders in law enforcement, buttressed by more than 2,000 scientific studies demonstrating problems with witness accounts and the DNA exonerations of at least 190 people whose wrongful convictions involved mistaken identifications. About 75,000 witness identifications take place each year, and studies suggest that about a third are incorrect.
Model policies for changing lineup procedures have been created by professional organizations like the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and in 1999, the National Institute of Justice released guidelines that were sent to every police department in the United States.
But the process of reform, Dr. Wells said, is “all over the place, it’s very spotty.” He added that he suspected many police departments simply deposited the federal guidelines, which he helped develop, “into their round files.”
Some large departments, like those in Dallas and Denver, have already made changes, often under the leadership of an administrator eager to keep up to the national standard or after DNA exonerations revealed mistaken identifications.
In Dallas, for example, detectives take elaborate precautions to make sure that identifications remain untainted and that they will stand up in court.
Witnesses are sent to a special unit of the Police Department devoted entirely to lineups, where they are read instructions and shown photographs by trained lineup officers who have no relationship to the cases.
Photos are presented one at a time instead of all together, and the witnesses then indicate how confident they are in their judgments. The whole process is videotaped, so that it can be viewed by defense lawyers and by the court, if necessary.
Lt. David Pughes, commander of the department’s homicide unit, said 5,000 lineups had been conducted in this manner since April 2009, when the policy was instituted, a major departure from the days when the investigating officers in criminal cases conducted lineups and no consistent procedures were followed.
Initially, Lieutenant Pughes said, the new practices were resisted by detectives, who felt that their integrity was being challenged.
A version of this article appeared in print on August 29, 2011, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Police Lineups Start to Face Fact: Eyes Can Lie.
In New Jersey, Rules Are Changed on Witness IDs
By BENJAMIN WEISER
Published: August 24, 2011
The New Jersey Supreme Court, acknowledging a “troubling lack of reliability in eyewitness identifications,” issued sweeping new rules on Wednesday making it easier for defendants to challenge such evidence in criminal cases.
The court said that whenever a defendant presents evidence that a witness’s identification of a suspect was influenced, by the police, for instance, a judge must hold a hearing to consider a broad range of issues. These could include police behavior, but also factors like lighting, the time that had elapsed since the crime or whether the victim felt stress at the time of the identification.
When such disputed evidence is admitted, the court said, the judge must give detailed explanations to jurors, even in the middle of a trial, on influences that could heighten the risk of misidentification. In the past, judges held hearings on such matters, but they were far more limited.
The decision applies only in New Jersey, but is likely to have considerable impact nationally. The state’s highest court has long been considered a trailblazer in criminal law, and New Jersey has already been a leader in establishing guidelines on how judges should handle such testimony.
Stuart J. Rabner, the court’s chief justice, wrote in a unanimous 134-page decision that the test for reliability of eyewitness testimony, as set out by the United States Supreme Court 34 years ago, should be revised.
The new rules come at a time of increased scrutiny of the eyewitness identification issue among lawyers, law enforcement officers and the scientific community. The opinion noted that task forces have been formed to recommend or put into effect new procedures to improve reliability.
The State Supreme Court’s ruling was seen as significant because it was based in part on an exhaustive study of the scientific research on eyewitness identification, led by a special master, a retired judge, who held hearings and led a review of the literature on the issue. The special master, Geoffrey Gaulkin, estimated that more than 2,000 studies related to the subject had been published since the Supreme Court’s original 1977 decision, the court noted.
“Study after study revealed a troubling lack of reliability in eyewitness identifications,” Chief Justice Rabner wrote. “From social science research to the review of actual police lineups, from laboratory experiments to DNA exonerations, the record proves that the possibility of mistaken identification is real.
“Indeed, it is now widely known that eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions across the country.”
The decision listed more than a dozen factors that judges should consider in evaluating the reliability of a witness’s identification, including whether a weapon was visible during a crime of short duration, the amount of time the witness had to observe the event, how close the witness was to the suspect, whether the witness was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, whether the witness was identifying someone of a different race and the length of time that had elapsed between the crime and the identification.
Chief Justice Rabner said the court had avoided “bright-line rules that would lead to suppression of reliable evidence any time a law enforcement officer makes a mistake.”
The ruling instead allowed for a much more complete exploration of the factors involved in an identification “to preclude sufficiently unreliable identifications from being presented and to aid juries in weighing identification evidence.”
Chief Justice Rabner noted that in the vast majority of cases, identification evidence would still be presented to a jury.
“The threshold for suppression remains high,” he wrote. And because, in most cases, juries will continue to determine the reliability of eyewitness testimony, Chief Justice Rabner added, “it is essential to educate jurors about factors that can lead to misidentifications.”
The ruling was praised by lawyers and legal groups that have pressed for reforms. “It’s a landmark decision,” said Barry C. Scheck, a director of the Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.
Mr. Scheck, citing the New Jersey court’s national prominence and the large scientific record developed in the case, added, “It’s going to affect the way every state and federal court in the United States assesses eyewitness identification evidence, and what those courts tell juries about the factors that can increase the risk of misidentification.”
In its ruling, the court cited findings by Brandon L. Garrett, a law professor at the University of Virginia, who documented in a recent book, “Convicting the Innocent,” eyewitness misidentifications in 190 of the first 250 cases of DNA exoneration in the country.
Professor Garrett said the decision would provide a model for legislatures and courts around the country that “have been at a loss for what to do” and needed “a structure for how judges should handle identifications in the courtroom.”
The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments, in November, in its first significant eyewitness identification case in 34 years. The case, Perry v. New Hampshire, is concerned with whether judges must take a hard look at all identifications arising from suggestive circumstances or only those involving official misconduct.
Joseph E. Krakora, the public defender who argued the case before the New Jersey Supreme Court, said the decision would “go a long way toward eliminating wrongful convictions based on mistaken identifications.”
The New Jersey attorney general’s office, which the state court on Wednesday credited for developing early guidelines to address identification issues, said, “The court’s ruling embodies the promulgation of additional safeguards as opposed to an overhaul of the present system.” It called the ruling “careful and balanced.”
Adam Liptak contributed reporting.
A version of this article appeared in print on August 25, 2011, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: In New Jersey, Sweeping Shift On Witness IDs.
In New Jersey, Rules Are Changed on Witness IDs
By BENJAMIN WEISER
Published: August 24, 2011
The New Jersey Supreme Court, acknowledging a “troubling lack of reliability in eyewitness identifications,” issued sweeping new rules on Wednesday making it easier for defendants to challenge such evidence in criminal cases.
The court said that whenever a defendant presents evidence that a witness’s identification of a suspect was influenced, by the police, for instance, a judge must hold a hearing to consider a broad range of issues. These could include police behavior, but also factors like lighting, the time that had elapsed since the crime or whether the victim felt stress at the time of the identification.
When such disputed evidence is admitted, the court said, the judge must give detailed explanations to jurors, even in the middle of a trial, on influences that could heighten the risk of misidentification. In the past, judges held hearings on such matters, but they were far more limited.
The decision applies only in New Jersey, but is likely to have considerable impact nationally. The state’s highest court has long been considered a trailblazer in criminal law, and New Jersey has already been a leader in establishing guidelines on how judges should handle such testimony.
Stuart J. Rabner, the court’s chief justice, wrote in a unanimous 134-page decision that the test for reliability of eyewitness testimony, as set out by the United States Supreme Court 34 years ago, should be revised.
The new rules come at a time of increased scrutiny of the eyewitness identification issue among lawyers, law enforcement officers and the scientific community. The opinion noted that task forces have been formed to recommend or put into effect new procedures to improve reliability.
The State Supreme Court’s ruling was seen as significant because it was based in part on an exhaustive study of the scientific research on eyewitness identification, led by a special master, a retired judge, who held hearings and led a review of the literature on the issue. The special master, Geoffrey Gaulkin, estimated that more than 2,000 studies related to the subject had been published since the Supreme Court’s original 1977 decision, the court noted.
“Study after study revealed a troubling lack of reliability in eyewitness identifications,” Chief Justice Rabner wrote. “From social science research to the review of actual police lineups, from laboratory experiments to DNA exonerations, the record proves that the possibility of mistaken identification is real.
“Indeed, it is now widely known that eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions across the country.”
The decision listed more than a dozen factors that judges should consider in evaluating the reliability of a witness’s identification, including whether a weapon was visible during a crime of short duration, the amount of time the witness had to observe the event, how close the witness was to the suspect, whether the witness was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, whether the witness was identifying someone of a different race and the length of time that had elapsed between the crime and the identification.
Chief Justice Rabner said the court had avoided “bright-line rules that would lead to suppression of reliable evidence any time a law enforcement officer makes a mistake.”
The ruling instead allowed for a much more complete exploration of the factors involved in an identification “to preclude sufficiently unreliable identifications from being presented and to aid juries in weighing identification evidence.”
Chief Justice Rabner noted that in the vast majority of cases, identification evidence would still be presented to a jury.
“The threshold for suppression remains high,” he wrote. And because, in most cases, juries will continue to determine the reliability of eyewitness testimony, Chief Justice Rabner added, “it is essential to educate jurors about factors that can lead to misidentifications.”
The ruling was praised by lawyers and legal groups that have pressed for reforms. “It’s a landmark decision,” said Barry C. Scheck, a director of the Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.
Mr. Scheck, citing the New Jersey court’s national prominence and the large scientific record developed in the case, added, “It’s going to affect the way every state and federal court in the United States assesses eyewitness identification evidence, and what those courts tell juries about the factors that can increase the risk of misidentification.”
In its ruling, the court cited findings by Brandon L. Garrett, a law professor at the University of Virginia, who documented in a recent book, “Convicting the Innocent,” eyewitness misidentifications in 190 of the first 250 cases of DNA exoneration in the country.
Professor Garrett said the decision would provide a model for legislatures and courts around the country that “have been at a loss for what to do” and needed “a structure for how judges should handle identifications in the courtroom.”
The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments, in November, in its first significant eyewitness identification case in 34 years. The case, Perry v. New Hampshire, is concerned with whether judges must take a hard look at all identifications arising from suggestive circumstances or only those involving official misconduct.
Joseph E. Krakora, the public defender who argued the case before the New Jersey Supreme Court, said the decision would “go a long way toward eliminating wrongful convictions based on mistaken identifications.”
The New Jersey attorney general’s office, which the state court on Wednesday credited for developing early guidelines to address identification issues, said, “The court’s ruling embodies the promulgation of additional safeguards as opposed to an overhaul of the present system.” It called the ruling “careful and balanced.”
Adam Liptak contributed reporting.
A version of this article appeared in print on August 25, 2011, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: In New Jersey, Sweeping Shift On Witness IDs.
In the 30 minute “Connections” interview, airing today, Friday, on KET-2 at 5:00 PM, and Sunday, on KET at 1:30 PM, It discusses demographic trends, diversity, income inequality, worldwide, in the United States and in Kentucky, etc.
Also attached is a draft of a brief article on The Changing Face of America- Diversity and Longevity including 2009 ACS population pyramids and a chart by age and race/Hispanic origin for the United States. It is scheduled for publication in Views and Visions – Summer 2011 (a publication of Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love LLP) which should be released any day now. I’ll update the population pyramids and chart to the 2010 Census but data by age by race and Hispanic origin is just being released for 2010 state by state.
The Changing Face of America: Diversity and Longevity
Introduction
The United States of America is going through two significant demographic trends which wThe Changing Face of America: Diversity and Longevityill
dramatically impact our society and our economy. We are experiencing two revolutions, as diversity
growth is changing the future face of America and longevity is driving our population growth. The
opportunities and challenges of these two revolutions are not well understood by many of our decision
makers and our citizens.
The World around Us
These two revolutions go beyond the United States. In 1800, World population reached 1 Billion
persons. It took another 130 years to reach its 2nd billion in 1930 and 30 years to reach its 3rd Billion by
1960. Since then the World has added another Billion persons every 12 to 14 years and is projected to
reach 7 billion persons in 2011. However, the United Nation’s projects World population growth is
slowing and flattening out, peaking at 10 billion persons in 2100.
The Population Reference Bureau states “the World population has reached a transition point”. “The
population size of the world’s developed countries has essentially peaked. What little growth remains
will mostly come from immigration from less developed countries.” These less developed countries
accounted for virtually the entire World population growth in the 20th Century and are made up of
persons of color. However, the major factor in the World’s population explosion during the last Century
was not due to fertility but longevity, a direct result of the rapid decline in mortality rates in the less
developed countries.
The United States Demographic Revolutions
Only three developed countries are experiencing population growth, the United States along with
Canada and Australia. All three countries have been “Settler Nations” allowing immigration from other
countries. Ben Wattenberg, of the American Enterprise Institute has stated, “America is becoming a
universal nation, with significant representation of all human hues, creeds, ethnicities, and national
ancestries. Continued moderate immigration will make us an even more universal nation as time goes
on.”
Along with immigration, the United States is experiencing changing fertility patterns with our minority
population growing significantly while our Non‐Hispanic White population experiencing little growth and
is significantly smaller in the younger age cohorts. The 2010 Census found the United States population
grew by 27 million persons or 9.7% between 2000 and 2010. However, when broken down by race and
Hispanic origin it found our Black population had grown by 12.3%, our Asian population by 43.3% and
our population of Hispanic origin, which can be of any race, grew by 43.0% compared to a Non‐Hispanic
White growth rate of only 1.2%. The 2009 Census American Community Survey found over 80% of our
population, ages 70+ were Non‐Hispanic White while only 51.7% of children under age 5 were Non‐
Hispanic White and new Census data indicates for children age 2 and under our children are now
majority minority, above 50%.
However, we do not have much growth in our child or younger workforce age population. Our younger
population is becoming more diverse but not growing as the Non‐Hispanic White population of children
and younger workforce age declines significantly. (See attached population pyramids by race and
Hispanic origin and the table showing age cohorts.) The 2010 Census found between 2000 and 2010
our population growth was almost entirely due to longevity with our population ages 45 to 64 growing
by 31.5%, and our population 65+ growing by 15.1%, compared to the younger workforce age
population, ages 18 to 44, growing by only 0.6% and our children under age 18 by 2.6%. The Bureau of
Labor Statistics estimates between 2008 and 2018, 95% of workforce growth will be among older
workers, ages 55+.
New Realities in Preparing for Our Future
States like Kentucky and West Virginia are aging faster than the United States and are significantly less
diverse with declining populations of children and a younger workforce. What happens when your
young workforce age population declines? We need to insure our returning veterans are invested in and
provided employment after their service to our country. We need to educate and train, and retool and
retrain our workforce for tomorrow. We will need to attract a more diverse population and invest in
their well being. We will need to support immigration when our real problem is not too much
undocumented immigration but not enough documented immigration. We need to bring immigrants
out of the shadows. Maybe we need to hire Minutemen not to build walls but to open up lemonade
stands and hand out lemonade and cookies to attract immigrants. The economies of a number of South
and Central American countries are doing well and we want to close off our borders?
We also need to make sure all of our population regardless of skin color, age or gender is educated,
skilled and prepared for a new 21ft Century. We need to develop and make investments in a system
that offers a lifetime of education and training. We need to make investments in our infrastructure to
promote our well‐being and our economy. Cutting those investments is disinvesting in our futures!
United States 2009 Population Pyramids
Total
55 60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
Under 5
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
Black Alone, Not Hispanic or Latino
15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000
Male Female
6 69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
5-10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-Asian Alone, Not Hispanic or Latino
2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000
Under 5
5 9
Male Female
80-84
85+
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
Source: Census Bureau: 2009 Population Estimates
800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000
Under 5
5-9
10-14
15 Male Female
United States 2009 Population Pyramids
Hispanic or Latino
55 60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
Under 5
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
White Alone, Not Hispanic or Latino
3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000
Male Female
6 69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
5-10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-Two or More Races, Not Hispanic or Latino
10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000
Under 5
5 9
Male Female
80-84
85+
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
Source: Census Bureau: 2009 Population Estimates
400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000
Under 5
5-9
10-14
15 Male Female
Population by Age, Race and Hispanic Origin; United States: 2009
Total
Population
Black; Not
Hispanic
% of
Total
AIAN; Not
Hispanic
% of
Total
Asian; Not
Hispanic
% of
Total
NHOPI; Not
Hispanic
% of
Total Hispanic % of
Total
Two+ Races;
Not Hispanic
% of
Total
White; Not
Hispanic
% of
Total
Total Population 307,006,550 37,681,544 12.3% 2,360,807 0.8% 13,686,083 4.5% 448,510 0.1% 48,419,324 15.8% 4,559,042 1.5% 199,851,240 65.1%
Under 5 years 21,299,656 2,909,385 13.7% 194,902 0.9% 959,911 4.5% 37,097 0.2% 5,484,770 25.8% 697,649 3.3% 11,015,942 51.7%
5 to 9 years 20,609,634 2,796,496 13.6% 178,446 0.9% 913,806 4.4% 35,093 0.2% 4,792,409 23.3% 618,169 3.0% 11,275,215 54.7%
10 to 14 years 19,973,564 2,857,269 14.3% 173,808 0.9% 813,996 4.1% 32,159 0.2% 4,059,590 20.3% 520,680 2.6% 11,516,062 57.7%
15 to 19 years 21,537,837 3,285,249 15.3% 202,702 0.9% 824,871 3.8% 35,572 0.2% 4,031,986 18.7% 450,049 2.1% 12,707,408 59.0%
20 to 24 years 21,539,559 3,102,041 14.4% 204,379 0.9% 888,781 4.1% 36,109 0.2% 3,883,925 18.0% 378,212 1.8% 13,046,112 60.6%
25 to 29 years 21,677,719 2,948,080 13.6% 190,121 0.9% 1,098,369 5.1% 38,488 0.2% 4,149,692 19.1% 325,583 1.5% 12,927,386 59.6%
30 to 34 years 19,888,603 2,568,707 12.9% 156,845 0.8% 1,203,073 6.0% 36,899 0.2% 4,029,775 20.3% 247,035 1.2% 11,646,269 58.6%
35 to 39 years 20,538,351 2,586,667 12.6% 152,688 0.7% 1,253,296 6.1% 34,052 0.2% 3,757,576 18.3% 219,006 1.1% 12,535,066 61.0%
40 years 20 991 605 2 592 865 12 4% 153 232 0 7% 1 097 417 to 44 20,991,605 2,592,865 12.4% 153,232 0.7% 1,097,417 5.2% 31,534 0.2% 3,306,453 15.8% 194,159 0.9% 13,615,945 64.9%
45 to 49 years 22,831,092 2,727,142 11.9% 168,192 0.7% 1,014,129 4.4% 31,848 0.1% 2,893,985 12.7% 201,421 0.9% 15,794,375 69.2%
50 to 54 years 21,761,391 2,486,851 11.4% 154,901 0.7% 906,047 4.2% 27,130 0.1% 2,273,831 10.4% 185,464 0.9% 15,727,167 72.3%
55 to 59 years 18,975,026 2,028,329 10.7% 129,829 0.7% 778,157 4.1% 22,195 0.1% 1,720,174 9.1% 151,372 0.8% 14,144,970 74.5%
60 to 64 years 15,811,923 1,494,948 9.5% 100,946 0.6% 607,784 3.8% 16,694 0.1% 1,274,195 8.1% 119,608 0.8% 12,197,748 77.1%
65 to 69 years 11,784,320 1,060,591 9.0% 70,261 0.6% 432,194 3.7% 11,789 0.1% 890,817 7.6% 83,346 0.7% 9,235,322 78.4%
70 to 74 years 9,007,747 819,627 9.1% 50,353 0.6% 328,030 3.6% 8,622 0.1% 675,704 7.5% 59,454 0.7% 7,065,957 78.4%
75 to 79 years 7,325,528 627,478 8.6% 35,223 0.5% 243,396 3.3% 5,981 0.1% 508,733 6.9% 44,456 0.6% 5,860,261 80.0%
80 to 84 years 5,822,334 439,402 7.5% 23,312 0.4% 170,054 2.9% 3,873 0.1% 361,632 6.2% 32,348 0.6% 4,791,713 82.3%
85 years and over 5,630,661 350,417 6.2% 20,667 0.4% 152,772 2.7% 3,375 0.1% 324,077 5.8% 31,031 0.6% 4,748,322 84.3%
Median Age 36.8 31.3 29.5 35.3 29.9 27.4 19.7 41.2
Ron crouch is the former director of The Ky. Data Ctr at U of L.
He one of the foremost “futurists” in the USA. He uses demographic data to project trends in population & socioeconomic impacts on the country.
See below articles:
Taxes: Regressive or Progressive, Income Tax or Fair or Flat or VAT?
(1) Coming to a reasoned judgment about tax policy requires clarifying your own values about
fairness, sifting through some subtle conceptual issues, and, perhaps hardest of all,
evaluating the conflicting claims about the economic impact of tax alternatives. (page 305)
Tax Cuts as a Trojan Horse
(2) For many advocates of tax cuts, the real objective is not the tax system but rather the size of
government, and tax cuts are really a tactical weapon in the battle to downsize government.
The idea is to lower taxes and hope that politicians’ (and voters’) fear of deficits and dislike of
tax increases will force expenditures below what they would other be. Because the ultimate
objective is to limit spending initiatives, this is a good idea only if the benefits of the spending
that is cut or forestalled fall short of their cost. So the real issue is not the tax system but the
proper size and scope of government. (page 306)
Source: Taxing Ourselves: A Citizen’s Guide to the Debate over Taxes, Fourth Edition; Joel Slemrod and
Jon Bakija, The MIT Press, 2008
(3) Make no mistake. Estate tax repeal, along with the “fair tax” movement and its cousin the
“flat tax” campaign –both of which would replace the income tax—are key pieces of a three
decade effort to fundamentally restructure our nation’s tax system by eliminating all taxes on
wealth and income from wealth. At the inception of the twenty‐first century, the great battle
over distributive tax justice that culminated early in the twentieth century has been renewed.
(4) And if progressive taxes and progressive tax rates are purged from the tax system, the
amount of taxes the government can raise becomes limited. Low and moderate income
people simply cannot afford to pay enough in taxes to finance the government’s current
expenditures, whether the dollars go to homeland security, national defense, social Security,
Medicare, Medicaid or elsewhere. Of course, advocates of proposals like the “fair tax”
understand that eliminating the progressive elements of our nation’s tax system would be a
highly effective way to “starve the beast” of the federal government. For antitax activists
such as Grover Norquist, that is indeed the goal. Remember how fond he is of saying, “I
don’t want to kill the government, I just want to get it down to a size where I can drown it in
a bathtub”. (pages 277‐278)
(5) Make no mistake, the antitax forces are working tirelessly to dismantle America’s system of
progressive taxation. They are patient. They are serious. They are determined. They know
that what they want cannot be accomplished at a fell swoop. Hence their strategy: death by
a thousand cuts. What strategy is there on the other side? (page 282)
Source: Death by a Thousand Cuts: The Fight over Taxing Inherited Wealth; Michael J. Graetz and Ian
Shapiro, Princeton University Press, 2005.
1
(6) At a party given by a billionaire on Shelter Island, Kurt Vonnegut informs his pal, Joseph
Heller, that their host, a hedge fund manager, had made more money in a single day than
Heller had earned from his wildly popular novel Catch‐22 over its whole history. Heller
responds, “Yes, but I have something he will never have…enough.” (Page 1)
(7) But the rampant greed that threatens to overwhelm our financial system and corporate
world runs deeper than money. Not knowing what enough is subverts our professional
values. It makes salespersons of those who should be fiduciaries of the investments
entrusted to them. (page 2)
Enough: True Measures of Money, Business, and Life; John C. Bogle, John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
(8) The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most
alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary fund, is that the
finance industry has effectively captured our government…Recovery will fail unless we break
the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. (page 1)
(9) But these various policies‐lightweight regulation, cheap money, the unwritten Chinese‐
American economic alliance, the promotion of homeownership‐had something in common.
Even though some are traditionally associated with Democrats and some with Republicans,
they all benefited the financial sector. (page 4)
(10) But the first age of banking oligarchs came to an end with the passage of significant banking
regulation in response to the Great Depression; the reemergence of an American financial
oligarchy is quite recent. (page 5)
The Quiet Coup; Simon Johnson, The Atlantic, May, 2009.
2
Line Total
Percent of
Total
Total
Percent of
Total
Total
Percent of
Total
Total
Percent of
Total
10 Personal current transfer receipts ($000) 4,454,362 100.00% 8,967,126 100.00% 16,848,970 100.00% 28,962,136 100.00%
20 Current transfer receipts of individuals from governments 4,219,484 94.73% 8,535,472 95.19% 16,058,069 95.31% 28,243,102 97.52%
30 Retirement and disability insurance benefits 2,165,211 48.61% 4,121,897 45.97% 6,690,289 39.71% 10,201,671 35.22%
40 Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance (OASDI) benefits 1,804,501 40.51% 3,657,844 40.79% 6,207,781 36.84% 9,694,985 33.47%
50 Railroad retirement and disability benefits 110,096 2.47% 169,512 1.89% 211,504 1.26% 277,388 0.96%
90 Workers’ compensation 50,412 1.13% 127,777 1.42% 147,018 0.87% 139,209 0.48%
100 Other government retirement and disability insurance benefits 1/ 200,202 4.49% 166,764 1.86% 123,986 0.74% 90,089 0.31%
110 Medical benefits 767,132 17.22% 2,674,791 29.83% 6,538,057 38.80% 11,985,239 41.38%
111 Medicare benefits 443,340 9.95% 1,542,741 17.20% 3,164,133 18.78% 7,005,440 24.19%
113 Public assistance medical care benefits 2/ 314,076 7.05% 1,076,484 12.00% 3,308,846 19.64% 4,876,613 16.84%
114 Military medical insurance benefits 3/ 9,716 0.22% 55,566 0.62% 65,078 0.39% 103,186 0.36%
120 Income maintenance benefits 594,345 13.34% 1,022,089 11.40% 1,757,147 10.43% 3,072,813 10.61%
130 Supplemental security income (SSI) benefits 163,159 3.66% 349,721 3.90% 758,445 4.50% 1,020,388 3.52%
140 Family assistance 4/ 139,494 3.13% 183,559 2.05% 136,816 0.81% 156,177 0.54%
150 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 222,316 4.99% 345,399 3.85% 329,227 1.95% 764,693 2.64%
160 Other income maintenance benefits 5/ 69,376 1.56% 143,410 1.60% 532,659 3.16% 1,131,555 3.91%
170 Unemployment insurance compensation 340,514 7.64% 212,900 2.37% 293,733 1.74% 716,440 2.47%
180 State unemployment insurance compensation 292,242 6.56% 200,008 2.23% 276,396 1.64% 668,604 2.31%
190 Unemployment compensation for Fed. civilian employees (UCFE) 5,009 0.11% 4,805 0.05% 4,458 0.03% 5,736 0.02%
200 Unemployment compensation for railroad employees 6,250 0.14% 3,415 0.04% 1,678 0.01% 2,085 0.01%
210 Unemployment compensation for veterans (UCX) 7,497 0.17% 3,269 0.04% 4,715 0.03% 13,125 0.05%
220 Other unemployment compensation 6/ 29,516 0.66% 1,403 0.02% 6,486 0.04% 26,890 0.09%
230 Veterans benefits 267,695 6.01% 319,206 3.56% 425,710 2.53% 802,378 2.77%
240 Veterans pension and disability benefits 218,726 4.91% 293,524 3.27% 388,831 2.31% 750,281 2.59%
250 Veterans readjustment benefits 7/ 32,633 0.73% 4,576 0.05% 20,214 0.12% 37,465 0.13%
260 Veterans life insurance benefits 16,251 0.36% 20,983 0.23% 16,665 0.10% 14,632 0.05%
270 Other assistance to veterans 8/ 85 0.00% 123 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
280 Education and training assistance 9/ 83,929 1.88% 182,816 2.04% 346,434 2.06% 991,075 3.42%
290 Other transfer receipts of individuals from governments 10/ 658 0.01% 1,773 0.02% 6,699 0.04% 473,486 1.63%
300 Current transfer receipts of nonprofit institutions 133,882 3.01% 173,573 1.94% 335,317 1.99% 441,529 1.52%
310 Receipts from the Federal government 52,181 1.17% 58,731 0.65% 104,650 0.62% 160,358 0.55%
320 Receipts from state and local governments 43,709 0.98% 44,525 0.50% 77,764 0.46% 100,289 0.35%
330 Receipts from businesses 37,992 0.85% 70,317 0.78% 152,903 0.91% 180,882 0.62%
340 Current transfer receipts of individuals from businesses 11/ 100,996 2.27% 258,081 2.88% 455,584 2.70% 277,505 0.96%
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis
Personal Current Transfer Receipts: Kentucky
1980 1990 2000 2008
(thousands of dollars)
3
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis
Personal Current Transfer Receipts in Constant (2009) Dollars:
Kentucky
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
1980 1990 2000 2008
Retirement and disability Medical benefits
Family assistance 4/ Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Unemployment insurance compensation
4
Average U.S. After-Tax Household Income by Quintile and Percentile (2006 Dollars)
1979 – 2006
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
Top1%
Top25%
Top210%
600,000
Top220%
HighestQuintile
FourthQuintile
MiddleQuintile
400,000
SecondQuintile
LowestQuintile
200,000
0
Source: Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2006, Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/taxdistribution.cfm)
5
1980 -$600 -4.0% -$1,100 -3.7% -$1,500 -3.5% -$1,800 -3.2% -$2,900 -2.9% -$2,668 -3.1% -$1,500 -3.1% -$3,200 -2.6% -$2,744 -2.7% -$5,400 -3.3% -$4,925 -4.0% -$7,300 -2.2%
Top 2-20% Top 2-10%
1979 – 2006
Annual Dollar and Percentage Change in Average U.S. After-Tax Household Income by Quintile and Percentile (2006 Dollars)
Lowest Quintile Second Quintile Middle Quintile Fourth Quintile Highest Quintile All Quintiles Top 10% Top 5% Top 2-5% Top 1%
1981 -$400 -2.8% -$600 -2.1% -$800 -1.9% -$200 -0.4% -$300 -0.3% -$926 -1.1% -$300 -0.6% -$200 -0.2% -$1,511 -1.5% $300 0.2% -$2,525 -2.2% $11,600 3.5%
1982 -$400 -2.9% -$400 -1.4% -$200 -0.5% $300 0.6% $3,300 3.4% $1,553 1.9% $800 1.7% $6,100 5.0% $2,722 2.8% $11,400 7.1% $5,125 4.5% $36,500 10.7%
1983 -$600 -4.4% -$1,000 -3.6% -$500 -1.2% $0 0.0% $4,100 4.1% $2,463 2.9% $500 1.1% $7,000 5.5% $3,867 3.9% $10,100 5.9% $3,825 3.2% $35,200 9.3%
1984 $300 2.3% $1,300 4.8% $1,400 3.5% $2,100 3.9% $6,600 6.4% $4,916 5.7% $1,800 3.8% $10,300 7.6% $7,156 6.9% $16,200 8.9% $10,600 8.6% $38,600 9.3%
1985 $100 0.8% $0 0.0% $700 1.7% $500 0.9% $3,300 3.0% $1,279 1.4% $1,300 2.6% $5,800 4.0% $1,811 1.6% $9,900 5.0% $1,950 1.5% $41,700 9.2%
1986 $100 0.8% $800 2.8% $1,000 2.4% $2,100 3.7% $14,900 13.2% $7,153 7.7% $3,700 7.3% $24,800 16.4% $9,544 8.4% $44,900 21.6% $15,600 11.5% $162,100 32.9%
1987 -$100 -0.7% -$900 -3.1% -$100 -0.2% $300 0.5% -$10,700 -8.4% -$2,516 -2.5% -$2,400 -4.4% -$20,100 -11.4% -$3,867 -3.2% -$40,100 -15.9% -$8,575 -5.7% -$166,200 -25.4%
1988 $300 2.3% $500 1.8% $500 1.2% $400 0.7% $9,300 7.9% $2,395 2.5% $2,200 4.2% $16,500 10.6% $2,722 2.3% $31,300 14.8% $4,000 2.8% $140,500 28.7%
1989 $500 3.7% $600 2.1% $500 1.2% $800 1.3% -$100 -0.1% $1,837 1.8% $700 1.3% -$800 -0.5% $3,211 2.6% -$4,000 -1.6% $4,225 2.9% -$36,900 -5.9%
1990 $300 2.1% $500 1.7% -$100 -0.2% -$900 -1.5% -$3,500 -2.8% -$2,468 -2.4% -$700 -1.3% -$5,800 -3.4% -$3,878 -3.1% -$9,200 -3.8% -$5,725 -3.8% -$23,100 -3.9%
1991 $0 0.0% -$300 -1.0% -$600 -1.4% -$500 -0.8% -$4,700 -3.8% -$1,574 -1.6% -$1,300 -2.4% -$8,400 -5.1% -$2,211 -1.8% -$15,900 -6.9% -$3,850 -2.6% -$64,100 -11.2%
1992 -$200 -1.4% $0 0.0% $400 0.9% $800 1.4% $4,900 4.1% $1,900 1.9% $1,400 2.7% $8,500 5.4% $2,567 2.2% $16,600 7.7% $5,275 3.7% $61,900 12.2%
1993 $300 2.1% $300 1.0% $300 0.7% $400 0.7% -$1,900 -1.5% $779 0.8% -$200 -0.4% -$5,100 -3.1% $200 0.2% -$12,100 -5.2% -$1,925 -1.3% -$52,800 -9.3%
1994 $200 1.4% $300 1.0% $300 0.7% $1,000 1.7% $1,400 1.2% $1,184 1.2% $500 0.9% $2,600 1.6% $2,278 1.9% $4,300 2.0% $4,000 2.8% $5,500 1.1%
1995 $800 5.4% $1,400 4.7% $1,300 2.9% $800 1.3% $5,000 4.1% $2,637 2.6% $1,900 3.5% $7,200 4.4% $2,456 2.0% $14,600 6.5% $5,775 3.9% $49,900 9.6%
1996 -$200 -1.3% -$100 -0.3% $500 1.1% $1,200 1.9% $6,000 4.7% $3,158 3.0% $1,700 3.0% $11,100 6.5% $5,667 4.5% $16,300 6.9% $5,375 3.5% $60,000 10.5%
1997 $400 2.6% $500 1.6% $700 1.5% $1,100 1.7% $8,100 6.1% $3,021 2.8% $2,200 3.8% $14,500 8.0% $4,489 3.4% $27,600 10.9% $8,350 5.2% $104,600 16.6%
1998 $700 4.5% $1,700 5.3% $1,500 3.2% $2,600 4.0% $9,400 6.6% $4,132 3.7% $3,200 5.3% $16,100 8.2% $5,722 4.2% $29,100 10.3% $9,000 5.3% $109,500 14.9%
1999 $500 3.0% $700 2.1% $1,000 2.1% $1,600 2.4% $8,100 5.4% $4,658 4.1% $2,400 3.8% $12,400 5.8% $5,611 4.0% $18,800 6.0% $5,125 2.9% $73,500 8.7%
2000 -$900 -5.3% -$400 -1.2% -$200 -0.4% $600 0.9% $6,400 4.0% $1,879 1.6% $1,000 1.5% $11,400 5.1% $2,411 1.6% $21,100 6.4% $3,300 1.8% $92,300 10.1%
2001 $100 0.6% $800 2.4% $1,500 3.1% $400 0.6% -$13,100 -7.9% -$2,821 -2.3% -$2,400 -3.6% -$25,100 -10.6% -$4,733 -3.2% -$48,100 -13.7% -$8,025 -4.3% -$208,400 -20.6%
2002 -$400 -2.5% -$800 -2.3% -$900 -1.8% -$1,000 -1.4% -$6,200 -4.1% -$1,716 -1.4% -$2,200 -3.4% -$11,900 -5.6% -$3,067 -2.1% -$23,800 -7.9% -$6,900 -3.9% -$91,400 -11.4%
2003 -$200 -1.3% $100 0.3% $300 0.6% $1,300 1.9% $7,000 4.8% $4,168 3.6% $1,600 2.6% $11,600 5.8% $6,133 4.3% $20,300 7.3% $10,175 6.0% $60,800 8.6%
2004 $100 0.6% $600 1.8% $1,600 3.2% $2,200 3.1% $12,300 8.0% $5,068 4.2% $3,300 5.2% $21,300 10.1% $7,033 4.7% $37,700 12.6% $9,700 5.4% $149,700 19.4%
2005 $300 1.9% $400 1.2% $300 0.6% $600 0.8% $12,500 7.5% $3,484 2.8% $2,800 4.2% $23,000 9.9% $5,133 3.3% $45,600 13.5% $11,050 5.8% $183,800 20.0%
2006 $600 3.8% $400 1.1% $300 0.6% $1,000 1.4% $6,300 3.5% $1,595 1.2% $2,000 2.9% $10,700 4.2% $1,256 0.8% $18,000 4.7% -$1,425 -0.7% $95,700 8.7%
1979-2006 $1,600 10.7% $5,300 17.6% $9,200 21.4% $17,700 31.6% $85,500 86.5% $44,568 51.6% $24,000 50.1% $140,300 112.1% $59,978 59.0% $235,500 142.8% $78,575 64.5% $863,200 256.1%
1980-1989 -$200 -1.4% $300 1.0% $2,500 6.0% $6,300 11.6% $30,400 31.7% $18,153 21.7% $8,300 17.9% $49,400 40.5% $25,656 25.9% $80,000 50.2% $34,225 29.3% $263,100 79.8%
1990-1999 $2,500 17.4% $4,500 15.1% $5,400 12.3% $9,000 15.1% $36,300 29.5% $19,895 20.0% $11,800 21.9% $58,900 35.6% $26,778 22.2% $99,300 43.1% $37,125 25.5% $348,000 61.1%
2000-2006 $500 3.1% $1,500 4.4% $3,100 6.3% $4,500 6.5% $18,800 11.4% $9,779 8.1% $5,100 7.6% $29,600 12.5% $11,756 7.8% $49,700 14.2% $14,575 7.8% $190,200 18.8%
1980-1983 -$1,400 -9.8% -$2,000 -6.9% -$1,500 -3.6% $100 0.2% $7,100 7.4% $3,089 3.7% $1,000 2.2% $12,900 10.6% $5,078 5.1% $21,800 13.7% $6,425 5.5% $83,300 25.3%
1984-1987 $100 0.8% -$100 -0.4% $1,600 3.9% $2,900 5.1% $7,500 6.8% $5,916 6.5% $2,600 5.3% $10,500 7.2% $7,489 6.7% $14,700 7.4% $8,975 6.7% $37,600 8.3%
1988-1991 $800 5.9% $800 2.8% -$200 -0.5% -$600 -1.0% -$8,300 -6.6% -$2,205 -2.2% -$1,300 -2.4% -$15,000 -8.7% -$2,878 -2.4% -$29,100 -12.0% -$5,350 -3.6% -$124,100 -19.7%
1992-1995 $1,300 9.2% $2,000 6.8% $1,900 4.4% $2,200 3.7% $4,500 3.7% $4,600 4.6% $2,200 4.1% $4,700 2.8% $4,933 4.1% $6,800 2.9% $7,850 5.3% $2,600 0.5%
1996-1999 $1,600 10.5% $2,900 9.2% $3,200 7.0% $5,300 8.4% $25,600 19.2% $11,811 11.0% $7,800 13.4% $43,000 23.7% $15,822 12.0% $75,500 29.7% $22,475 14.0% $287,600 45.6%
2000-2003 -$500 -3.1% $100 0.3% $900 1.8% $700 1.0% -$12,300 -7.4% -$368 -0.3% -$3,000 -4.5% -$25,400 -10.8% -$1,667 -1.1% -$51,600 -14.7% -$4,750 -2.6% -$239,000 -23.7%
2004-2006 $900 5.8% $800 2.3% $600 1.2% $1,600 2.2% $18,800 11.4% $5,079 4.0% $4,800 7.2% $33,700 14.5% $6,389 4.1% $63,600 18.9% $9,625 5.0% $279,500 30.4%
6
3-May-10
Receipts by Source as Percentages of Gross Domestic Product: 1934-2015
Social Insurance and Retirement Receipts Total Receipts
Total (On-Budget) (Off-Budget) Total (On-Budget) (Off-Budget)
1934 0.7 0.6 * * — 2.2 1.3 4.8 4.8 –
1935 0.8 0.8 * * — 2.1 1.6 5.2 5.2 –
1936 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.1 — 2.1 1.1 5.0 5.0 –
1937 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.4 0.3 2.1 0.9 6.1 5.8 0.3
1938 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.3 0.4 2.1 0.9 7.6 7.2 0.4
1939 1.2 1.3 1.8 1.2 0.6 2.1 0.8 7.1 6.5 0.6
1940 0.9 1.2 1.8 1.3 0.6 2.0 0.7 6.8 6.2 0.6
1941 1.2 1.9 1.7 1.1 0.6 2.2 0.7 7.6 7.0 0.6
1942 2.3 3.3 1.7 1.1 0.6 2.4 0.6 10.1 9.5 0.6
1943 3.6 5.3 1.7 1.1 0.6 2.3 0.4 13.3 12.7 0.6
1944 9.4 7.1 1.7 1.0 0.6 2.3 0.5 20.9 20.3 0.6
1945 8.3 7.2 1.6 1.0 0.6 2.8 0.5 20.4 19.8 0.6
1946 7.2 5.3 1.4 0.8 0.6 3.1 0.5 17.7 17.1 0.6
1947 7.7 3.7 1.5 0.8 0.6 3.1 0.6 16.5 15.9 0.6
1948 7.5 3.8 1.5 0.8 0.6 2.9 0.6 16.2 15.6 0.6
1949 5.7 4.1 1.4 0.8 0.6 2.8 0.5 14.5 13.9 0.6
1950 5.8 3.8 1.6 0.8 0.8 2.8 0.5 14.4 13.7 0.8
1951 6.8 4.4 1.8 0.8 1.0 2.7 0.5 16.1 15.1 1.0
1952 8.0 6.1 1.8 0.8 1.0 2.5 0.5 19.0 17.9 1.0
1953 8.0 5.7 1.8 0.7 1.1 2.7 0.5 18.7 17.6 1.1
1954 7.8 5.6 1.9 0.7 1.2 2.6 0.5 18.5 17.3 1.2
1955 7.3 4.5 2.0 0.7 1.3 2.3 0.5 16.5 15.2 1.3
1956 7.5 4.9 2.2 0.7 1.5 2.3 0.5 17.5 16.0 1.5
1957 7.9 4.7 2.2 0.7 1.5 2.3 0.6 17.7 16.2 1.5
1958 7.5 4.4 2.4 0.7 1.7 2.3 0.6 17.3 15.6 1.7
1959 7.5 3.5 2.4 0.7 1.7 2.2 0.6 16.2 14.5 1.7
1960 7.8 4.1 2.8 0.8 2.1 2.3 0.8 17.8 15.8 2.1
1961 7.8 4.0 3.1 0.8 2.3 2.2 0.7 17.8 15.5 2.3
1962 8.0 3.6 3.0 0.8 2.2 2.2 0.7 17.6 15.4 2.2
1963 7.9 3.6 3.3 0.9 2.4 2.2 0.7 17.8 15.4 2.4
1964 7.6 3.7 3.4 0.9 2.6 2.1 0.7 17.6 15.0 2.6
1965 7.1 3.7 3.2 0.8 2.4 2.1 0.8 17.0 14.6 2.4
1966 7.3 4.0 3.4 0.9 2.5 1.7 0.9 17.3 14.8 2.5
1967 7.6 4.2 4.0 1.0 3.0 1.7 0.9 18.4 15.4 3.0
1968 7.9 3.3 3.9 1.0 2.9 1.6 0.9 17.6 14.7 2.9
1969 9.2 3.9 4.1 1.1 3.1 1.6 0.9 19.7 16.7 3.1
1970 8.9 3.2 4.4 1.1 3.3 1.6 0.9 19.0 15.7 3.3
1971 8.0 2.5 4.4 1.1 3.3 1.5 0.9 17.3 14.0 3.3
1972 8.1 2.7 4.5 1.1 3.4 1.3 1.1 17.6 14.2 3.4
1973 7.9 2.8 4.8 1.3 3.5 1.2 0.9 17.6 14.1 3.5
1974 8.3 2.7 5.2 1.5 3.7 1.2 1.0 18.3 14.5 3.7
1975 7.8 2.6 5.4 1.4 4.0 1.1 1.0 17.9 13.9 4.0
1976 7.6 2.4 5.2 1.4 3.8 1.0 1.0 17.1 13.3 3.8
TQ 8.4 1.8 5.5 1.6 3.9 1.0 0.9 17.7 13.8 3.9
1977 8.0 2.8 5.4 1.5 3.9 0.9 1.0 18.0 14.1 3.9
1978 8.2 2.7 5.5 1.6 3.9 0.8 0.9 18.0 14.2 3.9
1979 8.7 2.6 5.6 1.6 3.9 0.7 0.9 18.5 14.6 3.9
1980 9.0 2.4 5.8 1.6 4.2 0.9 1.0 19.0 14.8 4.2
1981 9.4 2.0 6.0 1.7 4.3 1.3 0.9 19.6 15.3 4.3
1982 9.2 1.5 6.3 1.8 4.5 1.1 1.0 19.2 14.7 4.5
1983 8.4 1.1 6.1 1.8 4.3 1.0 0.9 17.5 13.2 4.3
1984 7.8 1.5 6.2 1.9 4.3 1.0 0.9 17.3 13.0 4.3
1985 8.1 1.5 6.4 1.9 4.5 0.9 0.9 17.7 13.2 4.5
1986 7.9 1.4 6.4 1.9 4.5 0.7 0.9 17.5 12.9 4.5
1987 8.4 1.8 6.5 1.9 4.6 0.7 0.9 18.4 13.8 4.6
1988 8.0 1.9 6.7 1.9 4.8 0.7 0.9 18.2 13.3 4.8
1989 8.3 1.9 6.7 1.8 4.9 0.6 0.9 18.4 13.5 4.9
Footnotes at end of table. Page 1 of 2
Fiscal Year Individual
Income Taxes
Corporation
Income Taxes Excise Taxes Other
7
Receipts by Source as Percentages of Gross Domestic Product: 1934-2015–continued
Social Insurance and Retirement Receipts Total Receipts
Total (On-Budget) (Off-Budget) Total (On-Budget) (Off-Budget)
1990 8.1 1.6 6.6 1.7 4.9 0.6 1.0 18.0 13.1 4.9
1991 7.9 1.7 6.7 1.7 5.0 0.7 0.9 17.8 12.8 5.0
1992 7.6 1.6 6.6 1.8 4.8 0.7 0.9 17.5 12.6 4.8
1993 7.7 1.8 6.5 1.8 4.7 0.7 0.8 17.5 12.8 4.7
1994 7.8 2.0 6.6 1.8 4.8 0.8 0.8 18.0 13.2 4.8
1995 8.0 2.1 6.6 1.8 4.8 0.8 0.9 18.4 13.6 4.8
1996 8.5 2.2 6.6 1.8 4.8 0.7 0.8 18.8 14.1 4.8
1997 9.0 2.2 6.6 1.8 4.8 0.7 0.8 19.2 14.5 4.8
1998 9.6 2.2 6.6 1.8 4.8 0.7 0.9 19.9 15.1 4.8
1999 9.6 2.0 6.6 1.8 4.8 0.8 0.9 19.8 15.0 4.8
2000 10.2 2.1 6.6 1.8 4.9 0.7 0.9 20.6 15.7 4.9
2001 9.7 1.5 6.8 1.8 5.0 0.6 0.8 19.5 14.5 5.0
2002 8.1 1.4 6.6 1.8 4.9 0.6 0.7 17.6 12.7 4.9
2003 7.2 1.2 6.5 1.7 4.8 0.6 0.7 16.2 11.5 4.8
2004 6.9 1.6 6.3 1.7 4.6 0.6 0.7 16.1 11.5 4.6
2005 7.5 2.2 6.4 1.7 4.6 0.6 0.7 17.3 12.7 4.6
2006 7.9 2.7 6.3 1.7 4.6 0.6 0.7 18.2 13.6 4.6
2007 8.4 2.7 6.3 1.7 4.6 0.5 0.7 18.5 13.9 4.6
2008 7.9 2.1 6.2 1.7 4.6 0.5 0.7 17.5 12.9 4.6
2009 6.4 1.0 6.3 1.7 4.6 0.4 0.7 14.8 10.2 4.6
ESTIMATES
2010 6.4 1.1 6.0 1.6 4.3 0.5 0.8 14.8 10.5 4.3
2011 7.3 1.9 6.1 1.7 4.4 0.5 0.9 16.8 12.4 4.4
2012 8.2 2.3 6.2 1.8 4.4 0.5 0.9 18.1 13.6 4.4
2013 8.5 2.3 6.2 1.8 4.5 0.5 1.0 18.6 14.1 4.5
2014 8.8 2.4 6.2 1.8 4.4 0.5 1.0 19.0 14.5 4.4
2015 9.0 2.1 6.2 1.8 4.5 0.5 1.1 18.9 14.5 4.5
* 0.05 percent
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the US Government FY 2011, Historical Tables, Table 2.3
Available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/sheets/hist02z3.xls (last accessed May 3, 2010).
Fiscal Year Individual Other
Income Taxes
Corporation
Income Taxes Excise Taxes
8
THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011, HISTORICAL TABLES 21
Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (–): 1789–2015
(in millions of dollars)
Year
Total On-Budget Off-Budget
Receipts Outlays Surplus or
Deficit (–) Receipts Outlays Surplus or
Deficit (–) Receipts Outlays Surplus or
Deficit (–)
1789–1849 …………………………………………………………… 1,160 1,090 70 1,160 1,090 70 ……………… ……………… ………………
1850–1900 …………………………………………………………… 14,462 15,453 –991 14,462 15,453 –991 ……………… ……………… ………………
1901 ……………………………………………………………………. 588 525 63 588 525 63 ……………… ……………… ………………
1902 ……………………………………………………………………. 562 485 77 562 485 77 ……………… ……………… ………………
1903 ……………………………………………………………………. 562 517 45 562 517 45 ……………… ……………… ………………
1904 ……………………………………………………………………. 541 584 –43 541 584 –43 ……………… ……………… ………………
1905 ……………………………………………………………………. 544 567 –23 544 567 –23 ……………… ……………… ………………
1906 ……………………………………………………………………. 595 570 25 595 570 25 ……………… ……………… ………………
1907 ……………………………………………………………………. 666 579 87 666 579 87 ……………… ……………… ………………
1908 ……………………………………………………………………. 602 659 –57 602 659 –57 ……………… ……………… ………………
1909 ……………………………………………………………………. 604 694 –89 604 694 –89 ……………… ……………… ………………
1910 ……………………………………………………………………. 676 694 –18 676 694 –18 ……………… ……………… ………………
1911 ……………………………………………………………………. 702 691 11 702 691 11 ……………… ……………… ………………
1912 ……………………………………………………………………. 693 690 3 693 690 3 ……………… ……………… ………………
1913 ……………………………………………………………………. 714 715 –* 714 715 –* ……………… ……………… ………………
1914 ……………………………………………………………………. 725 726 –* 725 726 –* ……………… ……………… ………………
1915 ……………………………………………………………………. 683 746 –63 683 746 –63 ……………… ……………… ………………
1916 ……………………………………………………………………. 761 713 48 761 713 48 ……………… ……………… ………………
1917 ……………………………………………………………………. 1,101 1,954 –853 1,101 1,954 –853 ……………… ……………… ………………
1918 ……………………………………………………………………. 3,645 12,677 –9,032 3,645 12,677 –9,032 ……………… ……………… ………………
1919 ……………………………………………………………………. 5,130 18,493 –13,363 5,130 18,493 –13,363 ……………… ……………… ………………
1920 ……………………………………………………………………. 6,649 6,358 291 6,649 6,358 291 ……………… ……………… ………………
1921 ……………………………………………………………………. 5,571 5,062 509 5,571 5,062 509 ……………… ……………… ………………
1922 ……………………………………………………………………. 4,026 3,289 736 4,026 3,289 736 ……………… ……………… ………………
1923 ……………………………………………………………………. 3,853 3,140 713 3,853 3,140 713 ……………… ……………… ………………
1924 ……………………………………………………………………. 3,871 2,908 963 3,871 2,908 963 ……………… ……………… ………………
1925 ……………………………………………………………………. 3,641 2,924 717 3,641 2,924 717 ……………… ……………… ………………
1926 ……………………………………………………………………. 3,795 2,930 865 3,795 2,930 865 ……………… ……………… ………………
1927 ……………………………………………………………………. 4,013 2,857 1,155 4,013 2,857 1,155 ……………… ……………… ………………
1928 ……………………………………………………………………. 3,900 2,961 939 3,900 2,961 939 ……………… ……………… ………………
1929 ……………………………………………………………………. 3,862 3,127 734 3,862 3,127 734 ……………… ……………… ………………
1930 ……………………………………………………………………. 4,058 3,320 738 4,058 3,320 738 ……………… ……………… ………………
1931 ……………………………………………………………………. 3,116 3,577 –462 3,116 3,577 –462 ……………… ……………… ………………
1932 ……………………………………………………………………. 1,924 4,659 –2,735 1,924 4,659 –2,735 ……………… ……………… ………………
1933 ……………………………………………………………………. 1,997 4,598 –2,602 1,997 4,598 –2,602 ……………… ……………… ………………
1934 ……………………………………………………………………. 2,955 6,541 –3,586 2,955 6,541 –3,586 ……………… ……………… ………………
1935 ……………………………………………………………………. 3,609 6,412 –2,803 3,609 6,412 –2,803 ……………… ……………… ………………
1936 ……………………………………………………………………. 3,923 8,228 –4,304 3,923 8,228 –4,304 ……………… ……………… ………………
1937 ……………………………………………………………………. 5,387 7,580 –2,193 5,122 7,582 –2,460 265 –2 267
1938 ……………………………………………………………………. 6,751 6,840 –89 6,364 6,850 –486 387 –10 397
1939 ……………………………………………………………………. 6,295 9,141 –2,846 5,792 9,154 –3,362 503 –13 516
1940 ……………………………………………………………………. 6,548 9,468 –2,920 5,998 9,482 –3,484 550 –14 564
1941 ……………………………………………………………………. 8,712 13,653 –4,941 8,024 13,618 –5,594 688 35 653
1942 ……………………………………………………………………. 14,634 35,137 –20,503 13,738 35,071 –21,333 896 66 830
1943 ……………………………………………………………………. 24,001 78,555 –54,554 22,871 78,466 –55,595 1,130 89 1,041
1944 ……………………………………………………………………. 43,747 91,304 –47,557 42,455 91,190 –48,735 1,292 114 1,178
1945 ……………………………………………………………………. 45,159 92,712 –47,553 43,849 92,569 –48,720 1,310 143 1,167
1946 ……………………………………………………………………. 39,296 55,232 –15,936 38,057 55,022 –16,964 1,238 210 1,028
1947 ……………………………………………………………………. 38,514 34,496 4,018 37,055 34,193 2,861 1,459 303 1,157
1948 ……………………………………………………………………. 41,560 29,764 11,796 39,944 29,396 10,548 1,616 368 1,248
1949 ……………………………………………………………………. 39,415 38,835 580 37,724 38,408 –684 1,690 427 1,263
1950 ……………………………………………………………………. 39,443 42,562 –3,119 37,336 42,038 –4,702 2,106 524 1,583
1951 ……………………………………………………………………. 51,616 45,514 6,102 48,496 44,237 4,259 3,120 1,277 1,843
1952 ……………………………………………………………………. 66,167 67,686 –1,519 62,573 65,956 –3,383 3,594 1,730 1,864
1953 ……………………………………………………………………. 69,608 76,101 –6,493 65,511 73,771 –8,259 4,097 2,330 1,766
1954 ……………………………………………………………………. 69,701 70,855 –1,154 65,112 67,943 –2,831 4,589 2,912 1,677
See footnote at end of table.
9
22 THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011, HISTORICAL TABLES
Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (–): 1789–2015—Continued
(in millions of dollars)
Year
Total On-Budget Off-Budget
Receipts Outlays Surplus or
Deficit (–) Receipts Outlays Surplus or
Deficit (–) Receipts Outlays Surplus or
Deficit (–)
1955 ……………………………………………………………………. 65,451 68,444 –2,993 60,370 64,461 –4,091 5,081 3,983 1,098
1956 ……………………………………………………………………. 74,587 70,640 3,947 68,162 65,668 2,494 6,425 4,972 1,452
1957 ……………………………………………………………………. 79,990 76,578 3,412 73,201 70,562 2,639 6,789 6,016 773
1958 ……………………………………………………………………. 79,636 82,405 –2,769 71,587 74,902 –3,315 8,049 7,503 546
1959 ……………………………………………………………………. 79,249 92,098 –12,849 70,953 83,102 –12,149 8,296 8,996 –700
1960 ……………………………………………………………………. 92,492 92,191 301 81,851 81,341 510 10,641 10,850 –209
1961 ……………………………………………………………………. 94,388 97,723 –3,335 82,279 86,046 –3,766 12,109 11,677 431
1962 ……………………………………………………………………. 99,676 106,821 –7,146 87,405 93,286 –5,881 12,271 13,535 –1,265
1963 ……………………………………………………………………. 106,560 111,316 –4,756 92,385 96,352 –3,966 14,175 14,964 –789
1964 ……………………………………………………………………. 112,613 118,528 –5,915 96,248 102,794 –6,546 16,366 15,734 632
1965 ……………………………………………………………………. 116,817 118,228 –1,411 100,094 101,699 –1,605 16,723 16,529 194
1966 ……………………………………………………………………. 130,835 134,532 –3,698 111,749 114,817 –3,068 19,085 19,715 –630
1967 ……………………………………………………………………. 148,822 157,464 –8,643 124,420 137,040 –12,620 24,401 20,424 3,978
1968 ……………………………………………………………………. 152,973 178,134 –25,161 128,056 155,798 –27,742 24,917 22,336 2,581
1969 ……………………………………………………………………. 186,882 183,640 3,242 157,928 158,436 –507 28,953 25,204 3,749
1970 ……………………………………………………………………. 192,807 195,649 –2,842 159,348 168,042 –8,694 33,459 27,607 5,852
1971 ……………………………………………………………………. 187,139 210,172 –23,033 151,294 177,346 –26,052 35,845 32,826 3,019
1972 ……………………………………………………………………. 207,309 230,681 –23,373 167,402 193,470 –26,068 39,907 37,212 2,695
1973 ……………………………………………………………………. 230,799 245,707 –14,908 184,715 199,961 –15,246 46,084 45,746 338
1974 ……………………………………………………………………. 263,224 269,359 –6,135 209,299 216,496 –7,198 53,925 52,862 1,063
1975 ……………………………………………………………………. 279,090 332,332 –53,242 216,633 270,780 –54,148 62,458 61,552 906
1976 ……………………………………………………………………. 298,060 371,792 –73,732 231,671 301,098 –69,427 66,389 70,695 –4,306
TQ ………………………………………………………………………. 81,232 95,975 –14,744 63,216 77,281 –14,065 18,016 18,695 –679
1977 ……………………………………………………………………. 355,559 409,218 –53,659 278,741 328,675 –49,933 76,817 80,543 –3,726
1978 ……………………………………………………………………. 399,561 458,746 –59,185 314,169 369,585 –55,416 85,391 89,161 –3,770
1979 ……………………………………………………………………. 463,302 504,028 –40,726 365,309 404,941 –39,633 97,994 99,087 –1,093
1980 ……………………………………………………………………. 517,112 590,941 –73,830 403,903 477,044 –73,141 113,209 113,898 –689
1981 ……………………………………………………………………. 599,272 678,241 –78,968 469,097 542,956 –73,859 130,176 135,285 –5,109
1982 ……………………………………………………………………. 617,766 745,743 –127,977 474,299 594,892 –120,593 143,467 150,851 –7,384
1983 ……………………………………………………………………. 600,562 808,364 –207,802 453,242 660,934 –207,692 147,320 147,430 –110
1984 ……………………………………………………………………. 666,438 851,805 –185,367 500,363 685,632 –185,269 166,075 166,174 –98
1985 ……………………………………………………………………. 734,037 946,344 –212,308 547,866 769,396 –221,529 186,171 176,949 9,222
1986 ……………………………………………………………………. 769,155 990,382 –221,227 568,927 806,842 –237,915 200,228 183,540 16,688
1987 ……………………………………………………………………. 854,288 1,004,017 –149,730 640,886 809,243 –168,357 213,402 194,775 18,627
1988 ……………………………………………………………………. 909,238 1,064,416 –155,178 667,747 860,012 –192,265 241,491 204,404 37,087
1989 ……………………………………………………………………. 991,105 1,143,744 –152,639 727,439 932,832 –205,393 263,666 210,911 52,754
1990 ……………………………………………………………………. 1,031,972 1,253,007 –221,036 750,316 1,027,942 –277,626 281,656 225,065 56,590
1991 ……………………………………………………………………. 1,054,996 1,324,234 –269,238 761,111 1,082,547 –321,435 293,885 241,687 52,198
1992 ……………………………………………………………………. 1,091,223 1,381,543 –290,321 788,797 1,129,205 –340,408 302,426 252,339 50,087
1993 ……………………………………………………………………. 1,154,341 1,409,392 –255,051 842,406 1,142,805 –300,398 311,934 266,587 45,347
1994 ……………………………………………………………………. 1,258,579 1,461,766 –203,186 923,554 1,182,394 –258,840 335,026 279,372 55,654
1995 ……………………………………………………………………. 1,351,801 1,515,753 –163,952 1,000,722 1,227,089 –226,367 351,079 288,664 62,415
1996 ……………………………………………………………………. 1,453,055 1,560,486 –107,431 1,085,563 1,259,582 –174,019 367,492 300,904 66,588
1997 ……………………………………………………………………. 1,579,240 1,601,124 –21,884 1,187,250 1,290,498 –103,248 391,990 310,626 81,364
1998 ……………………………………………………………………. 1,721,733 1,652,463 69,270 1,305,934 1,335,859 –29,925 415,799 316,604 99,195
1999 ……………………………………………………………………. 1,827,459 1,701,849 125,610 1,382,991 1,381,071 1,920 444,468 320,778 123,690
2000 ……………………………………………………………………. 2,025,198 1,788,957 236,241 1,544,614 1,458,192 86,422 480,584 330,765 149,819
2001 ……………………………………………………………………. 1,991,142 1,862,906 128,236 1,483,623 1,516,068 –32,445 507,519 346,838 160,681
2002 ……………………………………………………………………. 1,853,149 2,010,907 –157,758 1,337,828 1,655,245 –317,417 515,321 355,662 159,659
2003 ……………………………………………………………………. 1,782,321 2,159,906 –377,585 1,258,479 1,796,897 –538,418 523,842 363,009 160,833
2004 ……………………………………………………………………. 1,880,126 2,292,853 –412,727 1,345,381 1,913,342 –567,961 534,745 379,511 155,234
2005 ……………………………………………………………………. 2,153,625 2,471,971 –318,346 1,576,149 2,069,760 –493,611 577,476 402,211 175,265
2006 ……………………………………………………………………. 2,406,876 2,655,057 –248,181 1,798,494 2,232,988 –434,494 608,382 422,069 186,313
2007 ……………………………………………………………………. 2,568,001 2,728,702 –160,701 1,932,912 2,275,065 –342,153 635,089 453,637 181,452
2008 ……………………………………………………………………. 2,523,999 2,982,554 –458,555 1,865,953 2,507,803 –641,850 658,046 474,751 183,295
2009 ……………………………………………………………………. 2,104,995 3,517,681 –1,412,686 1,450,986 3,000,665 –1,549,679 654,009 517,016 136,993
See footnote at end of table.
10
Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits by Fund Group
1975-2008
(in millions of dollars – chained 2000 dollars)
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2,000,000
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008 estimate
Receipts Federal Funds Receipts Trust Funds Outlays Federal Funds Outlays Trust Funds
11
31-Jan-11
Historical Highest Marginal Income Tax Rates
Year
Top Marginal
Rate Year
Top Marginal
Rate Year
Top Marginal
Rate
1913 7.0% 1946 86.45% 1979 70.00%
1914 7.0% 1947 86.45% 1980 70.00%
1915 7.0% 1948 82.13% 1981 69.13%
1916 15.0% 1949 82.13% 1982 50.00%
1917 67.0% 1950 91.00% 1983 50.00%
1918 77.0% 1951 91.00% 1984 50.00%
1919 73.0% 1952 92.00% 1985 50.00%
1920 73.0% 1953 92.00% 1986 50.00%
1921 73.0% 1954 91.00% 1987 38.50%
1922 56.0% 1955 91.00% 1988 28.00%
1923 56.0% 1956 91.00% 1989 28.00%
1924 46.0% 1957 91.00% 1990 31.00%
1925 25.0% 1958 91.00% 1991 31.00%
1926 25.0% 1959 91.00% 1992 31.00%
1927 25.0% 1960 91.00% 1993 39.60%
1928 25.0% 1961 91.00% 1994 39.60%
1929 24.0% 1962 91.00% 1995 39.60%
1930 25.0% 1963 91.00% 1996 39.60%
1931 25.0% 1964 77.00% 1997 39.60%
1932 63.0% 1965 70.00% 1998 39.60%
1933 63.0% 1966 70.00% 1999 39.60%
1934 63.0% 1967 70.00% 2000 39.60%
1935 63.0% 1968 75.25% 2001 38.60%
1936 79.0% 1969 77.00% 2002 38.60%
1937 79.0% 1970 71.75% 2003 35.00%
1938 79.0% 1971 70.00% 2004 35.00%
1939 79.0% 1972 70.00% 2005 35.00%
1940 81.10% 1973 70.00% 2006 35.00%
1941 81.00% 1974 70.00% 2007 35.00%
1942 88.00% 1975 70.00% 2008 35.00%
1943 88.00% 1976 70.00% 2009 35.00%
1944 94.00% 1977 70.00% 2010 35.00%
1945 94.00% 1978 70.00% 2011 35.00%
Note: This table contains a number of simplifications and ignores a number of
factors, such as a maximum tax on earned income of 50 percent when the top rate
was 70 percent and the current increase in rates due to income-related reductions in
value of itemized deductions. Perhaps most importantly, it ignores the large increase
in percentage of returns that were subject to this top rate.
Sources: Eugene Steuerle, The Urban Institute; Joseph Pechman, Federal Tax
Policy; Joint Committee on Taxation, Summary of Conference Agreement on the
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, JCX-54-03, May 22, 2003;
IRS Revised Tax Rate Schedules
12
Percentage of GDP Source: Congressional Budget Office. Chart 29 of 39
13
Skip to content
Social Security Online Trust Fund Data
Office of the Chief
Actuary Social Security & Medicare Tax Rates
Tax rates for each Social
Security trust fund
Maximum taxable
earnings
Social Security’s Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance
(OASDI) program and Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) program
are financed primarily by employment taxes. Tax rates are set by law
(see sections 1401, 3101, and 3111 of the Internal Revenue Code)
and apply to earnings up to a maximum amount for OASDI.
The rates shown reflect the amounts received by the trust funds. In
certain years, the effective rate paid by employees, employers, and/or
self-employed workers was less than the rate received by the trust
funds, with the difference covered by general revenue. See the
footnotes for details.
Calendar
year
Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings
Rate for employees and employers,
each Rate for self-employed workers
OASDI HI Total OASDI HI Total
1937-49 1.000 — 1.000 — – –
1950 1.500 — 1.500 — – –
1951-53 1.500 — 1.500 2.250 — 2.250
1954-56 2.000 — 2.000 3.000 — 3.000
1957-58 2.250 — 2.250 3.375 — 3.375
1959 2.500 — 2.500 3.750 — 3.750
1960-61 3.000 — 3.000 4.500 — 4.500
1962 3.125 — 3.125 4.700 — 4.700
1963-65 3.625 — 3.625 5.400 — 5.400
1966 3.850 0.350 4.200 5.800 0.350 6.150
1967 3.900 0.500 4.400 5.900 0.500 6.400
1968 3.800 0.600 4.400 5.800 0.600 6.400
1969-70 4.200 0.600 4.800 6.300 0.600 6.900
1971-72 4.600 0.600 5.200 6.900 0.600 7.500
1973 4.850 1.000 5.850 7.000 1.000 8.000
1974-77 4.950 0.900 5.850 7.000 0.900 7.900
1978 5.050 1.000 6.050 7.100 1.000 8.100
1979-80 5.080 1.050 6.130 7.050 1.050 8.100
1981 5.350 1.300 6.650 8.000 1.300 9.300
1982-83 5.400 1.300 6.700 8.050 1.300 9.350
1984 a 5.700 1.300 7.000 11.400 2.600 14.000
1985 a 5.700 1.350 7.050 11.400 2.700 14.100
14
Calendar
year
Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings
Rate for employees and employers,
each Rate for self-employed workers
OASDI HI Total OASDI HI Total
1986-87 a 5.700 1.450 7.150 11.400 2.900 14.300
1988-89 a 6.060 1.450 7.510 12.120 2.900 15.020
1990 and later
b, c
6.200 1.450 7.650 12.400 2.900 15.300
a In 1984 only, an immediate credit of 0.3 percent of taxable wages was allowed against the OASDI taxes paid by
employees, resulting in an effective employee tax rate of 5.4 percent. The OASI and DI trust funds, however,
received general revenue equivalent to 0.3 percent of taxable wages for 1984. Similar credits of 2.7 percent, 2.3
percent, and 2.0 percent were allowed against the combined OASDI and HI taxes on net earnings from selfemployment
in 1984, 1985, and 1986-89, respectively.
b Beginning in 1990, self-employed workers are allowed a deduction, for purposes of computing their net
earnings, equal to half of the combined OASDI and HI contributions that would be payable without regard to the
contribution and benefit base. The OASDI contribution rate is then applied to net earnings after this deduction,
but subject to the OASDI base.
c For 2010, most employers were exempt from paying the employer share of OASDI tax on wages paid to certain
qualified individuals hired after February 3. For 2011, the OASDI tax rate is reduced by 2 percentage points for
employees and for self-employed workers, resulting in a 4.2 percent effective tax rate for employees and a 10.4
percent effective tax rate for self-employed workers. The reductions in 2010 and 2011 tax revenue due to lower
tax rates will be made up by transfers from the general fund of the Treasury to the OASI and DI trust funds.
Beginning in 2013, an additional HI tax of 0.9 percent is assessed on earned income exceeding $200,000 for
individuals and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly. This additional HI tax rate is not reflected in the tax
rates shown in the table.
15
Skip to content
Social Security Online Automatic Increases
Office of the Chief
Actuary Contribution and Benefit Base
Automatic Increases
Cost-of-Living
Adjustment
Tax data
Wage-indexed amounts
Social Security’s Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance
(OASDI) program limits the amount of earnings subject to taxation for
a given year. The same annual limit also applies when those earnings
are used in a benefit computation. This limit generally increases with
increases in the national average wage index. We call this annual
limit the contribution and benefit base, or taxable maximum. For
earnings in 2011, this base is $106,800.
For Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) program, the taxable
maximum was the same as that for the OASDI program for 1966-
1990. Separate HI taxable maximums of $125,000, $130,200, and
$135,000 were applicable in 1991-93, respectively. After 1993, there
has been no limitation on HI-taxable earnings.
An employee who pays contributions on earnings in excess of the
contribution and benefit base (because of employment with two or
more employers) is eligible for a refund of the excess employee
contributions.
For wages paid in 2011, employees pay 4.2 percent and employers
pay 6.2 percent in OASDI taxes. Thus, an individual with wages equal
to or larger than $106,800 would contribute $4,485.60 to the OASDI
program in 2011, and his or her employer would contribute $6,621.60.
Self-employed workers pay 10.4 percent in OASDI taxes on income
in 2011. By law, the OASI and DI trust funds will receive taxes as if
the tax rates were 6.2 percent for employees and employers, each,
and 12.4 percent for self-employed workers. The reduction in 2011
tax revenue due to lower tax rates will be made up by transfers from
the general fund of the Treasury to the trust funds. See tax rates for a
table of the OASDI and HI tax rates on wages and self-employment
income.
Year Amount
1937-50 $3,000
1951-54 3,600
1955-58 4,200
1959-65 4,800
1966-67 6,600
1968-71 7,800
1972 9,000
1973 10,800
Year Amount
1986 $42,000
1987 43,800
1988 45,000
1989 48,000
1990 51,300
1991 53,400
1992 55,500
1993 57,600
Year Amount
2006 $94,200
2007 97,500
2008 102,000
2009 106,800
2010 106,800
2011 106,800
Contribution and benefit bases, 1937-2011
16
1974 13,200
1975 14,100
1976 15,300
1977 16,500
1978 17,700
1979 22,900
1980 25,900
1981 29,700
1982 32,400
1983 35,700
1984 37,800
1985 39,600
1994 60,600
1995 61,200
1996 62,700
1997 65,400
1998 68,400
1999 72,600
2000 76,200
2001 80,400
2002 84,900
2003 87,000
2004 87,900
2005 90,000
Note: Amounts for 1937-74 and for 1979-81 were set by statute; all other amounts were determined under
automatic adjustment provisions of the Social Security Act.
Senior Partner, Oliver Barber, Jr. spends significant time refereeing local soccer and has come across some noticeable talent and the related article below by Aidan Kelly with The News and Tribune.
July 19, 2011
KICK IT: Brandy’s ‘Rocketing’ upwards!
BY AIDAN KELLY aidokaydo@gmail.com The News and Tribune Tue Jul 19, 2011, 12:29 AM EDT
> SOUTHERN INDIANA — While our women’s national team was doing us proud in Germany over the past few weeks, some of our finest talent aspiring to such levels were at the Olympic Development Program regional camp in DeKalb, Ill.
One of them was New Albany’s Brandy Orth Becker, who was one of 18 girls selected to represent Kentucky at the U16 level.
The speedy Orth Becker, who plays forward and left wing, scored a decisive goal in the game against Kansas, while also featuring in a tie against Wisconsin and a loss to Michigan.
This is her second year on the ODP team, which she described as “a great experience” but also “a real challenge.”
“It’s fun to play other state teams from all over the country,” said Orth Becker. “It’s pretty humbling to be a part of a team that represents a state.”
It’s also pretty tough trying to make the cut.
“It’s hard to start with a pool of 75 or so girls and see that pool get smaller and smaller as months of tryouts go by and as cuts are continuously made,” she said. “It’s hard to make friends with players from another part of the state and watch them get cut.”
The team is finally narrowed to 18, who compete together at tournaments and college showcases before going on to regional camp.
“The ODP coaches don’t baby you,” she revealed. “They expect your best and more. This year’s coach, Mike Weisman, has a Class ‘A’ coaching license and knows the game down to a science, while last year’s coach, Jay Hoffman, is the head coach at Centre College.”
She added that as much fun as it is playing teams from other states, it’s even more fun making friends from those states.
“I always like trading jerseys with friends I’ve made at the end of the camp,” she said. “This year I came home wearing an ODP Wisconsin jersey.”
The junior plays varsity soccer at Assumption High School and is co-captain of the track team, participating in the 4×100 and 4×200 at this year’s state finals. She has “great hopes” for the Lady Rockets this fall.
“We are mostly all returning juniors and seniors,” she said. “We’ve played together for at least two years and know and trust each other mentally and physically. When we played together as freshman, we were undefeated, so I think we’ll continue to play well together.
“Our coaches Kenyon Meyer, Ollie Barber and Holly Hayden pull us together and inspire and elevate our level of play even more.”
Clubwise, Orth Becker started out with southern Indiana’s Net-Surfers and spent the last two seasons playing in Louisville.
However, encouragingly, once she got the call that her old coach Walter Iglesias would be mentoring at her age level at Net-Surfers, she knew she was coming back.
“I have trained under Walter for years and have tremendous respect for his talent and knowledge of the game,” she said. “I was really excited when he decided to finally coach a girls’ team.”
Others from the area to be chosen for ODP squads this year — some were unable to attend camp — included Borden’s Grant Hollkamp (Kentucky ‘97 boys), a promising talent who once again made the Region II holdover pool; Brodey Zink (Georgetown), Benjamin Rhoads, Sean Brown (both of Jeffersonville), who were all chosen for Indiana ‘98 older boys; Parker Bussabarger-Davidenkoff, Tyler McGeorge (both Floyds Knobs) and Andrew Kennedy (Lanesville), all Indiana ‘96 boys; Matthew Jerrell (Scottsburg), Logan Rauck (Memphis), Zachary Adamec, Alex Duckworth, Roman Arvizu (Jeffersonville), all Indiana ‘97 older boys; Zach Yagle (Floyds Knobs), Indiana ‘97 younger boys; Jordan Reger (Sellersburg), Indiana ‘97 older girls; Skyler Davis and Brian Fischer, (both Jeffersonville), Kentucky ‘95 boys; and Hayley Anderson (Sellersburg), Kentucky’97 girls.
Highlanders kick off in showcase
Floyd Central will be taking part in the 10th annual Sporting Indiana FC High School Summer Showcase, at Davis Park, Anderson this weekend.
There are 56 boys’ teams taking part in the event from Indiana, Ohio and Illinois.
The Highlanders will play in Group E Friday against Goshen (10 a.m.) and 2009 state champion Zionsville (4.30 p.m.), before finishing out Saturday against Chesterton (10 a.m.).
Floyd Central will be using the Hoosierfutbol.com sponsored event as good preparation for the season ahead, in which it hopes to retain the Hoosier Hills Conference title and perform well in a sectional that will this year include both New Albany and Jeffersonville.
A right Nelly!
Paul the oracle octopus became headline news around the globe when he predicted correctly the results of all of Germany’s 2010 World Cup games, and threw in the correct outcome of the final to boot.
Alas, the iconic salty soothsayer passed away last October at the age of three, leaving the door wide open for other German creatures to try make a name for themselves during the recent Women’s World Cup.
First up was Paula, another octopus, but she didn’t get very far. She chose Canada to beat Germany on the tournament’s first day by taking a treat from a box marked with the maple leafed flag.
The tentacled tipster, whose gender is actually unknown, claims on her Facebook page to be psychic but her sole day of posts has me fearing for her current health.
Not to worry. Enter Nelly the 18 month old elephant. She predicts games by “trunking” the ball into the loser’s net. She did quite a good job too, getting all the German games right, including their loss against Japan.
In fact, she quite likes Japan, it seems, as the predicting pachyderm correctly went for them over the U.S.A. to win Sunday’s final, which they duly did on penalty kicks following an exciting 2-2 tie.
The Kentucky Auditor of Public Accounts, Crit Luallen,
has posted the following recommendations that should be reviewed closely by all public and nonprofit Boards.
Article at www.auditor.ky.gov/
Revised 3/4/10
The Auditor of Public Accounts, as a result of recent investigations, makes the following recommendations to assist public and nonprofit Boards in designing and implementing internal controls. These recommendations should assist Board members in providing appropriate financial oversight. The following is a brief summary of various financial policy areas that Board members should consider. After each control area is considered, a policy should be developed to address the specific business model of the organization.
1. The Board should have a well defined, clear mission statement to serve as a platform for policies, operational plans, and resource allocations that further the interest of its organization’s members.
2. The Board should facilitate the development of an annual orientation program and manual for new and returning Board members to ensure an understanding of the Board’s structure, operations, and their legal and fiduciary responsibilities. An explanation of the budget and accounting structure, as well as revenue and investment information should also be included. If possible, the orientation should be facilitated by a knowledgeable, independent party, such as a Board attorney or consultant.
3. The Board should ensure that its organizational structure maintains a flexibility that allows for multiple sources of information. The Board should request reports from individuals having responsibility for various program areas rather than from just the chief executive.
4. The Board meeting minutes should document the exact nature of the financial reviews conducted by the Board. Any issues that result from these reviews and action taken to resolve the issues should also be documented.
5. For Boards who fall under the open meetings law, sessions closed to the public should be entered into in accordance with KRS 61.810. Any conclusions or decisions reached during a session closed to the public must be documented in the Board meeting minutes as stated in KRS 61.815, clarified in OAG 81-387.
Page 2
6. The Board should establish an independent process to receive, analyze, investigate, and resolve concerns related to the organization including anonymous concerns. Employees, business associates, customers, or the general public may have significant, beneficial information that they are uncomfortable reporting directly to the Board. A toll-free complaint number or an advertised email and postal address for feedback would allow the transmission of this information. In addition, where applicable, the Board’s policy should include a reference to Kentucky law (KRS 61.102) notifying employees, as defined in KRS 61.101, of their rights to protection against retaliation for reporting violations to certain authorities. A whistleblower policy should be adopted and distributed to employees. The policy should include reporting procedures and management’s responsibility to address issues reported.
7. An internal audit function could be used to ensure that Board concerns are independently investigated. The individual designated to perform internal audits should be given the authority to investigate and examine any area designated by the Board and the responsibility to report the audits findings directly to the Board.
8. A Board audit committee should appoint and compensate the audit firm and ensure the rotation of the lead audit partner and the audit partner reviewing the audit, as required by the Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX) for companies with publicly traded stock. The Board should also consider whether rotating audit firms would be beneficial given the facts and circumstance of the organization. Further, if possible, the Board audit committee should be comprised of at least one member who has an understanding of generally accepted accounting principles and financial statements, experience with internal controls and in preparing or auditing financial statements, and an understanding of audit committee functions, as suggested in Section 407 of SOX. In addition, reviews of internal controls should be conducted to ensure that controls are functioning as designed or needed. The review of internal controls could be conducted by an internal auditor, Board designee, or included in the engagement of an auditing firm. Any concerns noted by the Board should be disclosed to the auditor and included in the audit scope for review.
9. The Board should adopt a code of ethics that includes standards of conduct for its Board members, officers, and employees related to business conduct, integrity, and ethics. The policy should include the requirement to sign a form stating that the individuals have received and understand the code of ethics. The code should include statements regarding moral and ethical standards, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, nepotism, gifts, honoraria, and assistance with applicable audits and investigations. Violations of the code of ethics should be reported to the Board or designated committee of the Board.
10. The Board should adopt a financial disclosure policy for Board members and executive management. A policy should also be developed requiring Board members and executive management to disclose any conflicts of interests. The disclosure form should be completed by a specified date and returned to the appropriate committee of the Board.
Page 3
11. The Board should establish and approve a detailed, equitable personnel and compensation policy. The policy should include that the Board or a designated Board committee annually review the salary increases and bonus payments made to all staff. This review should be documented in the Board meeting minutes.
12. The Board should define and document all employee benefits in a fair and equitable manner. Benefits received that result in taxable income should be properly accounted for and accrued to each applicable employee. Employee benefits should also be reviewed to ensure they provide a reasonable business purpose. Also, membership fees to organizations or associations should provide a reasonable business benefit.
13. The Board should approve the compensation package of the organization’s primary executive and be aware of the compensation provided to other Executive Staff. In determining the compensation for the primary executive, the Board should consider the organizations financial resources, current economic conditions, employee performance, and salary data for similar positions at relevant organizations within the region.
14. The Board should ensure a well-defined employee evaluation system is implemented within the organization to consistently assess employee performance. The results of the employee’s evaluation should be used for employee advancement or salary adjustments.
15. The Board should adopt policies to ensure all forms of employee leave are properly approved and accurately recorded.
16. The Board should have sick and vacation leave policies that address the accrual, use, and the payment to employees for any unused sick, vacation, or compensatory time.
17. The Board policy should include a transparent, competitive selection process for the procurement of goods and services. The policy should outline the circumstances under which quotes or competitive bids are required and the process to be followed. The Board should have policies that require a formal contract for purchases over a specified amount and that all contracts over a specified dollar amount require Board approval.
18. A review of budget to actual expenditures should be performed regularly by the Board or a designated Board Committee to monitor costs in each account. The name and number of budget categories or line items should provide transparency and sufficient detail to allow Board members to accurately identify the types of expenses being attributed to each category. If expenditures occur at an unexpected rate, additional detail should be requested to ensure that incurred expenditures are reasonable and necessary.
19. At least quarterly, the Board or a designated Board committee should receive and review a listing of payments that includes, at a minimum, the payee, dollar amount, and date of each expenditure. This review would assist in identifying inappropriate, unusual, or excessive expenditures.
Page 4
20. Executive management traveling out of state should present their plans and estimated costs to the Board for prior approval. The approval of these activities and associated costs should be addressed at the Board meetings to ensure proper documentation in the minutes. Subsequent to attending approved conferences or activities, the amount expended should be reported to the Board.
21. To minimize and control the cost of travel, a travel expense policy should be developed that specifically defines the allowable costs related to lodging, meals, entertainment, personal mileage reimbursement, rental cars, and airfare. The travel expense policy should state the invoice requirements for the reimbursement of certain expenditures such as taxi fees, tips, parking, or tolls. The policy should provide examples of expenditures that are to be paid for by the employee, such as costs incurred by family members or the attendance at events not approved by the Board. This policy should explicitly state that expenses not in compliance with the travel expense policy would not be reimbursed or paid by the Board.
22. In lieu of credit cards, the Board should consider the following: The use of purchasing cards that would allow the Board to restrict the types of purchases that can be made on the card based on industry codes. Casinos, specialty retail outlets, and food and beverage establishments are examples of these restrictions. The amount spent on a single purchase can also be restricted through the use of a purchasing card. Reimburse employees personal credit card charges when the use is necessary. Procedures and supporting documentation requirements should be developed to facilitate this type of reimbursement.
23. If the use of credit cards is needed, the Board should implement the following oversight controls: A Board member or committee of the Board should be assigned to review, at a minimum, credit card statements of Executive Staff prior to payment. Credit card charges should be supported by detailed receipts, documented business purpose, and supervisory approval. The employee should be responsible for the timely payment of any unsupported credit card charges or disallowed expenses. Policies established by the Board should ensure that all review procedures are performed in a timely manner to avoid late fee and finance charges.
24. Expenses classified as gifts or entertainment should be documented to include the name and title of the person(s) involved and a description of why the expense was needed and how it relates to business operations.
25. A policy related to reimbursements made by employees to the organization should be developed to ensure that any expenses that should be paid by an employee are monitored. This policy should include the timeframe allowed for making the reimbursement and the alternative actions that will be taken if reimbursement is not made.
Page 5
26. Business expense reimbursements requested by executive management should be reviewed by the Board or a designated Board committee to ensure supporting documentation is provided. This documentation should be retained to ensure that duplicate payments are not made to the employee.
27. Specific marketing goals should be developed to monitor the success of any business promotions approved by the Board. Marketing expenditures incurred should be coded to that goal so that Board members will know the expenses involved in a specific marketing promotion. Further, documentation should be maintained detailing the recipients of promotional prizes including tickets, trips, or merchandise.
28. A Board policy should be developed to address the authorization process to purchase vehicles and the method used to dispose of vehicles. The use and assignment of vehicles owned by the organization should be addressed within this policy. In addition, the practice of providing a vehicle should be reviewed and monthly vehicle allowances considered. The policy should include following the IRS guidelines for personal use of a vehicle.
29. The personal use of business equipment should be addressed within Board policy to determine when appropriate. The policy should require that equipment being used inappropriately or that is missing should be reported directly to the Board.
30. The Board should establish a policy detailing the process to report lost or missing financial information or records. To avoid lost or stolen financial information, electronic images of financial records should be created and retained, if possible.
31. A formal policy should be developed that identifies what equipment is a fixed asset and should be included as inventory. Once this designation has been made, the existing inventory listing should include the following identifying information related to each piece of equipment: The name of the individual in receipt of equipment; Description of equipment; Vendor name; Model number; Serial number; Acquisition date; and, Acquisition cost.
Once the inventory listing has been validated, any acquisitions and dispositions of computer equipment that fall within the fixed asset policy should cause an appropriate update to the inventory listing.
Page 6
32. An information system policy should be developed that explicitly defines a user’s responsibilities as they relate to information system resources and applications. These policies should cover, at a minimum: Securing of user id and password; Protection against computer virus or mal-ware infection; Legal notice at logon indicating system is to be used for authorized purposes only; Securing unattended workstations; and, Securing portable devices, such as laptops, Blackberries, cell phones, etc.
We would like to announce that we have moved to eastern Jefferson County and are now members of the Middletown Chamber of Commerce. We look forward to be active members of our new neighborhood. Our new address is 802 Lily Creek Rd., Suite 101, Louisville, Kentucky 40243. our offices are located at 802 Lily Creek Road, Suite 101 which is off of Blankenbaker Parkway in the Blankenbaker Centre Office Park. This is across the street from Southeast Christian Church and behind Zaxby’s Restaurant and Commonwealth Bank & Trust Company. Enter into the office park by turning onto Martin House Lane (Watterson Trail when turning towards the Church)at the light between Commonwealth Bank & Trust Company and Garden Gate Apartments.
