Do you know what you pay in taxes? Here's who pays the most and least to the IRS.
shows
that many Americans misunderstand how their income is taxed, which experts say could help explain why many people are disgruntled with the U.S. tax system.
About 55% of taxpayers said they think their taxes are too high that they are paying more than their fair share, according to a new
survey
by libertarian think tank Cato Institute and YouGov.
At the same time, most taxpayers don't grasp how taxes work, with widespread confusion over how tax brackets work and who pay the most in taxes in the U.S., according to other research.
"While Democrats and Republicans disagree a lot, they tend to agree their own taxes are too high," wrote Emily Ekins and Hunter Johnson of the Cato Institute in an April 14 blog post about the survey. "Majorities of Republicans (59%), independents (56%), and Democrats (51%) all believe their personal tax bills were excessively high this year."
The tax system is designed to be progressive, meaning that lower-income Americans pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than do higher-income workers.
Because of that structure, the highest earning households pay almost all federal income taxes. A November analysis of tax data by the Tax Foundation found that the top 10% of U.S. earners pay about 72% of the nation's taxes.
The top-earning Americans pay an effective average tax rate of 26%, while the bottom 40% pay about 4% of their income to the IRS, according to the Tax Foundation's November
analysis
of 2022 tax data (based on the latest available figures from the IRS).
"All Americans are affected by the tax code —but do they understand the tax code?" the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan group focused on tax policy wrote in a blog post.
The answer: No.
Most Americans don't understand how tax brackets work, which is the basis for the amount that individuals fork over to the IRS each year, according to a 2024 Tax Foundation survey. A majority of those surveyed didn't understand that only a portion of a person's income is subject to their top marginal rate, the study found. About one-third believed that their top rate was applied to their entire annual earnings.
In fact, Americans are taxed according to seven tax brackets, which represent the percentage you'll pay in taxes on each portion of your income. As a result, people generally have a lower effective tax rate than their top marginal rate, which is only applied to income that falls into that band. (For instance, the top rate of 37% for single filers in 2024 is applied only to income above $609,351.)
"This survey reveals how, despite taxes playing a significant role in personal finances and being levied on a sizable portion of the U.S. population, most Americans are not just unhappy with the current tax code but also do not understand it," the Tax Foundation noted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
ACLU sues to block ‘misleading' abortion ban from Missouri ballot
The ACLU of Missouri on Wednesday sued to block a proposed abortion ban from reaching the statewide ballot next year, marking the first major legal challenge intended to halt a Republican-led attempt to ban abortions again in Missouri. The lawsuit, filed in Cole County, argues the proposed abortion ban, which would also ban transgender health care for minors, violates the state constitution's requirement that ballot measures only deal with one subject. The suit also alleges that the language that voters would see on their ballots and posted at polling places, called a summary statement and fair ballot language, is misleading and written to entice voters. It specifically points to the fact that the language does not inform voters that the ballot measure would ban abortions. The lawsuit asks a judge to block the measure from the Nov. 3, 2026, ballot because it includes multiple subjects in violation of the state constitution. If the judge doesn't block it, the lawsuit asks the court to instead certify new, more accurate language for the ballot question. Wednesday's lawsuit comes after Republican lawmakers in May voted to put the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot. The proposed ban was in response to a November statewide vote that legalized abortion and overturned a previous ban on the procedure. 'Less than six months after we voted to end Missouri's abortion ban and protect reproductive freedom, politicians chose to ignore the will of the people so they can reinstate their ban on abortion,' Tori Schafer, the ACLU's director of policy and campaigns, said in a statement. The proposed abortion ban, if approved, would strike down the November vote that legalized abortion in the state. The measure would allow abortions in medical emergencies and cases of fetal anomalies, such as birth defects. It would also allow the procedure in exceptionally rare cases of rape or incest within 12 weeks of gestational age. The language of the legislation, however, is silent on when exactly abortion would be banned, making it unclear whether the amendment is intended to allow the state's previous abortion ban to take effect or give lawmakers the ability to pass legislation to restrict access. The suit also comes after Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, a Republican who is named as a defendant in the lawsuit, certified the amendment for the November 2026 ballot. Hoskins certified the ban as 'Amendment 3,' the same name as the amendment that legalized abortions last November. The ACLU and the Missouri-based law firm Stinson filed the suit on behalf of Anna Fitz-James, a retired St. Louis-area doctor who initially filed the measure to legalize abortion. In addition to Hoskins, the suit also names three Republican state lawmakers as defendants, Senate President Pro Tem Cindy O'Laughlin from Shelbina, House Speaker Jonathan Patterson from Lee's Summit and Rep. Ed Lewis, the bill sponsor from Moberly. Lewis, in a statement to the Star, defended the language of the ballot measure, saying it 'seeks to find a middle ground on the abortion issue' and 'doesn't ban all abortions.' 'This is a ballot initiative that goes to the vote of the people, for their decision,' Lewis said. 'Why would anyone want to block it from the ballot?' A spokesperson for Hoskins declined comment on the suit, citing office policy not to comment on litigation. O'Laughlin also declined comment. Patterson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The ACLU, in the lawsuit, argues that the language of the proposed ban is 'misleading and inaccurate' because it does not inform voters that the amendment would eliminate the right to reproductive freedom, among other laws guaranteed by last November's vote. The ballot title certified by Hoskins states: 'Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: Guarantee access to care for medical emergencies, ectopic pregnancies, and miscarriages; Ensure women's safety during abortions; Ensure parental consent for minors; Allow abortions for medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, rape, and incest; Require physicians to provide medically accurate information; and Protect children from gender transition?' In addition to the misleading language, the lawsuit also alleges that the ballot measure includes multiple subjects in violation of the state constitution. While the measure relates to 'reproductive health care,' the lawsuit points to the fact that it also bans gender-affirming care for minors, requires all legal actions related to reproductive health care to be filed in Cole County and creates a system that notifies Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey when there are lawsuits questioning the constitutionality of state laws. The decision to place the abortion ban on the November 2026 ballot was remarkable, signifying a retaliatory response from Republican lawmakers after nearly 52% of voters overturned the state's abortion ban. The vote last November was historic, offering a fierce rebuke of Republican state lawmakers who had spent decades restricting access. The constitutional amendment overturned a near-total ban that was enacted in 2022 after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade. In the wake of the vote, abortion opponents regularly argued in the state Capitol that Missourians didn't understand what they were voting on when they approved the measure. They claimed the measure would lead to unrestricted and unregulated abortions. But months after the vote, abortion providers are still fighting state officials in court to restore complete access. While Planned Parenthood's Kansas City clinic in February performed the first elective abortion in the state since the vote, abortions are once again effectively banned under a procedural ruling by the state Supreme Court in May.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate's ‘big beautiful' bill trims popular tax breaks — 4 ways it could impact your taxes
The Senate's version of the massive tax bill squeaked through on a 51-50 vote on Tuesday and, while it largely matches the tax bill that passed the House in May, there are some key differences that could pose problems for House Republicans, who must now either vote on the Senate's version 'as is' or face drawn-out negotiations that would put their hoped-for July 4 deadline for passage out of reach. The Senate version of the bill adds much deeper cuts to Medicaid than the House version does. And, while the Senate did bow to House Republican pressure and raised its annual cap on the state and local taxes deduction to $40,000 from $10,000, the Senate extended that cap for just five years, until 2030. (The so-called SALT deduction is a key tax provision for many taxpayers who itemize their deductions in high-tax states such as California, New York and New Jersey.) 'Some members of the Senate GOP want to restrain components of the tax breaks approved by the House, and a moving target appears to be the so-called SALT deduction,' says Mark Hamrick, senior economic analyst at Bankrate. Here are some of the key tax provisions in the Senate-approved bill — and how it could affect your bottom line if the bill becomes law. Keep in mind that both proposed bills would maintain the lower income tax rates and higher standard deduction initially set by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 — provisions that are set to expire at the end of 2025 unless Congress acts. The state and local tax (SALT) deduction has long been a sticking point in the GOP's tax bill. Some House Republicans from high-tax states initially stalled the bill from advancing unless the current $10,000 SALT cap was increased. The House bill would allow taxpayers to claim up to $40,000 annually in SALT deductions ($20,000 if married filing separately), with the tax break phasing out for taxpayers with income of $500,000 or more ($250,000 or more if married filing separately). That compromise was enough to win over Republican holdouts. The Senate's version of the bill takes a different stance: It would hike the SALT cap to $40,000 but only for five years, at which point the cap would drop back to $10,000. It remains to be seen whether House Republicans will accept the temporary status of the $40,000 cap. The $10,000 SALT cap was originally enacted under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) and expires at the end of 2025 unless Congress acts. Under the current law, the cap applies to most taxpayers, while those who file as married filing separately are limited to a $5,000 cap, regardless of income. Prior to the TCJA, there was no cap on claiming state and local taxes as an itemized deduction. Get matched: Find a financial advisor who can help you maximize your investments As part of the tax bill, the House proposed an increase to the child tax credit — from the current $2,000 to $2,500 per child under the age of 17. But the Senate's version scales back the increase, raising the credit to only $2,200 per child starting this year. Under the Senate's bill, the child tax credit would increase starting in 2025 and continue through 2028. The plan would also make the current income thresholds permanent, allowing families to qualify if their modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) doesn't exceed $400,000 for married couples filing jointly and $200,000 for single filers. The Senate's version of the bill would adjust the amount of the credit for inflation annually. If Congress doesn't act, the value of the child tax credit will revert back to $1,000 per child and lower income thresholds would apply — $110,000 for married couples and $75,000 for all other filers. Trump campaigned on the promise that he would eliminate taxes on tips and overtime pay. Both the House and Senate versions of the bill carry out his promise, but in different ways. The House version of the bill includes a provision to exclude qualified tips from income taxes, with a phaseout starting at $160,000 of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) for all taxpayers. A similar measure applies to overtime pay. However, the Senate's version provides a much different picture. It would allow a deduction worth up to $25,000 for qualified tips and $12,500 for qualified overtime pay, creating two new deductions, which would be available from 2025 through 2028. These provisions would gradually phase out for taxpayers with MAGI exceeding $150,000 for single filers and $300,000 for joint filers. Some experts argue that while both proposals could offer some tax relief to millions of Americans, few would see a significant benefit. Fully 40 percent of U.S. households that report tip income would not see any tax break from the proposal, according to a report by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research organization. Of those households making less than $33,000 a year, just 1.4 percent of households would benefit from no tax on tips, and for those households, their average tax cut would be $450 a year. Learn more: No tax on tips or overtime: What workers should know Along with the previously mentioned tax provisions, the Senate takes a different stance on several key tax-related measures. The Senate's version of the bill modifies the House-approved version as follows: Car loan interest deduction: The House bill includes a tax deduction for interest paid up to $10,000 for interest paid on both new and used vehicles. The Senate version narrows the benefit, allowing the deduction for new vehicles only. Standard deduction for seniors: The Senate increases the additional standard deduction for seniors to $6,000, compared with $4,000 in the House bill. Read more: New bonus tax deduction worth up to $6,000 may come soon for older Americans. Qualified business income (QBI) deduction: While the House proposal boosts the QBI deduction from 20 percent to 23 percent, the Senate bill keeps it at 20 percent. 'The differences in the House and Senate where the GOP prevails may translate to potentially protracted negotiations,' Hamrick says. 'It appears Congress and the president are content with further fueling the federal debt and deficits, even though it is generally understood the situation is not sustainable in the long-term.' Learn more: The average tax refund each year, and how tax refunds work
36 minutes ago
Rep. Bacon backs Trump tax bill despite Medicaid changes, urges House GOP support
House Republicans are racing against time to secure enough votes for President Donald Trump's sweeping spending bill as several GOP members remain undecided ahead of a crucial vote. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., defended the controversial bill in an interview with ABC News Live, acknowledging concerns about Medicaid changes while emphasizing what he sees as critical benefits for middle-class Americans. "If I vote no on this, I'm voting to raise income taxes on everyone by about 20%," Bacon said, explaining that for middle-class families in Nebraska, this would mean approximately $1,700 more in taxes annually. "For someone earning $50,000 a year, it's $141 a month tax increase." The legislation, which passed the Senate Tuesday with Vice President JD Vance's tie-breaking vote, includes roughly $4 trillion in tax cuts and new spending on immigration enforcement. However, the bill faces significant opposition from both moderate Republicans and hardline fiscal conservatives in the House. According to ABC News Capitol Hill Correspondent Jay O'Brien, House Speaker Mike Johnson lacks the necessary votes on Wednesday night to advance the bill. "The House floor is at a standstill," O'Brien reported, noting that about a dozen Republican holdouts remain unconvinced despite direct appeals from Trump. Bacon, while supporting the bill, expressed reservations about Senate modifications to the Medicaid provisions. "I do think the House bill is better," he said, but defended the core changes as primarily focused on work requirements for able-bodied adults without small children. "We're trying to get people to work and get them back on employer insurance," Bacon said. He emphasized that the most significant Medicaid reductions would come from implementing work requirements and auditing current recipients to ensure eligibility. ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce reports that moderate Republicans are particularly concerned about estimates suggesting 11.8 million people could lose their insurance under the bill. Meanwhile, conservative opponents worry about the legislation adding an estimated $3.4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. Johnson told ABC News he remains "optimistic and hopeful" about passing the bill Wednesday night, though Republicans can only afford to lose three votes from their party to secure passage. When pressed about Democratic criticism that the bill prioritizes tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of social programs, Bacon pushed back. "The wealthy actually pay a higher share under this bill, and everybody's getting about a 20% tax reduction." He added that the percentage decreases for those earning over $100,000. The House continued negotiations Wednesday night as it approaches the July 4 deadline, with both the child tax credit extension and national defense spending hanging in the balance.
