• Go to page :
  • 1 2
  • Text Only
Voting History
rated:
The above numbers are found in the latest CBO report and are based on the 2010 IRS and Census Bureau figures. Here is just one of several news stories that is reporting this information contained in the latest CBO report: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101264757 

Interestingly, "For most income groups, average federal tax rates in 2010 were near the lowest rates for the 1979-2010 period," reads the report. "The exception was households in the top 1 percent,whose average federal tax rate in 2010 was significantly above its low in the mid-1980s."

Since it's the end of the year and many of us are looking at year-end tax planning, future tax strategies and discuss tax policies, I thought that this article would be of interest to people, as this topic is very much on people's minds.

 

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
I do find immense irony in the fact that any increases to the federal budget today need to be offset by requisite reduct... (more)

abracadabra1 (Jan. 11, 2014 @ 11:22p) |

By 'shared sacrifice' you mean a certain group paying higher taxes rather than everyone paying taxes, right?

StGenius (Jan. 12, 2014 @ 8:59a) |

That's not what I was implying at all. The message was simple: a minority of this country feels the pain and loss associ... (more)

abracadabra1 (Jan. 12, 2014 @ 10:52a) |

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

How can you pay more than 100% ?
You could pay 100% and then make an overpayment I guess... I can't see the gov turning away money even if it doesn't have the right to it.

wizardking said:   How can you pay more than 100% ?
You could pay 100% and then make an overpayment I guess... I can't see the gov turning away money even if it doesn't have the right to it.



They pay more than 100% since the bottom % receives tax credits and is a net recipient, so the payouts would count against the total receipts.

SangioveseW said:   

Interestingly, "For most income groups, average federal tax rates in 2010 were near the lowest rates for the 1979-2010 period," reads the report. "The exception was households in the top 1 percent,whose average federal tax rate in 2010 was significantly above its low in the mid-1980s."


 

  
Top marginal rate was 28% from 1988 to 1990.    So yeah, the top 1% would have paid a less then compared to the 35% top rate in 2010.

But the top 1% is paying a lower effective % rate now than they were in the early-mid 1990's.   THe CBO report shows the chart http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/4460...

Looks like they are around 29-30% today but they hit closer to 35% around 1995.   In the late 80's it dropped to around 25-27%.



 


Average Federal Tax Rates
Disclaimer

Average Federal Tax Rates by Category
Disclaimer
What a wonderfully misleading title on CNBC. "The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes" And then they go on to write about income taxes only.

For a slightly more meaningful discussion, here are the actual tables on federal taxes paid by income group. First for all taxes, then broken out for big tax categories. It's always interesting to note that certain people bring up the EITC as being a better alternative to the minimum wage ("abolish the minimum wage!") and then turn around and say that everyone should at least pay some income taxes ("abolish the EITC!").

 

2010 was the second year of the Stimulus that gave tax credits to low income working Americans - plus unemployment was still pretty high in 2010 - so of course this year would be a low point for percentage of Americans paying federal income tax.

What is it in 2012, after the Stimulus ended and the employment picture had improved?

enc0re said:   What a wonderfully misleading title on CNBC. "The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes" And then they go on to write about income taxes only.

For a slightly more meaningful discussion, here are the actual tables on federal taxes paid by income group. First for all taxes, then broken out for big tax categories. It's always interesting to note that certain people bring up the EITC as being a better alternative to the minimum wage ("abolish the minimum wage!") and then turn around and say that everyone should at least pay some income taxes ("abolish the EITC!").
 

 Those appear to be tax rate charts

SangioveseW said:   Since it's the end of the year and many of us are looking at year-end tax planning, future tax strategies and discuss tax policies, I thought that this article would be of interest to people, as this topic is very much on people's minds.Based on these articles, the best future tax strategy is to be in the bottom quintile. Better to be poor and get all the transfers than a tax-paying chump in the top 1%.


I hate taxes.

Therefor I choose not to make lots of money.  People that make lots of money have to pay too much in taxes.

Capitalism!!

skarydrunkguy said:   I hate taxes.

Therefor I choose not to make lots of money.  People that make lots of money have to pay too much in taxes.

Socialism!!
 

Fixed that for you.

scripta said:   
skarydrunkguy said:   I hate taxes.

Therefor I choose not to make lots of money.  People that make lots of money have to pay too much in taxes.

Socialism!!

Fixed that for you.

  Good catch! 

enc0re said:   What a wonderfully misleading title on CNBC. "The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes" And then they go on to write about income taxes only.

For a slightly more meaningful discussion, here are the actual tables on federal taxes paid by income group. First for all taxes, then broken out for big tax categories. It's always interesting to note that certain people bring up the EITC as being a better alternative to the minimum wage ("abolish the minimum wage!") and then turn around and say that everyone should at least pay some income taxes ("abolish the EITC!").

 

  Your chart of the other types of non-income taxes is also a bit misleading - SS taxes may appear to be large for the poor, but in reality SS benefits are quite generous to low income earners and their "taxes" buy them a retirement annuity at about 10% IRR last I checked - I wish I could buy a lifetime inflation indexed annuity with a 10% return!  Wasn't the sales pitch on SS that it wasn't a "tax", just an enforced savings plan?  Now we've got an enforced healthcare plan too.

Source on SS IRRs: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/issuepapers/ip2009-02.html

skarydrunkguy said:   I hate taxes.

Therefor I choose not to make lots of money.  People that make lots of money have to pay too much in taxes.

Capitalism!!

  

  I have a friend with a Bio-chem degree who left a lucrative job to teach science at a poor boarding school deep in appalachia. He takes a salary that is less than minimum wage, and he and his family live, for the most part, on welfare. He considers himself to be a missionary, doing what he feels he is called to do and living off the dole while he does it.

xerty said:   
  Your chart of the other types of non-income taxes is also a bit misleading - SS taxes may appear to be large for the poor, but in reality SS benefits are quite generous to low income earners and their "taxes" buy them a retirement annuity at about 10% IRR last I checked - I wish I could buy a lifetime inflation indexed annuity with a 10% return!  Wasn't the sales pitch on SS that it wasn't a "tax", just an enforced savings plan?  Now we've got an enforced healthcare plan too.

Source on SS IRRs: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/issuepapers/ip2009-02.html

  
The charts are from the CBO report CNBC was reporting on. I posted them because it's the topic of the article under discussion and should be front and center.

I appreciate your argument which is why I posted the average tax rates by tax category as well, precisely so that that argument can be made. At the same time, I don't want to have our poor elderly living in destitution, as many did before Social Security. I think we should take care of them in some fashion which is why Social Security spending will have to be around in some fashion; even if different from today's system.

Typically the argument against helping the poor is that it diminishes incentives to work. Once you're over 67 I think that argument goes out the window though. I'm not concerned about 67+ year olds being insufficiently motivated to work.

I also think it's worthwhile to point out the effective tax rate on the top 1%. Even when including corporate taxes, their federal burden is under 30%. Too high? Arguably. But not 'crushing' as it is often characterized by some of the elite.

enc0re said: Typically the argument against helping the poor is that it diminishes incentives to work. Once you're over 67 I think that argument goes out the window though. I'm not concerned about 67+ year olds being insufficiently motivated to work.

Why 67? When SS was created it kicked in right around life expectancy. With it no longer being unusual for folks to live healthily into their 80s and 90s, I am concerned about 67+ year olds not being motivated to work if they haven't made their own provisions to sustain themselves for 20 or more years. Many people don't even enter the workforce anymore until their 30s. ~35 years of work followed by ~25 years of public retirement is not sustainable at the program's current funding level.

enc0re said: I also think it's worthwhile to point out the effective tax rate on the top 1%. Even when including corporate taxes, their federal burden is under 30%. Too high? Arguably. But not 'crushing' as it is often characterized by some of the elite.

"Too high" and "crushing" are nearly synonymous terms. I would characterize a tax rate as being too high if it provides a certain level of disincentives to engage in productive activities. At least by this characterization, a tax rate that is "too high" is also "crushing" to economic output. Perhaps "stifling" is preferable?

ahallfatwallett said:   2010 was the second year of the Stimulus that gave tax credits to low income working Americans - plus unemployment was still pretty high in 2010 - so of course this year would be a low point for percentage of Americans paying federal income tax.I think that's a good point.

What is it in 2012, after the Stimulus ended and the employment picture had improved?The CBO report that is being discussed here has just been released, so it is the most recent one. According to the article though " The CBO said that since 2010, new taxes have been added which will raise rates for everyone, with the biggest increase hitting the 1-percenters. They could end up with their highest federal tax rate since 1997 this year."

Wow. I got some red for posting the CBO charts. Didn't expect that.

enc0re said:   Wow. I got some red for posting the CBO charts. Didn't expect that.
It's a very sensitive topic, so it comes with the territory. My OP got some red, which I fully expected, even though I intentionally chose the most accurate and apolitical subject line I could come up with and intentionally avoided linking some of the more polarizing articles on this issue or quoting certain passages that I knew would just inflame some people.

xerty said:   enc0re said:   What a wonderfully misleading title on CNBC. "The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes" And then they go on to write about income taxes only.

For a slightly more meaningful discussion, here are the actual tables on federal taxes paid by income group. First for all taxes, then broken out for big tax categories. It's always interesting to note that certain people bring up the EITC as being a better alternative to the minimum wage ("abolish the minimum wage!") and then turn around and say that everyone should at least pay some income taxes ("abolish the EITC!").

 

  Your chart of the other types of non-income taxes is also a bit misleading - SS taxes may appear to be large for the poor, but in reality SS benefits are quite generous to low income earners and their "taxes" buy them a retirement annuity at about 10% IRR last I checked - I wish I could buy a lifetime inflation indexed annuity with a 10% return!  Wasn't the sales pitch on SS that it wasn't a "tax", just an enforced savings plan?  Now we've got an enforced healthcare plan too.

Source on SS IRRs: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/issuepapers/ip2009-02.html

exactly. SS and Medicare aren't taxes, they're more akin to prepaid insurance plans. They force people to contribute now to prevent their own poverty later. But the average worker gets back in benefits more than he contributes to SS and about three times more than he contributes to Medicare, so it's really hard to call those taxes.

Every time I see stats like this I'm reminded of 0bama's populist pandering that the rich should pay their fair share.

Indeed, indeed.

I would gladly trade my salary with a 0% tax rate for a "top 1 percent" salary with a 90% tax rate. Think I'll get any takers from the "top 1 percent" crowd?

enc0re said:   Wow. I got some red for posting the CBO charts. Didn't expect that.
To be fair, you didn't just post charts - you posted some color commentary.

While SS may be a tax by definition, conflating SS (which is suppose to be a forced retirement plan, not a wealth transfer mechanism) and income taxes collected to pay for the gov't strikes me as even more disingenuous than the CBNC headline.  
To each his own.

cbdo2007 said:   I would gladly trade my salary with a 0% tax rate for a "top 1 percent" salary with a 90% tax rate. Think I'll get any takers from the "top 1 percent" crowd?
  
Quite a hypothetical.  Like any employer would make that trade.

winter said:   
enc0re said:   Wow. I got some red for posting the CBO charts. Didn't expect that.
To be fair, you didn't just post charts - you posted some color commentary.

While SS may be a tax by definition, conflating SS (which is suppose to be a forced retirement plan, not a wealth transfer mechanism) and income taxes collected to pay for the gov't strikes me as even more disingenuous than the CBNC headline.  
To each his own.

  
Is SS really a forced retirement plan?  Are you sure?  Or is its intent to be a safety net & also funded pay-as-you-go with tax receipts?  Before you answer, I suggest you read up on what its intent originally was and what the SSA says it is.  The answer to this question affects whether one views it more as a tax for social programs or as a pension.

cbdo2007 said:   I would gladly trade my salary with a 0% tax rate for a "top 1 percent" salary with a 90% tax rate. Think I'll get any takers from the "top 1 percent" crowd?
You're equating the amount of work you do with the amount of work they do, which makes for an unfair comparison.

If the tax rate was 90%, I guarantee you that many of the "top 1 percent" crowd would gladly trade. Many of those people work many long hours and extremely hard to make $400k in a year, and if they could only keep $40k of it, they'd split!

cbdo2007 said:   I would gladly trade my salary with a 0% tax rate for a "top 1 percent" salary with a 90% tax rate. Think I'll get any takers from the "top 1 percent" crowd?
Come on, you know better than that. Most people in the top 1% have invested years  and years obtaining advanced degrees, have accumulated substantial student loans, have foregone other opportunities, have successfully competed against other extraordinarily bright, talented and hardworking people and have taken lots of risks. Of course anyone who couldn't or wouldn't follow the same path and now has a 0% tax rate would gladly change places with a 1%ter, but there's a reason that it doesn't work that way. 

Take a physician, for instance. Just to become a physician, you have to have worked incredibly hard in undergrad to graduate at the top of your class, get into a good medical school and work incredibly hard there, all while accumulating what often amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans, pay for, take and pass three USMLE exams, compete against other exceptionally qualified and hard working medical students to get into a good residency program, spend the next 3-5 years of your life in residency regularly working 60-110 hours a week while making $35K-$45K/year (all while your student loans are accumulating interest), potentially spend more years in a fellowship program, and then spend thousands of dollars taking and passing board exams. At that point, you are in your 30's, some 10 or so years older than your peers who've all been working and making way more money than you with far fewer risks and sacrifices. You do start making decent to very good money, all while still potentially working lots of call and carrying the responsibility for people's lives on your shoulders. Yet, you snidely point out that a physician who has gone through all of that would not trade places with a person in a 0% tax bracket. Really?

What people also have to realize is that if the rewards aren't worth the effort (because, for instance, the tax rate is so high that it discourages people from pursuing them), very few people would go through all that pain to get there.

And medicine is very close to a tipping point, in my opinion. The old rule of thumb is, don't take more in student loans than you expect to make in your first year of work. With the average med student debt close to $200,000, and the average non-specialist making $200,000, we're already there. Yet compensation keeps declining in real terms, while student loan burdens are soaring. The math just doesn't work very well if you're taking out half a million in student loans and only earning $200,000.

geo123 said:   
cbdo2007 said:   I would gladly trade my salary with a 0% tax rate for a "top 1 percent" salary with a 90% tax rate. Think I'll get any takers from the "top 1 percent" crowd?
Come on, you know better than that. Most people in the top 1% have invested years  and years obtaining advanced degrees, have accumulated substantial student loans, have foregone other opportunities, have successfully competed against other extraordinarily bright, talented and hardworking people and have taken lots of risks. Of course anyone who couldn't or wouldn't follow the same path and now has a 0% tax rate would gladly change places with a 1%ter, but there's a reason that it doesn't work that way. 

Take a physician, for instance. Just to become a physician, you have to have worked incredibly hard in undergrad to graduate at the top of your class, get into a good medical school and work incredibly hard there, all while accumulating what often amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans, pay for, take and pass three USMLE exams, get into a good residency program, spend the next 3-5 years of your life in residency regularly working 60-110 hours a week while making $35K-$45K/year (all while your student loans are accumulating interest), potentially spend more years in a fellowship program, and then spend thousands of dollars taking and passing board exams. At that point, you do start making decent to very good money, all while still potentially working lots of call and carrying the responsibility for people's lives on your shoulders. Yet, you snidely point out that a physician who has gone through all of that would not trade places with a person in a 0% tax bracket. Really?

What people also have to realize is that if the rewards aren't worth the effort (because, for instance, the tax rate is so high that it discourages people from pursuing them), very few people would go through all that pain to get there.

  
So, you are saying that there are less physicians now, when "the average federal tax rate for the 1 percenter...is significantly above its low in the mid-1980's", than there were physicians in the mid-1980's?

cbdo2007 said:   
So, you are saying that there are less physicians now, when "the average federal tax rate for the 1 percenter...is significantly above its low in the mid-1980's", than there were physicians in the mid-1980's?

You are being intellectually disingenuous with these statements and comments.

As you are or should be aware, there are several issues here. First, whether it is medicine or some other well compensated field, we want competition for those positions to be quite fierce (this is also the reason that compensation is so high), as this is the way that we end up with the best candidates in those positions. If you reduce compensation, either directly or indirectly (by increasing taxation), then you are making those fields less attractive to the most qualified candidates, who, over time, will end up choosing other occupations with better risk vs. reward ratios. This means that over time, the quality of your candidates will decline (and potentially your quantity as well -- Canada, with its high taxes, is facing severe physician shortages in quite a few areas).

Second, when you increase taxes, you will generally decrease people's willingness to continue to work as hard or harder, as the economic value of those achievements and accomplishments goes down. It is true that this won't be the case with every single person, as some people will work more to obtain the same level of net income as before but overall, increased levels of taxation do dampen economic activities. If you need to understand the reason for it, think about situations where you may've decided that working harder to get that bonus/more overtime/promotion just wasn't worth it to you. We all have pain thresholds where a small change becomes that straw that breaks the camel's back, and statistically speaking, tax increases do result in measurable levels of reduced economic activities.

geo123 said:   
cbdo2007 said:   
So, you are saying that there are less physicians now, when "the average federal tax rate for the 1 percenter...is significantly above its low in the mid-1980's", than there were physicians in the mid-1980's?

You are being intellectually disingenuous with these statements and comments.
  

 Yet you and I both know that we are well below the "pain threshhold" of anybody in the top 1 percent with their current tax rate in the United States and the opportunities they have here.

cbdo2007 said:   
geo123 said:   
cbdo2007 said:   
So, you are saying that there are less physicians now, when "the average federal tax rate for the 1 percenter...is significantly above its low in the mid-1980's", than there were physicians in the mid-1980's?

You are being intellectually disingenuous with these statements and comments.
  

 Yet you and I both know that we are well below the "pain threshhold" of anybody in the top 1 percent with their current tax rate in the United States and the opportunities they have here.

Just out of curiosity, where are you getting your information? It just doesn't work this way. Every single tax increase always results in measurable reductions of economic activity, which is also the reason that you can never calculate the anticipated tax revenue increases by taking the aggregate amount of money that will be subject to the tax increase and multiplying it by the percentage of the increase. The actual tax revenue will always be lower than that number for the exact reasons that I explained above.

Regardless, what exactly is your point? As a threshold matter, why is it that the more successful you are, the higher percentage of your income has to be paid out in taxes?

cbdo2007 said:   
geo123 said:   
cbdo2007 said:   
So, you are saying that there are less physicians now, when "the average federal tax rate for the 1 percenter...is significantly above its low in the mid-1980's", than there were physicians in the mid-1980's?

You are being intellectually disingenuous with these statements and comments.
  

 Yet you and I both know that we are well below the "pain threshhold" of anybody in the top 1 percent with their current tax rate in the United States and the opportunities they have here.

The bigger issue isn't how people who are currently successful will respond to changes in tax rates, but how such changes will affect others who are considering future career paths. While a successful surgeon in her 50's will probably continue to practice medicine if the financial rewards are reduced, it is far less likely that her son or daughter will choose to make the same sacrifices if medicine becomes a less attractive option.

ryeny3 said:   
cbdo2007 said:   
geo123 said:   
cbdo2007 said:   
So, you are saying that there are less physicians now, when "the average federal tax rate for the 1 percenter...is significantly above its low in the mid-1980's", than there were physicians in the mid-1980's?

You are being intellectually disingenuous with these statements and comments.
  

 Yet you and I both know that we are well below the "pain threshhold" of anybody in the top 1 percent with their current tax rate in the United States and the opportunities they have here.

The bigger issue isn't how people who are currently successful will respond to changes in tax rates, but how such changes will affect others who are considering future career paths. While a successful surgeon in her 50's will probably continue to practice medicine if the financial rewards are reduced, it is far less likely that her son or daughter will choose to make the same sacrifices if medicine becomes a less attractive option.

 
Or the Doctor will simply decide to retire early and enjoy his leisure time rather than be a minority partner to his labor with the Federal Government.

enc0re said:   Wow. I got some red for posting the CBO charts. Didn't expect that.
Well, it's an editorialized political post more or less. Not sure if it was a typo, but the "CBSnews" article is actually on cnsnews.com. CNS News is a heavily biased conservative source of "news" that I would not regard as reliable. Seriously, the article has a photo of Obama playing golf in Massachusetts. There's no caption about how it relates to the topic of the article...the president isn't even mentioned. It's probably intended to provoke negative opinions towards the president (ie as "rich" or "out of touch") in an article talking about taxes. This is political drivel, not real journalism.

What about context here? Like how much does this top 40% of income earners make compared to others? The earnings/wealth of the bottom 60% of income earners (in total) are diminutive compared to the top 40%, and the disparities get larger and larger as you go further towards the top. Given the reality of inequality in the US (especially over recent years/decades), I can see how this would happen.

scottxmso said:   
enc0re said:   Wow. I got some red for posting the CBO charts. Didn't expect that.
Well, it's an editorialized political post more or less. Not sure if it was a typo, but the "CBSnews" article is actually on cnsnews.com. CNS News is a heavily biased conservative source of "news" that I would not regard as reliable. Seriously, the article has a photo of Obama playing golf in Massachusetts. There's no caption about how it relates to the topic of the article...the president isn't even mentioned. It's probably intended to provoke negative opinions towards the president (ie as "rich" or "out of touch") in an article talking about taxes. This is political drivel, not real journalism.

You have the wrong person.   Enc0re, isn't the OP - he didn't post the CNS news link.

scottxmso said:   
Well, it's an editorialized political post more or less. Not sure if it was a typo, but the "CBSnews" article is actually on cnsnews.com. CNS News is a heavily biased conservative source of "news" that I would not regard as reliable.
Oops, you are absolutely right. I had never before heard of CNS News, so I misread the url as cbsnews. I thought that the article itself was completely factual and quite neutral, which is the reason that I linked it, but I've removed it from the OP now.

The information itself is reliable, however, as you the same exact information very widely reported by a wide variety of publications. I was just trying to link an additional article that referenced some CBO information that wasn't mentioned by CNBC.

bump

okwiater said:   
cbdo2007 said:   I would gladly trade my salary with a 0% tax rate for a "top 1 percent" salary with a 90% tax rate. Think I'll get any takers from the "top 1 percent" crowd?
You're equating the amount of work you do with the amount of work they do, which makes for an unfair comparison.

If the tax rate was 90%, I guarantee you that many of the "top 1 percent" crowd would gladly trade. Many of those people work many long hours and extremely hard to make $400k in a year, and if they could only keep $40k of it, they'd split!

  
No doubt many people work extremely hard at such a tax bracket. But many at those level, not all or even most but many, inherited wealth or had parents and family with the means to make sure they had every opportunity available to them whether in schooling or connections. If Mitt Romeny's father had not been an auto executive, more than likely, he would not be in the position he is with the sizable income from interest he collects from offshore funds.

There's plenty of lazy people at the bottom but it's extremely hard to become upwardly mobile and I believe it's becoming more difficult to do so.


 

NewToFatWalletUser said:    it's extremely hard to become upwardly mobile and I believe it's becoming more difficult to do so.
I keep hearing this; I'm curious why people think this is the case.  A couple hundred years ago, people put all their belongings in a wagon and headed west to become upwardly mobile.  A hundred years ago, people put all their belongings in a steamer trunk and sailed from Europe to become upwardly mobile.  How many people complaining about their 90 weeks of unemployment checks running out would be willing to do the same?  Anyone packed all their belongings and moved to North Dakota lately?

Skipping 31 Messages...
StGenius said:   
abracadabra1 said:    there should be some sense of shared sacrifice when the nation is at war
  By 'shared sacrifice' you mean a certain group paying higher taxes rather than everyone paying taxes, right?

That's not what I was implying at all. The message was simple: a minority of this country feels the pain and loss associated with going to war (primarily those in the Armed Forces). The 'shared sacrifice' that I mentioned was in reference to a 'war' tax for all Americans. The reality from a socioeconomic perspective is that the poor and lower-middle class are disproportionately represented within the military and thus carry a much higher burden (during times of conflict) than those that are wealthy. So an argument could be made that favors a more weighty tax on the wealthy. My point was simply to embrace the issuance of a war-time tax during times of major conflict to offset the impact on the budget and make lawmakers more keenly attuned to the costs of such conflicts. 



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014