• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

45% of Americans Do Not Contribute Any Federal Income Taxes...

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,287
2,000
136
I am in a higher income bracket. I am also in a position that distributes budget and has responsibility in hiring of staff and distribution of income and benefits to them.

The amount of and manner of which I am taxed and regulated directly impacts my willingness to contribute privately and choices in allocation of resources to employees.

However, honestly, only to a certain degree that isn't too awful.

What is awful and crippling is the speculation about how these things may change going forward. It is coupled with an increasing sense of entitlement to more. Naturally, from a business standpoint, the approach to speculation is to tighten the screws and act more conservatively until more certainty is known. Unfortunately, those actions also drive the divide between employer and employee even further.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
When the budget deficit is covered. If we want to bring down government spending, then that spending has to hurt. And the people it has to hurt are the people that matter. In our system, the people that matter are the rich. Therefore, if we tax the holy hell out of the rich to fully cover government spending, the spending will come down. As long as the rich can get richer off of government debt, the debt will grow. So tax away.

Will that truly occur though? And again at what percentage? 30%, 40%, 90% of their income

Wouldn't it be near impossible to scale back government programs once expanded when people become reliant on them?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
You should be in love with the APT tax-

http://bigbatusa.org/balanced-budget/a-tax-revolution/

It's a sales tax that covers everything.

If nothing else, it'll kill the skim from high speed trading.
I like it, although I worry about that "phased in" part. Could be we just end up with an additional tax. Also, needs to be some way that domestic manufacturing (many transactions inside America) is not disadvantaged compared to imported manufactures (one or a few transactions inside America.) We don't need yet another reason to off-shore.

Bring it. I would trade single payer for ACA a million times over.

In all honesty, the only thing that worries me about single payer is if it kills innovation for further development. Most major breakthroughs in the medical industry have come out of the US. People fly down here for cancer treatment all the time. That said, I do not know if Single Payer will affect this or not, I'm willing to take that risk though at this point.

Like I said, bring on the VAT. You pay what you consume - the way it should be.
Someone with money to invest who correctly guesses where the money goes after the federal government removes the profit motive in health care really could buy Denmark and be richer than the Queen.

What does "Oversized" mean?
Means it's too big.

Don't be afraid to ask for help with the hard stuff. :D
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
income isn't economic activity?

what's hilarious (or maybe sad) is that the GOP kicked a lot of people off the income tax rolls (and bragged about it, removed 1 in every 5 income taxpaying families off the tax rolls), and is now complaining about it! mitt complained that the GOP's message of lower taxes doesn't resonate with a lot of people because they pay no income taxes. the GOP's solution to that "problem" is, apparently, to levy taxes on poor people. increase their taxes so you can tell them you're going to cut their taxes! genius!
Income is economic activity, just not the kind of economic activity that encourages saving and investment. Have to read the whole sentence.

The GOP isn't complaining about removing people from taxation, but some of us do recognize the dangers in reducing the number of people pulling the little red wagon. When enough people are riding in the wagon, then it stops moving no matter how vociferously they demand that it move faster.

Tax rates are as low as they've been in close to a century. If the richest people in the solar system, who owe their success to the fact that they grew up in a first world country with all of the fredoms, benefits, and opportunities that they otherwise wouldn't have had, feel the need to move elsewhere because boo hoo they're paying close to 15% of their income in taxes...

Then let them go. They truly don't give a shit about their country or their countrymen. Let them abscond to Somalia, or a yacht in international waters, if paying 15% of their income in taxes is just too heavy of a burden for these multi-billionaires and multimillionaires.

It's ok. The rest of us will be just fine without them siphoning almost 99% of economic growth into their bank accounts to hand over to Wall St. criminals to inflate bubbles that the rest of us have to eventually pay for.

It's always entertaining to read about how the poor, poor, richest people in the solar system are so persecuted in the US today, what, with paying close to 15% of their income in taxes and all.
Do you actually think-

Sorry, that was mean. Do you actually feel that poor people will somehow begin running the companies that supply the things we want and need if you can just drive off the rich people? Might want to take a look at Great Britain or France; the ultra wealthy still own the companies (read: stock), they just move elsewhere and have their earnings forwarded.
 

HeXen

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2009
7,808
29
91
When it comes to paying taxes, the real difference is the lifestyle you are able to lead after you pay them. For the rich, they can still buy that ivory backscratcher with bangle tiger skin handle. For others, it's more like they have to forgo that option and buy the baby pine wood backscratcher with vinyl tassels and a cute little Made in China sticker on it.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,020
4,766
126
Income is economic activity, just not the kind of economic activity that encourages saving and investment. Have to read the whole sentence.

The GOP isn't complaining about removing people from taxation, but some of us do recognize the dangers in reducing the number of people pulling the little red wagon. When enough people are riding in the wagon, then it stops moving no matter how vociferously they demand that it move faster.


Do you actually think-

Sorry, that was mean. Do you actually feel that poor people will somehow begin running the companies that supply the things we want and need if you can just drive off the rich people? Might want to take a look at Great Britain or France; the ultra wealthy still own the companies (read: stock), they just move elsewhere and have their earnings forwarded.
The govt has done plenty to encourage savings and investing in the income tax. From accelerated depreciation to the low rates in ltcg, the govt loves "investment."

Wonder if that's had anything to do with the asset bubbles we keep having? :hmm:


And what do you mean not complaining about people coming off the tax rolls? What else do you call misleading articles in the OP and mitt's complaint that 47% pay no income taxes.
 
Last edited:

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
67,818
2,923
126
I like it, although I worry about that "phased in" part. Could be we just end up with an additional tax. Also, needs to be some way that domestic manufacturing (many transactions inside America) is not disadvantaged compared to imported manufactures (one or a few transactions inside America.) We don't need yet another reason to off-shore.


Someone with money to invest who correctly guesses where the money goes after the federal government removes the profit motive in health care really could buy Denmark and be richer than the Queen.


Means it's too big.

Don't be afraid to ask for help with the hard stuff. :D
What does "too big" mean? AKA, how do you determine the proper size?
 

Conroe

Senior member
Mar 12, 2006
324
32
91
So am I richer than 45% of Americans or just not as good at deductions? In my community I look kind of poor.
 

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
40,472
3,542
136
So am I richer than 45% of Americans or just not as good at deductions?
Did you get EITC, food stamps, subsidizes housing, electric, obummerphone, healthcare, education, school food program, college, daycare, ...hell, probably free orgasms on call....If no, then yes.

:\
 

Conroe

Senior member
Mar 12, 2006
324
32
91
Did you get EITC, food stamps, subsidizes housing, electric, obummerphone, healthcare, education, school food program, college, daycare, ...hell, probably free orgasms on call....If no, then yes.

:\
No, we make too much. Not even reduced lunch for my three kids that are still in school.
 

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
40,472
3,542
136
No, we make too much. Not even reduced lunch for my three kids that are still in school.
Well, can't you still deduct your IRA...oh, wait, you make too much $$ because you're married and the wife works.

Loser.

I suggest that you vote Bernie. He'll give you all kinds of free stuff..
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
60,235
12,744
136
Will that truly occur though? And again at what percentage? 30%, 40%, 90% of their income

Wouldn't it be near impossible to scale back government programs once expanded when people become reliant on them?
It is impossible to scale back government programs when no one is paying for them as the expense is incurred. If I'm relying on a govt program as a contractor, aid recipient, employee, or grant recipient I have skin in the game to see the program continue. If I am an investor looking for a safe, if low return investment, govt bonds work for me. As long as we pass the buck to future taxpayers, the programs roll on because no one is currently losing. Raise taxes to cover the expenses today and we create powerful advocates for curtailing spending. The current system does not incentivize thriftiness.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,130
13,070
136
When you say something like "Tax a man who makes $15K it sounds like it is horrible. However the standard deduction and the personal deduction for yourself and any other family members means you probably will not pay any taxes. If a person has a child and works then they also get the Earned income credit, which with 2-3 children is about a tax return refund of about $8k.
Which is still poor by American standards. The max EITC for 3 dependents is $6269 for 2016, btw.

https://www.irs.gov/Credits-&-Deductions/Individuals/Earned-Income-Tax-Credit/EITC-Income-Limits-Maximum-Credit-Amounts-Next-Year
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,130
13,070
136
Did you get EITC, food stamps, subsidizes housing, electric, obummerphone, healthcare, education, school food program, college, daycare, ...hell, probably free orgasms on call....If no, then yes.

:\
Well, yeh, but if they didn't get that stuff how would they pay the vig on payday loans?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
The govt has done plenty to encourage savings and investing in the income tax. From accelerated depreciation to the low rates in ltcg, the govt loves "investment."

Wonder if that's had anything to do with the asset bubbles we keep having? :hmm:


And what do you mean not complaining about people coming off the tax rolls? What else do you call misleading articles in the OP and mitt's complaint that 47% pay no income taxes.
Savings by individual, average middle class people. And the GOP trumpets its role in removing lower middle class Americans from paying income tax; we just also recognize the dangers of having such a large percentage not having skin in the game.

What does "too big" mean? AKA, how do you determine the proper size?
You decide what programs & functions you think the federal government should handle, and at what level. Even the proggiest person has to make this calculation before deciding that government (aka their neighbors) owes them a pony.

It is impossible to scale back government programs when no one is paying for them as the expense is incurred. If I'm relying on a govt program as a contractor, aid recipient, employee, or grant recipient I have skin in the game to see the program continue. If I am an investor looking for a safe, if low return investment, govt bonds work for me. As long as we pass the buck to future taxpayers, the programs roll on because no one is currently losing. Raise taxes to cover the expenses today and we create powerful advocates for curtailing spending. The current system does not incentivize thriftiness.
Well said. And the current GOP position is not for fiscal responsibility either, it's just for a tiny bit more fiscal responsibility than the Dems, for purely political reasons. When they had the White House and both chambers, they were perfectly happy to spend like drunken sailors AND cut taxes, even though many of them had been true hawks on the deficit and overall spending just months before.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,130
13,070
136
Savings by individual, average middle class people. And the GOP trumpets its role in removing lower middle class Americans from paying income tax; we just also recognize the dangers of having such a large percentage not having skin in the game.
Taxes are taxes no matter which govt pocket they go into. By that honest measure working people pay a higher & more significant amount of their incomes in taxes than the Trumps & Romneys of the world. In terms of sacrifice we put more skin into the game than the Wealthiest ever will.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Taxes are taxes no matter which govt pocket they go into. By that honest measure working people pay a higher & more significant amount of their incomes in taxes than the Trumps & Romneys of the world. In terms of sacrifice we put more skin into the game than the Wealthiest ever will.
Not really. Payroll taxes are for our direct benefit - basically a forced retirement and disability insurance program. Their roles in running the federal government at large are extremely small, by design. Income taxes are other general fund taxes (such as that portion of corporate income taxes paid by our purchases) would be skin in the game.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
Make taxes for foreign laborers in the USA Higher and make a portion of those taxes be paid by the employer like SS. Then make US and international Companies that import goods made overseas in countries that mistreat women, are communist, or considered a kingdom or kill Christians, pay tariffs. Why should we pay our enemies?
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
I do think it is stupid to pay someone SS and then make them pay a tax on it. Just pay them a little less of a SS benefit and pay no taxes on the SS.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
I never understood why businesses get to deduct business expenses. I am not forcing them to be in business, so why should I have to pay their business expenses?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY