Half of the Country Doesn't Pay Income Tax?

[Jhhnn]

Tell the truth- tell the whole story- talk about total taxes as a % of income. Taxes are taxes, regardless of the govt entity collecting them or the mechanism used to do so. Payroll, excise, energy, sales and state income taxes cut into the bottom line all the same, along with others not named.

When we look at it that way, an honest way, the picture is a lot different. Don't accept dishonest framing. All of the taxes that affect working people's incomes, other than federal income tax, shrink to insignificance for the wealthiest among us, which is why the want us to only look at income taxes. It's the only tax that affects them much at all, so they'll try to puff up its importance to the rest of us, make it look like income taxes are unfair to all of us, rather than the only way that they pay much of their enormous incomes in taxes at all.

http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/184166.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k71DYM20WRM&NR=1

Freaking Mow-rons.

 

[matt0611]

We're half way there as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Rainsford]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/t...-class-warfare---the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over

Pretty much what I was thinking of. On the other hand, I don't think pushing for raising taxes on poorer people (or cutting their benefits) or defunding NPR really has that much to do with fixing our budget issues, if we're being honest.

 

[Moonbeam]

If you can't tax half the people who can't pay taxes and survive without living in total poverty then you have to tax the fuck out of those who have the money to pay. We can graduate the tax so that all pay something, the working poor included, even if only a few dollars and tax the highest incomes at oh maybe 95%.

You have to understand that rich people are rich because they want to be. They value money. They have that disease. So the more you tax them the more they will go out and make. Think of them as the cash cows society needs to thrive, the ones who want to own everything. Keep them working hard by taxing. The more you tax them the poorer they will feel and the harder they will work to make that 5% they keep reach infinity.

There isn't any point in taxing the poor. They have settled for poverty and aren't motivated. You need to tax the go getters, those who are pathologically driven. The rich who got rich by following some dream won't care if they are taxed either, because for them it's what they do that gives them pleasure.

And every year to keep the pasture green and the cows eating their grass you can have a lottery where 10% of the rich at random get all their taxes back. Capitalism perpetuates itself among the poor on dreams of money that only a very small number will or can ever achieve. We need only apply this strategy now to the winners. Milk them and give them a dream.

 

[fskimospy]

47% of people don't pay INCOME taxes, but they pay plenty of other taxes. Payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc, etc. The implication is usually that people are freeloaders because they aren't paying income tax, but as someone else said, 'taxes are taxes' it doesn't really matter what type.

 

[Moonbeam]

47% of people don't pay INCOME taxes, but they pay plenty of other taxes. Payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc, etc. The implication is usually that people are freeloaders because they aren't paying income tax, but as someone else said, 'taxes are taxes' it doesn't really matter what type.

If employers and greedy capitalists envy the working poor not paying taxes they can bump their wages up to where they will have to. This will teach them a lesson about how odious it is to pay taxes.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

If employers and greedy capitalists envy the working poor not paying taxes they can bump their wages up to where they will have to. This will teach them a lesson about how odious it is to pay taxes.

Please lead by example. Start a business and do exactly as you're preaching.

 

[Patranus]

Unemployed pay -0- income tax

Nope.
http://taxes.about.com/od/income/qt/Unemployment.htm

 

[SamurAchzar]

So a family should pay less in taxes for having a child, which will consume more services? Is that smart?

Bottom line, we subsidize poor decisions in the name of compassion. The more you live beyond your means, the less responsible you are held. That's a fact. You can make all sorts of arguments about what compassion we should have for the poor, but the economics of it are indisputable.

Excellent post.

 

[Rainsford]

So a family should pay less in taxes for having a child, which will consume more services? Is that smart?

Bottom line, we subsidize poor decisions in the name of compassion. The more you live beyond your means, the less responsible you are held. That's a fact. You can make all sorts of arguments about what compassion we should have for the poor, but the economics of it are indisputable.

Yes, things like child tax credits are smart. I live in a county with excellent schools which are paid for by my tax dollars. I have no kids, but I'm not really upset about this state of affairs.

Why? Because it's in my best interest to live in a society where kids are raised properly and properly educated. The selfish libertarian in me wants to keep more of the money I earned, but the more contemplative liberal in me realizes that it's a good idea for society as a whole to be well supported and well educated. Kids are expensive, helping parents raise them isn't the worst idea we've ever had.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Yes, things like child tax credits are smart. I live in a county with excellent schools which are paid for by my tax dollars. I have no kids, but I'm not really upset about this state of affairs.

Why? Because it's in my best interest to live in a society where kids are raised properly and properly educated. The selfish libertarian in me wants to keep more of the money I earned, but the more contemplative liberal in me realizes that it's a good idea for society as a whole to be well supported and well educated. Kids are expensive, helping parents raise them isn't the worst idea we've ever had.

You are confusing education with child credits, and then again confusing both with family planning and personal responsibility. As far as I support the free market and oppose taxation, I'm all for free education as true equalizer of opportunities. But don't confuse this with a state sponsoring one's family. If kids are expensive, then just as with anything, people should live within their means and reproduce smartly.

Even if we had huge resources to pour over these poor kids, there is no social logic in actively transferring from money the rich to the poor in order to create MORE poverty. If the parents themselves are uneducated and unmotivated, the children will most likely be brought up in the same way regardless of what the country spends.

What should be is a neutral stance towards child raising, in which one builds a family within his means and rich don't sponsor the families of the poor. I don't mind free education but the rest should fall on the parent, and if the parents are irresponsible in their decisions, they should be handled by the authorities.

 

[Ausm]

Stop watching Faux Noise and this will solve that problem.

 

[Rainsford]

You are confusing education with child credits, and then again confusing both with family planning and personal responsibility. As far as I support the free market and oppose taxation, I'm all for free education as true equalizer of opportunities. But don't confuse this with a state sponsoring one's family. If kids are expensive, then just as with anything, people should live within their means and reproduce smartly.

Even if we had huge resources to pour over these poor kids, there is no social logic in actively transferring from money the rich to the poor in order to create MORE poverty. If the parents themselves are uneducated and unmotivated, the children will most likely be brought up in the same way regardless of what the country spends.

What should be is a neutral stance towards child raising, in which one builds a family within his means and rich don't sponsor the families of the poor. I don't mind free education but the rest should fall on the parent, and if the parents are irresponsible in their decisions, they should be handled by the authorities.

Heh, I'm not confusing anything...I was trying to make a point with a similar type of tax. I'm a liberal mostly because I support the idea of paying taxes for things that don't directly benefit me because I think society as a whole benefits, which helps me in the long run.

You say that child tax credits and education funding are completely different issues, but I'd disagree. In both cases it's me, as a childless taxpayer, subsidizing some of the cost of parents with kids (whether it's education or just general expenses).

You make the argument that people should just "live within their means", but we control their means with tax credits and public funding for things kids need. And again, I think raising kids is pretty hard (I'm watching several of my friends go through the process right now) and I just can't support the idea that it's somehow wrong for our social policy to help out.

If you really want "social logic" supporting the concept, consider this. As a society, our future relies entirely on the next generation of citizens. Telling prospective parents to suck it up if they can't quite afford a kid will either result in improperly supported kids anyways, or a slowly shrinking society that can't quite keep up with an aging population. In either case, I really can't justify to myself objecting to tax breaks that help people trying to raise our future doctors and lawyers and engineers.

 

[Moonbeam]

Heh, I'm not confusing anything...I was trying to make a point with a similar type of tax. I'm a liberal mostly because I support the idea of paying taxes for things that don't directly benefit me because I think society as a whole benefits, which helps me in the long run.

You say that child tax credits and education funding are completely different issues, but I'd disagree. In both cases it's me, as a childless taxpayer, subsidizing some of the cost of parents with kids (whether it's education or just general expenses).

You make the argument that people should just "live within their means", but we control their means with tax credits and public funding for things kids need. And again, I think raising kids is pretty hard (I'm watching several of my friends go through the process right now) and I just can't support the idea that it's somehow wrong for our social policy to help out.

If you really want "social logic" supporting the concept, consider this. As a society, our future relies entirely on the next generation of citizens. Telling prospective parents to suck it up if they can't quite afford a kid will either result in improperly supported kids anyways, or a slowly shrinking society that can't quite keep up with an aging population. In either case, I really can't justify to myself objecting to tax breaks that help people trying to raise our future doctors and lawyers and engineers.

The difference between you and SamurAchzar is that you see poor parents as folk trying to do a good job and who will benefit from help and he sees them as Palestinians raising terrorists.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Heh, I'm not confusing anything...I was trying to make a point with a similar type of tax. I'm a liberal mostly because I support the idea of paying taxes for things that don't directly benefit me because I think society as a whole benefits, which helps me in the long run.

You say that child tax credits and education funding are completely different issues, but I'd disagree. In both cases it's me, as a childless taxpayer, subsidizing some of the cost of parents with kids (whether it's education or just general expenses).

You make the argument that people should just "live within their means", but we control their means with tax credits and public funding for things kids need. And again, I think raising kids is pretty hard (I'm watching several of my friends go through the process right now) and I just can't support the idea that it's somehow wrong for our social policy to help out.

If you really want "social logic" supporting the concept, consider this. As a society, our future relies entirely on the next generation of citizens. Telling prospective parents to suck it up if they can't quite afford a kid will either result in improperly supported kids anyways, or a slowly shrinking society that can't quite keep up with an aging population. In either case, I really can't justify to myself objecting to tax breaks that help people trying to raise our future doctors and lawyers and engineers.

There are big differences between paying for education and giving people tax credits for having children. Education is a direct benefit to the child. Tax credits go to the parents and the child may seem some secondary benefit from it. For the majority of families receiving the credit it's not going to make some huge difference in their upbringing.

 

[mattpegher]

I make plenty of income and pay plenty of tax. Much of my deductions are eliminated by AMT. What bothers me is the way the tax laws favor the uber rich. Most CEO's and the like, get a large amount of their expenses covered by corporations that then pass on the deduction in their taxes. Private travel, auto expenses, housing, and many other expenses that are benefits of their jobs, yet those of us that are considered wealthy but still work for a living cant even deduct simple business expenses.
I dont think that the very poor should pay. We should get some income tax out of everyone except the bottom 25%. It falls mostly on numbers, if you tax the 25-50% bracket even a few dollars more due their sheer numbers the income would be great. The AMT was supposed to fix this but the income at which it starts is to low and the type of deductions that it erases are wrong.

 

[umbrella39]

Nope.
http://taxes.about.com/od/income/qt/Unemployment.htm

Taxable income. Just because the first $2400 was exempt in year 2009 does NOT mean that dollar $2401 started getting taxed especially for someone who only pulled $18K for 12 months on UE supporting a family of 6. Credits/deductions would offset any possible INCOME taxes anyhow.

 

[ericlp]

AFAIK, Unemployment is like 10%. Any one that is employed, pays income tax.

Therefore, false.

-John

Great, 10% are on unemployment. How many going to school? How many are too young to work 16 or younger... How many just don't wanna work and living at home with mom and dad can't find work but not on unemployment? How many getting paid under the table?

Then there are retired people, and people that are on government support ...

sounds about right to me.

 

[JSt0rm]

How many just don't wanna work and living at home with mom and dad

I dont think thats the problem.

 

[First]

Enough with this BS stat, payroll and property taxes are significant and paid for by all employed U.S. citizens with property.

 

[ericlp]

If you can't tax half the people who can't pay taxes and survive without living in total poverty then you have to tax the fuck out of those who have the money to pay. We can graduate the tax so that all pay something, the working poor included, even if only a few dollars and tax the highest incomes at oh maybe 95%.

You have to understand that rich people are rich because they want to be. They value money. They have that disease. So the more you tax them the more they will go out and make. Think of them as the cash cows society needs to thrive, the ones who want to own everything. Keep them working hard by taxing. The more you tax them the poorer they will feel and the harder they will work to make that 5% they keep reach infinity.

There isn't any point in taxing the poor. They have settled for poverty and aren't motivated. You need to tax the go getters, those who are pathologically driven. The rich who got rich by following some dream won't care if they are taxed either, because for them it's what they do that gives them pleasure.

And every year to keep the pasture green and the cows eating their grass you can have a lottery where 10% of the rich at random get all their taxes back. Capitalism perpetuates itself among the poor on dreams of money that only a very small number will or can ever achieve. We need only apply this strategy now to the winners. Milk them and give them a dream.

BRILLIANT! That's really a cool concept that could just work. I always like fresh idea's and you really put it into perspective.

:thumbsup:

 

[her209]

Enough with this BS stat, payroll and property taxes are significant and paid for by all employed U.S. citizens with property.

What's that old line? "Taxes are passed onto the customers." Therefore, if you're a customer, you paid taxes!

:awe:

 

[spidey07]

Enough with this BS stat, payroll and property taxes are significant and paid for by all employed U.S. citizens with property.

And are also paid by people who DO pay income tax so your point is worthless.

We are reaching the edge where half of the country can vote to take the other half's money via taxes, and Taxpayers are finally waking up to that fact and rejecting this president and democrats wealth redistribution agenda. Only the hard core marxits/progressive supports it and they're a huge minority in this country thank god.

 

[Engineer]

And are also paid by people who DO pay income tax so your point is worthless.

No it's not worthless. If you read the post by Jhhnn above, you would have noticed that the ratio of ALL taxes paid vs ALL income is almost exactly in line. Just because someone doesn't pay federal taxes does not mean that they do not pay taxes.

Ah hell, I don't know why I'm wasting my time with you. You'll root for the upper echelons getting a tax cut while ranting that the lowers don't pay anything/enough. You only care about one thing....how much you pay and if you can pay less, period. No use sugar coating bullshit...it's still bullshit.

 

[spidey07]

No it's not worthless. If you read the post by Jhhnn above, you would have noticed that the ratio of ALL taxes paid vs ALL income is almost exactly in line. Just because someone doesn't pay federal taxes does not mean that they do not pay taxes.

Ah hell, I don't know why I'm wasting my time with you. You'll root for the upper echelons getting a tax cut while ranting that the lowers don't pay anything/enough. You only care about one thing....how much you pay and if you can pay less, period. No use sugar coating bullshit...it's still bullshit.

Damn straight. It's MY MONEY, NOT YOURS!!!! More tax cuts for me, and make the poor/middle class pay more. It's the ONLY way out of this death spiral.