The 47%

[tortoise]

Not really expecting anything to change . . but subsidies and tax credits need to be substantially reduced! Federal spending is estimated to top $4 Trillion in fiscal 2017! The 47% need to contribute to reduce deficit estimates.

 

[Matthiasa]

Didn't Trump say he was going to fix that? You kind of got what you deserve... But seriously without touching military spending to lower it would be impossible... Also give medicare/medicare the ability to properly negotiate prices. Additionally the retirement age has not kept up with how much longer people are living.

 

[nakedfrog]

I think you're lost, kid.

 

[dullard]

Suppose the income tax law was changed so that each and every person paid a minimum of $1 income tax. Then that 47% would drop to 0%. But there would be no impact at all on the fiscal budget. It would probably end up losing money due to added paperwork and payment processing.

So, the 47% isn't the problem (it also forgets that those 47% pay substantial payroll taxes as this 47% number excludes those payroll taxes even though payroll taxes are equal to income tax in average size). The problem is over-spending and under-taxing.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Suppose the income tax law was changed so that each and every person paid a minimum of $1 income tax. Then that 47% would drop to 0%. But there would be no impact at all on the fiscal budget. It would probably end up losing money due to added paperwork and payment processing.

So, the 47% isn't the problem (it also forgets that those 47% pay substantial payroll taxes as this 47% number excludes those payroll taxes even though payroll taxes are equal to income tax in average size). The problem is over-spending and under-taxing.

When you say Payroll taxes, I PRESUME you mean FICA based taxes such as Social Security and Medicaid - correct? Regardless, they don't contribute to the problem which is the federal deficit.

OP is stupid - especially for posting here no doubt - but do you honestly think the 47% issue isn't an issue? Keep in mind, that is not only 47% that do not contribute any income taxes - but the bottom majority are actually a net negative amount, meaning they receive more back from the government. This 47% number is only growing as we lean further and further on the upper middle class and the dwindling middle class.

Does that sound sustainable to you?

 

[JSt0rm]

When you say Payroll taxes, I PRESUME you mean FICA based taxes such as Social Security and Medicaid - correct? Regardless, they don't contribute to the problem which is the federal deficit.

OP is stupid - especially for posting here no doubt - but do you honestly think the 47% issue isn't an issue? Keep in mind, that is not only 47% that do not contribute any income taxes - but the bottom majority are actually a net negative amount, meaning they receive more back from the government. This 47% number is only growing as we lean further and further on the upper middle class and the dwindling middle class.

Does that sound sustainable to you?

once we have self driving cars that number will go up. A lot. What is your solution?

 

[K1052]

When you say Payroll taxes, I PRESUME you mean FICA based taxes such as Social Security and Medicaid - correct? Regardless, they don't contribute to the problem which is the federal deficit.

OP is stupid - especially for posting here no doubt - but do you honestly think the 47% issue isn't an issue? Keep in mind, that is not only 47% that do not contribute any income taxes - but the bottom majority are actually a net negative amount, meaning they receive more back from the government. This 47% number is only growing as we lean further and further on the upper middle class and the dwindling middle class.

Does that sound sustainable to you?

More sustainable than trying to get blood from stones. What are you going to do to poor people who can't or won't pay more income tax?

 

[Jhhnn]

Not really expecting anything to change . . but subsidies and tax credits need to be substantially reduced! Federal spending is estimated to top $4 Trillion in fiscal 2017! The 47% need to contribute to reduce deficit estimates.

Because right fringe mega-rich assholes need tax cuts, obviously.

 

[Jhhnn]

More sustainable than trying to get blood from stones. What are you going to do to poor people who can't or won't pay more income tax?

Put 'em in a privatized prison to create jobs, obviously.

 

[dullard]

When you say Payroll taxes, I PRESUME you mean FICA based taxes such as Social Security and Medicaid - correct? Regardless, they don't contribute to the problem which is the federal deficit.

OP is stupid - especially for posting here no doubt - but do you honestly think the 47% issue isn't an issue? Keep in mind, that is not only 47% that do not contribute any income taxes - but the bottom majority are actually a net negative amount, meaning they receive more back from the government. This 47% number is only growing as we lean further and further on the upper middle class and the dwindling middle class.

Does that sound sustainable to you?

Close, payroll taxes are social security and mediCARE (not mediCAID).

I just showed with a simple thought experiment that dropping the 47% number to 0% would have a negligible effect on the true problem of debts and deficits. Thus solving the 47% issue doesn't necessarily help.

Another way of doing that thought experiment would to be fully merge income tax, social security tax, and medicare all into one form and call them all income tax (heck for the self-employed it is already combined). Everyone would pay the exact same amount, the 47% number would plunge, and yet the bigger problem isn't solved. The deficit and debt would still be bad.

We need to fix over-spending and under-taxing. Doing that will lower the 47% number. That number is a symptom, not a cause. You are correct that our current path is not sustainable. But fixing symptoms doesn't make it sustainable.

 

[brycejones]

OP is off to a roaring start in P&N. Keep it up with posts like your first you'll be at boomerang levels of stupidity in no time. After that you can reach for the brown ring and go full buckshat.

Good luck OP! May the derp be with you!

 

[dullard]

OP...

Does name calling and insulting add anything to this conversation?

 

[IronWing]

Taxing capital gains as regular income and restoring the federal inheritance tax would help with deficits far more than trying to hit up poor people for money they ain't got.

 

[fskimospy]

When you say Payroll taxes, I PRESUME you mean FICA based taxes such as Social Security and Medicaid - correct? Regardless, they don't contribute to the problem which is the federal deficit.

OP is stupid - especially for posting here no doubt - but do you honestly think the 47% issue isn't an issue? Keep in mind, that is not only 47% that do not contribute any income taxes - but the bottom majority are actually a net negative amount, meaning they receive more back from the government. This 47% number is only growing as we lean further and further on the upper middle class and the dwindling middle class.

Does that sound sustainable to you?

The focus on federal income taxes is absolutely silly. Those people might not pay federal income tax but they often pay state income tax, sales tax, usage fees, etc, etc. It is entirely irrelevant whether or not the money they pay goes into federal coffers or some other government entity as it's all money out the door. If you look at total taxes as compared to total income it's pretty close for everyone:

This isn't the world's freshest set of data, but it's still informative. Conservatives focus on the federal income tax because it's the tax that rich people pay the most of, and conservatives are primarily focused on reducing the tax burden on the rich.

As for sustainability, sure. The share of US GDP taken up by taxation is considerably lower here than in most developed countries so we have a long way to go if we want.

 

[dullard]

Not really expecting anything to change . . but subsidies and tax credits need to be substantially reduced! Federal spending is estimated to top $4 Trillion in fiscal 2017! The 47% need to contribute to reduce deficit estimates.

The maximum Earned Income Tax credit is $6,318 if you have (A) three children, (B) a job, and (C) earn $14040 per year. Would you accept cutting that in half under one condition? Suppose that condition is that SEP IRA contribution deductions are cut in half. SEP IRA contributions lower taxes by up to $21,384 per person if you are wealthy enough to qualify.

That way the welfare to the wealthy and the welfare to the poor are both cut. Too bad we only save a small amount by cutting welfare to the poor since $6,318 is so much smaller than $21,384.

What about cutting welfare for corporations?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Close, payroll taxes are social security and mediCARE (not mediCAID).

I just showed with a simple thought experiment that dropping the 47% number to 0% would have a negligible effect on the true problem of debts and deficits. Thus solving the 47% issue doesn't necessarily help.

Another way of doing that thought experiment would to be fully merge income tax, social security tax, and medicare all into one form and call them all income tax (heck for the self-employed it is already combined). Everyone would pay the exact same amount, the 47% number would plunge, and yet the bigger problem isn't solved. The deficit and debt would still be bad.

We need to fix over-spending and under-taxing. Doing that will lower the 47% number. That number is a symptom, not a cause. You are correct that our current path is not sustainable. But fixing symptoms doesn't make it sustainable.

Yes, Medicare, I know the difference and just mixed the two.

you didn't experiment that dropping the 47% to 0% would have negligible effects - because you forgot to factor in the concept that the majority of the 47% are net negatives. In order to pay $1 in taxes, you must first give up the amount that you benefited from our tax system. Nice try though.

Social security and medicare go to defined pools. They don't affect the deficit in any way, shape, or form. So no, you can't factor those in just like you can't factor in State income taxes or state sales tax.

 

[Jhhnn]

When you say Payroll taxes, I PRESUME you mean FICA based taxes such as Social Security and Medicaid - correct? Regardless, they don't contribute to the problem which is the federal deficit.

OP is stupid - especially for posting here no doubt - but do you honestly think the 47% issue isn't an issue? Keep in mind, that is not only 47% that do not contribute any income taxes - but the bottom majority are actually a net negative amount, meaning they receive more back from the government. This 47% number is only growing as we lean further and further on the upper middle class and the dwindling middle class.

Does that sound sustainable to you?

Ask the JobCreators. It's the way they made it.

Conservatives simply do not understand what's happened to the economy. Working people have been losing in the top down class warfare waged by the Rich for decades. Since 1980, the share of national income going to the lower 75% has fallen by a quarter, ~11% of the total, while the share going to the top 1% has more tan doubled, rising by ~11%.

Table 5-

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-update

The greediest & richest assholes at the top of the heap intend to celebrate victory with a nice tax cut for themselves & a hearty FYGM for the rest of America.

Enjoy the Freedumb. I'm sure the Repub Rich are highly amused by all the cadres of conservative white knights riding cover for their 40 year looting spree.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, Medicare, I know the difference and just mixed the two.

you didn't experiment that dropping the 47% to 0% would have negligible effects - because you forgot to factor in the concept that the majority of the 47% are net negatives. In order to pay $1 in taxes, you must first give up the amount that you benefited from our tax system. Nice try though.

Social security and medicare go to defined pools. They don't affect the deficit in any way, shape, or form. So no, you can't factor those in just like you can't factor in State income taxes or state sales tax.

Dirty secret for you: social security and medicare funds are indistinguishable from general fund money in a practical sense.

Also I have no idea why you think we can't factor in state income taxes, sales taxes, or anything else. If you actually do what you suggest and bring the poor up to some positive amount of federal taxes contributed that likely means they would be paying a GREATER share of their income in taxes than the middle class and rich. Does that sound like a good idea?

 

[brycejones]

Does name calling and insulting add anything to this conversation?

Nope, but from the OP there wasn't any interest in having a real conversation. The whole 47% thing has been beat to death for years now. The myth that almost half the population just leaches from the government is just that a myth and anyone who repeats it deserves to be ridiculed.

It's like quoting sky high unemployment numbers that fail to take into account people choose to retire, go to collage, or stay at home for various reasons.

 

[Jhhnn]

Dirty secret for you: social security and medicare funds are indistinguishable from general fund money in a practical sense.

Also I have no idea why you think we can't factor in state income taxes, sales taxes, or anything else. If you actually do what you suggest and bring the poor up to some positive amount of federal taxes contributed that likely means they would be paying a GREATER share of their income in taxes than the middle class and rich. Does that sound like a good idea?

Taxes are for the little people, not for the Rich. Everybody knows this.

 

[dullard]

Yes, Medicare, I know the difference and just mixed the two.

you didn't experiment that dropping the 47% to 0% would have negligible effects - because you forgot to factor in the concept that the majority of the 47% are net negatives. In order to pay $1 in taxes, you must first give up the amount that you benefited from our tax system. Nice try though.

Social security and medicare go to defined pools. They don't affect the deficit in any way, shape, or form. So no, you can't factor those in just like you can't factor in State income taxes or state sales tax.

Lets do the same. Separate defense tax, agriculture tax, science tax, etc into separate defined pools. Then we don't have to factor anything into the budget! Good job, s0me0nesmind1, problem solved. Or, you can realize that they are not actually in separate defined pools and you can't just ignore the problems away.

The majority of the 47% (46.4% actually) are not net negatives.
* Many are back on the payroll. That 47% number came from near the peak of the recession.

* 22% of the whole population (just under half of the 47%) are retired. And if we go by your definition that their needs are in separate pools (social security and medicare), they shouldn't count.

* 18% of the whole population (just over a third of the 47%) are the working poor. Thus they do pay substantial FICA and sales taxes and usually don't qualify for much of welfare. So their net taxes are roughly $0.

* You are left with only 7.9% of households that are net negative.

 

[agent00f]

When you say Payroll taxes, I PRESUME you mean FICA based taxes such as Social Security and Medicaid - correct? Regardless, they don't contribute to the problem which is the federal deficit.

OP is stupid - especially for posting here no doubt - but do you honestly think the 47% issue isn't an issue? Keep in mind, that is not only 47% that do not contribute any income taxes - but the bottom majority are actually a net negative amount, meaning they receive more back from the government. This 47% number is only growing as we lean further and further on the upper middle class and the dwindling middle class.

Does that sound sustainable to you?

So you admit that OP is stupid, but then you go to parrot the same sources as he does. Real genius at work here.

 

[JSt0rm]

but what do we do with the 7.9% losers?

What % of those are white?

 

[dullard]

but what do we do with the 7.9% losers?

What % of those are white?

Of the net-negative, I do not now. Of the individual programs, that data is usually public. For example with SNAP (food stamps) it is (https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/Characteristics2013.pdf):
* 37.8% White
* 25.8% Black, non-Hispanic
* 16.1% Hispanic
* 2.4% Asian, non-Hispanic
* 1.4% Native American
* 16.5% not reported or mixed.

For the Earned Income Tax Credit (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-...ncome-tax-credit-and-the-white-working-class/)
* 49% White
* 19% Black
* 24% Hispanic
* 4% Asian
* 2% Other or unknown

 

[soulcougher73]

but what do we do with the 7.9% losers?

What % of those are white?

Soylent Green? It only cares about 1 color.