Who isn't paying "their fair share"?

[shira]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: shira
If there were no SS and Medicare, most of us would be responsible for taking care of our own parents when they got too old for work and/or when they got sick. They'd live in our homes and eat our food, and we'd have to pay for their medical care or for their expensive medical insurance.

Maybe you'd be fortunate enough to have parents who were financially solid in retirement, but that certainly wouldn't be true for the majority.

Im not advocating dismantling SS or Medicare/Medicaid; however, whats so wrong about your first scenario? I think its a fantastic idea myself.

By first scenario do you mean supporting one's own parents without SS and Medicare? I think that would drive most families into bankruptcy. And I'm not even considering the fact that many people don't get along with their parents - can you imagine having to live with someone who continually drives you up a wall?

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: piasabird
If you had a flat tax with no exceptions or deductions for anything, then the Income tax system would be more equitable. (Corporate and Business Taxes are another issue)

What on Earth does Middle-Class Mean anyway?

Read this and get confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class

I also think we also need to get rid of this term "The Middle Class"! There is no definition for it because it covers everyone from $1 over the poverty line to anyone not making $1M a year. It is too vague of a term. It also does not take into account that in some parts of the country a house costs around $100,000.00 and in another part of the country that same house may cost over $300,000.00 or that the cost of living varies too much to understand the numbers. If you lump somone into this group that makes $40k with people that make $500k then this causes problems. How can you have a middle-class with no lower class? All you have is Poverty, Middle-Class, and Wealthy. This is too vague.

One thing you would have to look at is that a lot of corporations hire teams of lawyers and accountants to use every legal tax exemption on the planet. One thing to try to fix this would be to do away with all tax abatements and make all of them illegal (I think this is more of a State issue having to do with Property Tax). I think on federal tax, a company should have to consider a Tax Abatement as "Payment-in-kind". After doing some reading it is estimated that corporations can write so many things off that they only pay about %50 of the tax they should be paying. This is the case of the rich getting richer. It seems the more money you have the more tax loopholes there are.

Maybe a better way would be to have their tax done for them by the IRS, instead of their privately "hired" taxation accountants.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: shira
If there were no SS and Medicare, most of us would be responsible for taking care of our own parents when they got too old for work and/or when they got sick. They'd live in our homes and eat our food, and we'd have to pay for their medical care or for their expensive medical insurance.

Maybe you'd be fortunate enough to have parents who were financially solid in retirement, but that certainly wouldn't be true for the majority.

Im not advocating dismantling SS or Medicare/Medicaid; however, whats so wrong about your first scenario? I think its a fantastic idea myself.

By first scenario do you mean supporting one's own parents without SS and Medicare? I think that would drive most families into bankruptcy. And I'm not even considering the fact that many people don't get along with their parents - can you imagine having to live with someone who continually drives you up a wall?

Like I said, Im not looking to dismantle it. But the rest, yes. Its a great idea. One thing we in the USA we do differently than most of the rest of the world is...when our parents get old we oput them in a home. I personally think its fucking embarrasing. Do I think its a workable plan for EVERYONE? Of course not. But for most? I dont know. We dont have a mindset of family in this country so probably not. I couldnt care less if my mother drove me up the wall. She's my mother, and I plan on taking care of her when she cant do so herself.

 

[QuantumPion]

I want Charlie rengle, tom daschle, Barney frank, Chris dodd and Tim geitner to pay their fair share...

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: shira
By first scenario do you mean supporting one's own parents without SS and Medicare? I think that would drive most families into bankruptcy. And I'm not even considering the fact that many people don't get along with their parents - can you imagine having to live with someone who continually drives you up a wall?

Like I said, Im not looking to dismantle it. But the rest, yes. Its a great idea. One thing we in the USA we do differently than most of the rest of the world is...when our parents get old we oput them in a home. I personally think its fucking embarrasing. Do I think its a workable plan for EVERYONE? Of course not. But for most? I dont know. We dont have a mindset of family in this country so probably not. I couldnt care less if my mother drove me up the wall. She's my mother, and I plan on taking care of her when she cant do so herself.

I would have been happy to have my parents live with me. Both of them passed away when they were still independent, so living with them would have been easy. However, if one or both of them had been disabled - physically or mentally - I don't know how I would have handled it. I mean, I wouldn't have been able to stop working; but then who would have looked after them during the day while I was working? Or how about at other times - surely it's not fair to assume that people should completely give up their own lives to take care of elderly parents. And assuming one or both of them had had serious problems (late-stage Parkinson's or advanced Alzheimer's), requiring round-the-clock support, what then?

The point I'm trying to make is that the U.S. doesn't have any infrastructure in place to make taking care of elderly parents easier. Medicare isn't remotely sufficient, as long term nursing care isn't a benefit.

If we want to follow the model of other countries where living with aged parents is common, it will require yet another extensive modification of our health-care system, and even more public dollars.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: rchiu
People need to get rid of this "fair share" idea. If you don't know already, let me just tell you the world isn't fair. If you start talking this fair share business, first of all nobody can definitively tell you what is fair, and second of all depending of the definition of fair, rich can easily accuse the poor not paying and vice versa.

You need to focus on what's practical. Tax is nothing more than renue to support gov. program. All we need is a tax rate that supports gov. program that we all agree on. Nothing more, nothing less, not a tax rate based on fairness. You need tax rate that's competitive with the rest of the world so you don't lose the most productive people and companies. You need a tax system that's easy to practice so people don't waste tons of money to figure out what to pay, and you need a system that's hard to circumvent.

Why can't more people debate on these things instead of this stupid "fair" business.

give all your disposable income to the govt then!

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: shira
By first scenario do you mean supporting one's own parents without SS and Medicare? I think that would drive most families into bankruptcy. And I'm not even considering the fact that many people don't get along with their parents - can you imagine having to live with someone who continually drives you up a wall?

Like I said, Im not looking to dismantle it. But the rest, yes. Its a great idea. One thing we in the USA we do differently than most of the rest of the world is...when our parents get old we oput them in a home. I personally think its fucking embarrasing. Do I think its a workable plan for EVERYONE? Of course not. But for most? I dont know. We dont have a mindset of family in this country so probably not. I couldnt care less if my mother drove me up the wall. She's my mother, and I plan on taking care of her when she cant do so herself.

I would have been happy to have my parents live with me. Both of them passed away when they were still independent, so living with them would have been easy. However, if one or both of them had been disabled - physically or mentally - I don't know how I would have handled it. I mean, I wouldn't have been able to stop working; but then who would have looked after them during the day while I was working? Or how about at other times - surely it's not fair to assume that people should completely give up their own lives to take care of elderly parents. And assuming one or both of them had had serious problems (late-stage Parkinson's or advanced Alzheimer's), requiring round-the-clock support, what then?

The point I'm trying to make is that the U.S. doesn't have any infrastructure in place to make taking care of elderly parents easier. Medicare isn't remotely sufficient, as long term nursing care isn't a benefit.

If we want to follow the model of other countries where living with aged parents is common, it will require yet another extensive modification of our health-care system, and even more public dollars.

I don't know how I would have handled it. I mean, I wouldn't have been able to stop working; but then who would have looked after them during the day while I was working? Or how about at other times - surely it's not fair to assume that people should completely give up their own lives to take care of elderly parents.

Maybe for most it isnt thinkable. For me it is. In fact, my mother and I have already discussed it.

The point I'm trying to make is that the U.S. doesn't have any infrastructure in place to make taking care of elderly parents easier. Medicare isn't remotely sufficient, as long term nursing care isn't a benefit.

If we want to follow the model of other countries where living with aged parents is common, it will require yet another extensive modification of our health-care system, and even more public dollars

We have more in place than you think. But overall, you are correct. I dont disagree with you there. But hospice, for example, is making progress in the right direction.

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I want Charlie rengle, tom daschle, Barney frank, Chris dodd and Tim geitner to pay their fair share...

I think you hit it spot on.

 

[Argo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nobody gets anything for nothing

Well, if you are paying no federal income tax or you are not paying taxes AND getting money back from the government...
...like 45% of all Americans....
....then yes, you are getting "something for nothing"

Nobody gets anything for nothing is what we need to change to, not that there is no such thing as getting something for nothing. Yes 45% are getting something for nothing and that's not fair to monkeys. I want to change that so that everybody gives something right after everybody has a job, and must work for something.

Depending on what you mean "by everybody get a job to get perks from the government" that's sounds similar to communism. Where the idea is everybody works and in return the government takes care of you. We all know how that turned out.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nobody gets anything for nothing

Well, if you are paying no federal income tax or you are not paying taxes AND getting money back from the government...
...like 45% of all Americans....
....then yes, you are getting "something for nothing"

Nobody gets anything for nothing is what we need to change to, not that there is no such thing as getting something for nothing. Yes 45% are getting something for nothing and that's not fair to monkeys. I want to change that so that everybody gives something right after everybody has a job, and must work for something.

Depending on what you mean "by everybody get a job to get perks from the government" that's sounds similar to communism. Where the idea is everybody works and in return the government takes care of you. We all know how that turned out.

Liar. Just admit you know nothing about Communism.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: blackangst1
... What I have said numerous times is I'd like to see the lowest tax rate something like .5 or 1%. When I grew up, I learned to value a dollar. I learned that nothing comes for free, and if you GET something, you should GIVE something in return. Sometimes its proportional, sometimes its not.

Whats so unfair about that? Give those that use our tax money the most some ownership. Thanks for trying to demonize me though. Piss poor attempt.

Shocked.

I 100% agree with BlackAngst1 on this one topic. That very nearly everyone should pay something.


Here are the brackets I'd propose:

---- top rate ----
50.00% - 50.0M+
48.00% - 25.0M+
46.00% - 10.0M+
44.00% - 5.0M+
42.00% - 2.5M+
---- divider ----
40.00% - 1.0M+
35.00% - 500k+
30.00% - 250k+
20.00% - 100k+
15.00% - 50k+
10.00% - 25k+
05.00% - 10K+
02.50% - 5K+
01.25% - 2.5K+
00.75% - 1K+
00.00% - 0+
---- bottom rate ----

Above the divider, you no longer get any deductions of any kind, as you have made more in one year than the average american makes in his life.

Im glad we agree about the bottom income earners...I disagree with the rest of your proposal though at the divider

Cheers man

The problem with the bottom couple brackets (up to and including 5k+), is that it likely costs more to process the tax return, than the country recieves in taxes.

Under these brackets:
If someone earned exactly 5k, the government would get $89. That might not be a loss, but it's probably close. If they only earned 2.5k, the government would get $26, which almost definitely would be a loss.

While I agree with you in principle, when putting that principle to practice, I'm just not sure if it's worth it in dollars.

 

[Argo]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nobody gets anything for nothing

Well, if you are paying no federal income tax or you are not paying taxes AND getting money back from the government...
...like 45% of all Americans....
....then yes, you are getting "something for nothing"

Nobody gets anything for nothing is what we need to change to, not that there is no such thing as getting something for nothing. Yes 45% are getting something for nothing and that's not fair to monkeys. I want to change that so that everybody gives something right after everybody has a job, and must work for something.

Depending on what you mean "by everybody get a job to get perks from the government" that's sounds similar to communism. Where the idea is everybody works and in return the government takes care of you. We all know how that turned out.

Liar. Just admit you know nothing about Communism.

I grew up in USSR.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nobody gets anything for nothing

Well, if you are paying no federal income tax or you are not paying taxes AND getting money back from the government...
...like 45% of all Americans....
....then yes, you are getting "something for nothing"

Nobody gets anything for nothing is what we need to change to, not that there is no such thing as getting something for nothing. Yes 45% are getting something for nothing and that's not fair to monkeys. I want to change that so that everybody gives something right after everybody has a job, and must work for something.

Depending on what you mean "by everybody get a job to get perks from the government" that's sounds similar to communism. Where the idea is everybody works and in return the government takes care of you. We all know how that turned out.

Liar. Just admit you know nothing about Communism.

I grew up in USSR.

Then why would you make such a stupid statement?

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: blackangst1
... What I have said numerous times is I'd like to see the lowest tax rate something like .5 or 1%. When I grew up, I learned to value a dollar. I learned that nothing comes for free, and if you GET something, you should GIVE something in return. Sometimes its proportional, sometimes its not.

Whats so unfair about that? Give those that use our tax money the most some ownership. Thanks for trying to demonize me though. Piss poor attempt.

Shocked.

I 100% agree with BlackAngst1 on this one topic. That very nearly everyone should pay something.


Here are the brackets I'd propose:

---- top rate ----
50.00% - 50.0M+
48.00% - 25.0M+
46.00% - 10.0M+
44.00% - 5.0M+
42.00% - 2.5M+
---- divider ----
40.00% - 1.0M+
35.00% - 500k+
30.00% - 250k+
20.00% - 100k+
15.00% - 50k+
10.00% - 25k+
05.00% - 10K+
02.50% - 5K+
01.25% - 2.5K+
00.75% - 1K+
00.00% - 0+
---- bottom rate ----

Above the divider, you no longer get any deductions of any kind, as you have made more in one year than the average american makes in his life.

I actually agree with this bracketing for the most part. Though i would like to tweak the 100K\year bracket just a bit down. Or raise the cap to 125K\year. I think in this day and age two income earners in that range before deductions isnt that out there.

I actually thought about doing some tweaking between 25 and 250k, maybe adding in some intermediate brackets. (i.e. 12.5%/37.5k, 17.5%/75k, 22.5%/137.5k, 25%/175k, 27.5%/212.5k). Though it's a progressive system, so really, you are only paying top rate on the top marginal amount.

Personally, I just think that if you make more in one year than the average person makes in their lifetime, you are very well off, and should be contributing more to the well being of the country that affords you the ability to prosper so well.

 

[Argo]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Then why would you make such a stupid statement?

Because that's how it worked. You did your job. The government would give you a house. If you were "certain" level you would get a car. Cost of goods was artificially controlled so people could afford basic necessities. Not sure which part of my statement you don't agree with. How about some details?

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Then why would you make such a stupid statement?

Because that's how it worked. You did your job. The government would give you a house. If you were "certain" level you would get a car. Cost of goods was artificially controlled so people could afford basic necessities. Not sure which part of my statement you don't agree with. How about some details?

That this in any way resembles Communism? Surely, you were taught Marxist ideals of Communism in school, no?

 

[Argo]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Then why would you make such a stupid statement?

Because that's how it worked. You did your job. The government would give you a house. If you were "certain" level you would get a car. Cost of goods was artificially controlled so people could afford basic necessities. Not sure which part of my statement you don't agree with. How about some details?

That this in any way resembles Communism? Surely, you were taught Marxist ideals of Communism in school, no?

I don't know the "theory". All I can claim is that "our" version of comminism worked like that.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Then why would you make such a stupid statement?

Because that's how it worked. You did your job. The government would give you a house. If you were "certain" level you would get a car. Cost of goods was artificially controlled so people could afford basic necessities. Not sure which part of my statement you don't agree with. How about some details?

That this in any way resembles Communism? Surely, you were taught Marxist ideals of Communism in school, no?

I don't know the "theory". All I can claim is that "our" version of comminism worked like that.

USSR didn't exercise a version of Communism. USSR was dominated by an authoritarian regime that retained membership in a Communist party. You don't have to search hard to find criticism of Leninism and Stalinism from Communists, anarcho-Socialists, and Marxists.

 

[LunarRay]

When you speak to taxation rates always keep in mind that dollars earned below a certain level that are untaxed are spent. Those dollars keep the economy flowing with out question. When you take dollars from one segment, the rich, you are generally just causing them to enable that stimulus to the extent the latter covers the former.

When you seek to impose taxation on the very low wage earner you increase the cost of goods in a general sense. Congress mandates minimum wage rates so essentially what revenue they get via tax they cause to be reflected in net earnings. The hidden cost to all of America is that normally the index goes up a bit and every American whose income is affected by a COLA causes an increased drain on the coffers... The dynamics of a single dollar flows all over the place.

You will see that over the next few decades what use to be full employment at 4% unemployed will move up to around 7 or even 8%... But, that is to be expected since we've solidly moved to a two earner family from decades before.

I think the most important notion to grasp onto and employ in any discussion is that People do stuff on what they THINK is real.. not always on what is real.. Economics is a Social Science and those of us who are human are social animals. You can take a truck load of statistics and pour them in front of a group of folks and it will matter not so long as they are motivated by what they hold to be true...

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: gingermeggs

Originally posted by: piasabird
If you had a flat tax with no exceptions or deductions for anything, then the Income tax system would be more equitable. (Corporate and Business Taxes are another issue)

What on Earth does Middle-Class Mean anyway?

Read this and get confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class

I also think we also need to get rid of this term "The Middle Class"! There is no definition for it because it covers everyone from $1 over the poverty line to anyone not making $1M a year. It is too vague of a term. It also does not take into account that in some parts of the country a house costs around $100,000.00 and in another part of the country that same house may cost over $300,000.00 or that the cost of living varies too much to understand the numbers. If you lump somone into this group that makes $40k with people that make $500k then this causes problems. How can you have a middle-class with no lower class? All you have is Poverty, Middle-Class, and Wealthy. This is too vague.

One thing you would have to look at is that a lot of corporations hire teams of lawyers and accountants to use every legal tax exemption on the planet. One thing to try to fix this would be to do away with all tax abatements and make all of them illegal (I think this is more of a State issue having to do with Property Tax). I think on federal tax, a company should have to consider a Tax Abatement as "Payment-in-kind". After doing some reading it is estimated that corporations can write so many things off that they only pay about %50 of the tax they should be paying. This is the case of the rich getting richer. It seems the more money you have the more tax loopholes there are.

Maybe a better way would be to have their tax done for them by the IRS, instead of their privately "hired" taxation accountants.

i'd rather get rid of our complicated tax system.
fair/flat tax, eliminate deductions, eliminate the need for IRS.

 

[Moonbeam]

LR: I think the most important notion to grasp onto and employ in any discussion is that People do stuff on what they THINK is real.. not always on what is real.. Economics is a Social Science and those of us who are human are social animals. You can take a truck load of statistics and pour them in front of a group of folks and it will matter not so long as they are motivated by what they hold to be true...

M: That sounds to me like it is an important idea. Could you please say it, maybe not abstractly, but with concrete example so I can better understand it?

Would this be sort of what you mean:

"Science tells us that vaccines are safe and very effective, but the lady next door can influence your wife into believing they kill and once that notion takes root, no amount of scientific facts will uproot it?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
LR: I think the most important notion to grasp onto and employ in any discussion is that People do stuff on what they THINK is real.. not always on what is real.. Economics is a Social Science and those of us who are human are social animals. You can take a truck load of statistics and pour them in front of a group of folks and it will matter not so long as they are motivated by what they hold to be true...

M: That sounds to me like it is an important idea. Could you please say it, maybe not abstractly, but with concrete example so I can better understand it?

Would this be sort of what you mean:

"Science tells us that vaccines are safe and very effective, but the lady next door can influence your wife into believing they kill and once that notion takes root, no amount of scientific facts will uproot it?

Yes, that is about what I'm saying. But the influence could be anything at all... but once believed to be true, it is true.. just like Christians and Jesus...
Or, at my house... where anything left of extreme right is wrong.. no matter what it is.. Even to the extent that if someone wants the Olympics hosted in Chicago it must be wrong... Buy into a commercial and the house if flooded with Coco Puffs... no one eats them but they were on sale and they are good for you...

 

[Jhhnn]

The beautiful thing about wingnuts is that they can't be confused with facts or logic, because their opinions are strictly faith-based.

They love to discuss federal income taxes as if those were the only taxes, as if all the myriad of taxes we all pay don't matter. Well, they do matter, a lot, unless you're at the top of the pile, in which case they fade to insignificance. Sales tax, head tax, excise tax, liquor tax, property tax, licensing and registration fees of all kinds, tobacco settlement tax- the list goes on from there. I guess those aren't "real" taxes...

And the silly creatures contend, and actually believe, that the tax system has become more progressive, when the opposite is true, particularly for the ultra wealthy, the true Bush constituency. Expressed as a % of income, those at the top enjoy the lowest total taxation since the 1920's, sometimes less than upper middle class folks.

And they'll never, ever understand or admit that huge structural federal deficits are a necessary part of The truly cruel deception that is Reaganomics, trickledown economics, that the lootocracy's share of income has grown much faster than total inflation adjusted income. Deficits hide that rather effectively, and give the ultra wealthy safe investments and more leverage wrt the government, all at the same time.

They can't understand that EIC is basically a subsidy for don't-pay-fer-shit employers like Walmart, and that having people on public assistance of various kinds props up the illusion because those people aren't counted as unemployed... that the price of cheap imported goods is fewer decent paying jobs here at home, that when you work at Walmart, it's the only place you can afford to shop... well, there and at Goodwill...

Nor are they vaguely capable of comprehending that the current malaise is largely a product of offshoring and induced bubble looting.

But I'm sure that they'll continue to believe what they believe, well, because they believe it, because they derive deep emotional satisfaction from it and feed their addiction to outrage all at the same time...

Spiffy little article about taxes-

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1201/p13s01-wmgn.html

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The beautiful thing about wingnuts is that they can't be confused with facts or logic, because their opinions are strictly faith-based.

They love to discuss federal income taxes as if those were the only taxes, as if all the myriad of taxes we all pay don't matter. Well, they do matter, a lot, unless you're at the top of the pile, in which case they fade to insignificance. Sales tax, head tax, excise tax, liquor tax, property tax, licensing and registration fees of all kinds, tobacco settlement tax- the list goes on from there. I guess those aren't "real" taxes...

And the silly creatures contend, and actually believe, that the tax system has become more progressive, when the opposite is true, particularly for the ultra wealthy, the true Bush constituency. Expressed as a % of income, those at the top enjoy the lowest total taxation since the 1920's, sometimes less than upper middle class folks.

And they'll never, ever understand or admit that huge structural federal deficits are a necessary part of The truly cruel deception that is Reaganomics, trickledown economics, that the lootocracy's share of income has grown much faster than total inflation adjusted income. Deficits hide that rather effectively, and give the ultra wealthy safe investments and more leverage wrt the government, all at the same time.

They can't understand that EIC is basically a subsidy for don't-pay-fer-shit employers like Walmart, and that having people on public assistance of various kinds props up the illusion because those people aren't counted as unemployed... that the price of cheap imported goods is fewer decent paying jobs here at home, that when you work at Walmart, it's the only place you can afford to shop... well, there and at Goodwill...

Nor are they vaguely capable of comprehending that the current malaise is largely a product of offshoring and induced bubble looting.

But I'm sure that they'll continue to believe what they believe, well, because they believe it, because they derive deep emotional satisfaction from it and feed their addiction to outrage all at the same time...

Spiffy little article about taxes-

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1201/p13s01-wmgn.html

If you want intelligent debate, I recommend you stick to Ars .

One might look at the fact that 47% of households pay no federal tax and ask, "Why do so many households not pay taxes?" One might also ask, "Why do so many households not have enough income to pay federal taxes?"

Link.

34.6% of the people that file but do not pay work full-time 50-52 weeks. 44.4% are single, but about 29% are married. Nearly 27% are head of household. 80% are white. 35% are younger than 25 (I would imagine these are part-time workers and students). Nearly 91% are making less than $20k. That means there are quite a few people out there working full time but earning less than 20k. That's disturbing.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
The fact that 45% of the population pays absolutely no income taxes is fairly disgusting. What must we do to get that number down to something reasonable, perhaps as low as 10-20% of the population?

IMO, the entire tax-system should be re-worked. I would even place it higher than healthcare and warfare on my priorities list.

raise the minimum wage to 100k per year.