Who isn't paying "their fair share"?

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Patranus
This has nothing to do with what group 'earned' their income, it has to do with...well...'paying their fair share' of the total tax burden. 45% of Americans pay NOTHING.

Then for God's sake give them a raise. Or are you now going to claim they didn't earn it?

Not that I disagree with you as I have got squat for a raise for the past 2 years in a row and the year before that I got like 2% and the 2 years before that squat again, but I will point out that in order to get a raise there are 2 presumptions you have to make: 1) They have a job or 2) They don't have a job but want a job.

Now here's another problem I see which could contribute partly to why the pace of inflation is outpacing wage/salary growth for the working class folks. And by working class folks I'm going to lump together everybody in both salaried and hourly categories with a gross annual income of $100,000 or less. Now granted I am no eonomist and I don't hold any degrees in economics or anything like that so this is purely just me "thinking aloud" so to speak. But the thing I see is that, all things being relative, there is only so much that let's say. . .a burger flipper. . . is worth. It seems to me that at some point you have to just say on absolute terms that no, this job cooking hamburgers is not worth more than $X per hour and I don't care what the rate of inflation is. Inflation, on the other hand, knows no bounds. It can and will steadily increase.

Here's perspective. I used this calculator (cuz it's the thing I found by googling for annualized rate of inflation 1973 to present) to get the annualized rate of inflation from January 1973 to Dec 31 2008 and it tells me it is 4.5%. That means $1 today has roughly the same purchasing power that $.20 had in 1973 or vice versa, what cost you $1 in 1973 would cost you on average about $4.95 today. I picked 1973 only because that was the year somebody else quoted earlier saying that real wages had decreased every year since.
Now lets see what the minimum wage was in 1973 and assume a burger flipper in 1973 was making that amount per hour: $1.60 (taken from US dept. of labor)

Minimum wage today: $7.25.

This constitutes an increase of only 422% while you need 495% of what you had in 1973 to have kept up with inflation. There's a 73 percentile gap there. . .
I suppose you can do this exercise for any different time periods you choose using the calculator and the labor department historical minimum wage charts. But the thing is minimum wage workers are probably faring better off than salaried exempt workers in some regard because they are generally guaranteed that they will get a cost of living increase whenever the minimum wage increases because it is dictated by law. Salaried exempt workers, on the other hand, have slowly seen their standard of living eroded because they have no such guarantee and in general, if my own job is any indication of the larger trend, they are just getting poor slowly. The minimum wage workers are struggling to keep up but will never quite make it with one job while those of us who were a little better off are being gradually brought down.

Feel free to pick apart and shred my logic and thinking here because I know you guys can and will do so anyway. As I said, I'm not really making any firm assertions here as I'm not professing to be an economist but I'm just an average working guy playing with some numbers and commenting on what I see going on in the world around me. I'm sure there are any number of things that I may have failed to take into account which I'm sure you guys will be all to happy to point out.

erm...the difference between 422% and 495% is only 17%....

Well maybe I stated it unclearly. What I was saying is that the absolute (not annualized) inflation rise was 73% more than the minimum wage rise over the same time period simply by subtracting 422 from 495. You're calculating it as (495-422)/422. I get it. But regardless. . .either way you can see there's a non-trivial disparity and that's mainly what I was trying to show. If minimum wage were keeping pace with inflation it should be more in the neighborhood of $8 / hour today but you can see the current minimum wage lags that by $.75. Assuming somebody works a standard 5 day 40 hour / week job at minimum wage and takes no vacation or sick days (ideal circumstances), that is a difference of $6 per day or $1560 per year they are getting short changed. (5 days per week * 52 weeks per year = 260 days * ($.75 per hour * 8 hours per day) = $1560). Not gonna get you rich very fast but could mean the difference between having a little something to invest for retirement or not.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Patranus
This has nothing to do with what group 'earned' their income, it has to do with...well...'paying their fair share' of the total tax burden. 45% of Americans pay NOTHING.

Just out of curiosity. . .We are tossing around this figure of 45% of Americans not paying anything at all in federal income taxes but where does this figure come from?

IRS data. It refers to the percentage of "Tax Units" with no federal income tax liability. A Tax Unit can be a single payer, a couple, head of household, etc. Something over 99% of tax units earning less than $10K have no federal income tax liability. It drops with income, but still the vast majority under $30K have no liability.

Just as a side note, when we're talking about those who pay no federal income taxes, that includes over 60% of large corporations. Funny that the people calling for "fairness" don't seem concerned about this. We also have the very wealthy paying a lower effective rate that the upper middle class, and much of the middle class, yet one again, not a peep about this either. Very interesting perversion of the word.

Well I sort of guessed it must come from the IRS but is this information that they have available and easily accessible online at irs.gov or anything? If I wanted to look it up for myself where would I start. . .what would I search for?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
The working poor do pay federal payroll taxes, FICA and (name escapes me atm). In the 8% range as I recall, though I haven't checked in quite a while.

I believe we're talking about income taxes.

Agreed. My point is that they do pay some federal taxes, and at the moment those taxes actually go into the General Fund just like income taxes. Also per my edit, they pay sales taxes and often other taxes. While most don't pay income taxes, they largely are NOT getting away with paying no taxes at all.

Fair enough.

 

[Patranus]

CNN has a article stating I was wrong.
I will own up to my mistake of 45% having zero or negative tax burden. The actual number is 47%.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/3...o_pays_taxes/index.htm

"As the number [of nonpayers] becomes larger, we have to question whether we'll make good decisions about how to allocate resources," economist George Zodrow, a professor at Rice University. "Most people don't understand how skewed the tax distribution is."

Experts say that to pay for all the things on the country's growing tab, the money can't just come from a shrunken pool of taxpayers.

"Over the long run, you'll have to have a broader base," Zodrow said

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Those that pay zero federal income taxes dont pay their fair share.

Give me more money. I'd be willing to pay more in taxes.

or you could earn it... you know like regular people. give you money? no thanks.

by the way, why would anyone want to give the government more money anyways? they blow like half of what we give them on shit that they shouldn't anyways. we shouldn't be giving them more money we should be demanding they spend less so they don't need to take so much from us. if our representatives really cared, they'd cut all the funding for their stupid pet projects. none of them will, they don't really give a flying fuck. repub or dem i don't care, keep sucking the tit of ignorance.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ElFenix
fair share would be that people who make more in income pay at least the same in % terms as those who make less income than them.

Those who benefit the most out of living in American society should pay the most i.e. the Super Wealthy.After a 100 Mil it's just keeping score.

Haha that's just stupid right there. The super welathy live good where ever they are, but only in AMerica can poor people drive Escalades with 22's, and watch 50" Plasmas after a long day at the Social Security Office.

Wait, what? lol

 

[Acanthus]

Goldman paid 1% taxes last year, with some neat accounting practices.

Apparently some of the people in here have never heard of the L curve... a flat tax doesn't even make sense in that context.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Topic Title: Who isn't paying "their fair share"?

Obviously you and many of your buds on here.

Especially the the one that revealed recently he has so many Tax shelters he isn't paying jack shit.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: brandonbull
What is more disgusting is that the top .01% earn 6% of the income. Sounds like a fair distribution of wealth. Maybe people should be earning their fair share of the income?

I made the most important word in that paragraph bold just for you.

yes, because the wealthy always "earn" their income ..they never commit fraud or participate in questionable activities

investigate, arrest, and prosecute those who do so. next...

 

[FerrelGeek]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Patranus
When Liberals say that its time for the 'rich' and 'middle class' to pay "their fair share", what do they really mean by that?

Do they mean the "fair share" paid by the 45% of Americans who do not pay taxes?

No... they mean those in the Rich and Middle that don't pay their fair share. The balance are too poor to pay taxes... They spend all their money to stimulate the economy so that the rich and middle can maintain that status.

If they're so poor, how do they do that?

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ElFenix
fair share would be that people who make more in income pay at least the same in % terms as those who make less income than them.

Those who benefit the most out of living in American society should pay the most i.e. the Super Wealthy.After a 100 Mil it's just keeping score.

Haha that's just stupid right there. The super welathy live good where ever they are, but only in AMerica can poor people drive Escalades with 22's, and watch 50" Plasmas after a long day at the Social Security Office.

Wait, what? lol

Section 8 house in my neighborhood has a Jag, Mercedes, and 2008 Chrysler mini van in her driveway. She pays $200.00 of the $2,000.00 per month.

 

[Via]

Lesser income people don't pay taxes? I wish I had known about this shit a while ago.

When I was a grad student in the 90s I made between 12000-15000 a year from my assistantships and other part time jobs and I sure as hell wasn't a zero liability.

My dad's accountant handled my taxes for free as a favor and I paid every fricking year on top of what was withheld.

Hell, I make about 50,000 now and I still pay a shitload of taxes every year.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ElFenix
fair share would be that people who make more in income pay at least the same in % terms as those who make less income than them.

Those who benefit the most out of living in American society should pay the most i.e. the Super Wealthy.After a 100 Mil it's just keeping score.

Ok, so how about this example:

Person #1: works tail off, builds a business from the ground up, employing many others, and now makes millions.

Person #2: never works, second generation welfare leach with 5 kids who are all on the dole from the government.

Who exactly is "benefitting" more? Who is paying their "fair share"?

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ElFenix
fair share would be that people who make more in income pay at least the same in % terms as those who make less income than them.

Those who benefit the most out of living in American society should pay the most i.e. the Super Wealthy.After a 100 Mil it's just keeping score.

Ok, so how about this example:

Person #1: works tail off, builds a business from the ground up, employing many others, and now makes millions.

Person #2: never works, second generation welfare leach with 5 kids who are all on the dole from the government.

Who exactly is "benefitting" more? Who is paying their "fair share"?

Person #3: comes into a business that they didn't create, does little or no work, lays off loads of workers whilst constantly raising their own salary and continues to make millions in a climate of increased unemployment

 

[Painman]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ElFenix
fair share would be that people who make more in income pay at least the same in % terms as those who make less income than them.

Those who benefit the most out of living in American society should pay the most i.e. the Super Wealthy.After a 100 Mil it's just keeping score.

Ok, so how about this example:

Person #1: works tail off, builds a business from the ground up, employing many others, and now makes millions.

Person #2: never works, second generation welfare leach with 5 kids who are all on the dole from the government.

Who exactly is "benefitting" more? Who is paying their "fair share"?

Person #3: comes into a business that they didn't create, does little or no work, lays off loads of workers whilst constantly raising their own salary and continues to make millions in a climate of increased unemployment

Congrats, You've been trolled. Person #2 doesn't even exist, thanks to (gasp) Bill Clinton. 5 year maximum lifetime benefit, 2 year consecutive max (or less as determined by state law).

See: PRWORA.

Thst shit's been law for 13 years.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Patranus
When Liberals say that its time for the 'rich' and 'middle class' to pay "their fair share", what do they really mean by that?

Do they mean the "fair share" paid by the 45% of Americans who do not pay taxes?

If I had to guess, I'd guess that Patranus probably doesn't pay his fair share.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Painman

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ElFenix
fair share would be that people who make more in income pay at least the same in % terms as those who make less income than them.

Those who benefit the most out of living in American society should pay the most i.e. the Super Wealthy.After a 100 Mil it's just keeping score.

Ok, so how about this example:

Person #1: works tail off, builds a business from the ground up, employing many others, and now makes millions.

Person #2: never works, second generation welfare leach with 5 kids who are all on the dole from the government.

Who exactly is "benefitting" more? Who is paying their "fair share"?

Person #3: comes into a business that they didn't create, does little or no work, lays off loads of workers whilst constantly raising their own salary and continues to make millions in a climate of increased unemployment

Congrats, You've been trolled. Person #2 doesn't even exist, thanks to (gasp) Bill Clinton. 5 year maximum lifetime benefit, 2 year consecutive max (or less as determined by state law).

See: PRWORA.

Thst shit's been law for 13 years.

:thumbsup:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Via
Lesser income people don't pay taxes? I wish I had known about this shit a while ago.

When I was a grad student in the 90s I made between 12000-15000 a year from my assistantships and other part time jobs and I sure as hell wasn't a zero liability.

My dad's accountant handled my taxes for free as a favor and I paid every fricking year on top of what was withheld.

Hell, I make about 50,000 now and I still pay a shitload of taxes every year.

Either you are taking something like 999 deductions on your W2 or your dads tax man is horrible at his job. Paying in on top of witholding on 15,000 dollars in wages? Only if they simply witheld nothing.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Painman
Congrats, You've been trolled. Person #2 doesn't even exist, thanks to (gasp) Bill Clinton. 5 year maximum lifetime benefit, 2 year consecutive max (or less as determined by state law).

See: PRWORA.

Thst shit's been law for 13 years.

Wrong. That limit only applies to welfare payed for by federal funds, not state funds. Also, states have a broad range of options on how they handle this stuff. Trust me, limit or not, nobody simply starves after 5 years, they will still receive all sorts of assistance and welfare, especially those that have kids.

Read more here if you want in depth analysis.

 

[Painman]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Painman
Congrats, You've been trolled. Person #2 doesn't even exist, thanks to (gasp) Bill Clinton. 5 year maximum lifetime benefit, 2 year consecutive max (or less as determined by state law).

See: PRWORA.

Thst shit's been law for 13 years.

Wrong. That limit only applies to welfare payed for by federal funds, not state funds. Also, states have a broad range of options on how they handle this stuff. Trust me, limit or not, nobody simply starves after 5 years, they will still receive all sorts of assistance and welfare, especially those that have kids.

Read more here if you want in depth analysis.

Much to your consternation, I'm sure.

 

[Via]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Via
Lesser income people don't pay taxes? I wish I had known about this shit a while ago.

When I was a grad student in the 90s I made between 12000-15000 a year from my assistantships and other part time jobs and I sure as hell wasn't a zero liability.

My dad's accountant handled my taxes for free as a favor and I paid every fricking year on top of what was withheld.

Hell, I make about 50,000 now and I still pay a shitload of taxes every year.

Either you are taking something like 999 deductions on your W2 or your dads tax man is horrible at his job. Paying in on top of witholding on 15,000 dollars in wages? Only if they simply witheld nothing.

Nope, no special deductions or anything. I always ended up paying a few hundred bucks on tax day.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
You need to explain why the taxation rate needs to be progressive

Because it works best, those can afford it pay the most.

I agree however how come our income tax continues to be more progressive in the past 30 years yet the gap is growing at ever faster rates? 50 Years ago the bottom ring paid 22% of their income to the govt. Today it is effectively 0% and it isnt the bottom ring, more like the bottom half of the glass.

The poor Rich, getting such an unfair deal, hou know, hqving to cut back on the number of vacation homes they own.

I'd rather be rich and pay taxes than be poor and not have too.

Thank you for not even trying to address my question and instead bantor on about the rich owning multiple homes.

Why is it our progressive tax system has become more progressive, especially in the past 30 years, yet the gap continues to widen? We have effectively lopped off nearly 50% of workers from paying federal income taxes and put a larger burden on a small % to pay it all yet the gap continues to grow?

Because our system has become somewhat more "progressive" at the bottom and significantly less "progressive" at the top.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: gardener
Raise the top marginal rates back to those in the 1950s, you know, the good old days of meat, potatoes, and the missionary position.

1950's : 91%

Today: 35%

Dont forget the lowest bracket in the 1950s was 22%, not 10% like it is today.

If pay/salaries (for the average working class person) actually kept up with inflation over all those years that wouldn't have had to change.

You can partly blame govt policy on that and changing dynamics of the American household.

Of course, the people at the top of corporate america have absolutely nothing to do with that, right? They would *NEVER* place profits (or their own personal bonuses) over salary increases for the rank-and-file employees.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ElFenix
fair share would be that people who make more in income pay at least the same in % terms as those who make less income than them.

Those who benefit the most out of living in American society should pay the most i.e. the Super Wealthy.After a 100 Mil it's just keeping score.

Ok, so how about this example:

Person #1: works tail off, builds a business from the ground up, employing many others, and now makes millions.

Person #2: never works, second generation welfare leach with 5 kids who are all on the dole from the government.

Who exactly is "benefitting" more? Who is paying their "fair share"?

#1

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Via

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Via
Lesser income people don't pay taxes? I wish I had known about this shit a while ago.

When I was a grad student in the 90s I made between 12000-15000 a year from my assistantships and other part time jobs and I sure as hell wasn't a zero liability.

My dad's accountant handled my taxes for free as a favor and I paid every fricking year on top of what was withheld.

Hell, I make about 50,000 now and I still pay a shitload of taxes every year.

Either you are taking something like 999 deductions on your W2 or your dads tax man is horrible at his job. Paying in on top of witholding on 15,000 dollars in wages? Only if they simply witheld nothing.

Nope, no special deductions or anything. I always ended up paying a few hundred bucks on tax day.

Uh huh, my wife and I clear about 4x income after taxes and recieve a refund check. You arent having enough witheld from your check if you are paying in at the end of the year. At 15K, that would basically mean nothing is being witheld except FICA.

I used to make about as much as you in college and never had to pay in. What other income are you reporting at the end of the year? Scholarship, grants, unpaid compensation, working as a bartender\wait staff?