Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by IcyPatriot, Mar 8, 2011.
.............. that is amazing.
47% pay no federal income tax ... almost 1/2.
47% of households owe no tax - and their ranks are growing - Sep. 30, 2009
Tax Foundation: The Rich Fund the Lionâ€™s Share of Government
Just wondering why the rich who fund much of government services are the bad guy.
Just wondering why we cannot expand the tax roles.
Even the lowest income should pay something like 1% or 3% ... something.
Why do we have so many paying nothing ... is that the America John Kennedy envisioned?
A couple of points on any/all of your scary, scary stats on how the poor are living in luxury and the wealthy are so horrifically over-taxed:
First of all, any relying on trends -- such as "in Year X, this was true of X%, while in 2010, it was true of Y%" -- are taking as a baseline a year when the country was better off. Far more people are unemployed in this era than in recent memory. Far more are living in poverty. The "screw the poor, screw the future" agenda that's held sway has resulted in our current economic mess, and predictably, the middle class has flat total wealth, whereas the wealth of the wealthy has grown and the poor have gotten poorer.
These are household incomes. Whereas there is no breakdown of how many of these "freeloaders" are trying to scrape by on their own on less than 30K, this also includes a number of entire families trying to do so. And bear in mind that if you're married in that demographic, your net tax liability is almost certainly lower -- so disproportionately the married couples making less than 40K total are the ones you are going after. In fact when you get north of 50K you are almost certainly looking at married couples, probably w/home mortgage deductions.
So you're looking at entire households getting by on 40K or less... and then the "problem" you've identified here steeply declines.
So is your belief really that families making 40K and less need to pay more taxes, when in fact their net wealth is going nowhere, as opposed to the wealthy, who as demonstrated elsewhere, are getting wealthier?
Get even 10% from a guy with reported income of $1M, and you've got 100K. Get 10% from a guy making 40K, and you've got 4K. So it takes one of the former to equate to the tax burden of 25 of the latter. This should tell you why the proportion paid by the rich is more, even if you're looking at a flat tax (which you're not) and even if you apply this various non-taxable forms of income like capital gains (which you don't.) The capital gains rate of 15% is lower than most middle-class tax brackets -- on money one earns by working for a living. And let's not even talk about corporations, whose often zero tax liabilities are the stuff of legend by now.
I have to get to work, personally. However, I do have to note every time I see this "terrible terrible freeloading poor" crap, that your total burden shouldered by the poor, particularly the poorest of the poor, is not going to go very far toward solving the problems of this country, ultimately. They're just not where the money is.
If you want to solve the problems of the country you can't pound the poor and the lower middle class any more. By comparison with the wealthy, they're either stagnating or falling from struggle into catastrophe.
So much more to react to, so little time.
Not amazing, just sad IcyPat!
That means that some Americans are funding one third US wages. It's not coming from WORK....it's coming out of the pockets of American people like you & I.
I have no issues with the elderly receiving soc sec.. i have no issues with the poor not paying income taxes. I know most middle class families don't harbor assets that should be taxed.
And I also know that our wealthiest citizens get off with paying very little (if anything) in taxes as a percent of their income/wealth. We can't blame the unemployed for being unemployed. I would blame some of the poor for being poor except there just aren't any jobs out there for them...so how can I blame them?
I do blame our system for the vast amounts of social welfare programs that are available. Give an individual a choice of whether to work for $200/week or sit at home for the same money, and I have a hard time blaming those who choose the latter. Hey, if I could make the same money I now make doing nothing, I'd take that choice...yes, I would!
It all sucks...our world has been turned upside down and we're all worried and scared. And when humans are afraid, we get angry and look for people to blame when maybe we're all at fault in this mess.
I have opinions galore. I've looked at our country throught both the eyes of the liberal and recently, through a more conservative lense....and either way, it doesn't look pretty. From where I'm sitting, I want to know the sun will rise and warmer days will return...like the "old days" when it looked like anyone could be financially secure....but I'm still waithing for the storm to end and the dark skies to brighten.
When/If we all figure this out, it probably won't be a liberal or a conservative solution...just something that is fair and works for all of us.
But I can't help thinking...how on earth did we get here so fast?
This is simply a stark example that capitalism does not really work all that well, but the alternatives aren't any better.
In other words 2012 ... the Mayan thing ... may be a good thing.
Seriously ... and i was getting tired but I started researching world data to see how much the percentage is if taking the world as a whole. i'm thinking maybe the 50% - 60% range might be it. many 3rd world countries have very little employment - have to somehow incorporate the communist and socialist systems also ... but I'm going to guess 55% range and I would not be shocked to see 60% - 70%.
Feel free anyone to dig in ... I'm gone for the day until tonight.
It's actually a study in how to use approximations to tell a bold-faced lie.
We are talking about social security, medicaid, and medicare. These are grouped as "social welfare programs." They are insurance programs, not social welfare programs. The majority will get benefits from their contributions; a minority will not.
Then they go from "social welfare" to "welfare." This is also wrong. Welfare is a very specific program with very specific attendant negative stereotypes.
Finally, we change the terminology once more in the title, to "handouts."
The first of Icy's war-on-the-poor stories is your basic hatchet job, and the rest aren't much better. And of course, we are measuring the horrible skyrocketing costs of these programs at the nadir of American wealth, when 10 trillion has just been wiped out overnight, and 9-10% are unemployed, and 20% are unemployed/have stopped looking/underemployed. For the tax stats, that's significant.
None of this means that we don't have to figure out the best way to do the country's business, which is to make for a secure country. If you want to argue that that does not include assuring a certain "floor" standard of living, fine. You can argue for a third-world model. You know me, I'm a bleeding heart. I don't want a country run for the benefit of oligarchs, with the middle class disappearing and the poor getting progressively poorer.
But the thing is, acknowledge that that is what you are arguing for. From what I can see, the authors of these articles are bitter that people with family incomes of 30K aren't paying the bulk of American taxes.
We've walked through that one in my last post. What's clear to me is that those with something to tax have been skating -- I notice your buddies don't include the difference between capital gains rates and income tax rates. I notice they don't discuss the fact that estates are very infrequently taxed. I notice that corporate taxes -- often net liabilities of zero -- are not discussed.
But no, once again, the "problem" is the toll booth collector making 22 grand per year.
Informal poll: Hey guys, raise your hand if you're making $30k per year or less. Oh, and if you're married, that includes your wife's income.
Think about it. We're now paying people not to work, for something like 3 years. Insanity.
We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.
LlIBERALS HATE RICH PEOPLE AND BIG BUSINESS ( oil co's, banks, kennedys, soros, oprah, kerry, clintons etc)
LIBERALS CLAIM TO LOVE AND PROTECT THE POOR, MINORITY'S AND THE WORKING MAN.
THE POOR, THE MINORITY'S AND THE WORKING MAN ALL WORK FOR THE RICH PEOPLE, AND DEPEND ON THE OIL CO'S AND BIG BUSINESS TO SURVIVE AND PROTECT THEIR FAMLIES.
THE LOON BRAIN IS A WONDER TO BEHOLD.
As Thomas Sowell writes in his latest opinion piece, filled with wisdom, wealth is fungible and eminently able to cross national boundaries with a click or two of a mouse pad.
The ole FDR appeal is so Henry Fordish, but about half of the voters like the idea of politicians taking from some people and giving to others. I happen to call that cheating.
You all should check out Dr. Sowell, an American treasure:Careless Voters Cast Doubts On U.S. Future - Investors.com
When nearly half the people don't even pay federal income taxes but receive all sorts of benefits and welfare under names like the Earned Income Tax Credit, we are seeing the end of the virtue needed to sustain a republic.
Separate names with a comma.