50% of Americans do not pay income tax?

[sparky]

rules are for the wee folk Ed.....~S~

 

[edjax1952]

Some of them got back more than they paid in.

No -- try again.. Total amounts of credits cannot exceed the yearly tax liability. In THIS case of corporate credits (as opposed to the terms of credits that "poor" individuals use) they are more "bankable".. Meaning that SOME excess tax credits can be carried over into future years. Some individual credits like capital losses can be carried over for individuals, but that doesn't apply to the OP population in question..

But you didn't address the question....

DID GE ACTUALLY PAY ITS TAXES (using Ed's theory) -- and Bernie Sanders and the outraged Dems and the media all get it wrong?

My point all along is that the government tells it citizens (and corporate entities) that there are rules for you to comply with tax laws.
As the year goes along you must pay an income tax on each paycheck (or quarterly for corporations) to the government to pay for the cost of running the government.

Then they set up a set of rules to compensate these citizens for social or financial extenuating circumstances. i.e.: cost of raising children, cost of running a business, income below a certain poverty standard, etc.
The citizen complies with these rules and files income tax at the end of the year (or quarter) or face financial penalties or criminal charges.
Then, after having complied with all these mandates, the government officials make a statement that these citizens and corporate entities did not pay any income tax.

Talk about semantics and irrational thought. This is the epitome of semantics and irrational thought.

Thus, I suppose that in this case 2+2=5

 

[Article 15]

Semantics!
"He" paid -$2.000 to the government. That money had to be taken from people who actually EARNED it.

The IRS says” Anyone meeting requirement X will receive an endowment (tax credit) or $3000
Citizen A owes no taxes and will pay no taxes
Citizen B owes $1000 in taxes and will pay $1000 in taxes
Citizen C owes $2000 in taxes and will pay $2000 in taxes

Citizen A receives $3000
Citizen B receives $2000
Citizen C receives $1000
Only citizen A paid no taxes
If you do not like the tax codes the way they are then let's change them. That fact remains that only citizen A did not pay taxes.

Sorry dude. It's wealth redistribution based on socialism and envy.

No need to go full retard, dude.

 

[edjax1952]

The IRS says” Anyone meeting requirement X will receive an endowment (tax credit) or $3000
Citizen A owes no taxes and will pay no taxes
Citizen B owes $1000 in taxes and will pay $1000 in taxes
Citizen C owes $2000 in taxes and will pay $2000 in taxes

Citizen A receives $3000
Citizen B receives $2000
Citizen C receives $1000
Only citizen A paid no taxes
If you do not like the tax codes the way they are then let's change them. That fact remains that only citizen A did not pay taxes.

Sorry dude. It's wealth redistribution based on socialism and envy.

No need to go full retard, dude.

I agree that it is redistribution of wealth based on socialism. It needs to change or we are all in trouble. If anyone needs to reconsider the situation, it would be to change the rules.

 

[edjax1952]

Sorry dude. It's wealth redistribution based on socialism and envy.

No need to go full retard, dude.

I agree that it is redistribution of wealth based on socialism. It needs to change or we are all in trouble. If anyone needs to reconsider the situation, it would be to change the rules.

Don't vilify the people adhering to the rules under threat of financial or criminal penalty. Go for those that made the rules.

 

[Article 15]

Sorry dude. It's wealth redistribution based on socialism and envy.

No need to go full retard, dude.

I agree that it is redistribution of wealth based on socialism. It needs to change or we are all in trouble. If anyone needs to reconsider the situation, it would be to change the rules.

Well that's great. You're wrong but good for you.

You also think that people who turn a profit on their income taxes are actually paying income taxes and he thinks that anyone who commits any crime on drugs should be executed.

A match made in weirdo heaven.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Talk about semantics and irrational thought. This is the epitome of semantics and irrational thought.

Agreed. By the right wing way of thinking - if the same exact tax credit is instead paid as a grant to an individual without going through the IRS - it doesn't "count" as reducing that person's tax burden. That's just arbitrary.

If you add up all the benefits from government enjoyed by an individual (roads, schools, security, etc.) vs. their contribution in taxes - I think we should expect that, on average, we should get back better value than we paid in. Otherwise - why have government at all?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

THE FUNDAMENTAL REASON THE LOWER HALF PAY NO NET INCOME TAX IS:


the rich "job creator" class doesn't pay them enough in wages and salary

The affluent like to bitch all the time about how the poor pay no taxes - why don't you fucks pay the poor a bit more, thus bumping them into a higher bracket, resulting in net taxation, and then shut the fuck up?

 

[flacaltenn]

Some of them got back more than they paid in.

No -- try again.. Total amounts of credits cannot exceed the yearly tax liability. In THIS case of corporate credits (as opposed to the terms of credits that "poor" individuals use) they are more "bankable".. Meaning that SOME excess tax credits can be carried over into future years. Some individual credits like capital losses can be carried over for individuals, but that doesn't apply to the OP population in question..

But you didn't address the question....

DID GE ACTUALLY PAY ITS TAXES (using Ed's theory) -- and Bernie Sanders and the outraged Dems and the media all get it wrong?

My point all along is that the government tells it citizens (and corporate entities) that there are rules for you to comply with tax laws.
As the year goes along you must pay an income tax on each paycheck (or quarterly for corporations) to the government to pay for the cost of running the government.

Then they set up a set of rules to compensate these citizens for social or financial extenuating circumstances. i.e.: cost of raising children, cost of running a business, income below a certain poverty standard, etc.
The citizen complies with these rules and files income tax at the end of the year (or quarter) or face financial penalties or criminal charges.
Then, after having complied with all these mandates, the government officials make a statement that these citizens and corporate entities did not pay any income tax.

Talk about semantics and irrational thought. This is the epitome of semantics and irrational thought.

Individuals (as employees) have the right to adjust their W2 withholding in any way they like by adjusting exemptions. (subject to penalty if you underestimate your taxes - see your tax consultant!).. So there is no need to pay anything in over the year above your expected tax liability. This INCLUDES the estimation of what your deductions, exemptions, and credits are gonna be. No money needs to be ever shipped to Washington in excess of what you ACTUALLY owe..

Thus the system doesn't require the individual to ever cover the amount of the credits, deductions, or exemptions that are available to them. No money paid in -- no money paid out..

 

[edjax1952]

Talk about semantics and irrational thought. This is the epitome of semantics and irrational thought.

Agreed. By the right wing way of thinking - if the same exact tax credit is instead paid as a grant to an individual without going through the IRS - it doesn't "count" as reducing that person's tax burden. That's just arbitrary.

If you add up all the benefits from government enjoyed by an individual (roads, schools, security, etc.) vs. their contribution in taxes - I think we should expect that, on average, we should get back better value than we paid in. Otherwise - why have government at all?

You seem to be getting my point. However it is not arbitrary at all. It is to the point. Remove these things from the tax code and put them where they belong. As a separate grant to be applied for instead of part of the procedures in order for citizens to properly fill out a tax form.

 

[Fyght]

Hang em

 

[edjax1952]

No -- try again.. Total amounts of credits cannot exceed the yearly tax liability. In THIS case of corporate credits (as opposed to the terms of credits that "poor" individuals use) they are more "bankable".. Meaning that SOME excess tax credits can be carried over into future years. Some individual credits like capital losses can be carried over for individuals, but that doesn't apply to the OP population in question..

But you didn't address the question....

DID GE ACTUALLY PAY ITS TAXES (using Ed's theory) -- and Bernie Sanders and the outraged Dems and the media all get it wrong?

My point all along is that the government tells it citizens (and corporate entities) that there are rules for you to comply with tax laws.
As the year goes along you must pay an income tax on each paycheck (or quarterly for corporations) to the government to pay for the cost of running the government.

Then they set up a set of rules to compensate these citizens for social or financial extenuating circumstances. i.e.: cost of raising children, cost of running a business, income below a certain poverty standard, etc.
The citizen complies with these rules and files income tax at the end of the year (or quarter) or face financial penalties or criminal charges.
Then, after having complied with all these mandates, the government officials make a statement that these citizens and corporate entities did not pay any income tax.

Talk about semantics and irrational thought. This is the epitome of semantics and irrational thought.

Individuals (as employees) have the right to adjust their W2 withholding in any way they like by adjusting exemptions. (subject to penalty if you underestimate your taxes - see your tax consultant!).. So there is no need to pay anything in over the year above your expected tax liability. This INCLUDES the estimation of what your deductions, exemptions, and credits are gonna be. No money needs to be ever shipped to Washington in excess of what you ACTUALLY owe..

Thus the system doesn't require the individual to ever cover the amount of the credits, deductions, or exemptions that are available to them. No money paid in -- no money paid out..

I would tend to agree with the "No money paid in - -no money paid out." part of your statement.

However you are not taking into consideration that many of the laborersand tradesmen in the country (the ones who, hands on, built your house) are laborers and tradesmen, not intelectuals or sometimes not even even well educated, but good tradesmen who know how to use a square and a level. The tax codes and calculations that need to properly calculated for what they need to have with-held are completely foriegn to them. The current tax codes are far too intricate and detailed for even some accountants to figure out at times.

How do you expect these people to "do the right thing" in thier deductions and tax payments. They should be able to trust that the government knows how to run the government and let them build houses. The government has fallen far short of the job on their side of that equation.

 

[Big Fitz]

THE FUNDAMENTAL REASON THE LOWER HALF PAY NO NET INCOME TAX IS:


the rich "job creator" class doesn't pay them enough in wages and salary

The affluent like to bitch all the time about how the poor pay no taxes - why don't you fucks pay the poor a bit more, thus bumping them into a higher bracket, resulting in net taxation, and then shut the fuck up?

So, you going to think through the logistics and consequences of your bitch? Let's assume that the rich DO decide to pay more in taxes. What are the repercussions? Please take as many aspects of this as possible into account in your answer.

 

[Chris]

THE FUNDAMENTAL REASON THE LOWER HALF PAY NO NET INCOME TAX IS:


the rich "job creator" class doesn't pay them enough in wages and salary

The affluent like to bitch all the time about how the poor pay no taxes - why don't you fucks pay the poor a bit more, thus bumping them into a higher bracket, resulting in net taxation, and then shut the fuck up?

So, you going to think through the logistics and consequences of your bitch? Let's assume that the rich DO decide to pay more in taxes. What are the repercussions? Please take as many aspects of this as possible into account in your answer.

Repeal the Bush tax cuts.

The deficits go down.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You seem to be getting my point. However it is not arbitrary at all. It is to the point. Remove these things from the tax code and put them where they belong. As a separate grant to be applied for instead of part of the procedures in order for citizens to properly fill out a tax form.

Its far cheaper administratively to place some items in the tax code.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

THE FUNDAMENTAL REASON THE LOWER HALF PAY NO NET INCOME TAX IS:


the rich "job creator" class doesn't pay them enough in wages and salary

The affluent like to bitch all the time about how the poor pay no taxes - why don't you fucks pay the poor a bit more, thus bumping them into a higher bracket, resulting in net taxation, and then shut the fuck up?

So, you going to think through the logistics and consequences of your bitch? Let's assume that the rich DO decide to pay more in taxes. What are the repercussions? Please take as many aspects of this as possible into account in your answer.

The repercussions of the wealthy paying more is a smaller U.S. debt load.

 

[Big Fitz]

THE FUNDAMENTAL REASON THE LOWER HALF PAY NO NET INCOME TAX IS:


the rich "job creator" class doesn't pay them enough in wages and salary

The affluent like to bitch all the time about how the poor pay no taxes - why don't you fucks pay the poor a bit more, thus bumping them into a higher bracket, resulting in net taxation, and then shut the fuck up?

So, you going to think through the logistics and consequences of your bitch? Let's assume that the rich DO decide to pay more in taxes. What are the repercussions? Please take as many aspects of this as possible into account in your answer.

The repercussions of the wealthy paying more is a smaller U.S. debt load.

Bull pucky.

It is already been established that if you taxed every person who made more than 250k a year at 100%, you would have about 1.4 trillion dollars. That doesn't even cover the deficit of 1.7 (closer to 2 if you listen to the new numbers) trillion let alone the budget. What're the repercussions of bankrupting everyone in the nation that makes over 250k?

What's your answer to that schmart guy? Think that'll go unnoticed and with only a minor effect?

 

[Big Fitz]

THE FUNDAMENTAL REASON THE LOWER HALF PAY NO NET INCOME TAX IS:


the rich "job creator" class doesn't pay them enough in wages and salary

The affluent like to bitch all the time about how the poor pay no taxes - why don't you fucks pay the poor a bit more, thus bumping them into a higher bracket, resulting in net taxation, and then shut the fuck up?

So, you going to think through the logistics and consequences of your bitch? Let's assume that the rich DO decide to pay more in taxes. What are the repercussions? Please take as many aspects of this as possible into account in your answer.

Repeal the Bush tax cuts.

The deficits go down.

Riiiiight. Your income tax goes up, and all other taxes go down because that money's been removed from the economy causing an overall reduction in tax revenues.

 

[Moonglow]

Ain't life sweet!

 

[edjax1952]

You seem to be getting my point. However it is not arbitrary at all. It is to the point. Remove these things from the tax code and put them where they belong. As a separate grant to be applied for instead of part of the procedures in order for citizens to properly fill out a tax form.

Its far cheaper administratively to place some items in the tax code.

Far cheaper, easier to maniplate year by year and that manipulation is much more conveniently hidden from public scrutiny. Then the government can continue to list how many people are not paying taxes.