50% of Americans do not pay income tax?

[Bern80]

Well it does when to make up for those lost revenues it means cutting services used by the poor & middle class.

Right, because our government is running at peak efficiency right now and there just isn't any waste to be found anywhere. Get fucking real.

Because the budget cuts agreed upon at the beginning of the month will only be cutting government waste?

I doubt it. To the point of wealth redistribution, the fact that washington can't make any tough decisions about what to cut is no the fault of the wealthy. It is the fault of the politicians......on both sides. This is so simple it has become stupid, yet you liberals just don't get it.

OUR

FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT

IS

TOO

BIG.

To truly properly fund it would take a tax increase on all of us and and a pretty big one at that. Cutting a few percentage points out of the budgets of a few departments isn't going to solve this. Instead of their budgets they need to start considering cutting whole departments. We don't have to get rid of all entitlements to lower the tax burden of the wealthy.

 

[RDD_1210]

Right, because our government is running at peak efficiency right now and there just isn't any waste to be found anywhere. Get fucking real.

Because the budget cuts agreed upon at the beginning of the month will only be cutting government waste?

I doubt it. To the point of wealth redistribution, the fact that washington can't make any tough decisions about what to cut is no the fault of the wealthy. It is the fault of the politicians......on both sides. This is so simple it has become stupid, yet you liberals just don't get it.

OUR

FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT

IS

TOO

BIG.

To truly properly fund it would take a tax increase on all of us and and a pretty big one at that. Cutting a few percentage points out of the budgets of a few departments isn't going to solve this. Instead of their budgets they need to start considering cutting whole departments.

Whole departments that help who? ...The poor and middle class, which goes back to the original point that was being made.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So we collect 2.3 Trillion and give back 1.8? Who gets all this largess that we can freely give it out? Don't we have a budget crisis going on? Aren't we so far in debt now our Great Grandchildren will be paying this off till THEY have grand children? Just ending the redistribution of wealth, unfairly, from rich to poor, for the sake of your own bleeding heart who'd rather be generous with the money of others, than your own?

You'd prefer people have to break into your home to get food and milk?

Oh so poverty causes crime now? We're pimping that line now? Bernie Madoff anyone?

Hunger causes people to do what they need to do to eat. Its called survival instinct, we all have it. Perhaps you've heard of it.

 

[Bern80]

Because the budget cuts agreed upon at the beginning of the month will only be cutting government waste?

I doubt it. To the point of wealth redistribution, the fact that washington can't make any tough decisions about what to cut is no the fault of the wealthy. It is the fault of the politicians......on both sides. This is so simple it has become stupid, yet you liberals just don't get it.

OUR

FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT

IS

TOO

BIG.

To truly properly fund it would take a tax increase on all of us and and a pretty big one at that. Cutting a few percentage points out of the budgets of a few departments isn't going to solve this. Instead of their budgets they need to start considering cutting whole departments.

Whole departments that help who? ...The poor and middle class, which goes back to the original point that was being made.

Maybe some, but there are plenty that serve no real purpose. As to those that help the poor, obviosuly you have become so dependent on government that you assume that if government doesn't do it, no one will. It is faulty to assume that just because the money isn't there for the federal governent to do the job, that the disadvantaged or doomed to the conditions they're in.

 

[edjax1952]

I doubt it. To the point of wealth redistribution, the fact that washington can't make any tough decisions about what to cut is no the fault of the wealthy. It is the fault of the politicians......on both sides. This is so simple it has become stupid, yet you liberals just don't get it.

OUR

FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT

IS

TOO

BIG.

To truly properly fund it would take a tax increase on all of us and and a pretty big one at that. Cutting a few percentage points out of the budgets of a few departments isn't going to solve this. Instead of their budgets they need to start considering cutting whole departments.

Whole departments that help who? ...The poor and middle class, which goes back to the original point that was being made.

Maybe some, but there are plenty that serve no real purpose. As to those that help the poor, obviosuly you have become so dependent on government that you assume that if government doesn't do it, no one will. It is faulty to assume that just because the money isn't there for the federal governent to do the job, that the disadvantaged or doomed to the conditions they're in.

Of the 40 or so years of my work history, I made more thatn $25,000/yr only about 5-6 years. I do not regret any of those years. Life is much more than money and you are much more able to realize that when you don't have it. I am relatively healthy in spite of not having money and I do not owe or have not negleted to pay for my medical bills. Please, quit thinking that you are responsible for my happiness and get the job done with fixing the economy. My life is much better when the political arena is calmed down that when it is not. I have not relied on the government for much in the past and I will be OK without the governments help in the future. Get off your duff and solve some problems and quit using the poor as a scapegoat.

 

[Chris]

Whole departments that help who? ...The poor and middle class, which goes back to the original point that was being made.

Maybe some, but there are plenty that serve no real purpose. As to those that help the poor, obviosuly you have become so dependent on government that you assume that if government doesn't do it, no one will. It is faulty to assume that just because the money isn't there for the federal governent to do the job, that the disadvantaged or doomed to the conditions they're in.

Of the 40 or so years of my work history, I made more thatn $25,000/yr only about 5-6 years. I do not regret any of those years. Life is much more than money and you are much more able to realize that when you don't have it. I am relatively healthy in spite of not having money and I do not owe or have not negleted to pay for my medical bills. Please, quit thinking that you are responsible for my happiness and get the job done with fixing the economy. My life is much better when the political arena is calmed down that when it is not. I have not relied on the government for much in the past and I will be OK without the governments help in the future. Get off your duff and solve some problems and quit using the poor as a scapegoat.

Using the poor as a scapegoat is the central Republican core value.

All of their policies from killing Medicare and Social Security to lowering taxes for the rich to creating massive government debt to killing the EPA to reducing government regulations on big corporations.....all of their policies are set up to transfer wealth from the poor and the middle class to the rich.

And it has worked.

We are now worst industrialized nation in the world with respect to income inequality.

 

[edjax1952]

Whole departments that help who? ...The poor and middle class, which goes back to the original point that was being made.

Maybe some, but there are plenty that serve no real purpose. As to those that help the poor, obviosuly you have become so dependent on government that you assume that if government doesn't do it, no one will. It is faulty to assume that just because the money isn't there for the federal governent to do the job, that the disadvantaged or doomed to the conditions they're in.

Of the 40 or so years of my work history, I made more thatn $25,000/yr only about 5-6 years. I do not regret any of those years. Life is much more than money and you are much more able to realize that when you don't have it. I am relatively healthy in spite of not having money and I do not owe or have not negleted to pay for my medical bills. Please, quit thinking that you are responsible for my happiness and get the job done with fixing the economy. My life is much better when the political arena is calmed down that when it is not. I have not relied on the government for much in the past and I will be OK without the governments help in the future. Get off your duff and solve some problems and quit using the poor as a scapegoat.

Actually I do realize that you personally cannot solve anything. My point is that this kind of retoric is what I have been hearing for several years. Fixing the debt problem will have to include cutting spending. The government has conditioned the poor or middle class to recieve monies to the point that many of them do not even realize that they can succeed with out that money. The government is doing them and those who are paying for the handouts a dis-service by keeping them dependent on govenment money.

 

[Ernie S.]

The original intent of this post was to debunk the notion that 50% of people were not paying taxes. It is already evident that they do pay taxes but get endowments to exceed their taxes.

If they pay $1,000 and receive and "endowment" of $2,000, are you claiming they pay taxes?

 

[Big Fitz]

Horseshit.

The rich have the money in their pockets, and we are left with the bill.

I 'm sorry you failed the most rudimentary accounting classes but that is simply, factually incorrect. Lowering the liabilities of one group does not require they be made up by another group.

Well it does when to make up for those lost revenues it means cutting services used by the poor & middle class.

You assume they are entitled to those services and revenues.

They are not.

 

[Big Fitz]

You're arguing with someone who doesn't grasp basic economics. I've been through extremely basic scenarios with him before that he simply couldn't grasp. And like here, he turned to insults when he had no answer to these basic questions.

you fail to grasp ignoring fools false scenarios for not understanding economics.

English isn't your first language, is it?

A picture is worth a thousand deserved insulting words at you in this case.

 

[Big Fitz]

The original intent of this post was to debunk the notion that 50% of people were not paying taxes. It is already evident that they do pay taxes but get endowments to exceed their taxes.

If they pay $1,000 and receive and "endowment" of $2,000, are you claiming they pay taxes?

Of course they are paying their income tax. Then they're given it back, and an extra grand or more for their trouble lest they riot for bread and circuses!

 

[flacaltenn]

Did GE pay their taxes and then get enough tax credits back to set their tax to zero? No -- they didn't pay any taxes.. Same with the bottom 50% of Americans.

Anybody still confused here?

Good -- let's go slugg thru another class warfare thread. After all -- there's 400 billionaires in the whole country who deserve a whoopin' and nothing better to ponder..

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Did GE pay their taxes and then get enough tax credits back to set their tax to zero? No -- they didn't pay any taxes.. Same with the bottom 50% of Americans.

Anybody still confused here?

Good -- let's go slugg thru another class warfare thread. After all -- there's 400 billionaires in the whole country who deserve a whoopin' and nothing better to ponder..

I'm confused about what your point is.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The original intent of this post was to debunk the notion that 50% of people were not paying taxes. It is already evident that they do pay taxes but get endowments to exceed their taxes.

If they pay $1,000 and receive and "endowment" of $2,000, are you claiming they pay taxes?

Are endowments only things that people other than you receive from government?

 

[Lovebears65]

One thing they need to get rid of is the Earned income .. Its not fair if you get all your taxes back plus the earned income. How did you earn it?? My tax dollars are going to people who did not earn it. I could really use that money we put out for you guys to go shopping one time a year and blow it

Yes, let's raise taxes on the backs of the working poor.

The bottom 50% of Americans control 2.5% of the wealth.

Damn freeloaders!

Why should they get money they did not earn> Is it my fault they did not pick a career path that made enough money. Everyone has the same chances in life.. I was a stay at home mom most of my married life. But hubby joined the navy and made enough money that I did not have to work. Plus my money would have all went to child care. What I did to make up money was baby sit other people kids. I did not expect the government to give me money because I chose not to go to college. I did other things to make money. I do not agree that because you only make less then 30K and have kids that you deserve earned income that you did not earn on your own that someone else earned it and you get to benefit from it

 

[edjax1952]

The original intent of this post was to debunk the notion that 50% of people were not paying taxes. It is already evident that they do pay taxes but get endowments to exceed their taxes.

If they pay $1,000 and receive and "endowment" of $2,000, are you claiming they pay taxes?

Yes because the endowment was not a tax credit. If it had been a tax credit, the balance would have been zero. He paid his $1000. If not he woud have recieved $3000. The governmnet "gave" him a $3000 endowmnet he only recieved $2000 he paid $1000 or he would have recieved $3000

 

[edjax1952]

The original intent of this post was to debunk the notion that 50% of people were not paying taxes. It is already evident that they do pay taxes but get endowments to exceed their taxes.

If they pay $1,000 and receive and "endowment" of $2,000, are you claiming they pay taxes?

Yes because the endowment was not a tax credit. If it had been a tax credit, the balance would have been zero. He paid his $1000. If not he woud have recieved $3000. The governmnet "gave" him a $3000 endowmnet he only recieved $2000 he paid $1000 or he would have recieved $3000

Let me make it a little more clear

The IRS says" everyone in meeting requriement x will recieve an endowment of $3000."

Citizen A meets these requirements and owes no taxes and will pay no taxes.
Citizen B meets these requirements and owes $1000 and will pay $1000
Citizen C meets these requirements and owes $2000 and will pay $2000

Citizen A recieves $3000
Citizen B Recieves $2000
Citizen C recieves $1000

Only citizen A did not pay taxes.

 

[Article 15]

How many servicemen are part of the 50% who don't pay income tax?

 

[edjax1952]

How many servicemen are part of the 50% who don't pay income tax?

Top Tax Tips for Military Personnel | Military.com

With the start to the new year behind us, it is time to once again plan ahead for tax season. With the exception of those serving in combat zones or stationed outside the U.S, most military personnel and their families must file taxes by the traditional April 15 deadline.

 

[edjax1952]

How many servicemen are part of the 50% who don't pay income tax?

Top Tax Tips for Military Personnel | Military.com

With the start to the new year behind us, it is time to once again plan ahead for tax season. With the exception of those serving in combat zones or stationed outside the U.S, most military personnel and their families must file taxes by the traditional April 15 deadline.

So far the Combat zones are all outside the US. Let us hope that those combat zones remain outside the US.