AP: Half of U.S. pays no federal income tax

[Care4all]

does anyone here do their own taxes?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bingo

I had no deduction this year... which is why I must talk with my ex on working out a deal for her to claim both

And what this guy does not seem to grasp is that it is not the child deduction that is the major cause... but the lower income... and the absurd fact that the current system has some at lower incomes not paying income taxes or having income tax liability

You're wrong. If you eliminate the chld tax credit, thousands of households WOULD start paying federal income taxes.

So since you anti-tax conservatives have ironically (and delightfully I might add) now revealed that what you really want to do is raise taxes on lower income Americans while cutting taxes for higher income Americans, well,

you should get the GOP to run on that platform!

Here's where you are trying to blur the line between the Democrat child tax credit and the EXEMPTION given to head of households and marriages that have children in them.

Now tell me why you are against the Child Tax Credit as it was signed into law in 1997, amended in 2001, 2003 and 2008 increasing the credit each time. The Democrats LOWERED the threshold income in 2008 thus expanding the eligibility pool....why do you hate that fact?

It's irrelevant to me who did or didn't support it I'm just trying to explain to people a significant reason why so many Americans pay no federal income tax.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No Us Conservatives believe that everyone in this country should share in the financial burden of the Federal Government. Then maybe when the "poor" people start paying taxes, then maybe their eyes will be opened as well to the wasteful and un-needed spending that goes on in Washington. So its not as easy as you put it with reducing for the rich and increasing for the poor, its called lets put everyone on a level playing field!!

Level playing field means the guy making what I'm making who has 4 kids pays the same federal taxes I do, with no kids.

Are you on THAT 'level playing field'?

Who else wants that 'level playing field'?

That is exactly what I meant by a level playing field. Every household shares the same burden, as in every tax payer shares in the same burden for taxes. Maybe then you would realize how many useless, non-working forms of government assistance and wasteful spending in the form of PORK projects, etc. I mean if we have medicare and Social Security for our Seniors, Just because I may make a few bucks more than you, means I should pay more for Grandma Sally's health insurance?

Plus what you are failing to realize is buy broadening the scope of who pays taxes and how the taxes are collected, everyone's taxes actually would probably be reduced. Look at the average cost the government is "Collecting per household" and you would be astonished at the current cost figures.

I hate to have to state the obvious but it would be politically impossible to make a major revision in the tax code whose primary effect would be to shift a significant portion of the tax burden to so-called 'working families'. It aint gonna happen.

 

[Foxfyre]

does anyone here do their own taxes?

Yup. Including the Schedule C for our small business.

Sent hubby to the post office with an extension when I hit a snag this week and hadn't resolved it by 9 pm last night, but managed to solve it and e-file before midnight last night. I was right proud of myself.

 

[beowolfe]

everyone could all pay equal amounts in taxes, that will not stop congress from spending it...or on spending it on things that favor some over others so i really don't see reforming the tax structure as any means to ''change'' this.....

That is exactly right which is why I am of an apparently small club that wants to bust the federal government back to its constitutional roots. If the Federal government took care of ONLY that mandated to it via the Constitution and relegated the rest to the states to handle, it would need a tiny fraction of the monies it now takes in.

The states and local communities would need more, of course, but overall they would need less than what we now pay to the states and federal government as so much of that siphoned off by the bureaucracy and the opportunistic benevolence built into the system would be eliminated.

You might want to think that through some more. If we got what you're asking for, there are some states who would get a net income gain, others would have a net income loss. Those states losing income would have to have draconian taxes to make up for the loss and would probably be emptied out because of their tax rates. Also, their infrastructure would probably drastically deteriorate.

 

[Foxfyre]

everyone could all pay equal amounts in taxes, that will not stop congress from spending it...or on spending it on things that favor some over others so i really don't see reforming the tax structure as any means to ''change'' this.....

That is exactly right which is why I am of an apparently small club that wants to bust the federal government back to its constitutional roots. If the Federal government took care of ONLY that mandated to it via the Constitution and relegated the rest to the states to handle, it would need a tiny fraction of the monies it now takes in.

The states and local communities would need more, of course, but overall they would need less than what we now pay to the states and federal government as so much of that siphoned off by the bureaucracy and the opportunistic benevolence built into the system would be eliminated.

You might want to think that through some more. If we got what you're asking for, there are some states who would get a net income gain, others would have a net income loss. Those states losing income would have to have draconian taxes to make up for the loss and would probably be emptied out because of their tax rates. Also, their infrastructure would probably drastically deteriorate.

Explain to me how that happens. If you pay $100 to the federal government and $50 to the states, and the system changes so that you pay $50 to the federal government and $100 to the states, but all $150 actually goes to delivery of services instead of a third or more being swallowed by in the bureacracy, how is that a bad thing?

And how do you justify the people of one state receiving X more $ per capita than people of another state? Or less?

If the federal government needs only enough to carry out its constitutional responsibilities, the states would have to decide how much of the other responsibilities it wants to take on and what we can probably live without. I suspect there is a whole lot of stuff the federal government spends money on that we could do without quite nicely.

One example:

Every elected member to Congress, in addition to their very nice salaries and benefits, gets an allowance of an average of $1,478,917. They use this to pay their staffs and also to redecorate their offices when they first move in and periodically thereafter. In addtion they are reimbursed for minor purchases like picture frames and flags for their offices, etc. Each new congressman sends all the old furniture, etc., however nice it is, to giant warehouses where it is kept in perpetuity and never sees the light of day again. And all new furniture, carpet, wall paper etc. is purchased.

Do you think this is an expedient use of the taxpayers hard earned tax dollars?

I don't.

And I like the statements of one candidate for governor here in New Mexico. You just line up all the stuff you would like to do in order of priorities. If it comes down to jobs or a new government building, and you can't afford both right now, you put the money where it will stimulate the economy and the new office building can wait. We simply cannot do everything all at once and some things will simply need to wait.

I imagine the states are getting a whole lot more bang for the buck than the feds are.

I don't think it would be as bad as you think.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

You're wrong. If you eliminate the chld tax credit, thousands of households WOULD start paying federal income taxes.

So since you anti-tax conservatives have ironically (and delightfully I might add) now revealed that what you really want to do is raise taxes on lower income Americans while cutting taxes for higher income Americans, well,

you should get the GOP to run on that platform!

Here's where you are trying to blur the line between the Democrat child tax credit and the EXEMPTION given to head of households and marriages that have children in them.

Now tell me why you are against the Child Tax Credit as it was signed into law in 1997, amended in 2001, 2003 and 2008 increasing the credit each time. The Democrats LOWERED the threshold income in 2008 thus expanding the eligibility pool....why do you hate that fact?

It's irrelevant to me who did or didn't support it I'm just trying to explain to people a significant reason why so many Americans pay no federal income tax.

I understand. Are you for or against the Child Tax Credit?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

No Us Conservatives believe that everyone in this country should share in the financial burden of the Federal Government. Then maybe when the "poor" people start paying taxes, then maybe their eyes will be opened as well to the wasteful and un-needed spending that goes on in Washington. So its not as easy as you put it with reducing for the rich and increasing for the poor, its called lets put everyone on a level playing field!!

Level playing field means the guy making what I'm making who has 4 kids pays the same federal taxes I do, with no kids.

Are you on THAT 'level playing field'?

Who else wants that 'level playing field'?

If what you say here came to pass I'm sure the birth rate would go down. While paying the upcoming massive tax hikes AND trying to raise kids....it would just be too damn expensive to have kids.....without kids there are no future taxpayers as mentioned in another post....without future taxpayers the entitlement programs all die on the vine...

 

[The T]

Here's where you are trying to blur the line between the Democrat child tax credit and the EXEMPTION given to head of households and marriages that have children in them.

Now tell me why you are against the Child Tax Credit as it was signed into law in 1997, amended in 2001, 2003 and 2008 increasing the credit each time. The Democrats LOWERED the threshold income in 2008 thus expanding the eligibility pool....why do you hate that fact?

It's irrelevant to me who did or didn't support it I'm just trying to explain to people a significant reason why so many Americans pay no federal income tax.

I understand. Are you for or against the Child Tax Credit?

I'm against ANY part of any TAX CODE that favours one American over another...period.

 

[edthecynic]

Funny how nycarbineer is bitching and complaining about Democrat sponsored laws that allowed the generous exemptions for kids. What's wrong? Impotent...sterile...chicken shit around women...40 year old virgin...closet gay?

See the first quote in my sig!

The child tax exemption was introduced in 1997 sponsored in the house by John Kasich REPUBLICAN and in the senate by Frank Murkowski REPUBLICAN.

Lie .... er .... er .... try again.

Who signed it into law you dumb motherfucker!!!!

The person who signed the bill is not of the Party of the SPONSORS, you worthless pathological lying piece of scum-sucking America-hating shit.

 

[edthecynic]

No Us Conservatives believe that everyone in this country should share in the financial burden of the Federal Government. Then maybe when the "poor" people start paying taxes, then maybe their eyes will be opened as well to the wasteful and un-needed spending that goes on in Washington. So its not as easy as you put it with reducing for the rich and increasing for the poor, its called lets put everyone on a level playing field!!

You do know that on the average, CON$ are poorer than Libs, don't you???

 

[boedicca]

That must be the result of Conservatives giving more to Charity than Liberals do.

 

[edthecynic]

That must be the result of Conservatives giving more to Charity than Liberals do.

Whatever the reason, it certainly puts the lie to the CON$ervative claim that the Libs are envious of the rich. How can these "Limousine" Liberals be envious of THEMSELVES???

 

[frazzledgear]

So what your saying is they pay nothing for infrastructure yet get to take advantage of such? They also “get paid” ( for the lack of a better word) as well by the top ten percent of earners? AND that same 10 percent of earners making over 300, 000 a year will now have to now have to pay for even more to pay for their health care too?

It gets better than that -it means the bottom half haven't anything to lose with a government that is out of control with spending and massive debt. Why would someone care if Congress has gone hog wild with its massive and wasteful spending if its not YOUR money they are spending in the first place -and part of the half that is more likely to benefit from that out of control spending instead? This has the direct effect of encouraging a HUGE entrenched underclass with an institutional mentality that someone else has greater responsibility for your existence than you do -as well as insisting the only reason for the existence of one half of the population is to open their jugular ever wider so the other parasitic half of the population can more easily feed off them. It means one half of our citizenry are given every incentive to vote for those politicians who promise to increase taxes -because they not only know it won't cost THEM a dime but is actually a promise to allow them to increase the level of their parasitism of the other half. Why oppose tax hikes when it not only won't cost YOU a dime but will likely put more of the money of someone else in YOUR pocket as you suck even MORE of the life blood from the other half?

We are reaching a critical tipping point on this. No society can exist for long by allowing half the citizenry to exist as parasites on the other half -expecting others to foot the bill while they enjoy all the amenities and encouraged to demand ever more -always at the expense of others of course. How much can we allow the predation of one half the citizenry by the other half before those footing the bill realize that since they paid for it all, they could technically claim to own it all as well? Having half the population exist with an institutional mentality -taught to believe an institution carries primary responsibility for their existence instead of the individual himself - will never benefit any nation. Having HALF the population with this mentality is a recipe for utter collapse. Fortunately while half do not pay federal income taxes, most in that group do NOT have an institutional mentality. Yet. Our public school system still needs time to successfully indoctrinate our children and reinforce their message that the real role of government is to "take care of" them -while avoiding teaching the real meaning behind our founding as a nation.

EVERYBODY should have a stake in our government and how it performs. How can it be OF the people and BY the people and FOR the people -if only HALF the people are footing the bill for it? Do we run a risk that the half who pay for it will eventually decide to claim to own it entirely? So that everyone does have a stake, it means replacing our antiquated and extremely unfair income tax with the Fair Tax instead. I support the Fair Tax (NOT a VAT which I will ALWAYS oppose) to replace our income tax -not in addition to it. At least 25 countries already use the Fair Tax instead of an income tax with outstanding results. The longer we cling to this unfair tax system the greater the anger and resentment of the half being preyed upon by the parasitic half AND the politicians who believe there is no end to the blood sucking and no consequences for trying to bleed the half footing the bills entirely dry. http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTax-Fundamentals_and_facts-070122.pdf

Every time I hear a liberal whine that the rich still aren't paying their fair share I could puke.

 

[Toro]

I have a question. Do people who think its good if corporations pay no income tax also believe it is good that the poorest half of Americans also don't pay income tax?

 

[edthecynic]

I have not backpedaled 1 iota.. it was at 27.2% in Bush's first year... it went up to ~36.3% at the end of 2008.... I have not waivered from that.. but have showed over and over again that YOU are the one lying about the numbers you provided... the numbers were RIGHT IN THE BIG MOTHERFUCKING CHART IN THE MIDDLE OF WHAT YOU LINKED.....

You have not been faithful in the data whatsoever (care to quantify your 22.5 clam when that number does not even get mentioned in any of your links??).. you have been disingenuous in every last piece of information you have provided.. and it STILL continues.. you, like rdean, are a lying sack of shit and have no problems lying to support your warped agenda

Obama is raising taxes on select earners, enacting policy to give more handouts at the expense of those taxpayers to non-contributors, and is on the reigns as more and more pay no income tax while the others get higher tax rates....

I was not for unequal taxation under Bush or anyone else.. and I am STILL not for unequal taxation rates now... I was not for some citizens being exempt from income tax before, and I am not for some citizens being exempt from income tax now

You are the lying hypocrite

27.2% up from 25.2% in his first year of tax cuts. He took office in January 2001 so he owns that 2% increase, so it would have been more honest to say 25.2% to 36.3% by 2008.

And you CON$ keep saying Obama PROMISES not to raise taxes on incomes under $250,000 but has actually broken that promise. So if Obama has been raising taxes on the middle class as CON$ claim, then the continuing increase in non-payers with incomes up to $50,000 is due to the inertia of Bush's and Reagan's tax cuts. After all, CON$ habitually paint the Dems as tax raisers on the middle class as well as the rich and the GOP as tax cutters "across the board."

How can across the board tax cuts not increase the number of non-payers???

Obama has more of the tax base being paid by less of the people.. more than any time in history

Still care to deal with your made up numbers, or are you in need of a few more bong hits before you start admitting to the complete fabrications??

And now you try the inertia argument right after you lay immediate blame in Bush for his first year... epic super mega uber fail.... crawl back under your rock you ultra partisan hack

It seem I'm not the only one who equates the 47% non-payers with Bush tax policies. Friday, America's Hemorrhoid Stuttering LimpTard not only affirmed that Obama didn't cut taxes in the stimulus bill, but also it was Bush's tax cuts that brought us all the way to 47% non-payers.

April 16, 2010
RUSH:** He [Obama] hasn't cut anybody's taxes.* The Recovery Act, stimulus bill, it's more like loaves and fishes.* There are no tax cuts in that.

April 16, 2010
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: What is wrong with this sentence? Obama tax policy will keep the Bush tax cuts for the middle class. What's wrong with that sentence? Yeah, there weren't any tax cuts for the middle class with Bush, his tax cuts were for the rich. Remember that? All those years it was "Bush's tax cuts were for the rich." But now all of a sudden they discovered Bush tax cuts for the middle class along with Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Because the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, the regime is going to keep them. So they've been lying to us for all these years. There were Bush tax cuts for the middle class. There had to be! I mean, how the hell do you get to the point where 47% of 'em aren't paying any income tax? We knew that.

END TRANSCRIPT

 

[PatekPhilippe]

27.2% up from 25.2% in his first year of tax cuts. He took office in January 2001 so he owns that 2% increase, so it would have been more honest to say 25.2% to 36.3% by 2008.

And you CON$ keep saying Obama PROMISES not to raise taxes on incomes under $250,000 but has actually broken that promise. So if Obama has been raising taxes on the middle class as CON$ claim, then the continuing increase in non-payers with incomes up to $50,000 is due to the inertia of Bush's and Reagan's tax cuts. After all, CON$ habitually paint the Dems as tax raisers on the middle class as well as the rich and the GOP as tax cutters "across the board."

How can across the board tax cuts not increase the number of non-payers???

Obama has more of the tax base being paid by less of the people.. more than any time in history

Still care to deal with your made up numbers, or are you in need of a few more bong hits before you start admitting to the complete fabrications??

And now you try the inertia argument right after you lay immediate blame in Bush for his first year... epic super mega uber fail.... crawl back under your rock you ultra partisan hack

It seem I'm not the only one who equates the 47% non-payers with Bush tax policies. Friday, America's Hemorrhoid Stuttering LimpTard not only affirmed that Obama didn't cut taxes in the stimulus bill, but also it was Bush's tax cuts that brought us all the way to 47% non-payers.

April 16, 2010
RUSH:** He [Obama] hasn't cut anybody's taxes.* The Recovery Act, stimulus bill, it's more like loaves and fishes.* There are no tax cuts in that.

April 16, 2010
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: What is wrong with this sentence? Obama tax policy will keep the Bush tax cuts for the middle class. What's wrong with that sentence? Yeah, there weren't any tax cuts for the middle class with Bush, his tax cuts were for the rich. Remember that? All those years it was "Bush's tax cuts were for the rich." But now all of a sudden they discovered Bush tax cuts for the middle class along with Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Because the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, the regime is going to keep them. So they've been lying to us for all these years. There were Bush tax cuts for the middle class. There had to be! I mean, how the hell do you get to the point where 47% of 'em aren't paying any income tax? We knew that.

END TRANSCRIPT

Now wait a second traitor...

Limbaugh is right you anti-American freeloading piece of whale shit!!!! You poor retarded motherfuckers said nothing else besides Bush's tax cuts were for the rich...now it seems you and the rest of the traitors at C.A.P. LIED to the American people. Guess who SPONSORED THE RAISING OF THE INCOME CAP FOR THE CTC...that's right you dishonest dog turd...Pelosi's/Reid's Congress. That's what got us to 47% of people not paying income taxes for 2009.

and in case you're too fucking stupid to remember...the President signs Bills into law...NOT CONGRESS you junior high school dropout.

We all smell your shit breath...please STFU.

 

[Care4all]

one was marginal rate tax cuts....

the other was increased earned income credit AND

an added $1000 per child CREDIT....

they were not tax cuts per say.....

this is the confusion and why it seems like doublespeak maybe?

 

[Care4all]

my husband and i got very little in tax cut....

i was not working....we were in the 15% tax bracket, near the top but some room to go before hitting the next tax bracket up....i think it was only about $45k earned income at the time of the tax cut, BUT the 15% tax bracket is the ONLY tax bracket that DID NOT get a marginal rate tax cut for the ENTIRE bracket as with ALL OTHER tax brackets that got reduced across their entire bracket by 3%-4%.

what the 15% tax bracket group did get, is the first 6k in taxable income got put in to a new tax bracket of 10%, BUT EVERYONE in the above brackets benefitted from this as well, so we all got a ''stimulus check'' for the reduction/new 10% bracket.

as said, the 15% tax bracket, where 50% of working americans fell, DID NOT get a marginal rate tax cut for their entire tax bracket.

what they did get and benefit from, was mostly the child credits of $1000 bucks each child, that were also added.

Matt and I with no children, DID NOT get any kind of a tax break that amounted more than the $300 each that came from the new 10% bracket....any single or couple without children falling in to the 15% bracket, got nothing significant either, from the bush marginal income tax rate cuts.

many republicans and democrats are no longer paying income tax now, if they have children.

 

[Truthmatters]

When you pay less tax because of a provision in the tax laws that in essance is a tax cut.

People who argue this stupidity that its not a tax cut are partisan hacks