Are 47% of americans “takers?”

[Bfgrn]

This is actually off topic whining. BUt it's also misrepresentative of the "jobs" problem.

Employers don't conspire to hold wages down.. The ATM holds banking job wages down. The self-check-out lanes at retail holds cashier wages down.

I myself am doing the jobs of what took 5 support jobs to do in the 80s. DAMN the person that put a personal computer on my desk.. Sorry man -- but you're blaming biz for the existence of globalization and automation...

That is bull. Address the fucking GAP.

I will.. BUt NONE of what I said is bull. I'm telling you where the jobs went. I can also tell you how to get them back. But it won't sound like ANYTHING you've been told by politicians or MSNBC. Somewhere in Japan tonight there's a bunch of disgruntled posters on JAPMB, whining about TOyota opening another plant in the US or Sony hiring 100s of American engineers in Silicon Valley. THe world has changed. And the DEFINITION of "a job" has greatly changed.

So the REALLY REALLY REALLY bad news is ---- there's NO FUTURE in low-skilled labor. Not here and not even in CHINA. I've said it 50 times, but FoxConn in China is NOT HIRING a million more country bumbkins to assemble crap.. They are building an ARMY of a MILLION ROBOTS in the next 2 years. They KNOW that "cheap labor" is a passing trend and that 21st manufacturing is NOT dormitory style corporate housing and food servivce.

Our job is to beat them there. The GAP is widening because what USED TO BE solidly middle class lever puller jobs in factories is a thing of the past.. Not gonna happen any more. No more likely than going back to 10acre farming with a mule.

SOOOO --- we are COMPLETELY vulnerable to total societal collapse of the Middle Class unless we start to compete on a GLOBAL scale with innovation and development of new processes and technologies. THAT is the ONLY THING that really sustains 21st century economies. There will be fewer and fewer low skilled positions and what remains will be in shitty limited wage Service sector.

Prepare the country properly --- or keep demanding silly redistributive fixes. Your choice -- Your Kids --- Your Future..

That said --- do you really want to stick with an Admin and a party that doesn't talk about the REAL JOBS problem? That wants to focus on class envy, free birthcontrol and dependency? Or do you want to create a country that can still SELL STUFF to the rest of the world?

Dependency? Stick that falsehood up your ass. I don't want a president who looks down on hard working American workers with disdain and contempt. Romney is not a job creator, he is a liquidator. We don't need another Hoover and Andrew Mellon.

Some FACT to digest...

Factory Job Gains Under Obama Best Since Clinton

In an election focused on jobs, President Barack Obama can boast of crossing one milestone: the longest stretch of employment gains in manufacturing in almost two decades.

The BGOV Barometer shows U.S. factory positions have grown since early 2010, arresting a slide that began toward the end of the 1990s. It’s the best showing since the era of Bill Clinton, the only president in the last 30 years to leave office with more factory jobs than when he began.

“The gain in manufacturing jobs is certainly helpful, it is one way to show we’re moving forward,” said Terry Madonna, a political science professor and director of the Franklin & Marshall College poll in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. “President Obama has to create a psychology all over the country that things are getting better. This is a piece explaining that idea.”

Obama and Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney have visited factories to promise voters they can boost the labor market, which would accelerate consumer spending, the biggest part of the economy. The U.S. has made up 4.1 million of the 8.8 million overall jobs lost as a result of the 18-month recession that ended in June 2009, with unemployment exceeding 8 percent for 43 consecutive months, a post-World War II record.

The revival of factory employment may matter most in battleground states including Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, Madonna said. Obama is leading Romney in Ohio “by a larger margin than many of us had thought possible, to a great extent because of the auto industry bailout,” he said, so “saving auto jobs is an agenda the president can push in such places.”

Factory Job Gains Under Obama Best Since Clinton: BGOV Barometer - Bloomberg

Report: Mitt Romney's Budget Would Destroy Jobs

Both President Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney contend that they have plans to accelerate job creation. This issue brief models and analyzes projected macroeconomic impacts of the candidates’ respective budget plans over calendar years 2013 and 2014, relative to current budget policies. Its main findings are the following:

• The budget plans put forward by Barack Obama would lead to increased employment of about 1.1 million jobs in 2013 and 280,000 jobs in 2014, relative to current policy.

• The Obama employment gains would be driven by an increase in spending of $135 billion over the current policy baseline, which is the result of $142 billion in temporary spending under his proposed American Jobs Act.

• The budget plans put forward by Mitt Romney would lead to small job gains of 87,000 in 2013 and a loss of 641,000 jobs in 2014, relative to current policy, if his proposed tax cuts were fully deficit-financed.

• If some of Romney’s proposed individual income tax cuts were revenue-neutral (he has said that they would be, but has not specified what “base-broadening” adjustments he would make to the tax code to accomplish that), his plans would instead lead to employment losses of 608,000 in 2013 and roughly 1.3 million in 2014.

• The weaker job growth and outright job losses under the Romney plan are driven by his proposal to cap government spending at 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), a move that implies very large cuts to overall spending.

Who would promote job growth most in the near term?: Macroeconomic impacts of the Obama and Romney budget proposals | Economic Policy Institute

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

 

[flacaltenn]

<<BFGrn>>

Do you think you seriously addressed what I stated about WHY the US middle class is doomed if we don't recognize how the definition of "a job" has changed in a Global economy?

You really picked up on "dependency" out of all that? We've got nothing to gain by arguing that... Lemme be perfectly clear.. What I stated is not even PART of the partisian cat fight goin' on.. Except that by miraculous intervention (not logic and reason) the Repubs are offering a guy for Prez that MIGHT actually UNDERSTAND what is required for America to compete globally and maintain a Middle Class.. And the current Prez (by his actions and his creed) has no funcking idea...

 

[WillowTree]

It is impossible to run a country of 350 million people when almost half of them pay ZERO federal income tax. That's why our debt is 16 trillion dollars.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Alleging that the 47% contribute nothing (i.e. moochers) is as intellectually dishonest as a politician has been lately.

I believe that the Castro gentleman had it right; Romney doesn't know how good he has it.

They might contribute but they certainly don't pay their "fair share" if their income tax bill is zero.

 

[regent]

Alleging that the 47% contribute nothing (i.e. moochers) is as intellectually dishonest as a politician has been lately.

I believe that the Castro gentleman had it right; Romney doesn't know how good he has it.

They might contribute but they certainly don't pay their "fair share" if their income tax bill is zero.

The income tax strangely enough is on incomes not people. There are other taxes on other things, but as a sales tax is a tax on sales and a tax on incoming goods is a tariff, so an income tax is on incomes and the amounts on most taxes are determined by Congress states, districts or others.
I didn't pay a corporate income tax this year so did I pay my fair share?

 

[Bfgrn]

<<BFGrn>>

Do you think you seriously addressed what I stated about WHY the US middle class is doomed if we don't recognize how the definition of "a job" has changed in a Global economy?

You really picked up on "dependency" out of all that? We've got nothing to gain by arguing that... Lemme be perfectly clear.. What I stated is not even PART of the partisian cat fight goin' on.. Except that by miraculous intervention (not logic and reason) the Repubs are offering a guy for Prez that MIGHT actually UNDERSTAND what is required for America to compete globally and maintain a Middle Class.. And the current Prez (by his actions and his creed) has no funcking idea...

Don't let any FACTS disrupt your dogma. The problem of jobs in a global economy is a daunting one. BUT, what Romney and the GOP are offering is not salvation for the middle class, it is serfdom. 30 FUCKING years of voodoo economics that has FAILED, and now Romney and Ryan want to put trickle down on steroids.

We have a revenue problem, it has been going on for 30 years. I suggest you educate yourself on Grover Norquist, who he is and the power he wields over Republicans.

 

[flacaltenn]

Alleging that the 47% contribute nothing (i.e. moochers) is as intellectually dishonest as a politician has been lately.

I believe that the Castro gentleman had it right; Romney doesn't know how good he has it.

They might contribute but they certainly don't pay their "fair share" if their income tax bill is zero.

The income tax strangely enough is on incomes not people. There are other taxes on other things, but as a sales tax is a tax on sales and a tax on incoming goods is a tariff, so an income tax is on incomes and the amounts on most taxes are determined by Congress states, districts or others.
I didn't pay a corporate income tax this year so did I pay my fair share?

You're trying to dance your way out of the fact that EVERY BUREAUCRAT, EVERY SOLDIER, EVERY ETHANOL credit comes SOLELY from Income Tax. And Income Tax is what we're discussing. Congrats if you see SO LITTLE VALUE in the monstrous Fed Govt that is funded largely from INCOME tax (and not ANY of the things you flung out there). Because that realization leads to the REAL solution which is to slash the size and scope of Fed Govt that IS funded by Income Tax.

BTW: Interest on the debt, Soc Sec deficits, and Fed welfare? All paid for by only 53% of filers. Glad to help you reduce those OTHER tax burdens you're complaining about.. But they are NOT part of the discussion.

 

[flacaltenn]

<<BFGrn>>

Do you think you seriously addressed what I stated about WHY the US middle class is doomed if we don't recognize how the definition of "a job" has changed in a Global economy?

You really picked up on "dependency" out of all that? We've got nothing to gain by arguing that... Lemme be perfectly clear.. What I stated is not even PART of the partisian cat fight goin' on.. Except that by miraculous intervention (not logic and reason) the Repubs are offering a guy for Prez that MIGHT actually UNDERSTAND what is required for America to compete globally and maintain a Middle Class.. And the current Prez (by his actions and his creed) has no funcking idea...

Don't let any FACTS disrupt your dogma. The problem of jobs in a global economy is a daunting one. BUT, what Romney and the GOP are offering is not salvation for the middle class, it is serfdom. 30 FUCKING years of voodoo economics that has FAILED, and now Romney and Ryan want to put trickle down on steroids.

We have a revenue problem, it has been going on for 30 years. I suggest you educate yourself on Grover Norquist, who he is and the power he wields over Republicans.

Grover Norquist is a mere clown distraction when you consider "where the jobs went" or why the US Middle Class is doomed if we dont' encourage capital to flow to NEW companies, new ideas, and new ventures..

THere are NO answers to these problems in central control/command farces like we've seen in the last 3.5 years.. Maybe (to be fair) in the last 12 years..

 

[Skull Pilot]

Alleging that the 47% contribute nothing (i.e. moochers) is as intellectually dishonest as a politician has been lately.

I believe that the Castro gentleman had it right; Romney doesn't know how good he has it.

They might contribute but they certainly don't pay their "fair share" if their income tax bill is zero.

The income tax strangely enough is on incomes not people. There are other taxes on other things, but as a sales tax is a tax on sales and a tax on incoming goods is a tariff, so an income tax is on incomes and the amounts on most taxes are determined by Congress states, districts or others.
I didn't pay a corporate income tax this year so did I pay my fair share?

Don't confuse corporate income tax with individual income tax.

I didn't pay corporate income tax because my business is an S corp and all the profit was claimed on my personal taxes

Sales tax is a state tax not a federal one. One can avoid sales tax to a large extent.

Anyone with an income who pays no income taxes is not paying their share of income taxes are they?

 

[midcan5]

I find it curious that if Romney feels that way why did he select a VP who is completely, and always has been, dependent on government? Ryan is a perfect example of what we used to call in the military a 'feather merchant.' What would these people do if they could not suck the teat of government?

The Contemporary Condition: The Real Entitlement Crisis

Ryan even voted for Tarp. Huh. "We do face an entitlement crisis, then. But it is not the one identified by Fox News and the Neoliberal Right. It is the one concealed by the nomenclature and attacks by the Right. What&#8217;s more, as the recent economic meltdown in 2008 demonstrated, these entitlements are not only unjust, they are extremely dangerous. A class entitlement to escape regulation while putting at risk a whole society, and indeed world, is nothing to sneeze at. And as we have seen most recently, even if a world wide depression is avoided after such a meltdown, its costs and sacrifices gradually trickle down the social ladder until they, too, reach those at the middle and bottom layers of society. So, the rich and the superrich feel entitled to monopolize the largesse when growth occurs and to pass down the costs of their adventurism when the bottom falls out. That is a hell of a lot of entitlement. That is precisely why so many are so eager to publicize the false version of &#8220;the entitlement society&#8221; today, within state legislatures controlled by the Republican Party, through Superpacs allowed by the gang of five neoliberals on the Supreme Court, and on the 24 hour News Media. Reduce the deficit, they chant, by curtailing programs supporting the middle and poor classes. Quietly accept the double-trickle down process. But don&#8217;t you dare touch the entitlements of the rich that put everyone else at risk."

 

[Bfgrn]

I find it curious that if Romney feels that way why did he select a VP who is completely, and always has been, dependent on government? Ryan is a perfect example of what we used to call in the military a 'feather merchant.' What would these people do if they could not suck the teat of government?

The Contemporary Condition: The Real Entitlement Crisis

Ryan even voted for Tarp. Huh. "We do face an entitlement crisis, then. But it is not the one identified by Fox News and the Neoliberal Right. It is the one concealed by the nomenclature and attacks by the Right. What’s more, as the recent economic meltdown in 2008 demonstrated, these entitlements are not only unjust, they are extremely dangerous. A class entitlement to escape regulation while putting at risk a whole society, and indeed world, is nothing to sneeze at. And as we have seen most recently, even if a world wide depression is avoided after such a meltdown, its costs and sacrifices gradually trickle down the social ladder until they, too, reach those at the middle and bottom layers of society. So, the rich and the superrich feel entitled to monopolize the largesse when growth occurs and to pass down the costs of their adventurism when the bottom falls out. That is a hell of a lot of entitlement. That is precisely why so many are so eager to publicize the false version of “the entitlement society” today, within state legislatures controlled by the Republican Party, through Superpacs allowed by the gang of five neoliberals on the Supreme Court, and on the 24 hour News Media. Reduce the deficit, they chant, by curtailing programs supporting the middle and poor classes. Quietly accept the double-trickle down process. But don’t you dare touch the entitlements of the rich that put everyone else at risk."

AWESOME midcan! This calls for some give 'eh hell Harry!

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."

President Harry S. Truman

 

[WillowTree]

I have an idea. Why not let 53% of us stop paying Federal Income Tax and see how the 47% fare.

 

[Bfgrn]

I have an idea. Why not let 53% of us stop paying Federal Income Tax and see how the 47% fare.

You have a dislocated 'us'... I will fix it for you...

"Why not let 53% _ stop paying Federal Income Tax and see how us 47% fare.

You're welcome...

 

[AquaAthena]

"Are 47% of Americans takers???"

I don't know. Are you one of these?

But the question remains, who makes up this 47% and why don&#8217;t they pay income taxes?

Here is the breakdown, according to the Tax Policy Center:

Elderly: 10.3% This group has likely paid off their mortgages and is earning reduced income in the form of modest pensions and Social Security benefits. If they are making less than $10,950 (single), $20,150 (married filing jointly) and $13,650 (head of household) in annual pension benefits alone, then their Social Security is not taxable and they have no filing requirement.

6.9%: Non-elderly Some of these folks are under the age of 65, likely live in low-income areas, may possibly enjoy the benefits of low-income housing, food stamps, government subsidized medical, etc. They make less than $9,500 (single), $19,000 (married filing jointly), and $12,200 (head of household). They have no filing requirement and do not work. If they did, they would be included in the next category of the 28.3%. This could also include the ultra rich who pay no taxes thanks to tax loopholes. It also includes many students living off student loans or with their parents. And don&#8217;t forget our beloved Armed Forces who receive nontaxable combat zone pay.

28.3% Pay Payroll Tax This group has jobs, but are working for very low pay or part time. They pay into Social Security and Medicare through payroll withholding, but because their incomes are so low, they end up owing nothing in income taxes.

Low enough wages to not have to file a return can be common at large corporations. According to Forbes 400 Richest Americans 2012, four members of the Wal-Mart family hold 6th through 9th place with a combined net worth of $107.1 billion. Yet, Angela Andrews, a registered tax practitioner who works in a tax office at a California mall across from Wal-Mart states, &#8220;more than 50% of the 100 Wal-Mart employees who come in to get their taxes done qualify for and receive the Earned Income Credit.&#8221; When employers don&#8217;t pay the difference between the minimum pay scale and adequate compensation, taxpayers provide it in the form of the EIC for those workers.

These people are legally entitled to the Earned Income Credit (EIC), which helps low-income filers hold on to and even get more money from Uncle Sam. Many eligible candidates for the EIC are single parents, and can get a maximum of $5,666 for 2011 with the credit.

Some corporations prefer to hire two part timers rather than one full-time individual so they don&#8217;t have to provide fringe benefits.

<1% Others &#8211; a hodge podge of the remainder that make up the 47%, with no descriptive provided by the Tax Policy Center. These are probably self-employed individuals who are suffering business reversals. They file tax returns with the hopes of carrying backward or forward their business losses. No tax is due if you threw your money into a business that is not yet giving you a return on your investment.

So as you can see, the 47% is a varied group. Some are elderly, living modestly on small pensions. Some work and pay into the system in other ways. Some are thrown by the bad economy, unemployed and looking, losing their businesses, losing their homes.

On Mitt Romney&#8217;s website is the following declaration: &#8220;Mitt Romney has scrupulously complied with the U.S. tax code, and his income is reported and taxed at the applicable rates, and he has paid 100 percent of what he has owed.&#8221;

It&#8217;s likely that most among the 47% can say the same.

Think about the tax monster we have created. The rich pay 15%, the poor get reverse welfare. Those in the middle are forced to carry the load. It&#8217;s time for less talk and more action. We need a Congress and a president who will radically change the tax system in this country.

Bonnie Lee is an Enrolled Agent admitted to practice and representing taxpayers in all fifty states at all levels within the Internal Revenue Service. She is the owner of Taxpertise in Sonoma, CA and the author of Entrepreneur Press book, &#8220;Taxpertise, The Complete Book of Dirty Little Secrets and Hidden Deductions for Small Business that the IRS Doesn't Want You to Know.&#8221;

Read more: Who is the 47% Not Paying Taxes? | Fox Business

 

[Jackson]

"Are 47% of Americans takers???"

I don't know. Are you one of these?

But the question remains, who makes up this 47% and why don’t they pay income taxes?

Here is the breakdown, according to the Tax Policy Center:

Elderly: 10.3% This group has likely paid off their mortgages and is earning reduced income in the form of modest pensions and Social Security benefits. If they are making less than $10,950 (single), $20,150 (married filing jointly) and $13,650 (head of household) in annual pension benefits alone, then their Social Security is not taxable and they have no filing requirement.

6.9%: Non-elderly Some of these folks are under the age of 65, likely live in low-income areas, may possibly enjoy the benefits of low-income housing, food stamps, government subsidized medical, etc. They make less than $9,500 (single), $19,000 (married filing jointly), and $12,200 (head of household). They have no filing requirement and do not work. If they did, they would be included in the next category of the 28.3%. This could also include the ultra rich who pay no taxes thanks to tax loopholes. It also includes many students living off student loans or with their parents. And don’t forget our beloved Armed Forces who receive nontaxable combat zone pay.

28.3% Pay Payroll Tax This group has jobs, but are working for very low pay or part time. They pay into Social Security and Medicare through payroll withholding, but because their incomes are so low, they end up owing nothing in income taxes.

Low enough wages to not have to file a return can be common at large corporations. According to Forbes 400 Richest Americans 2012, four members of the Wal-Mart family hold 6th through 9th place with a combined net worth of $107.1 billion. Yet, Angela Andrews, a registered tax practitioner who works in a tax office at a California mall across from Wal-Mart states, “more than 50% of the 100 Wal-Mart employees who come in to get their taxes done qualify for and receive the Earned Income Credit.” When employers don’t pay the difference between the minimum pay scale and adequate compensation, taxpayers provide it in the form of the EIC for those workers.

These people are legally entitled to the Earned Income Credit (EIC), which helps low-income filers hold on to and even get more money from Uncle Sam. Many eligible candidates for the EIC are single parents, and can get a maximum of $5,666 for 2011 with the credit.

Some corporations prefer to hire two part timers rather than one full-time individual so they don’t have to provide fringe benefits.

<1% Others – a hodge podge of the remainder that make up the 47%, with no descriptive provided by the Tax Policy Center. These are probably self-employed individuals who are suffering business reversals. They file tax returns with the hopes of carrying backward or forward their business losses. No tax is due if you threw your money into a business that is not yet giving you a return on your investment.

So as you can see, the 47% is a varied group. Some are elderly, living modestly on small pensions. Some work and pay into the system in other ways. Some are thrown by the bad economy, unemployed and looking, losing their businesses, losing their homes.

On Mitt Romney’s website is the following declaration: “Mitt Romney has scrupulously complied with the U.S. tax code, and his income is reported and taxed at the applicable rates, and he has paid 100 percent of what he has owed.”

It’s likely that most among the 47% can say the same.

Think about the tax monster we have created. The rich pay 15%, the poor get reverse welfare. Those in the middle are forced to carry the load. It’s time for less talk and more action. We need a Congress and a president who will radically change the tax system in this country.

Bonnie Lee is an Enrolled Agent admitted to practice and representing taxpayers in all fifty states at all levels within the Internal Revenue Service. She is the owner of Taxpertise in Sonoma, CA and the author of Entrepreneur Press book, “Taxpertise, The Complete Book of Dirty Little Secrets and Hidden Deductions for Small Business that the IRS Doesn't Want You to Know.”

Read more: Who is the 47% Not Paying Taxes? | Fox Business

Excellent post, Aqua!

 

[WillowTree]

I have an idea. Why not let 53% of us stop paying Federal Income Tax and see how the 47% fare.

You have a dislocated 'us'... I will fix it for you...

"Why not let 53% _ stop paying Federal Income Tax and see how us 47% fare.

You're welcome...

I didn't know you were in the 47%

 

[oldfart]

I just filed my 2011 income tax return (I had an extension) and I did it! I am officially part of the 47%. I owed no federal income tax (and Florida has no state income tax). Not only that, I had no Social Security taxes either. I file a joint return with my wife, no dependents, and standard deduction (the higher one for being over 65). I have no adjustments to income or tax credits. Despite this lack of creative tax planning, we ended up about three grand short of having taxable income. Here are the tax breaks that did it.

1. I had a modest (under ten grand) net operating loss carryforward from 2010 due to a loss on a rental property. This dropped my "modified AGI" so that none of our Social Security was taxable (but very close, without the NOL enough Social Security would have been taxable to creat income tax liability). I had positive net rental income this year.

2. With no taxable Social Security, the rest of my gross income consisted of interest, dividends, pensions, and about ten grand on a 1099 from my work. I have enough business deductions to pretty much zero out the 1099 (less than the $430 threshold for SECA).

3. For 2011 and 2012, dividends are taxed at long term capital gains rates. Until I have enough income to put me in the 25% ordinary income tax bracket, my capital gains tax rate is zero. Therefore I have no tax on the dividends.

4. The earnings in our retirement accounts are not taxable until we make a withdrawal. Our required minimum distribution is small so far. I'll probably take $2500 or so and convert it to a Roth, since that would not create any tax liability and the Roth will never be taxable (I'm past the five years).

I must admit that life isn't that bad as a dependent of the government. It will be close on 2012, but our firm has set up a couple of partnerships for business turnarounds which will give me some losses for a year or two. I'll probably owe for 2013 (the NOL was a one-shot deal, the favorable treatment of dividends will expire, Social Security will become partially taxable, and the RMD will increase each year, and my income from the businesses is likely to rise substantially). I'll enjoy it while it lasts.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

2) I really don't care HOW you whittled 47% down to 20%. If the argument is about "fair shares" then by definition --- half the folks pay O into General Fund and that's not a fair share.

So people who worked hard all their lives and paid taxes all their lives and now live on small fixed incomes they pay no taxes on are government leaches and people who are in college, paying no taxes, but working on degrees that will enable them to make good money and pay taxes in the future are government leaches because you "don't care HOW you whittled 47% down to 20%."

Got it.


For the record I far prefer the current system where the government takes its biggest chunk from me during the years of my life when I can best afford it and leaves me alone during the years of my life when I can't.

By your logic, if a football team is on offense at a given point in time, its entire defense, since they are off the field, are nothing but dependent leaches who contribute nothing

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have an idea. Why not let 53% of us stop paying Federal Income Tax and see how the 47% fare.

You have a dislocated 'us'... I will fix it for you...

"Why not let 53% _ stop paying Federal Income Tax and see how us 47% fare.

You're welcome...

Speak for yourself

 

[Skull Pilot]

2) I really don't care HOW you whittled 47% down to 20%. If the argument is about "fair shares" then by definition --- half the folks pay O into General Fund and that's not a fair share.

So people who worked hard all their lives and paid taxes all their lives and now live on small fixed incomes they pay no taxes on are government leaches and people who are in college, paying no taxes, but working on degrees that will enable them to make good money and pay taxes in the future are government leaches because you "don't care HOW you whittled 47% down to 20%."

Got it.


For the record I far prefer the current system where the government takes its biggest chunk from me during the years of my life when I can best afford it and leaves me alone during the years of my life when I can't.

Yeah they take so much you can't save enough to retire so when you're old you have to be dependent on government.

That after all is the goal of the Social Security scam.