Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
On Tuesday night, Jon Stewart had a segment that summed up what's wrong with how the media talks about taxes. If you don't want to watch the segment, I'll summarize (briefly): All this week, cable news and many newspapers have highlighted a 2009 study by the Tax Policy Center that found that 47 percent of Americans have no income tax liability.
Why point to this study now? Well, tax day is Thursday, the media needed a good story, and the Drudge Reportwhich seems to serve as the assignment editor for 90 percent of the television producers in Americafeatured the story on its front page. As you may know, the Drudge Report has an agenda. And as you may suspect, the TPC study is misleading without context. Cable news is terrible at providing context. But this is one of those cases where excluding the context essentially makes the story wrong. Focusing on income taxes when you discuss Americans' tax burden ignores the fact that most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in federal income tax. The truth is that only a very small percentage of Americans pay no federal taxesand most of those folks are paying at least some state taxes. Here's Stewart:
Who Pays Taxes? | Mother Jones
On Tuesday night, Jon Stewart had a segment that summed up what's wrong with how the media talks about taxes. If you don't want to watch the segment, I'll summarize (briefly): All this week, cable news and many newspapers have highlighted a 2009 study by the Tax Policy Center that found that 47 percent of Americans have no income tax liability.
Why point to this study now? Well, tax day is Thursday, the media needed a good story, and the Drudge Reportwhich seems to serve as the assignment editor for 90 percent of the television producers in Americafeatured the story on its front page. As you may know, the Drudge Report has an agenda. And as you may suspect, the TPC study is misleading without context. Cable news is terrible at providing context. But this is one of those cases where excluding the context essentially makes the story wrong. Focusing on income taxes when you discuss Americans' tax burden ignores the fact that most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in federal income tax. The truth is that only a very small percentage of Americans pay no federal taxesand most of those folks are paying at least some state taxes. Here's Stewart:
Who Pays Taxes? | Mother Jones
Nobody cares if they pay payroll taxes or state taxes or any other taxes. Federal income taxes are the only taxes that matter, and if a low income earner isn't paying them, then they're not paying their fair share. Everyone should pay at least 20%, even if the wealthy only pay 17%.
Why is it that when a single woman has her 2nd, 3rd and 4th child she demands each time I have to pay for them no questions asked?
Why can't we end that?
The way i see it is that people without children should be getting the tax credit. They put no strain on the system.
IMO you should be able to afford children and not expect others to pay for your brood.
Seriously? You would like to see us with a diminishing population? Really? There is a reason the Japanese government is paying couples to have kids. Damn, I can't believe some of the stupid shit I read on this board.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a diminishing population to a point. More people more problems. I've done my part in not adding to the mass of humanity.
The way i see it is that people without children should be getting the tax credit. They put no strain on the system.
IMO you should be able to afford children and not expect others to pay for your brood.
Seriously? You would like to see us with a diminishing population? Really? There is a reason the Japanese government is paying couples to have kids. Damn, I can't believe some of the stupid shit I read on this board.
Did say i want a diminishing population? I said that the tax credit for children should go.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a diminishing population to a point. More people more problems. I've done my part in not adding to the mass of humanity.Seriously? You would like to see us with a diminishing population? Really? There is a reason the Japanese government is paying couples to have kids. Damn, I can't believe some of the stupid shit I read on this board.
Did say i want a diminishing population? I said that the tax credit for children should go.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a diminishing population to a point. More people more problems. I've done my part in not adding to the mass of humanity.
Did say i want a diminishing population? I said that the tax credit for children should go.
If people want children, they will have them. I don't think they should be receiving tax credits for them.
The top 1% have over $20 trillion in wealth. Capital assets like stocks are not included in the figures CON$ use to calculate the money of the rich. Taxing that wealth at 7.5% will cover the deficit. Is a 7.5%wealth tax on the top 1% too much to ask for the country that protects their right to private ownership. Hell, a 10% wealth tax on the top 1% would not only eliminate the deficit, but also would eliminate the national debt in 30 years, that's more than either Obama's or Ryan's plan does.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a diminishing population to a point. More people more problems. I've done my part in not adding to the mass of humanity.
If people want children, they will have them. I don't think they should be receiving tax credits for them.
The ones that can least afford children have the most, usually. It's one way to make a living on the taxpayers back.
This has become the desperate fallacy settled on by the lackeys for the Rich,
that if they can't solve the entire problem then the Rich ought to be exempt from ANY sacrifice to solve the problem.
It's idiocy.
Yes...see the Clinton era. And other previous eras where the tax rate was high and the country was doing great.
How about we do BOTH?
Cut spending AND tax more. It's the only REAL solution when you finally get honest with yourself.
Just cutting back is going to get you X$. Cutting back AND raising taxes gets you X$ + maybe even X*2 or X*5.
I'm having to pay a lot of taxes this year and it sucks, but doing both is the only way our deficit AND our national debt will ever get corrected.
Why wont people accept doing BOTH as the solution??
How about we do BOTH?
Cut spending AND tax more. It's the only REAL solution when you finally get honest with yourself.
Just cutting back is going to get you X$. Cutting back AND raising taxes gets you X$ + maybe even X*2 or X*5.
I'm having to pay a lot of taxes this year and it sucks, but doing both is the only way our deficit AND our national debt will ever get corrected.
Why wont people accept doing BOTH as the solution??
Screw the tax increases. Congress has never used revenue from any tax increase to pay down the debt. It always spends every dime and then five more.
Why would you give more money to a kid who always goes over the limit on his credit card? Let him prove he can spend responsibly before you give him another dime.
On Tuesday night, Jon Stewart had a segment that summed up what's wrong with how the media talks about taxes. If you don't want to watch the segment, I'll summarize (briefly): All this week, cable news and many newspapers have highlighted a 2009 study by the Tax Policy Center that found that 47 percent of Americans have no income tax liability.
Why point to this study now? Well, tax day is Thursday, the media needed a good story, and the Drudge Reportwhich seems to serve as the assignment editor for 90 percent of the television producers in Americafeatured the story on its front page. As you may know, the Drudge Report has an agenda. And as you may suspect, the TPC study is misleading without context. Cable news is terrible at providing context. But this is one of those cases where excluding the context essentially makes the story wrong. Focusing on income taxes when you discuss Americans' tax burden ignores the fact that most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in federal income tax. The truth is that only a very small percentage of Americans pay no federal taxesand most of those folks are paying at least some state taxes. Here's Stewart:
Who Pays Taxes? | Mother Jones
Nobody cares if they pay payroll taxes or state taxes or any other taxes. Federal income taxes are the only taxes that matter, and if a low income earner isn't paying them, then they're not paying their fair share. Everyone should pay at least 20%, even if the wealthy only pay 17%.
when the tax code says that you are obliged to take a per person deduction that is less than poverty you still want these people to pay 20% income taxes, even though they most likely are paying close to that amount in all taxes or more.
and it would be OK for the rich to pay 17% and a person under the poverty level to pay 20%. If the rich paid 35% plus the 15% that most people pay for payroll and other taxes besides income taxes then yes it might be too high, but they don't.
The way i see it is that people without children should be getting the tax credit. They put no strain on the system.
IMO you should be able to afford children and not expect others to pay for your brood.
Seriously? You would like to see us with a diminishing population? Really? There is a reason the Japanese government is paying couples to have kids. Damn, I can't believe some of the stupid shit I read on this board.
Did say i want a diminishing population? I said that the tax credit for children should go.
The Fairness in Taxation Act attempts to address this by asking those who make $1 million in a year to pay a 45% income tax while billionaires would pay taxes at a 49% rate.3 That's a big change over the current system, where millionaires and billionaires pay a maximum of 35% and last year paid an average of only 17% of their income in taxes.4 Rates this low haven't been seen since the 1930s.
WHAT??!!Schakowsky's bill is projected to raise more than $75 billion in new revenues — more than enough to stave off unnecessary cuts to important programs while also helping to reduce the deficit.5
The way i see it is that people without children should be getting the tax credit. They put no strain on the system.
IMO you should be able to afford children and not expect others to pay for your brood.
Respectfully, think real hard there about what you are claiming.
Without additional wage earners who is going to fund your social security and Medicare when you retire?
That would be CHILDREN.
But I do oppose tax credits of all kinds no matter what they are.
Respectfully, i dont think anyone is going to fund anything for me. Its bust as it is now. I am not claiming anything, i am giving my opinion on tax credits for children.
How about we do BOTH?
Cut spending AND tax more. It's the only REAL solution when you finally get honest with yourself.
Just cutting back is going to get you X$. Cutting back AND raising taxes gets you X$ + maybe even X*2 or X*5.
I'm having to pay a lot of taxes this year and it sucks, but doing both is the only way our deficit AND our national debt will ever get corrected.
Why wont people accept doing BOTH as the solution??
Screw the tax increases. Congress has never used revenue from any tax increase to pay down the debt. It always spends every dime and then five more.
Why would you give more money to a kid who always goes over the limit on his credit card? Let him prove he can spend responsibly before you give him another dime.
First of all, you need to get past this idea that we are going to pay down the debt or even want to. As high as the debt is, the debt itself is not a problem. However, continuing to increase the debt would be a big problem. We need to concentrate on balancing the current budget and future budgets. We cannot continue operating on more borrowed money. And the truth is it is going to be harder than ever, because we no longer have surplus SS funds to use for other government expenditures. We are no longer seeing a yearly surplus from payroll taxes for SS.
Congress has never used revenue from any tax increase to pay down the debt.
exactly, so I'm wondering why you keep claiming that someone somewhere is claiming that taxing the rich WILL FIX the debt. The only thing ppl are saying is that it will HELP repair the debt faster. Are you disputing that? You have a link that shows ANYONE ANYWHERE is saying raising taxes WILL FIX the debt?
Do you honestly think it will help fix the debt? Honestly? We are so deep in debt that it wouldn't do squat even if you confiscated all of their wealth. We've got to quit spending. When you've maxed your credit card, you don't just move onto the next one in your wallet. Spending across the board needs to be cut from defense to welfare......and when I say cut, I mean cut. Deep. That is what individual people have to do and it is what governments need to do.
Okay, let's do it your way. Let's just eliminate Medicare and SS immediately. End them. Then let's see what happens. Hey, we'll have a balanced budget and we'll have done it without raising taxes. That's what you think will work, let's do it.
You don't want to raise taxes, and you want a balanced budget, so there it is. SS, Medicare and Medicaid cost us approximately $1.6 trillion. Let's get rid of them. Then everything will be just fine. And if you don't like the idea of cutting SS, leave it alone and cut all military spending. Just shut the entire military down, close the bases, send all of our enlistees their pink slips. Oh, and tell them they don't get their retirement, even if they earned it. We've got to cut somewhere, so maybe that is a good place.
Still don't like those ideas? Okay, lets cut every major department other than defense. Then we must still cut Medicare. We'll keep SS and our military, but everything else goes.
You keep telling us how we have to cut spending and that raising taxes is out of the question, even though we are paying the lowest tax rates in the last 60 to 70 years, but hey, they're still too high. So tell us all where you are going to cut $1.6 trillion. I want to see it. Show us, so we can get this budget balanced.
You're probably going to come back and tell me that we only need to cut a little if we cut taxes more, because cutting taxes will raise revenues.
