45% of households pay no federal income tax

[Soggy in NOLA]

Yes and those 63 million lower income people spend that money they don't have to send to Washington on food, clothes and other products sustaining the economy. Those 4.5 million upper income people spend money too but 63 million people spend a lot more on needs than 4.5 million.

You're joking, right?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

You mean to tell me that people didn't know that some people turn a profit come tax time?

HAHAHAHAHAHA

I LOVE tax time. Between the progs and the neo-cons I get more than a weeks pay every single year.

Has my check lowered since the enonomic crunch? No, it's gone up every year. hahahaha

And you want to raise taxes on the wealthy? HAHAHAHAHAHA Be my guest dumbasses.

Only a week's pay? I know I'm doing better than that and I'm in the upper middle class. There's a boat load of deductions out there you can take advantage of. Tithes paid to church, charitable contributions, etc. Most states even give you a break on child care, rent paid, etc.

 

[Two Thumbs]

You mean to tell me that people didn't know that some people turn a profit come tax time?

HAHAHAHAHAHA

I LOVE tax time. Between the progs and the neo-cons I get more than a weeks pay every single year.

Has my check lowered since the enonomic crunch? No, it's gone up every year. hahahaha

And you want to raise taxes on the wealthy? HAHAHAHAHAHA Be my guest dumbasses.

Only a week's pay? I know I'm doing better than that and I'm in the upper middle class. There's a boat load of deductions out there you can take advantage of. Tithes paid to church, charitable contributions, etc. Most states even give you a break on child care, rent paid, etc.

I never claim charities. It always felt weird putting it on my taxes, so I always took it off.

The weeks pay is me + wife.

Nearly $1000 back over what I paid in.


to be honest, I tried dicking with the numbers some. The idea of other peoples money going into my pocket bothered me. But the idea of lying on my tax return, and the thought the IRS may take offense somehow, always wins out.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I never claim charities. It always felt weird putting it on my taxes, so I always took it off.

The weeks pay is me + wife.

Nearly $1000 back over what I paid in.


to be honest, I tried dicking with the numbers some. The idea of other peoples money going into my pocket bothered me. But the idea of lying on my tax return, and the thought the IRS may take offense somehow, always wins out.

Yeah, I don't lie to the IRS. No amount of money is worth the potential hassle that would bring.

I used to feel bad about claiming tithes and offerings to my church, but I got over that. If you're from a religious background like I am, you view that money as God's anyways, so from that angle the Fed's have no business taxing it.

I feel bad about getting back such a large tax refund, but part of the reason I can do that is because I'm using my money in a pretty efficient way and taking advantage of tax breaks that help encourage reinvestment in the community and the economy.

 

[DiamondDave]

From the link:



Hmmmmmmmmmm

So???

Does that mean REPs or Conservatives suddenly crumble?? No.. Sorry... Did not agree with Bush's policies on that at all, just like I did not agree with most of his fiscal policy

Just trying to figure out how the new conservative GOP plans to play both sides of this fence. They want more people to pay taxes, yet insisted on extending Bush's tax cuts?

How about not wanting to raise taxes again while ~48% do not pay any federal income taxes at all?? How about wanting to tackle the major problem of overspending??? It's not a ******* hard concept....

 

[chanel]

We haven't gotten a refund since 1985. We pay quarterly estimates so even when we overpay, the refund is applied to the next year's estimate. I must say I get a bit annoyed when people at work talk about the big plans they have for their refunds. One of these days I might just blurt out "You're welcome"

 

[Two Thumbs]

Yes and those 63 million lower income people spend that money they don't have to send to Washington on food, clothes and other products sustaining the economy. Those 4.5 million upper income people spend money too but 63 million people spend a lot more on needs than 4.5 million.

You're joking, right?

Of course not!!

My buying chicken on sale is not at all countered by people buying Kobe beef for the weekend grilling.

That used van I hunted and hunted for a great deal on? Way more than offsets that Bently or even a new Ford F-150.

Don't you know that blanket, unbacked upped, baseless, statements like that are pure truth from the mouths of babes?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

How about not wanting to raise taxes again while ~48% do not pay any federal income taxes at all?? How about wanting to tackle the major problem of overspending??? It's not a ******* hard concept....

The problem is the disconnect people have between services provided and cost. Everyone wants to pay less in taxes, at issue is everyone thinks they should get more out of the Government.

In 2010, the Federal budget was 3.55 trillion dollars. That's a hard number to even make sense of. To understand it, you have to grasp that fact that in 2010 the Feds spent $112,569.76 a SECOND. Of that, we spend $21,095.57 a SECOND on Defense. We spent $22,097.44 a SECOND on Social Security. We spent $23,639.65 a second on Medicare and Medicaid combined.

If those numbers astound you, they should. What's the real problem is that right there you have the "Big Three." If you're a politician and you suggest cutting Defense, Social Security, or Medicare/Medicaid you're done. You won't even win your primary. And all that money has to come from somewhere.

So if people want our current level of Defense, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid, they'd best be willing to pay increased taxes because something has to give. In the time it took most folks to read this the government spend 3.4 million dollars. How's that for astounding?

 

[Harry Dresden]

I didn't just get my taxes back, I got some of yours and other peoples money.

dont say i never gave you anything Tt..........but thats it.....next time you buy your own 52 inch TV.....

 

[auditor0007]

and 47% of people want to redistribute wealth. I think there's a connection.

Well, considering that those who are not paying any "federal income taxes" are only earning around $10 per hour, I really don't have a problem with it. Anyone making more than that isn't paying taxes on their first $10 per hour either. This seems to be something all of you just want to forget and not discuss. What you really want is for those who make the least to be taxed at a higher initial rate than those who earn more.

 

[auditor0007]

How about not wanting to raise taxes again while ~48% do not pay any federal income taxes at all?? How about wanting to tackle the major problem of overspending??? It's not a ******* hard concept....

The problem is the disconnect people have between services provided and cost. Everyone wants to pay less in taxes, at issue is everyone thinks they should get more out of the Government.

In 2010, the Federal budget was 3.55 trillion dollars. That's a hard number to even make sense of. To understand it, you have to grasp that fact that in 2010 the Feds spent $112,569.76 a SECOND. Of that, we spend $21,095.57 a SECOND on Defense. We spent $22,097.44 a SECOND on Social Security. We spent $23,639.65 a second on Medicare and Medicaid combined.

If those numbers astound you, they should. What's the real problem is that right there you have the "Big Three." If you're a politician and you suggest cutting Defense, Social Security, or Medicare/Medicaid you're done. You won't even win your primary. And all that money has to come from somewhere.

So if people want our current level of Defense, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid, they'd best be willing to pay increased taxes because something has to give. In the time it took most folks to read this the government spend 3.4 million dollars. How's that for astounding?

We can make significant cuts in all three. Cuts in military spending would be quite simple. All we have to do is stop thinking that we have to police the entire world; military costs are cut in half. As for SS and Medicare, gradually raise the retirement age. That means raise it to 70 over the next 20 to 25 years, not the next 50 to 75 years. That way people will still receive full benefits, but they will have to work a few more years before they begin to receive them. Most of our spending problems really are easy fixes. We just need to change our attitude about how much government should be doing. That does not mean abolishing entire programs or departments like many here would like to see. Costs can be cut while keeping these programs working the way they were meant to.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I didn't just get my taxes back, I got some of yours and other peoples money.

dont say i never gave you anything Tt..........but thats it.....next time you buy your own 52 inch TV.....

We got a used van to replace the deathtrap that looked like a van.

thanks actually.

I hunted around for a great deal, found one, made it better and wrote a check.

 

[auditor0007]

So???

Does that mean REPs or Conservatives suddenly crumble?? No.. Sorry... Did not agree with Bush's policies on that at all, just like I did not agree with most of his fiscal policy

Just trying to figure out how the new conservative GOP plans to play both sides of this fence. They want more people to pay taxes, yet insisted on extending Bush's tax cuts?

I think the idea is to lower taxes, but also end alot of the tax credits. The tax credits alone will raise gov't income and lowering taxes will leave more money in people's hands which they will spend, thus revving up the economy.

Yes, this will make the poor pay more and those with higher incomes pay less. Let's stick it to the poor people. I love that idea.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Just trying to figure out how the new conservative GOP plans to play both sides of this fence. They want more people to pay taxes, yet insisted on extending Bush's tax cuts?

I think the idea is to lower taxes, but also end alot of the tax credits. The tax credits alone will raise gov't income and lowering taxes will leave more money in people's hands which they will spend, thus revving up the economy.

Yes, this will make the poor pay more and those with higher incomes pay less. Let's stick it to the poor people. I love that idea.

Stick it to the poor?

Did you miss the part where I explained I turned a profit from doing my taxes?



Seriously, I / we aint gunna go hungry cuz some loop holes got closed.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Just trying to figure out how the new conservative GOP plans to play both sides of this fence. They want more people to pay taxes, yet insisted on extending Bush's tax cuts?

I think the idea is to lower taxes, but also end alot of the tax credits. The tax credits alone will raise gov't income and lowering taxes will leave more money in people's hands which they will spend, thus revving up the economy.

Yes, this will make the poor pay more and those with higher incomes pay less. Let's stick it to the poor people. I love that idea.

Frankly... I'm tired of the nanny staters creating poor people, keeping them poor and then bitching about all the poor people we have. When I drive by section 8 housing and see new cars and satellite dishes.. I ain't feeling too bad.

Enough already with the poor.

 

[auditor0007]

I think the idea is to lower taxes, but also end alot of the tax credits. The tax credits alone will raise gov't income and lowering taxes will leave more money in people's hands which they will spend, thus revving up the economy.

Seems whenever they cut taxes to include Captial Gains the Gov gets more revenue. Sounds like a winner to me.

Mayby the Dems should catch a clue???

Dems have that clue.

Clinton did it, at the behest of the GOP, and revenue came pouring in. The Bush lowered it even more, and like majic, more revenue come in.

Since 2000, our GDP has grown from $9.8 trillion to $14.6 trillion in 2010. That is an increase of 49%. As for federal tax revenue, in 2000 revenues were $2.025 trillion. In 2010, federal tax revenues were $2.162 trillion. That is a 7% increase in revenue. Can anyone here do basic math? The tax cuts did not increase revenue. If it had just remained even, based on the growth in the economy, tax revenues for 2010 would have been equal to the growth in GDP, or just over $3.0 trillion. We lost nearly $900 billion in revenue due to Bush's tax cuts. And you are telling us that reducing taxes increases revenue?

I will grant that when Reagan reduced taxes, it did increase revenues. However, tax rates were much higher then. The Bush tax cuts went too far and ended up reducing revenue by nearly 33%. So please, someone show me this new form of math that actually shows how the Bush tax cuts increased federal revenues. I can't wait to see this.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

How about not wanting to raise taxes again while ~48% do not pay any federal income taxes at all?? How about wanting to tackle the major problem of overspending??? It's not a ******* hard concept....

The problem is the disconnect people have between services provided and cost. Everyone wants to pay less in taxes, at issue is everyone thinks they should get more out of the Government.

In 2010, the Federal budget was 3.55 trillion dollars. That's a hard number to even make sense of. To understand it, you have to grasp that fact that in 2010 the Feds spent $112,569.76 a SECOND. Of that, we spend $21,095.57 a SECOND on Defense. We spent $22,097.44 a SECOND on Social Security. We spent $23,639.65 a second on Medicare and Medicaid combined.

If those numbers astound you, they should. What's the real problem is that right there you have the "Big Three." If you're a politician and you suggest cutting Defense, Social Security, or Medicare/Medicaid you're done. You won't even win your primary. And all that money has to come from somewhere.

So if people want our current level of Defense, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid, they'd best be willing to pay increased taxes because something has to give. In the time it took most folks to read this the government spend 3.4 million dollars. How's that for astounding?

We can make significant cuts in all three. Cuts in military spending would be quite simple. All we have to do is stop thinking that we have to police the entire world; military costs are cut in half. As for SS and Medicare, gradually raise the retirement age. That means raise it to 70 over the next 20 to 25 years, not the next 50 to 75 years. That way people will still receive full benefits, but they will have to work a few more years before they begin to receive them. Most of our spending problems really are easy fixes. We just need to change our attitude about how much government should be doing. That does not mean abolishing entire programs or departments like many here would like to see. Costs can be cut while keeping these programs working the way they were meant to.

For the record, I agree it's possible. I just have yet to see the political will to do it, or the voters actually making reasonable requests. On one hand you have folks that ABSOLUTELY refuse to pay any more in taxes, and one group that ABSOLUTELY refuses to see a cut in Defense or Entitlements, no matter what.

When my first born came into this world, I seriously started to consider jobs in other countries because as I see it, the USA will probably go bankrupt during his lifetime, if not mine. Your kids come first, and considering what bankruptcy would mean in terms of inflation, economic collapse, etc, I thought the responsible thing to do would be to look for a nation that wasn't running headlong towards bankruptcy.

Problem is, every single nation on this earth is either a dictatorship or running headlong at financial collapse. And every single nation on this Earth is likely to experience a financial collapse if we go down. So you can't run from this. We have to solve this.

 

[Ravi]

We haven't gotten a refund since 1985. We pay quarterly estimates so even when we overpay, the refund is applied to the next year's estimate. I must say I get a bit annoyed when people at work talk about the big plans they have for their refunds. One of these days I might just blurt out "You're welcome"

Most people that get refunds simply get one because they stupidly paid in too much.

 

[Twofox]

Just trying to figure out how the new conservative GOP plans to play both sides of this fence. They want more people to pay taxes, yet insisted on extending Bush's tax cuts?

I think the idea is to lower taxes, but also end alot of the tax credits. The tax credits alone will raise gov't income and lowering taxes will leave more money in people's hands which they will spend, thus revving up the economy.

Yes, this will make the poor pay more and those with higher incomes pay less. Let's stick it to the poor people. I love that idea.

No... lowering taxes for EVERYONE. Closing the loopholes will stop the 48% from getting back more than they pay in. Lowering their taxes will give them more to spend. Get it yet?

 

[DiamondDave]

Just trying to figure out how the new conservative GOP plans to play both sides of this fence. They want more people to pay taxes, yet insisted on extending Bush's tax cuts?

I think the idea is to lower taxes, but also end alot of the tax credits. The tax credits alone will raise gov't income and lowering taxes will leave more money in people's hands which they will spend, thus revving up the economy.

Yes, this will make the poor pay more and those with higher incomes pay less. Let's stick it to the poor people. I love that idea.

The subjectivity of 'fairness' once again.. instead of equal treatment by government... exactly how we got into this bullshit taxation system mess in the first place

Plenty of lefties say the rich don't pay as much as their employees anyway... so you would think you would support a system of 20% taxation (or whatever other number) with zero deductions or loopholes... having the 'evil rich' not skip out on their equal % share