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

[Murf76]

Also, have you ever thought for a minute that the reason that half the population doesn't pay any taxes is because they're so poor or have no job to make any money? Man, that has to go up there with the "best of best ideas."

If Real Unemployment is somewhere around 17-18%, how do you figure that 47% don't pay taxes because they don't have jobs?

I can see reading comprehension is not your speciality either.

400% over the poverty line, which is what Obamacare plans on subsidizing is NOT "poor".

 

[Modbert]

Oh, for ****'s sake. Grow up, puppy. You act like you don't eat or shop. Where the **** to you think the shit at the mall comes from? Seriously. You're regurgitating a bunch of nonsensical, leftist, vomit.

Are you living in a mud hut and weaving your clothes from whatever plant lint you find along the road? C'mon.

You fuckers are all fat and sassy enough to post this socialist pap from affordable home computers, probably while you're wolfing down a Ho-Ho and a Mountain Dew. And while your envy that somebody is getting PAID for the production of such things is palpable... the fact is, when you tax the corporate producer more, you're bumping up prices that YOU will have to pay along with everybody else.

Once again, you just go and insult people and defend the corporations. No real points, no real arguments, just insults.

You want the rich to get richer and the poor to stay poor, I get it.

 

[Modbert]

Question for Doggie: Did The Poor invent the computer you are using to pontificate on the internets?

What you're using is a irrelevant argument to this. You assume that because companies make this product, we owe them everything. We do not. If it not due to the working class, these companies would go out of business. It's hand in hand.

 

[Modbert]

Doggie The Bubble Boy doesn't get the con game being played.

Big Government designs the tax system so that increasingly more people receive payments from it or work government jobs than actually produce. This creates a massive permanent voting base for Big Government.

There is one flaw: people's behavior are affected by tax policy. Eventually, The Rich will decline or be so bled out there is not enough to support the Leviathan. Then, taxes will be raised on The Poor (who, unlike the poor in other countries, are fat, have televisions, refrigerators, indoor plumbing...).

VAT - it's on its way if we don't stop Obamanomics.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2009).

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't see any answers here. While waiting for some, I'll take a guess that no, 47% of Americans would not continue to pay no taxes once the Fair Tax was implemented.

So, if that is true, then the Republican tax plan known as the Fair Tax, whatever else it did, would raise taxes on millions of middle income Americans.

Why do conservatives support that?

I am not a 'fair tax' person. I am a flat tax person. And I think it should apply to all income above a very low threshhold and yes, that would mean that most of those 47% who now pay no income taxes would be paying some taxes.

I support that because it is intensely unhealthy for 47% of the population to bear no consequences of tax policy on the rest of the population. It is intensely unhealthy for 47% of the populaton to have incentive to keep people in power who will see to it that those 47% continue to pay no taxes.

Every American should have incentive to elect the best people to government who will govern in the best interest of ALL Americans, and not just a privileged few.

Since there are probably many many conservatives who agree with you, don't you find it a bit disingenuous of them to attack Obama because HE might raise taxes?

btw, just for the record we have numerous federal sales taxes already such as the gas tax that most people pay.

Obama only wants to raise taxes for those who already are paying all the taxes. Perhaps you sort of overlooked that?

I propose that those who don't now pay taxes begin paying at least some taxes so that they will have incentive to support laws that benefit everybody and not a privileged few. And I propose that we scale down government to something as close as possible to its Constitutional mandates so that nobody is required to pay a heavy tax burden and the private sector is more free to create whatever society it wishes to have.

 

[Murf76]

Once again, you just go and insult people and defend the corporations. No real points, no real arguments, just insults.

You want the rich to get richer and the poor to stay poor, I get it.

I never insult anyone who hasen't first insulted me, puppy.

Now, go ahead and regale us with tales of the simple life in your "mud hut" and how you never purchase anything from those big, naughty corporations. Give us the reasons WHY raising taxes on corporate producers can't possibly result in higher prices.

 

[Foxfyre]

Come on, be sensible yourself Doggie.

How does it benefit a rich person more to be able to deduct the interest on his personal residence than it benefits a poor person to be able to deduct the interest on his personal residence? How does it hurt anybody for a poor person to be able to buy his first home because he can deduct that interest?

How does it benefit a rich person more to be able to deduct contributions to charity and support benevolent foundations and great institutions than it benefits a poor person to be be able to deduct charitable contributions?

And please elaborate on how deducting interest on his/her mortgage or deducting charitable contributions would exempt anybody from playing the flat tax?

Do poor people own homes in large numbers now? The working poor, maybe, but raising taxes on them would result in either evening out from what they receive or costing them more.

All the flat tax does is benefit the rich, and with exemptions you might as well just hand them this country.

Sorry. I'm not buying it. Even though most of the world's poor would feel very wealthy if they had it as good as most of America's poor have it, I believe the tax policy and other programs to 'help' the poor have created most of the poor in this country. And yes, many of America's 'poor' do own their own homes. West Virginia, for instance, has a very low per capita income but the nation's highest percentage of home ownership. At least that is the way it was a few years ago when I last looked up those statistics. A flat tax would not seriously impact that and it would allow reduction or elimination of so many other taxes that it could easily be a wash.

Tell me. Do you see all benefit and no down side to half the population paying no income tax at all?

 

[Modbert]

I never insult anyone who hasen't first insulted me, puppy.

Now, go ahead and regale us with tales of the simple life in your "mud hut" and how you never purchase anything from those big, naughty corporations. Give us the reasons WHY raising taxes on corporate producers can't possibly result in higher prices.

I'm merely telling you that it isn't essential. It's a luxury that I paid for with my own money, therefore I am entitled to use it. It's because of my paying for such a product, the company can continue to function.

Corporations are only going to raise prices either way, whether they need to or not, as long as they can maximize profit. It's all about their bottom lines. Anyone who has taken any sort of class that deals with money and business can tell you that much.

Meanwhile, these companies are slashing costs and raising their profits even further (that they currently pay NO taxes on) by shipping jobs overseas.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am not a 'fair tax' person. I am a flat tax person. And I think it should apply to all income above a very low threshhold and yes, that would mean that most of those 47% who now pay no income taxes would be paying some taxes.

I support that because it is intensely unhealthy for 47% of the population to bear no consequences of tax policy on the rest of the population. It is intensely unhealthy for 47% of the populaton to have incentive to keep people in power who will see to it that those 47% continue to pay no taxes.

Every American should have incentive to elect the best people to government who will govern in the best interest of ALL Americans, and not just a privileged few.

Since there are probably many many conservatives who agree with you, don't you find it a bit disingenuous of them to attack Obama because HE might raise taxes?

btw, just for the record we have numerous federal sales taxes already such as the gas tax that most people pay.

Obama only wants to raise taxes for those who already are paying all the taxes. Perhaps you sort of overlooked that?

I propose that those who don't now pay taxes begin paying at least some taxes so that they will have incentive to support laws that benefit everybody and not a privileged few. And I propose that we scale down government to something as close as possible to its Constitutional mandates so that nobody is required to pay a heavy tax burden and the private sector is more free to create whatever society it wishes to have.

Well, good luck to anyone running on a platform of raising taxes on the lower income portion of Americans while lowering taxes on the higher income portion.

 

[Modbert]

Sorry. I'm not buying it. Even though most of the world's poor would feel very wealthy if they had it as good as most of America's poor have it, I believe the tax policy and other programs to 'help' the poor have created most of the poor in this country. And yes, many of America's 'poor' do own their own homes. West Virginia, for instance, has a very low per capita income but the nation's highest percentage of home ownership. At least that is the way it was a few years ago when I last looked up those statistics. A flat tax would not seriously impact that and it would allow reduction or elimination of so many other taxes that it could easily be a wash.

Tell me. Do you see all benefit and no down side to half the population paying no income tax at all?

Sorry, I'm not buying your bullshit. We do not gauge our poor based on the poor in other countries. We base our homeless numbers, etc off the previous generation. My generation or even the generation before me may be the first generation that has it worse than their parents. That's how we judge things.

Also, it is due to many of these programs that some of the poor can stay afloat. Yes, there are a small few who are not willing to work and just stay on welfare. However, they do not represent the majority. There are those that cannot work due to disability may it be physical or mental. There are those that cannot simply get a job due to a lack of education (can't afford college) or lack of jobs.

You look at this very ignorantly if you gauge it as "all benefit" or "no downside", the world is not black and white. The fact you're looking at this from that point of view is both sad and ignorant, and i mean no offense when I say that.

There are some downsides to supposedly half the population not paying any taxes. However, the main question we have to ask ourselves is why they are not paying any taxes. If you simply do not make enough money to be taxed, what is your solution? Lower the tax bracket so those who are living literally paycheck to paycheck are now going to lose what little they have left?

You don't raise people who are downtrotten by pushing them down further and telling them they are no good. You give them a hand in some way to help them up.

 

[Foxfyre]

Since there are probably many many conservatives who agree with you, don't you find it a bit disingenuous of them to attack Obama because HE might raise taxes?

btw, just for the record we have numerous federal sales taxes already such as the gas tax that most people pay.

Obama only wants to raise taxes for those who already are paying all the taxes. Perhaps you sort of overlooked that?

I propose that those who don't now pay taxes begin paying at least some taxes so that they will have incentive to support laws that benefit everybody and not a privileged few. And I propose that we scale down government to something as close as possible to its Constitutional mandates so that nobody is required to pay a heavy tax burden and the private sector is more free to create whatever society it wishes to have.

Well, good luck to anyone running on a platform of raising taxes on the lower income portion of Americans while lowering taxes on the higher income portion.

I think you might be surprised how many on the lower portion are smart enough to recognize how their situation also limits their opportunities, choices, options, and prospects and how the trend the current administation proposes will only make their situation worse.

I think you might be suprised how many people, both rich and poor, in this country are quite intelligent and fully understand the principles underpinning our Constitution and the appreciation for unalienable rights and personal liberties that it supports.

I think you might be surprised that a vision of a better, more prosperous, more free, more strong America that benefits all might look pretty darn attractive to intelligent people. We know that Americans are more conservative than they are liberal, and it is the greater good that often inspires conservatives to go against their own personal interests because in the long run they know that will be better for everybody including themselves and their loved ones.

I think only stupid people are incapable of understanding that concept.

 

[Modbert]

Well, good luck to anyone running on a platform of raising taxes on the lower income portion of Americans while lowering taxes on the higher income portion.

Considering the Republicans essentially run on such a platform, it seems to already succeed a great deal. You have plenty of people who are willing to vote entirely against their own interests simply due to someone's support in keeping homosexuals down or from slashing government programs that help others while increasing the defense budget.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, good luck to anyone running on a platform of raising taxes on the lower income portion of Americans while lowering taxes on the higher income portion.

Considering the Republicans essentially run on such a platform, it seems to already succeed a great deal. You have plenty of people who are willing to vote entirely against their own interests simply due to someone's support in keeping homosexuals down or from slashing government programs that help others while increasing the defense budget.

And then there are those who are unable to debate the actual topic so they resort to a lot of non sequiturs, ad hominem, red herrings, and straw men. But to each their own I guess.

 

[Modbert]

And then there are those who are unable to debate the actual topic so they resort to a lot of non sequiturs, ad hominem, red herrings, and straw men. But to each their own I guess.

Considering I was making a comment to NY, and not debating the actual topic, your personal attacks against me simply because I disagree with you are unwarranted.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry. I'm not buying it. Even though most of the world's poor would feel very wealthy if they had it as good as most of America's poor have it, I believe the tax policy and other programs to 'help' the poor have created most of the poor in this country. And yes, many of America's 'poor' do own their own homes. West Virginia, for instance, has a very low per capita income but the nation's highest percentage of home ownership. At least that is the way it was a few years ago when I last looked up those statistics. A flat tax would not seriously impact that and it would allow reduction or elimination of so many other taxes that it could easily be a wash.

Tell me. Do you see all benefit and no down side to half the population paying no income tax at all?

Sorry, I'm not buying your bullshit. We do not gauge our poor based on the poor in other countries. We base our homeless numbers, etc off the previous generation. My generation or even the generation before me may be the first generation that has it worse than their parents. That's how we judge things.

Also, it is due to many of these programs that some of the poor can stay afloat. Yes, there are a small few who are not willing to work and just stay on welfare. However, they do not represent the majority. There are those that cannot work due to disability may it be physical or mental. There are those that cannot simply get a job due to a lack of education (can't afford college) or lack of jobs.

You look at this very ignorantly if you gauge it as "all benefit" or "no downside", the world is not black and white. The fact you're looking at this from that point of view is both sad and ignorant, and i mean no offense when I say that.

There are some downsides to supposedly half the population not paying any taxes. However, the main question we have to ask ourselves is why they are not paying any taxes. If you simply do not make enough money to be taxed, what is your solution? Lower the tax bracket so those who are living literally paycheck to paycheck are now going to lose what little they have left?

You don't raise people who are downtrotten by pushing them down further and telling them they are no good. You give them a hand in some way to help them up.

Who has told them they are no good? Isn't that what you tell them when you make them dependent on everybody else?

Why do you think putting them back on the tax rolls would push them down further? If you see a downside to half the population paying no taxes, whose responsibility is it to give them that hand? What hand should that be? We have thrown most of 10 trillion dollars at the war on poverty now, and the poor are still with us and fewer people pay income taxes than any time in US history.

The truth is, that it isn't poor people who provide jobs. If you give the rich more incentive to be more productive and prosperous, that WILL create and provide jobs for those who don't have them, better jobs for those who want them, and much more opportunity to the poor to become unpoor. Why should that not figure into your equation?

Why not try it the conservative way? You might like it, and find that it isn't so heartless and uncompassionate as you might think.

 

[Modbert]

We have thrown most of 10 trillion dollars at the war on poverty now, and the poor are still with us and fewer people pay income taxes than any time in US history.

The truth is, that it isn't poor people who provide jobs. If you give the rich more incentive to be more productive and prosperous, that WILL create and provide jobs for those who don't have them, better jobs for those who want them, and much more opportunity to the poor to become unpoor. Why should that not figure into your equation?

Why not try it the conservative way? You might like it, and find that it isn't so heartless and uncompassionate as you might think.

I want a source for the $10 trillion dollars at the war of poverty.

Also, giving the rich incentives and simply giving them lots of free money is a big difference. You seem to forget that we've tried it the "conservative" way and it's failed.

Trickle down economics (what you have proposed) is a failure.

 

[boedicca]

Considering how Doggie has never managed nor worked in a corporation, he has zero real knowledge of how they function or price their products and services.

Just sayin'.

 

[Modbert]

Considering how Doggie has never managed nor worked in a corporation, he has zero real knowledge of how they function or price their products and services.

Just sayin'.

Considering you never lived in the 1500's, you have zero real knowledge of how life was or the reality of the situation.

Just sayin'.

See? I can make personal attacks with no real basis too.

Fact: Corporations have a duty first and foremost to the stockholder to maximize profit.

Fact: Corporations have slashed a great deal of jobs in the U.S despite tax breaks to stay in the U.S to ship jobs overseas because they are much cheaper.

Fact: Corporations like any business will raise the price of a product to the price where they think they will maximize profit. Whether such a rise in price in warranted or not.

It's simple economics, economics 101 even.

 

[Murf76]

I'm merely telling you that it isn't essential. It's a luxury that I paid for with my own money, therefore I am entitled to use it. It's because of my paying for such a product, the company can continue to function.

Corporations are only going to raise prices either way, whether they need to or not, as long as they can maximize profit. It's all about their bottom lines. Anyone who has taken any sort of class that deals with money and business can tell you that much.

Meanwhile, these companies are slashing costs and raising their profits even further (that they currently pay NO taxes on) by shipping jobs overseas.

On page 62 of Barack Obama's Audacity of Hope, he notes, "In 1980, the average CEO made forty-two times what an average hourly worker took home. By 2005, the ratio was 262 to 1."

Of course, he goes on to blame it all on Wall Street greed, but if we ask ourselves what's different between now and then, I think the most obvious answer is the advent of 401k's. This was a mistake that Reagan tried to pull back, but was unsuccessful in the endeavor.

People won't invest their own hard-earned income in a company where they KNOW that the CEO is making an outlandish fortune and the stockholders are getting less than they whould. But, as consumers, we no longer have that information to hand. Our 401k's are managed by somebody else, and most of us have no idea what we're invested in.

This is similar to what goes on in healthcare. Our family policies are costing on average about 12-15 thousand dollars per year, largely because of state regulations that demand certain levels of coverage. We only see our little portion of the insurance bill. And because we don't negotiate our own prices for coverage or for treatment... the prices become inflated.

Jobs are going overseas because of labor expenses like healthcare. The smart thing to do would be to have people buying their own policies and their own health care. That way, EVERY transaction would be negotiated and the market prices would respond to consumer pressure.

You're a young guy from what I've gathered. Spend a little time thinking outside the ideological box. Give some thought as to why GE, for example, is using its resources to influence people on behalf of the Obama administration, and what it has to gain from Jeffrey Immelt making a nest for himself up under Obama's left butt-cheek.
Here's a start, but research it for yourself and find out what YOU think...
Obamagate ? The tangled web of Obama, GE, Immelt, Cap & Trade, GE Healthcare and Daschle part II

If you're going to take issue with corporate America, take issue with what they're REALLY doing that's unethical and wrong.

 

[Foxfyre]

We have thrown most of 10 trillion dollars at the war on poverty now, and the poor are still with us and fewer people pay income taxes than any time in US history.

The truth is, that it isn't poor people who provide jobs. If you give the rich more incentive to be more productive and prosperous, that WILL create and provide jobs for those who don't have them, better jobs for those who want them, and much more opportunity to the poor to become unpoor. Why should that not figure into your equation?

Why not try it the conservative way? You might like it, and find that it isn't so heartless and uncompassionate as you might think.

I want a source for the $10 trillion dollars at the war of poverty.

Also, giving the rich incentives and simply giving them lots of free money is a big difference. You seem to forget that we've tried it the "conservative" way and it's failed.

Trickle down economics (what you have proposed) is a failure.

Here you go. I have lots and lots more.

Democrats' War on Poverty Has Failed - HUMAN EVENTS
Sep 6, 2006 ... Since 1964 we have spent $8–10 trillion on antipoverty programs. ... From the moment the Great Society conceived of the War on Poverty, it was a bad idea ... Over the four decades of the War on Poverty, progress has been made on the ... are much more difficult problems. To address these questions, ...

Democrats' War on Poverty Has Failed - HUMAN EVENTS -