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

[Patriot214]

The best way to solve the always confusing and sometimes unfair tax code is by implementing the flat tax. Tax every working American 12.5%. No deductions, no loopholes and no workers paying nothing while others carry a large burden. Liberals would argue that this would result in less revenue to the Federal Government. First, this is not true. Second, would this be a bad thing? Cut government spending dramatically and quit creating federal programs to "solve all of our problems." When Reagan was president he significantly lowered taxes and tax revenue to the government increased by the time he left office. When the people keep more of their hard-earned money the economy is more abundant. The private sector has always out performed the government when it has come to job creation and economic growth. Don't believe me? Read your history.

 

[Samson]

The best way to solve the always confusing and sometimes unfair tax code is by implementing the flat tax. .

Lemme guess:






You cut-and-paste from rightwingpatriot onto random Message Boards.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

As suspected... a nation of mooches and likely Obama voters.

 

[Samson]

As suspected... a nation of mooches and likely Obama voters.

The Neatherlands?

 

[edthecynic]

Well there you go again, using the CON$ervative Straw Man argument. I simply pointed out your claim that entitlements were the biggest budget expense was wrong and that defense related expenses were more. You refused to read the link that listed them because you saw one word "progressive" that you didn't like. Just because you are regressive does not give you the right to change the fact that I said we SPEND MORE on defense than entitlements to your claim that I said we should CUT defense spending. Dishonesty like that tells me you know I'm right and you believe you have to change what I said to have any argument rather than admit I'm right.
Thank you.

And you keep bringing up the arguments against Hamilton that lost before the Supreme Court back in the days of Hamilton and Jefferson. The SCOTUS has already decided that since SS and health care are not PROHIBITED by the Constitution the national legislature is free to tax and spend on them. If you want to make SS and HC unconstitutional, then get an amendment passed that PROHIBITS them!!! Calling those who follow the Constitution thieves and tyrants just shows your complete hatred for the Constitution and this country.

Since you are the one who hates America, why should I leave? I like the progressivism here, why should I leave a place I like because you hate it? You and your fellow hateists should move to a country as regressive as you!

Sorry whack-o, but it's YOU who's wrong..... again.
Nondiscretionary spending is about two-thirds of the federal budget. That's where your ******* entitlement programs come from. And just because some fascist, piece-o-crap, "progressives" tell you different doesn't make it true.

Federal State Local Public Spending United States 2010 - Charts Tables History

It must suck to be you, lacking any kind of integrity or honor, succoring rats and thieves just to get your little crumb of government cheese. You know fully well that Hamilton's verbiage was taken as nothing more than an excuse to subvert the clear and obvious meaning of the Constitution. I've posted evidence to the contrary on nearly every aspect imaginable... and still you deny. Because at the end of the day, you're nothing but a shill, carrying water for fascists who hide their agenda behind polite-sounding, but otherwise meaningless, platitudes like "Social Justice".

You're undeserving of Liberty, willing to cast it away as you are, and I'd feel sorry for you if you weren't such a douche.

It must suck to be you, lacking any kind of integrity or honor, parroting hateist emotional BS simply because you hate America for being too progressive for your liking.

Here is what you refused to read in my earlier link about what is REALLY spent on defense so you could continue to hate the country you are at liberty to leave.

For decades, the media have taken their descriptions of the size of the defense budget straight from the Pentagon's annual press release - without even rudimentary double-checking. This year, they will cite the top-line dollar amount at $534 billion - the amount they reported on Feb. 26.

Wrong. That number ignores an additional $6 billion the Pentagon will get in "mandatory" appropriations, mostly for personnel-related expenses. The data are available from the Office of Management and Budget, but its press releases are more complicated.

Some, but not all, of the news articles will also ignore the additional $130 billion sought to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Barring last-minute changes to the numbers by Gates and OMB, the correct amount for the president's request for the Pentagon in 2010 will be $670 billion.

The articles will also leave out the money being sought by the Department of Energy for nuclear weapons and other appropriations, such as for the Selective Service and the National Defense Stockpile. Again, not in the DOD press release. Add another $22 billion.

Consider the human costs of current and previous wars in the Department of Veterans Affairs - surely, a legitimate defense cost. Add $106 billion.

Also consider the Department of Homeland Security: Add $43 billion.

What about the military and economic aid to Iraq and Afghanistan, gifts and loans to Israel and others, U.N. peacekeeping costs, and all the rest from the State Department? Add $49 billion.

Also, there is an account buried in the Department of the Treasury to help pay for military retirement. Add about $28 billion.

Each year, we pay interest on the national debt. People disagree, sometimes strenuously, on how much is DOD's share. About 20 percent of federal spending goes to the Pentagon: That's another $57 billion.

Add it all together, and you get $974 billion - almost $1 trillion.

 

[edthecynic]

When Reagan was president he significantly lowered taxes and tax revenue to the government increased by the time he left office.

There is that professionally crafted lie again that I debunked in an earlier thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/112711-the-most-professionally-crafted-tax-lie-in-history.html

The key to the lie is the part highlighted in red and what is deliberately left out. The lie as stated implies that it was Reagan's tax cut that produced the increase in tax revenue, but tax revenue DECLINED AFTER the tax cut, giving us the Reagan Recession and 10 consecutive months of double digit unemployment peaking at 10.8% in Nov and Dec of 1982.

So Reagan then RAISED taxes 8 times in 6 years and ONLY AFTER the Reagan tax increases did tax revenue go up. Even the radical extremist right-wing Heritage Foundation's own chart shows this to be true. Of course they, like you, dishonestly left out the tax increases from their chart.

 

[Murf76]

It must suck to be you, lacking any kind of integrity or honor, parroting hateist emotional BS simply because you hate America for being too progressive for your liking.

Here is what you refused to read in my earlier link about what is REALLY spent on defense so you could continue to hate the country you are at liberty to leave.

It has already been established that defense spending, as a share of GDP, is down... despite the fact that we're fighting on two fronts. Your Dear Leader, Barack Obama, plans further cuts, reducing that share to 3.6% by fiscal year 2015.
The 2011 Defense Budget: Inadequate and Full of Inconsistencies | The Heritage Foundation

What that tells us, is that he doesn't give a rat's ass about national defense. And what your "progressive" website tells us... is that he's not alone in his willingness to find any excuse to gut our defense capabilities, all the while ADDING more entitlement spending to our already 106 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities.

November can't get here fast enough.

 

[edthecynic]

It must suck to be you, lacking any kind of integrity or honor, parroting hateist emotional BS simply because you hate America for being too progressive for your liking.

Here is what you refused to read in my earlier link about what is REALLY spent on defense so you could continue to hate the country you are at liberty to leave.

It has already been established that defense spending, as a share of GDP, is down... despite the fact that we're fighting on two fronts. Your Dear Leader, Barack Obama, plans further cuts, reducing that share to 3.6% by fiscal year 2015.
The 2011 Defense Budget: Inadequate and Full of Inconsistencies | The Heritage Foundation

What that tells us, is that he doesn't give a rat's ass about national defense. And what your "progressive" website tells us... is that he's not alone in his willingness to find any excuse to gut our defense capabilities, all the while ADDING more entitlement spending to our already 106 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities.

November can't get here fast enough.

 

[boedicca]

The lefties are so desperate to smear Reagan's economic record. The fact is that his policies encouraged a climate of vibrant economic growth and job creation, improving the lives of countless people.

The same positive assessment will not be made of Obama's.

 

[edthecynic]

The lefties are so desperate to smear Reagan's economic record. The fact is that his policies encouraged a climate of vibrant economic growth and job creation, improving the lives of countless people.

The same positive assessment will not be made of Obama's.

Notice how the word "policies" is used instead of 8 TAX INCREASES in 6 years.

 

[DiamondDave]

The lefties are so desperate to smear Reagan's economic record. The fact is that his policies encouraged a climate of vibrant economic growth and job creation, improving the lives of countless people.

The same positive assessment will not be made of Obama's.

Notice how the word "policies" is used instead of 8 TAX INCREASES in 6 years.

As stated so many times.. a tax increase is not necessarily a bad thing.. just as a decrease is not inherently a bad thing... overbloated government spending (especially in areas that government has no business spending in) is always a bad idea.... ~50% of your populace paying no income taxes is always a bad thing

 

[Foxfyre]

The lefties are so desperate to smear Reagan's economic record. The fact is that his policies encouraged a climate of vibrant economic growth and job creation, improving the lives of countless people.

The same positive assessment will not be made of Obama's.

Notice how the word "policies" is used instead of 8 TAX INCREASES in 6 years.

As stated so many times.. a tax increase is not necessarily a bad thing.. just as a decrease is not inherently a bad thing... overbloated government spending (especially in areas that government has no business spending in) is always a bad idea.... ~50% of your populace paying no income taxes is always a bad thing

Tax increases that stifle economic growth, expansion, initiative and/or allow more irresponsible spending are bad.
Tax increases to cover necessary expenses are good - taxes/fees paid by those directly using services are especially good.

Tax reductions that spur economic growth, promote R&D and expansion, allow new business start ups, and encourage savings and self sufficiency are good.
Tax reductions just to increase entitlements and further drain on the economy are bad.

 

[edthecynic]

The lefties are so desperate to smear Reagan's economic record. The fact is that his policies encouraged a climate of vibrant economic growth and job creation, improving the lives of countless people.

The same positive assessment will not be made of Obama's.

Notice how the word "policies" is used instead of 8 TAX INCREASES in 6 years.

As stated so many times.. a tax increase is not necessarily a bad thing.. just as a decrease is not inherently a bad thing... overbloated government spending (especially in areas that government has no business spending in) is always a bad idea.... ~50% of your populace paying no income taxes is always a bad thing

So when Reagan raises taxes it's a good thing but anyone else like Clinton raises taxes and it's the end of American freedom.
Got it.

And now suddenly the Bush tax cuts that raised the number of people not paying income taxes from ~20% to ~50% were a bad thing but making the Bush tax cuts permanent is a good thing.
Got it.

 

[DiamondDave]

Notice how the word "policies" is used instead of 8 TAX INCREASES in 6 years.

As stated so many times.. a tax increase is not necessarily a bad thing.. just as a decrease is not inherently a bad thing... overbloated government spending (especially in areas that government has no business spending in) is always a bad idea.... ~50% of your populace paying no income taxes is always a bad thing

So when Reagan raises taxes it's a good thing but anyone else like Clinton raises taxes and it's the end of American freedom.
Got it.

And now suddenly the Bush tax cuts that raised the number of people not paying income taxes from ~20% to ~50% were a bad thing but making the Bush tax cuts permanent is a good thing.
Got it.

Your typical ploy.. trying to say things for me....

As I originally stated.. not all tax increases are inherently bad.. not all tax cuts are inherently good...

And let me give you a hint.. the # of people not paying income taxes before Bush II was not at 20%... nice attempt to make up a stat there

You are the motherfucking one who is

 

[boedicca]

The lefties are so desperate to smear Reagan's economic record. The fact is that his policies encouraged a climate of vibrant economic growth and job creation, improving the lives of countless people.

The same positive assessment will not be made of Obama's.

Notice how the word "policies" is used instead of 8 TAX INCREASES in 6 years.

The sum of all of the tax changes during Reagan's terms resulted in a significant TAX DECREASE. The House was controlled by the Dems for the entire eight years - so he had to make some compromised to further his agenda. In the end, it was successful.

 

[Murf76]

106 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities.

The 81% Tax Increase - Forbes.com

 

[edthecynic]

The lefties are so desperate to smear Reagan's economic record. The fact is that his policies encouraged a climate of vibrant economic growth and job creation, improving the lives of countless people.

The same positive assessment will not be made of Obama's.

Notice how the word "policies" is used instead of 8 TAX INCREASES in 6 years.

The sum of all of the tax changes during Reagan's terms resulted in a significant TAX DECREASE. The House was controlled by the Dems for the entire eight years - so he had to make some compromised to further his agenda. In the end, it was successful.

Your chart is suspect as it shows, for example, the 1986 Tax Reform Act as a tax cut. It wasn't. As you well know, corporate taxes were increased by the act but the CBO ignores corporate tax increases thus skewing the chart.

Furthermore, while tax rates for the wealthy were cut, the middle class saw their taxes increases because increases in payroll taxes more than offset cuts in income taxes.

In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up from 17.7% to 18.4%, shifting some of the tax burden from the PROGRESSIVE income tax to the REGRESSIVE payroll tax.

U.S. Treasury - Fact Sheet on the History of the U.S. Tax System

Between 1986 and 1990 the Federal tax burden rose as a share of GDP from 17.5 to 18 percent. Despite this increase in the overall tax burden, persistent budget deficits due to even higher levels of government spending created near constant pressure to increase taxes.

 

[boedicca]

You are completely wrong - you ignore how much those with higher incomes pay as a total.

But thanks for sharing.

 

[edthecynic]

106 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities.

The 81% Tax Increase - Forbes.com

Yeah sure, we will have 106 trillion in unfunded liabilities this year.

First of all to get that number they ignore the SS trust fund funding. And second they get that number by calculating the liability over a 75 year period. So in reality it is a 1.4 trillion per year unfunded liability ignoring the SS trust fund.

 

[edthecynic]

As stated so many times.. a tax increase is not necessarily a bad thing.. just as a decrease is not inherently a bad thing... overbloated government spending (especially in areas that government has no business spending in) is always a bad idea.... ~50% of your populace paying no income taxes is always a bad thing

So when Reagan raises taxes it's a good thing but anyone else like Clinton raises taxes and it's the end of American freedom.
Got it.

And now suddenly the Bush tax cuts that raised the number of people not paying income taxes from ~20% to ~50% were a bad thing but making the Bush tax cuts permanent is a good thing.
Got it.

Your typical ploy.. trying to say things for me....

As I originally stated.. not all tax increases are inherently bad.. not all tax cuts are inherently good...

And let me give you a hint.. the # of people not paying income taxes before Bush II was not at 20%... nice attempt to make up a stat there

You are the motherfucking one who is

As a CON$ervaTard DittoTard all you can do is make shit up when confronted with the truth!!!

From boedicca's link earlier in this very thread:

In 2001 the top 1% earned 14.8% of all income and paid 34.4% of federal income taxes. The next 4% earned 12.7% and paid 20.8%. The next 5% earned 10.1% and paid 12.5%. The next 10% earned 14.8% and paid 14.8%, completing the highest quintile, which in total earned 52.4% of all income and paid 82.5% of federal income taxes. The fourth quintile earned 20.7% and paid 14.3%. The third quintile earned 14.2% and paid 5.2%. The second quintile earned 9.2% and paid 0.3%. The lowest quintile earned 4.2% and received a net 2.3% from the federal government in income "credits."

The second 20% paid .3% in 2001, that's the group from 21% to 40% so the only ones who paid no income tax in 2001 were the bottom ~20%.

Ain't those Bush tax cuts great!!!
Lets make them permanent so half the US can pay no income taxes permanently and you CON$ can whine and ***** about it permanently.