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

[edthecynic]

Humanizing Hamilton has nothing to do with "general welfare" and you know it. But it does show how CON$ can rationalize anything.

And the radical extremist Heritage Foundation is hardly a credible source, especially when they don't enumerate what they are and are not counting as military spending.

Here is a good article showing the difference between the stated defense budget and the REAL defense related spending.

UNDERNEWS: THE REAL DEFENSE BUDGET

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

If you want to know how much we spend for defense in a generic sense, you can about double the $534 billion many articles will report.

The General Welfare Clause is not an enumerated power.... at least, it's not supposed to be. Weird how we get a whole new interpretation when one threatens to pack the court with his own people 'til he gets his way though, huh?

FDR only got Social Security through by coercion. And Hamilton's Report on Manufacturers from 1791, after ratification, was used to give the illusion of authenticity. Medicare and Medicaid are predicated off of that little bit of evil arm-twisting... and they're busting our asses today.

You can complain about the Heritage Foundation as a source if you like. Hell, I stopped reading your link at the word "progressive". I wouldn't believe water was wet if a "progressive" told me it was so. They're little more than thieves in my book.

But that doesn't change the fact that national security is a clearly enumerated power and social welfare at the federal level is NOT. And I really don't care if military spending upsets you. Airmail yourself to Afghanistan if you like. Maybe you can talk the terrorists around to your way of thinking.

What I care about is that my children enjoy the security and liberty that is their birthright as Americans.

Repeating that hateist BS doesn't make it any truer. I pointed out that Marshall decided the issue LONG before FDR. Regressives try to blame all their failures on their scapegoats, in this case Progressives like FDR. I'm sorry you hate America and the Constitution so much, maybe you should think about moving somewhere where you will be happier like Iran, no Progressives there.

 

[Murf76]

Repeating that hateist BS doesn't make it any truer. I pointed out that Marshall decided the issue LONG before FDR. Regressives try to blame all their failures on their scapegoats, in this case Progressives like FDR. I'm sorry you hate America and the Constitution so much, maybe you should think about moving somewhere where you will be happier like Iran, no Progressives there.

Is this the same Marshall who said in Marbury, while claiming the power of judicial review:

"The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. "

IOW, the very same Supreme Court, which statists believe has the authority to legislate from the bench, INSISTS upon the authority of the U.S. Constitution as written to LIMIT legislative power.

There's no "scapegoating" here. Conservatives, who believe in limited government simply recognize a thief and a tyrant when they see one. These are people who twist our law like a taffy-pull at the county fair in order to arrive at whatever arbitrary, liberty-killing outcome they desire. They have no integrity. They have no honor. And when you stand with them... you stand against the spirit of Constitutional governance.

 

[Polk]

Please ignore that a large chunk of federal revenue comes from regressive taxes such as FICA and vice taxes, which aren't counted in this "the poor pay no taxes" line.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Please ignore that a large chunk of federal revenue comes from regressive taxes such as FICA and vice taxes, which aren't counted in this "the poor pay no taxes" line.

Nice try at twising facts in the OP.

The fact that you have failed at refuting is this. Poor people pay no INCOME taxes. A full 77% of federal income tax revenue are paid by earners making more than $300k.

 

[Polk]

Please ignore that a large chunk of federal revenue comes from regressive taxes such as FICA and vice taxes, which aren't counted in this "the poor pay no taxes" line.

Nice try at twising facts in the OP.

The fact that you have failed at refuting is this. Poor people pay no INCOME taxes. A full 77% of federal income tax revenue are paid by earners making more than $300k.

FICA is a tax on income. If you want to claim that tax on income isn't an income tax, by all means continue to make a fool of yourself.

 

[editec]

When the apologists for this guided age latch onto a half truth that serves their BIG lie, they're not about to let it go.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Please ignore that a large chunk of federal revenue comes from regressive taxes such as FICA and vice taxes, which aren't counted in this "the poor pay no taxes" line.

Nice try at twising facts in the OP.

The fact that you have failed at refuting is this. Poor people pay no INCOME taxes. A full 77% of federal income tax revenue are paid by earners making more than $300k.

FICA is a tax on income. If you want to claim that tax on income isn't an income tax, by all means continue to make a fool of yourself.

The rich pay FICA and vice taxes also. PLUS NEARLY ALL OF THE INCOME TAX REVENUE.
NEXT!!!!!!!!!! Keep spinning the facts into horseshit Polk...

 

[Polk]

Nice try at twising facts in the OP.

The fact that you have failed at refuting is this. Poor people pay no INCOME taxes. A full 77% of federal income tax revenue are paid by earners making more than $300k.

FICA is a tax on income. If you want to claim that tax on income isn't an income tax, by all means continue to make a fool of yourself.

The rich pay FICA and vice taxes also. PLUS NEARLY ALL OF THE INCOME TAX REVENUE.
NEXT!!!!!!!!!! Keep spinning the facts into horseshit Polk...

Someone earning 100k a year pays 6.2 percent of their income. Someone earning 300k pays 2 percent. Someone earning a million pays 0.6 percent.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

FICA is a tax on income. If you want to claim that tax on income isn't an income tax, by all means continue to make a fool of yourself.

The rich pay FICA and vice taxes also. PLUS NEARLY ALL OF THE INCOME TAX REVENUE.
NEXT!!!!!!!!!! Keep spinning the facts into horseshit Polk...

Someone earning 100k a year pays 6.2 percent of their income. Someone earning 300k pays 2 percent. Someone earning a million pays 0.6 percent.

What tax does your little attempt at spin relate to. Name the tax. Is it Income tax or FICA?

 

[Polk]

The rich pay FICA and vice taxes also. PLUS NEARLY ALL OF THE INCOME TAX REVENUE.
NEXT!!!!!!!!!! Keep spinning the facts into horseshit Polk...

Someone earning 100k a year pays 6.2 percent of their income. Someone earning 300k pays 2 percent. Someone earning a million pays 0.6 percent.

What tax does your little attempt at spin relate to. Name the tax. Is it Income tax or FICA?

FICA, which is a tax on income.

 

[saveliberty]

Please ignore that a large chunk of federal revenue comes from regressive taxes such as FICA and vice taxes, which aren't counted in this "the poor pay no taxes" line.

Nice try at twising facts in the OP.

The fact that you have failed at refuting is this. Poor people pay no INCOME taxes. A full 77% of federal income tax revenue are paid by earners making more than $300k.

FICA is a tax on income. If you want to claim that tax on income isn't an income tax, by all means continue to make a fool of yourself.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but Polk is right. Clearly Social Security and Medicare are considered taxes and are based on your income. Further, has they have caps, they are regressive.

It appears to me that cigarette, gasoline and alcohol taxes take a big bite out of a poorer person's budget. Also, they represent a large consumer base of those items.

 

[editec]

What percentage of all taxes collected by the IRS do the richest 1% pay, again?

I doubt if its 10% in total.

I confess I cannot find the answer to that, however.

But if you throw in the social security taxes and medicare taxes, I know damned well that the wealthiest segments of the population aren't paying the lions share of money collected.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Someone earning 100k a year pays 6.2 percent of their income. Someone earning 300k pays 2 percent. Someone earning a million pays 0.6 percent.

What tax does your little attempt at spin relate to. Name the tax. Is it Income tax or FICA?

FICA, which is a tax on income.

Wrong again Polk.

FICA is capped by law. When the Democrats passed this law they included this cap. Are you saying having everyone paying $6,500 or less into Social Security is unfair to poor people?

Take me for example...I make 200k a year. When I reach the cap FICA is no longer taken out of my check. My contribution comes out to about 6500 dollars. Someone who earns only 50k a year only pays about 3,000 dollars a year into FICA. How is that not a fair policy? I paid into Social Security to meet the lawfully mandated cap.

 

[boedicca]

FICA is a tax on income. If you want to claim that tax on income isn't an income tax, by all means continue to make a fool of yourself.

Regardless of who is paying, Obama's budget increases federal spending 70% this decade compared to the 2000s. There is no justification for this binge - it expands government from approx 20% of GDP to 30%+.

There aren't enough Rich People to pay for that increase - hence taxes will be raised on everyone. Why do you think they are floating the VAT concept?

 

[boedicca]

Wrong again Polk.

FICA is capped by law. When the Democrats passed this law they included this cap. Are you saying having everyone paying $6,500 or less into Social Security is unfair to poor people?

Take me for example...I make 200k a year. When I reach the cap FICA is no longer taken out of my check. My contribution comes out to about 6500 dollars. Someone who earns only 50k a year only pays about 3,000 dollars a year into FICA. How is that not a fair policy? I paid into Social Security to meet the lawfully mandated cap.

And the odds are that the person making $50K per year will actually get his money back via SS benefits. Those of us who are high earners (and horror of horrors have SAVED MONEY), will most likely be means tested out of the system. That makes SS a pure tax, not an "insurance" program.

 

[The T]

What percentage of all taxes collected by the IRS do the richest 1% pay, again?

I doubt if its 10% in total.

I confess I cannot find the answer to that, however.

But if you throw in the social security taxes and medicare taxes, I know damned well that the wealthiest segments of the population aren't paying the lions share of money collected.

LINK

 

[Polk]

What percentage of all taxes collected by the IRS do the richest 1% pay, again?

I doubt if its 10% in total.

I confess I cannot find the answer to that, however.

But if you throw in the social security taxes and medicare taxes, I know damned well that the wealthiest segments of the population aren't paying the lions share of money collected.

Even if they are, the argument being made by the OP is still weak. When you're taxing income, it makes sense that the bulk of taxes will be collected from the highest earners. Saying "the top 10% pay 65% of the taxes" sounds absurd, until you consider they also make more than 65% of the income.

 

[Polk]

What tax does your little attempt at spin relate to. Name the tax. Is it Income tax or FICA?

FICA, which is a tax on income.

Wrong again Polk.

FICA is capped by law. When the Democrats passed this law they included this cap. Are you saying having everyone paying $6,500 or less into Social Security is unfair to poor people?

Take me for example...I make 200k a year. When I reach the cap FICA is no longer taken out of my check. My contribution comes out to about 6500 dollars. Someone who earns only 50k a year only pays about 3,000 dollars a year into FICA. How is that not a fair policy? I paid into Social Security to meet the lawfully mandated cap.

How is someone being paid less than you being taxed at double the rate you are a fair policy?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

What percentage of all taxes collected by the IRS do the richest 1% pay, again?

I doubt if its 10% in total.

I confess I cannot find the answer to that, however.

But if you throw in the social security taxes and medicare taxes, I know damned well that the wealthiest segments of the population aren't paying the lions share of money collected.

and you would be wrong in assuming you know who pays what.....

Read and LEARN!

Half of Americans pay no federal income tax - Tax Tactics - msnbc.com

 

[Polk]

FICA is a tax on income. If you want to claim that tax on income isn't an income tax, by all means continue to make a fool of yourself.

Regardless of who is paying, Obama's budget increases federal spending 70% this decade compared to the 2000s. There is no justification for this binge - it expands government from approx 20% of GDP to 30%+.

There aren't enough Rich People to pay for that increase - hence taxes will be raised on everyone. Why do you think they are floating the VAT concept?

Several points.
1. The increase in federal spending projected over the next decade is almost entirely from increased Medicare and Social Security cost. Elect a Republican Congress tomorrow and a Republican President, and that increase will still occur.
2. The main people you hear talking about a VAT are Republicans.
3. The reality is that the long-term budget problem cannot be solved with both increasing revenues (raising taxes) and decreasing spending.