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

[PatekPhilippe]

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?

and this is where your fallicy of an argument fails miserably. We all pay into FICA THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT and are TAXED AT THE EXACT SAME RATE.

 

[Polk]

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?

and this is where your fallicy of an argument fails miserably. We all pay into FICA THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT and are TAXED AT THE EXACT SAME RATE.

No, we don't.

 

[boedicca]

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.

We'll your wrong.

Taxation in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SuMar]

Half of U.S. pays no federal income tax
Credits for low- and middle-income families exempt many

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

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

Yes sad but very true. Only 5% of this population makes over 250K per year and less than 1% of the population makes over 300K per year.

But Obama and liberals want to hammer them again with higher taxes---

It really doesn't make any sense--does it? Of course, not unless you're a socialist and believe in wealth redistribution--then it would make sense to you.

Since when does the rich guy take it in the shorts in paying high taxes?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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

and this is where your fallicy of an argument fails miserably. We all pay into FICA THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT and are TAXED AT THE EXACT SAME RATE.

No, we don't.

Show us the IRS statute that states that FICA has a tiered tax structure....and YES we all pay the exact same amount into Social Security up to the federally mandated cap.

let me ask you this polk...why is there a cap on Social Security earnings?

 

[blu]

how many don't pay taxes because of business and investment writeoffs? I personally know quite a few of those people

 

[SuMar]

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

and this is where your fallicy of an argument fails miserably. We all pay into FICA THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT and are TAXED AT THE EXACT SAME RATE.

No, we don't.

FICA today is used to provide for the federal system of old age, survivors, disability and hospital insurance. The first three of these are funded by the Social Security system, while hospital insurance is funded by a Medicare tax. Both employees and employers are required to contribute to FICA taxes through regular payroll deductions. The good news is that there is a limit to the amount of FICA taxes an employee is required to pay.
FICA Tax Rates

Generally, FICA taxes are collected at a rate of 7.65% on gross earnings - earnings before any deductions. The breakdown of FICA is 6.2% for Social Security (Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance or OASDI) and 1.45% for Medicare.

FICA Tax​

 

[PatekPhilippe]

and this is where your fallicy of an argument fails miserably. We all pay into FICA THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT and are TAXED AT THE EXACT SAME RATE.

No, we don't.

FICA today is used to provide for the federal system of old age, survivors, disability and hospital insurance. The first three of these are funded by the Social Security system, while hospital insurance is funded by a Medicare tax. Both employees and employers are required to contribute to FICA taxes through regular payroll deductions. The good news is that there is a limit to the amount of FICA taxes an employee is required to pay.
FICA Tax Rates

Generally, FICA taxes are collected at a rate of 7.65% on gross earnings - earnings before any deductions. The breakdown of FICA is 6.2% for Social Security (Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance or OASDI) and 1.45% for Medicare.

FICA Tax​

Well...I don't see a tiered tax structure there. I see a flat tax assessed on ALL EMPLOYED people.

Where Polks argument fails is this...he's just dreaming up tax rates that have no basis in federal law to make a point that the rich should be taxed more. What he fails to realize is this. People pay into Social Security to get a benefit. That benefit is based on how much you pay into the system. For example: I pay in the max each year. Someone making $50k does not. When they retire my check will be larger than theirs based on what I paid into the system vice what they paid into the system. How do I know this? My brother and I compare our SS statements. He makes about $50k a year and has been working longer than me by 4 years. I make about $200k a year and I have already passed him in benefits to be paid upon retirement.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And yet conservatives want to lower income taxes further. So if you do that, 60, or 70, or 80% of Americans would then not pay income taxes, which would give the 'rich', and ironically their unrich conservative supporters, even more to gripe about.

Unless of course you were to lower income taxes ONLY on the 'rich', which is pretty much politically impossible.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

And yet conservatives want to lower income taxes further. So if you do that, 60, or 70, or 80% of Americans would then not pay income taxes, which would give the 'rich', and ironically their unrich conservative supporters, even more to gripe about.

Unless of course you were to lower income taxes ONLY on the 'rich', which is pretty much politically impossible.

When 80% of income taxes are paid by earners of over $300k? What's wrong with that?

 

[The T]

And yet conservatives want to lower income taxes further. So if you do that, 60, or 70, or 80% of Americans would then not pay income taxes, which would give the 'rich', and ironically their unrich conservative supporters, even more to gripe about.

Unless of course you were to lower income taxes ONLY on the 'rich', which is pretty much politically impossible.

What's wrong with scrapping the entire 16th Amendment since it is being used as a tool to manipulate people?

Why is the Tax Code so large and lethargic?

The Founders never meant for the people to be taxed directly...you DO realize this, do you not...and precisely for this reason.

It gives an avenue to the electorate to vote themselves into the largesse of the treasury.

But then you were never a student of history, were you?

 

[boedicca]

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.

1) Agreed - we have a long term structural problem - but Obama has made it worse by adding a new Entitlement, partially funded with diverting $500B of Medicare taxes from that looming insolvent program.

2) Untrue - the Left has been jabbering about VAT for years (it's what the Europeans do!). It's the Motherlode of taxes and Big Government.

3) The only answer is to severely restructure government - including entitlement reform. The Chilean model for SS is a good start. Reduce the hand outs to the truly needy. Get rid of the morass of social engineering programs.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Of course, as you well know since you cited it earlier, Marshall said more than just that:

"We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional"

I recognize a hateist tactic of telling enough truth and then shutting up to create a scapegoat when I see it. You hate America and it's Constitution and will rationalize anything to demonize its leadership to justify your desire for its demise.

 

[Polk]

and this is where your fallicy of an argument fails miserably. We all pay into FICA THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT and are TAXED AT THE EXACT SAME RATE.

No, we don't.

Show us the IRS statute that states that FICA has a tiered tax structure....and YES we all pay the exact same amount into Social Security up to the federally mandated cap.

let me ask you this polk...why is there a cap on Social Security earnings?

The existence of a cap means the tax is not levied at the same rate. Every dollar earned over the cap is untaxed, resulting in a lower effective rate.

 

[boedicca]

The existence of a cap means the tax is not levied at the same rate. Every dollar earned over the cap is untaxed, resulting in a lower effective rate.

Which is more than offset by the high marginal income tax rate and AMT on the income over that amount.

Most of us who are many years away from retirement and have been paying the max won't see a dime of our "SS Insurance" - so we will receive no benefits from the social contract that forces us to pay.

 

[Polk]

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.

1) Agreed - we have a long term structural problem - but Obama has made it worse by adding a new Entitlement, partially funded with diverting $500B of Medicare taxes from that looming insolvent program.

2) Untrue - the Left has been jabbering about VAT for years (it's what the Europeans do!). It's the Motherlode of taxes and Big Government.

3) The only answer is to severely restructure government - including entitlement reform. The Chilean model for SS is a good start. Reduce the hand outs to the truly needy. Get rid of the morass of social engineering programs.

1. In the long run, the only way you're going to be able to reduce the cost of Medicare is to reduce the cost of health care across the board. The only real way to do that is by not having a large population of sicky people running around untreated, developing worse and worse conditions, until they reach the point of qualifying for Medicare.

2. Really? Because the main person I hear talking about it is Krauthammer.

3. Privatizing Social Security will make the deficit outlook worse, not better. And, reduce "handouts"? Aid to the needy is almost zero already.

 

[Polk]

The existence of a cap means the tax is not levied at the same rate. Every dollar earned over the cap is untaxed, resulting in a lower effective rate.

Which is more than offset by the high marginal income tax rate and AMT on the income over that amount.

Most of us who are many years away from retirement and have been paying the max won't see a dime of our "SS Insurance" - so we will receive no benefits from the social contract that forces us to pay.

Except that much of the income of the wealthy isn't subject to income taxes (capital gains are taxed under a different structure) and also the huge handouts to the wealthy written into the tax code (I'm looking at you, deductability of mortgage interest).

 

[edthecynic]

And yet conservatives want to lower income taxes further. So if you do that, 60, or 70, or 80% of Americans would then not pay income taxes, which would give the 'rich', and ironically their unrich conservative supporters, even more to gripe about.

Unless of course you were to lower income taxes ONLY on the 'rich', which is pretty much politically impossible.

You nailed it exactly, which is why earlier in this thread I mockingly said "Ain't those BUSH tax cuts great! Let's make them permanent so 50% of the US can pay no income tax permanently!"

As you can see, in 2001 before the Bush tax cuts only the bottom 20% paid no income taxes.

From a link supplied by one of the CON$ earlier in this 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".

 

[boedicca]

Except that much of the income of the wealthy isn't subject to income taxes (capital gains are taxed under a different structure) and also the huge handouts to the wealthy written into the tax code (I'm looking at you, deductability of mortgage interest).

And much of it is - take a look at AMT which reverses deductions.

The fact is: Most of the tax burden is born by a small ratio of the population. That is not good for society, as Tocqueville eloquently explained centuries ago.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And yet conservatives want to lower income taxes further. So if you do that, 60, or 70, or 80% of Americans would then not pay income taxes, which would give the 'rich', and ironically their unrich conservative supporters, even more to gripe about.

Unless of course you were to lower income taxes ONLY on the 'rich', which is pretty much politically impossible.

What's wrong with scrapping the entire 16th Amendment since it is being used as a tool to manipulate people?

Why is the Tax Code so large and lethargic?

The Founders never meant for the people to be taxed directly...you DO realize this, do you not...and precisely for this reason.

It gives an avenue to the electorate to vote themselves into the largesse of the treasury.

But then you were never a student of history, were you?

Living in the past does not make you a student of history.