Fixing Tax Loopholes, 51% of Americans Pay NO Incomes Taxes

[hellofromwarsaw]

"If I wasn't paying any income tax, I would probably be voting for a democrat every election.
Hmmmm, now that got me thinking....."

Yet strangely the nonrich always do better under Dems. Are you thinking perhaps you're myopic and sorely misled? I do.

 

[Susan45]

In the 70s, big business and the wealthy captured the Republican party, and then, eventually, they captured the Democrats ("Blue Dogs"). One of their primary goals was to lower labor costs. They proceeded to ship manufacturing jobs to human-rights-abusing dictatorships in Asia. They effectively cut the working classes out of the loop. They pocketed unprecedented amounts of wealth (while partnering with and thereby making evil countries stronger) - and then they had their own taxes lowered while -- wait for it -- complaining that workers (whose jobs and benefits had been destroyed) didn't pay enough taxes. Brilliant.

(Only a FOX News moron stuck inside the GOP message machine could buy into this)

[PSST: Orwell is rolling over in his grave: In the front of the house the GOP was screaming "Borders, Language, Culture", while in the back of the house they were partnering with Mexico, Communist China, and terrorist petrol states. Please recall Reagan's Amnesty Bill -- the largest amnesty bill ever passed in the united states -- which was done to break organized Labor in California. Reagan -- the father of modern conservatism -- pried open the border to Mexico, while the "Social Conservatives" (who now occupy talk radio and FOX News) fomented a nativist fear of illegals and hatred of communists (the very communists that American capital was partnering with). In the back of the house the GOP destroyed this country's borders in order to give capital greater access to the 3rd world's labor and resources; while in the front of the house they used those very open borders as a political football. How did they do it? Talk Radio and Fox News lied to useful morons. The same GOP hoax happened with oil and terrorism. In the back of the house, the GOP formed deep oil partnerships with Saudi Arabia, Saddam Hussein, the Shaw, the Taliban, and the Mujahideen, while in the front of the house they scared the morons with evil doer rhetoric - the same evil doers who they were doing business with. Brilliant.

The United States has spent 30 years lowering the wages, benefits, and entitlements of working Americans in order to give capital cheaper operating costs and the wealthy lower taxes. As a consequence, wages have been frozen, while solid jobs have been shipped to sweatshops in evil-doer-countries. The GOP's financial platform is just like Reagan's as Governor of California: partner with the evil doers in the back of the house, while fighting evil doers in the front of the house.

Oh yeah, my point. If you want the people who don't pay taxes to contribute, you have to restore their jobs, wages, and benefits. People who work for the country's largest employer -- Walmart -- are living in urban slums. They are part of an underemployed temp workforce which cannot afford routine dental work. [And you think you're gonna get taxes from the toothless hordes?]

The main problem with the GOP "cheap labor revolution" in America is that by lowering wages, they effectively "fired" consumers and taxpayers. If the wealthy make most of the money, they shouldn't be surprised to pay most of the taxes

(But they don't really pay as much taxes as is popularly claimed - and everybody but FOX News viewers knows this)

The average middle class worker pays higher taxes than the wealthy -- who only pay %15 on capital gains.

First you drive down the wages of workers, so they don't have enough money to survive, raise a family, or go to college (like they did during the postwar years when the liberals were in charge and more Americans had upward mobility). Then you give tax breaks to the only people actually making real money.

(and then you complain that poor people -- whose wages and benefits you've cut -- don't pay taxes)

(wow, just wow)

Wow, just wow is right. Excellent post. I remember when they were lowering the capital gains taxes. One of the reasons they gave us was the money had already been taxed once. So I thought, then why do they tax tips? Hasn't that money already been taxed?

But notice how upset the RW get when they think that someone poor might not be paying their "fair" share. Then they turn around and accuse us of class warfare. LOL

And I think you're right, Orwell would be shocked.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The “half of Americans pay no income tax” fraud

One of the right-wing’s favorite talking points is the claim that 50 percent of American households don’t pay income taxes. From that claim flow a couple of other points: First, it’s impossible to “cut” taxes for those households because they don’t pay any tax in the first place; second, those households are somehow less deserving of respect or even a voice in politics because they aren’t paying their own way.

That claim is bogus both in its details and its general charge.
Atlanta Opinion *| ajc.com

Excellent, too bad the willfully ignorant ignore anything which challeges conservative dogma

I read about 8-9 pages of the vitriol on this thread before I decided to post. These willfully ignorant have the bollocks to accuse liberals of class warfare when the posts here were just dripping with venom against the poor.

Yes, there are people who are too poor to pay income taxes, most of SS if my friends are taken into consideration. LOL But the right seems to feel the poor folks want to be poor and are doing it willfully.

But this is a RW myth and I've made it my goal to strike it down every time I see it. It's bullshit and should be treated that way.

Don't worry about what WillowTree posts, she has the intelligence of a willow tree and her comments might as well come from a profane parrot perched on one of her branches.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Fifty percent pay zero Federal Income Tax.

You can always vote for someone who promises to raise taxes on those people.

q- do you think that lets call it a tax floor should be put on all earners where in they at the very least must pay their fica contributions?

That's complicated because it makes the assumption that an earned income credit or the like on the income tax side pays off a payroll tax contribution on the SS/Medicare. Technically it does not.

I don't know what my opinion of that is.

 

[dblack]

The problem for the country right now is how do we get money that is being hoarded by individuls, banks, companies and corporations back into circulation allowing it to be spent, creating a demand for goods and services therefore creating a demand for jobs to produce those goods and services. As more and more money is being sucked out of society and hoarded, the closer to economic death the US comes.

Take it from them by force and spend it willy nilly. Duh.

 

[WillowTree]

Fifty percent pay zero Federal Income Tax.

You can always vote for someone who promises to raise taxes on those people.

I'm going to actively work for a fair flat tax. The time has come, the leeches have made the present situation untenable. The country is bankrupt and you leeches still yell for more.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If I wasn't paying any income tax, I would probably be voting for a democrat every election.
Hmmmm, now that got me thinking.....

It wasn't Democrats who got your income taxes down to zero, if they were. That was Republican policy.

 

[WillowTree]

Fifty percent pay zero Federal Income Tax.

You can always vote for someone who promises to raise taxes on those people.

q- do you think that lets call it a tax floor should be put on all earners where in they at the very least must pay their fica contributions?

The least we can do is to stop sending them rebates for god's sake.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The “half of Americans pay no income tax” fraud

One of the right-wing’s favorite talking points is the claim that 50 percent of American households don’t pay income taxes. From that claim flow a couple of other points: First, it’s impossible to “cut” taxes for those households because they don’t pay any tax in the first place; second, those households are somehow less deserving of respect or even a voice in politics because they aren’t paying their own way.

That claim is bogus both in its details and its general charge.
Atlanta Opinion *| ajc.com

Excellent, too bad the willfully ignorant ignore anything which challeges conservative dogma

I read about 8-9 pages of the vitriol on this thread before I decided to post. These willfully ignorant have the bollocks to accuse liberals of class warfare when the posts here were just dripping with venom against the poor.

Yes, there are people who are too poor to pay income taxes, most of SS if my friends are taken into consideration. LOL But the right seems to feel the poor folks want to be poor and are doing it willfully.

But this is a RW myth and I've made it my goal to strike it down every time I see it. It's bullshit and should be treated that way.

Yes yes yes. Look this thread has nothing to do with your desire to weep for the poor.
Quite frankly, the poor have nothing to do with this.
It is a FACT that nearly half of all Americans pay no federal income tax. That is a fact and it not in dispute. You Lefties dig up all the nonsense such as that dopey pie chart. A chart that tells only one part of the story.
You libs are hell bent on one tax increase after another.
You libs do not dare discuss fiscal responsibility because you do not believe in it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Considering the wealthy and corporations have never had more cash on hand, absolutely bloated, with their lowest tax rates since their bloated 1920's, it's obvious to everyone but brainwashed Pub dupes and the terminally greedy that they should be taxed more, as the country's non-rich and infrastructure are collapsing...pfffft!! TY Pub propaganda machine and cowardly corporate media....

Why do you wish to see higher tax rates? For what purpose do you think government needs more money?

 

[Susan45]

Excellent, too bad the willfully ignorant ignore anything which challeges conservative dogma

I read about 8-9 pages of the vitriol on this thread before I decided to post. These willfully ignorant have the bollocks to accuse liberals of class warfare when the posts here were just dripping with venom against the poor.

Yes, there are people who are too poor to pay income taxes, most of SS if my friends are taken into consideration. LOL But the right seems to feel the poor folks want to be poor and are doing it willfully.

But this is a RW myth and I've made it my goal to strike it down every time I see it. It's bullshit and should be treated that way.

Yes yes yes. Look this thread has nothing to do with your desire to weep for the poor.
Quite frankly, the poor have nothing to do with this.
It is a FACT that nearly half of all Americans pay no federal income tax. That is a fact and it not in dispute. You Lefties dig up all the nonsense such as that dopey pie chart. A chart that tells only one part of the story.
You libs are hell bent on one tax increase after another.
You libs do not dare discuss fiscal responsibility because you do not believe in it.

No, it is not true that "nearly half" of all Americans pay no federal income tax. If it is such a fact where is your proof? It is just part of your magical thinking when you keep repeating this with nothing to back you up. If there is another part of the story, please be my guest and fill us in. At least we have a chart, you have nothing.

And your wild imaginings about how "libs" are is just another example of magical thinking. You don't deal in facts. Just magic thinking and bullshit.

 

[Big Fitz]

The problem for the country right now is how do we get money that is being hoarded by individuls, banks, companies and corporations back into circulation allowing it to be spent, creating a demand for goods and services therefore creating a demand for jobs to produce those goods and services. As more and more money is being sucked out of society and hoarded, the closer to economic death the US comes.

This is a damn good question and sadly one that I think is probably unanswerable.

It's a simply answered question actually. First refer to the Laffer Curve.

Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a wiki, but it makes the basics clear.

Taxes must find an equilibrium. A balance between income and burden that maximizes both the freedom of the people as well as cover the needs of the state. This is why we have a spending problem in this nation. The government has grown cancerous and bloated and needs to be cut back massively. Every power not given in the constitution should be cut back and given over to the states as is proper.

As for lower taxes, you decrease both the impetus and profitability of avoiding them and therefore increase revenues paid. This is also why simplifying a tax code is better because you cut away all sorts of ways for people to avoid taxes, save fleeing jurisdiction, which the wealthy can do if they feel that they are being unjustly or unfairly charged. There is so much precedent for this working it would take a dedicated fool to deny it.

Supply side works if you provide a beneficial place to invest and not to flee. Currently the economic environment here is poor at best, dangerous at worst. If you make it a good place for people to invest in this nation, and make it harder for them to do so off shore, money will return. That is the point of setting good economic policy and why Cal Coolidge said it best:

"The business of America, is Business."

 

[Polk]

It's a simply answered question actually. First refer to the Laffer Curve.

Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a wiki, but it makes the basics clear.

Taxes must find an equilibrium. A balance between income and burden that maximizes both the freedom of the people as well as cover the needs of the state. This is why we have a spending problem in this nation. The government has grown cancerous and bloated and needs to be cut back massively. Every power not given in the constitution should be cut back and given over to the states as is proper.

As for lower taxes, you decrease both the impetus and profitability of avoiding them and therefore increase revenues paid. This is also why simplifying a tax code is better because you cut away all sorts of ways for people to avoid taxes, save fleeing jurisdiction, which the wealthy can do if they feel that they are being unjustly or unfairly charged. There is so much precedent for this working it would take a dedicated fool to deny it.

Supply side works if you provide a beneficial place to invest and not to flee. Currently the economic environment here is poor at best, dangerous at worst. If you make it a good place for people to invest in this nation, and make it harder for them to do so off shore, money will return. That is the point of setting good economic policy and why Cal Coolidge said it best:

"The business of America, is Business."

The problem with the Laffer Curve argument is that it rests on the assumption we're to the right of the maxima. There isn't any evidence to support that claim.

 

[thereisnospoon]

so what?

if you are dissatisfied with your station in life, income etc. then, have at it- education, ambition and motivation.

the world is your oyster.

So what?

I'm tired of socialism for the rich.
I'm tired of paying for corporations to build war machines to persecute wars against people that did nothing to us.
I'm tired of the rich deciding the outcomes of US elections via court appointments and unlimited funding.

That was never the way the founding fathers intended it. In fact they fought tooth and nail against that very outcome.

Look at yourself. "I'm tired of the rich"......
Jesus Christ. Is that all you have? Bitching and whining?

 

[Big Fitz]

It's a simply answered question actually. First refer to the Laffer Curve.

Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a wiki, but it makes the basics clear.

Taxes must find an equilibrium. A balance between income and burden that maximizes both the freedom of the people as well as cover the needs of the state. This is why we have a spending problem in this nation. The government has grown cancerous and bloated and needs to be cut back massively. Every power not given in the constitution should be cut back and given over to the states as is proper.

As for lower taxes, you decrease both the impetus and profitability of avoiding them and therefore increase revenues paid. This is also why simplifying a tax code is better because you cut away all sorts of ways for people to avoid taxes, save fleeing jurisdiction, which the wealthy can do if they feel that they are being unjustly or unfairly charged. There is so much precedent for this working it would take a dedicated fool to deny it.

Supply side works if you provide a beneficial place to invest and not to flee. Currently the economic environment here is poor at best, dangerous at worst. If you make it a good place for people to invest in this nation, and make it harder for them to do so off shore, money will return. That is the point of setting good economic policy and why Cal Coolidge said it best:

"The business of America, is Business."

The problem with the Laffer Curve argument is that it rests on the assumption we're to the right of the maxima. There isn't any evidence to support that claim.

and yet whenever taxes are cut, revenues rise and prosperity shows. Circumstantial evidence belies that claim. Keep making thin cuts in need as well as taxes till it is found. Cutting taxes is STILL the proper direction.

 

[Polk]

It's a simply answered question actually. First refer to the Laffer Curve.

Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a wiki, but it makes the basics clear.

Taxes must find an equilibrium. A balance between income and burden that maximizes both the freedom of the people as well as cover the needs of the state. This is why we have a spending problem in this nation. The government has grown cancerous and bloated and needs to be cut back massively. Every power not given in the constitution should be cut back and given over to the states as is proper.

As for lower taxes, you decrease both the impetus and profitability of avoiding them and therefore increase revenues paid. This is also why simplifying a tax code is better because you cut away all sorts of ways for people to avoid taxes, save fleeing jurisdiction, which the wealthy can do if they feel that they are being unjustly or unfairly charged. There is so much precedent for this working it would take a dedicated fool to deny it.

Supply side works if you provide a beneficial place to invest and not to flee. Currently the economic environment here is poor at best, dangerous at worst. If you make it a good place for people to invest in this nation, and make it harder for them to do so off shore, money will return. That is the point of setting good economic policy and why Cal Coolidge said it best:

"The business of America, is Business."

The problem with the Laffer Curve argument is that it rests on the assumption we're to the right of the maxima. There isn't any evidence to support that claim.

and yet whenever taxes are cut, revenues rise and prosperity shows. Circumstantial evidence belies that claim. Keep making thin cuts in need as well as taxes till it is found. Cutting taxes is STILL the proper direction.

Can you show any cases in modern American history where tax cuts resulted in higher revenue? Roth-Kemp reduced revenue. Both rounds of the Bush tax cuts reduced revenue.

There's also elementary reason involved. If tax cuts increased revenue, why wouldn't the Democrats be pushing for them? After all, it would make people happier and allow them to enact more of their agenda.

 

[Meister]

If I wasn't paying any income tax, I would probably be voting for a democrat every election.
Hmmmm, now that got me thinking.....

It wasn't Democrats who got your income taxes down to zero, if they were. That was Republican policy.

Libs are the ones that want to keep it that way, it's good for business.

 

[Big Fitz]

The problem with the Laffer Curve argument is that it rests on the assumption we're to the right of the maxima. There isn't any evidence to support that claim.

and yet whenever taxes are cut, revenues rise and prosperity shows. Circumstantial evidence belies that claim. Keep making thin cuts in need as well as taxes till it is found. Cutting taxes is STILL the proper direction.

Can you show any cases in modern American history where tax cuts resulted in higher revenue? Roth-Kemp reduced revenue. Both rounds of the Bush tax cuts reduced revenue.

There's also elementary reason involved. If tax cuts increased revenue, why wouldn't the Democrats be pushing for them? After all, it would make people happier and allow them to enact more of their agenda.

I see, the Kennedy, Reagan and Harding tax cuts didn't work by your reading of history. Although all reduced revenue in the very short term, therefore it is not true when they caused long term growth. The Harding/Coolidge tax and spending cuts were consumed in the crash of 29 which had nothing to do with the cuts, and everything to do with poor controls on the market and banking preventing such dangerous investment behavior. The Kennedy tax cuts were squandered on the Great Society and Vietnam Wars and blunted their total effect. The Reagan tax cuts inspired 20 years of prosperity till the Dot Com crash and 9/11.

There is always a lag from cuts, but the final outcome always outweighs the cut. Even Bush's cuts saved us from striking depression levels.

 

[Trajan]

You're right, your point was excellent. Thanks. I just hate to see that number thrown around since it's another RW myth.

Really? No one has been able to disprove that number.

The “half of Americans pay no income tax” fraud

One of the right-wing’s favorite talking points is the claim that 50 percent of American households don’t pay income taxes. From that claim flow a couple of other points: First, it’s impossible to “cut” taxes for those households because they don’t pay any tax in the first place; second, those households are somehow less deserving of respect or even a voice in politics because they aren’t paying their own way.

That claim is bogus both in its details and its general charge.
Atlanta Opinion *| ajc.com

Last year alone, $190 billion in payroll tax receipts was diverted to general fund use, paying for everything from Iraq to the salaries of park rangers.

why did not the dems in congress return this money to those that paid it, if its not going to go into the "fund"? hummmmm, maybe because they by and large already do via tax credits, section 8 vouchers etc etc.


and

second, those households are somehow less deserving of respect or even a voice in politics

I don't recall anyone saying they don't deserve respect or a voice...your source can employ cheap emotionalism all they like, it detracts from their point instead of buttressing it.

and I am not quite sure how I see the connection here;

As of 2007, a total of $2.25 trillion of payroll tax money paid into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds had been diverted to general fund use and replaced with government IOUs. In effect, the trust funds are an illusion. Payroll taxes and income taxes go into the same pool of money and are withdrawn from that same pool of money to fund government.



can you explain how the above makes the below statement correct?


And for that reason, the claim that 50 percent, or even 38 percent, of Americans pay no income tax is flat out wrong.





and-

The actual figure of “taxable units” who don’t pay the standard income tax — a taxable unit being a couple filing jointly or a person filing — is somewhere around 38 percent. Even that number is grossly exaggerated, because it excludes what people pay through the payroll tax.

see the bold, hello....so payroll collections for medicare and SSI should be counted as 'taxs'?

 

[Susan45]

It's a simply answered question actually. First refer to the Laffer Curve.

Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a wiki, but it makes the basics clear.

Taxes must find an equilibrium. A balance between income and burden that maximizes both the freedom of the people as well as cover the needs of the state. This is why we have a spending problem in this nation. The government has grown cancerous and bloated and needs to be cut back massively. Every power not given in the constitution should be cut back and given over to the states as is proper.

As for lower taxes, you decrease both the impetus and profitability of avoiding them and therefore increase revenues paid. This is also why simplifying a tax code is better because you cut away all sorts of ways for people to avoid taxes, save fleeing jurisdiction, which the wealthy can do if they feel that they are being unjustly or unfairly charged. There is so much precedent for this working it would take a dedicated fool to deny it.

Supply side works if you provide a beneficial place to invest and not to flee. Currently the economic environment here is poor at best, dangerous at worst. If you make it a good place for people to invest in this nation, and make it harder for them to do so off shore, money will return. That is the point of setting good economic policy and why Cal Coolidge said it best:

"The business of America, is Business."

The problem with the Laffer Curve argument is that it rests on the assumption we're to the right of the maxima. There isn't any evidence to support that claim.

Just as there is no evidence that the Laffer (Laugher) Curve works at all and many people have debunked the claim that it does work.

IMO it is just more of the magical thinking of the RW. How can it be anything but magic to think that lower taxes bring in more revenues. Just checking out Reagan and Bush tax cuts show that the cuts caused a decline in revenues.

So what I think is that the RW believes in the Laffer Curve and then they believe that the invisible hand waves itself over it and in moments it works.

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.

Read more: Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues - TIME

Jay Bookman
The Laffer Curve debunked; Part One
The Laffer Curve debunked; Part One | Jay Bookman

Jay Bookman
The Laffer Curve in real life

In conclusion, in all three categories central to the claim of supply-side proponents, the economy performed significantly better in the wake of tax increases than it did in the wake of major tax cuts.
The Laffer Curve in real life | Jay Bookman

There is no real data the the Laffer Curve works and plenty to show it doesn't.