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

[Trajan]

[



well if someone has 2 kids and earns say 50K then takes the breaks they get, they can very well receive net money back, that would eat into the total payroll collections they paid...(?)*shrugs*

I suppose, if you could eliminate all other possible offsets, such as federal gas taxes, utility surcharges, state taxes going to federal mandated spending, cigarette taxes, etc., etc.,

then I guess you could claim that the EIC offset the payroll tax.

I don't have to claim anything-


The Earned Income Tax Credit or the EITC is a refundable federal income tax credit for low to moderate income working individuals and families. Congress originally approved the tax credit legislation in 1975 in part to offset the burden of social security taxes and to provide an incentive to work. When EITC exceeds the amount of taxes owed, it results in a tax refund to those who claim and qualify for the credit.

EITC Home Page--It?s easier than ever to find out if you qualify for EITC


so, in effect it appears that one of the roles of the EITC is to basically provide relief from SSI and if the income is low enough certainly some of the medicare fica withholding as well.

what do you think of that?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Ah....No. The bullshit whining is all on your side.
Your Obama wants a tax increase knowing full well it will do nothing to decrease debt or deficit. The soaking of the rich is pure symbolism.
Here ya go Susie homemaker....
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm.\

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax - Yahoo! Finance

And just to allow you to wipe that foam from around your mouth, here's a link to one of your Lefty sources, the Huff and Puffington Post that states the same thing.
46 Percent of Americans Exempt From Federal Income Tax in 2011

Now, go bake cookies or whatever it is you do when you're not drooling on your keyboard.
I HAVE A PIE CHART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH!!!!!
Oh please.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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."

All of this is worthless banter.
The fact of the matter is those on the political Left do not view taxation as a means for government to raise revenue. The Left looks upon taxation as a means to punish.
That's that.

 

[Chris]

All we need to do is repeal the Bush tax cuts and raise the top rate by 3%.

Pretty simple really.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Easy....The tax cut enacted during the Kennedy Administration.
Look, it's very simple. Taxation in moderation is good. A balance between the needs of government and the requirements of the private sector to have capital for investment and expansion.
You people have had your heads filled with all this rhetoric from the political Left and their useful partners in the main stream media who've managed to get the middle class left all lathered up with the class envy card.

I'll ask you....What is it that attracts you to high tax rates?
What is it that makes you think that with government's poor track record on spending lack of efficiency, it would perform better THIS TIME with more of our money?
Why is it your side avoids the issue of fiscal responsibility?

 

[chikenwing]

All we need to do is repeal the Bush tax cuts and raise the top rate by 3%.

Pretty simple really.

U repeal and the middle class get hit with the largest % of INCREASE

Pretty simple really.

 

[shintao]

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.

Easy....The tax cut enacted during the Kennedy Administration.
Look, it's very simple. Taxation in moderation is good. A balance between the needs of government and the requirements of the private sector to have capital for investment and expansion.
You people have had your heads filled with all this rhetoric from the political Left and their useful partners in the main stream media who've managed to get the middle class left all lathered up with the class envy card.

I'll ask you....What is it that attracts you to high tax rates?
What is it that makes you think that with government's poor track record on spending lack of efficiency, it would perform better THIS TIME with more of our money?
Why is it your side avoids the issue of fiscal responsibility?

Let me answer you with a question. What makes you think with the private sector failures we should continue to supply their needs to capital for investment and expansion? That it would perform better THIS TIME with more money?

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Easy....The tax cut enacted during the Kennedy Administration.
Look, it's very simple. Taxation in moderation is good. A balance between the needs of government and the requirements of the private sector to have capital for investment and expansion.
You people have had your heads filled with all this rhetoric from the political Left and their useful partners in the main stream media who've managed to get the middle class left all lathered up with the class envy card.

I'll ask you....What is it that attracts you to high tax rates?
What is it that makes you think that with government's poor track record on spending lack of efficiency, it would perform better THIS TIME with more of our money?
Why is it your side avoids the issue of fiscal responsibility?

Let me answer you with a question. What makes you think with the private sector failures we should continue to supply their needs to capital for investment and expansion? That it would perform better THIS TIME with more money?

If by "we" you mean taxpayers, then the government has no authority to capitalize or subsidize business ventures

If by "we" you mean PRIVATE investors , then that is purely discretionary on your part.

.

 

[chikenwing]

Let me answer you with a question. What makes you think with the private sector failures we should continue to supply their needs to capital for investment and expansion? That it would perform better THIS TIME with more money?


Well remove private sector insert FED GOV and you logic holds true.

And giving the feds even a brief review of they fiscal worthiness,logic would dictate we don't give them a dime!!

 

[Polk]

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.

Easy....The tax cut enacted during the Kennedy Administration.
Look, it's very simple. Taxation in moderation is good. A balance between the needs of government and the requirements of the private sector to have capital for investment and expansion.
You people have had your heads filled with all this rhetoric from the political Left and their useful partners in the main stream media who've managed to get the middle class left all lathered up with the class envy card.

I'll ask you....What is it that attracts you to high tax rates?
What is it that makes you think that with government's poor track record on spending lack of efficiency, it would perform better THIS TIME with more of our money?
Why is it your side avoids the issue of fiscal responsibility?

Except the tax cuts enacted by the Kennedy administration didn't increase revenues. Revenues fell by 9%.

I don't find high tax rates attractive. I find Social Security attractive. I find Medicare attractive. I find education attractive. I find national defense attractive. None of those things are free.

 

[WillowTree]

I like the painless savings aspect of payroll deduction.

That's exactly what makes it evil. When it's removed from your paycheck and you never see it it's painless. When people feel the pain, they question what it's being spent on. Otherwise one day you wake up and have a $1.6 Trillion deficit...

How many of us would think differently about our health insurance if we had to write a check every month for the FULL amount, including what our employer pays on our behalf?

For me and AVG-WIFE, the value = $620 per month.

I did write those checks. They were $1,100.00.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[



well if someone has 2 kids and earns say 50K then takes the breaks they get, they can very well receive net money back, that would eat into the total payroll collections they paid...(?)*shrugs*

I suppose, if you could eliminate all other possible offsets, such as federal gas taxes, utility surcharges, state taxes going to federal mandated spending, cigarette taxes, etc., etc.,

then I guess you could claim that the EIC offset the payroll tax.

I don't have to claim anything-


The Earned Income Tax Credit or the EITC is a refundable federal income tax credit for low to moderate income working individuals and families. Congress originally approved the tax credit legislation in 1975 in part to offset the burden of social security taxes and to provide an incentive to work. When EITC exceeds the amount of taxes owed, it results in a tax refund to those who claim and qualify for the credit.

EITC Home Page--It?s easier than ever to find out if you qualify for EITC


so, in effect it appears that one of the roles of the EITC is to basically provide relief from SSI and if the income is low enough certainly some of the medicare fica withholding as well.

what do you think of that?

I think money is fungible. So you can say it offsets anything you want.

What's the difference if the EIC is lowering income taxes or SS taxes? The child tax credit is big enough for some families to offset their entire SS tax. What's the difference whether it goes below their income tax total? It's all money.

I'm not defending it. The EIC and a whole bunch of other tax giveaways are just payoffs to people with kids, who comprise a large voting bloc.

 

[Rozman]

Isn't that sad and ironic? Lefties preach about making people pay "their fair share", but, they target those that overwhelmingly pay higher rates and higher net amounts in taxes. Those who, technically, are taxed unfairly by paying so insanely much more, are somehow not "paying their fair share".

God damn I hate liberals. Luckily, though, they can't affect how happy my life is when I'm not reading their dribble on here.

That is the difference between conservatives and liberals: conservative's happiness isn't determined by someone else's wealth or opinions. Liberals aren't happy knowing that others are more successful.

Thats a major difference. I don't let liberal morons make me unhappy. I watch a lot of different news outlets, and Fox/MSNBC a lot. Especially the 730pm-930pm times because I'm relaxing then. The contrast in attitudes is so dramatic. Fox's people are so much more upbeat, even if debating strongly, but they include a lot more stuff that's just...more positive. MSNBC is just 24 hour bitterness. Liberals in general are just overall such bitter people. I don't get it.

Some interesting points here....I watch MSNBC from 6PM-8PM.Fox from 8PM-10PM,MSNBC
10-11 PM....The MSNBC crowd for the last 4-5 years has been attack,attack,attack....They
hardly ever put anyone on with a different point of view.Their guests are usually the same crowd that agrees with the Host.Chris Mathews has Ron Reagan on almost every night now and the ass kissing from both of them is unreal.

Bill O'Reilly always has someone on representing the lefties out there.Ed Schultz for years now is the angriest man around there.On his radio show the other day he called Limbaugh
and the Republicans "scumbags" about a half dozen times.Pretty pathetic really.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Easy....The tax cut enacted during the Kennedy Administration.
Look, it's very simple. Taxation in moderation is good. A balance between the needs of government and the requirements of the private sector to have capital for investment and expansion.
You people have had your heads filled with all this rhetoric from the political Left and their useful partners in the main stream media who've managed to get the middle class left all lathered up with the class envy card.

I'll ask you....What is it that attracts you to high tax rates?
What is it that makes you think that with government's poor track record on spending lack of efficiency, it would perform better THIS TIME with more of our money?
Why is it your side avoids the issue of fiscal responsibility?

Except the tax cuts enacted by the Kennedy administration didn't increase revenues. Revenues fell by 9%.

I don't find high tax rates attractive. I find Social Security attractive. I find Medicare attractive. I find education attractive. I find national defense attractive. None of those things are free.

Cutting taxes from the Kennedy era levels cannot be compared to cutting taxes in the Bush era, or cutting taxes now.

 

[Polk]

Easy....The tax cut enacted during the Kennedy Administration.
Look, it's very simple. Taxation in moderation is good. A balance between the needs of government and the requirements of the private sector to have capital for investment and expansion.
You people have had your heads filled with all this rhetoric from the political Left and their useful partners in the main stream media who've managed to get the middle class left all lathered up with the class envy card.

I'll ask you....What is it that attracts you to high tax rates?
What is it that makes you think that with government's poor track record on spending lack of efficiency, it would perform better THIS TIME with more of our money?
Why is it your side avoids the issue of fiscal responsibility?

Except the tax cuts enacted by the Kennedy administration didn't increase revenues. Revenues fell by 9%.

I don't find high tax rates attractive. I find Social Security attractive. I find Medicare attractive. I find education attractive. I find national defense attractive. None of those things are free.

Cutting taxes from the Kennedy era levels cannot be compared to cutting taxes in the Bush era, or cutting taxes now.

That's true as well, and it's pretty damning for the argument of the "tax cuts pay for themselves" crowd that even cutting from that sort of level didn't increase revenue.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Easy....The tax cut enacted during the Kennedy Administration.
Look, it's very simple. Taxation in moderation is good. A balance between the needs of government and the requirements of the private sector to have capital for investment and expansion.
You people have had your heads filled with all this rhetoric from the political Left and their useful partners in the main stream media who've managed to get the middle class left all lathered up with the class envy card.

I'll ask you....What is it that attracts you to high tax rates?
What is it that makes you think that with government's poor track record on spending lack of efficiency, it would perform better THIS TIME with more of our money?
Why is it your side avoids the issue of fiscal responsibility?

Let me answer you with a question. What makes you think with the private sector failures we should continue to supply their needs to capital for investment and expansion? That it would perform better THIS TIME with more money?

Nice try. The economic engine of this country has been the private sector.
Next time, instead of evading by answering a question with a question, which is not an answer at all, think of something original. Yours is the worst kind of response. You had no rebuttal so you thought you could repeat my question and get away with it. Not here pally.
Try setting your alarm clock earlier.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Easy....The tax cut enacted during the Kennedy Administration.
Look, it's very simple. Taxation in moderation is good. A balance between the needs of government and the requirements of the private sector to have capital for investment and expansion.
You people have had your heads filled with all this rhetoric from the political Left and their useful partners in the main stream media who've managed to get the middle class left all lathered up with the class envy card.

I'll ask you....What is it that attracts you to high tax rates?
What is it that makes you think that with government's poor track record on spending lack of efficiency, it would perform better THIS TIME with more of our money?
Why is it your side avoids the issue of fiscal responsibility?

Except the tax cuts enacted by the Kennedy administration didn't increase revenues. Revenues fell by 9%.

I don't find high tax rates attractive. I find Social Security attractive. I find Medicare attractive. I find education attractive. I find national defense attractive. None of those things are free.

Oh, now your side has been shown to be incorrect so your response it "except for".
Oh sure.
The federal government has no business involving itself in public education. That is a matter for the States.
Social Security is what to you? Old age pension. Not so. SS is a TAX. It became a tax when the federal government buried SS by stealing from it. The SS system is broken.
Same with Medicare. These programs cannot continue to exist in their current form.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I like the painless savings aspect of payroll deduction.

That's exactly what makes it evil. When it's removed from your paycheck and you never see it it's painless. When people feel the pain, they question what it's being spent on. Otherwise one day you wake up and have a $1.6 Trillion deficit...

How many of us would think differently about our health insurance if we had to write a check every month for the FULL amount, including what our employer pays on our behalf?

For me and AVG-WIFE, the value = $620 per month.

Same with federal and state income taxes. These are "hidden" in that these are deducted from payroll.

 

[editec]

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

50% of American workers make less than $21,000 a year, champ.

Perhaps we need to fix the WAGE loopholes and then the tax loopholes will take care of themselves?

 

[WillowTree]

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

50% of American workers make less than $21,000 a year, champ.

Perhaps we need to fix the WAGE loopholes and then the tax loopholes will take care of themselves?

well son, you do that by being business friendly and not raising taxes on small business, don't call them white, don't call them evil, don't call the greedy.. try that asshole.