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

[MikeK]

Why are dogs happy despite their relative lack of freedom? Because only one of their needs is being denied (and freedom isn't even really a need) everything else is being taken care of for them. I bet there a lot of people that would like to be treated like a well treated dog. In fact that's kind of the reationship between government and people that liberals think should exist. The deal would be you would have all your basic necessities taken care of at no cost to you. Food, water, shelter, etc. In exchange you can only venture where the master allows you to and they would show you compassion with a good scratch behind the ears for good behavior. It would be human nature to take that deal, especially the risk averse liberals. Security in exchange for freedom. I bet more than a few people would take that deal.

Since you've chosen such an extreme analogy, how about you? Would you rather be a healthy, happy, contented pet dog or a miserable stray, scrounging for every bite of food, freezing in winter, suffering in summer and fighting for your life almost every day?

The problem is those aren't my only choices but your later option shows what a slave to government people like you have become. Option C anyone? How about you get a pair and provide those things for yourself.

Specifically what "things" should I provide for myself? Rather, what things do you presume I didn't, or don't, provide for myself?

Could be you do a lot of presuming and it's affected your thinking.

 

[Care4all]

people on welfare did not cause this mess or the gvts overspending, and people on social security and medicare didn't either....

the mess we are in was CAUSED BY THE BANKERS, and Mortgage companies and AIG's, and the Fed, etc...

the poorest did NOT cause our financial woes, but the richest DID....

get your heads on straight....sheesh.

 

[shintao]

The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Outside the Income Tax System Continues to Grow
.

Just goes to show you that capitalism is a failure and more people are receiving reduced wages and will pay no taxes.

 

[saveliberty]

The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Outside the Income Tax System Continues to Grow
.

Just goes to show you that capitalism is a failure and more people are receiving reduced wages and will pay no taxes.

Your just going to ignore the slow progression toward socialism I see.

 

[Kuros]

The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Outside the Income Tax System Continues to Grow
.

Just goes to show you that capitalism is a failure and more people are receiving reduced wages and will pay no taxes.

Your just going to ignore the slow progression toward socialism I see.

What does that even mean? Do you even have any idea?

Show your work.

 

[Bern80]

Since you've chosen such an extreme analogy, how about you? Would you rather be a healthy, happy, contented pet dog or a miserable stray, scrounging for every bite of food, freezing in winter, suffering in summer and fighting for your life almost every day?

The problem is those aren't my only choices but your later option shows what a slave to government people like you have become. Option C anyone? How about you get a pair and provide those things for yourself.

Specifically what "things" should I provide for myself? Rather, what things do you presume I didn't, or don't, provide for myself?

Could be you do a lot of presuming and it's affected your thinking.

The question is not really would I rather be happy and healthy or freezing and dieing. Obviously I choose to be happy and healthy. The question is how should those things be provided to me. You balked at my extreme analogy about pets, but it isn't extreme at all. The relationship between a pet and it's master is not too disimilar between the relationship between people and what it appears liberals want. A pet has all of it's basic needs met by its master and has to expend little to no effort on its own part for those things, but it's master either restricts his pet's freedom to his house or not beyond his yard. You don't think that's deal a person would make? Have your basic necessities provided for in exchange for a loss in some of your freedoms?

You gave me two choices implying that if government doesn't make me happy and healthy I will wind up dieing on the streets. Well that isn't so. Instead of government providing those things for me, I can keep my freedom and decide to provide for my basic neccessities myself.

 

[Ravi]

So, Bern, are you also against a flat tax with a standard deduction of $20,000?

You might have to explain what you mean by that a bit more.

The one we were talking about above.

Everyone gets taxed 10% of their income. Everyone gets to deduct the first 20,000 of income. In other words, the first 20,000 is not taxable.

 

[saveliberty]

Just goes to show you that capitalism is a failure and more people are receiving reduced wages and will pay no taxes.

Your just going to ignore the slow progression toward socialism I see.

What does that even mean? Do you even have any idea?

Show your work.

Your inability to grasp concepts is not mine. Try to remember your failed public education skills.

 

[DiamondDave]

I am not buying what you are selling.... you want nothing more than a different color of a progressive system, with advocating others paying more of a % than you on the dollars they earn

In a simple to figure system of a flat 10% tax rate on income

Mr 25K in a system without a floor pays 2.5K or a 10% rate on his income... Mr 25MIL pays 2.5MIL or a 10% rate on his income... that , bud, is equality in treatment...

Mr 25K in a system with a 20K floor pays $500 or a 2% rate on his income... Mr 25MIL pays 2.498MIL or a 9.992% rate on his income

Where you cannot see this as inequality is beyond me

Absolutely! Consumption taxes are extremely regressive!

So equal % on every dollar spent or earned on every citizen shows animosity towards the poor??

Seriously... you can't make this shit up.... equal treatment regardless of what a person is, does, etc is wrong to you... but some paying nothing or lesser rates than others is OK because it's not you and you get something out of it at the expense of someone else...??

Typical whacko progressive..
Equality is only OK when it benefits you, and unequal treatment is ok for others when it also benefits you... priceless

Seriously... you can't make this shit up....
Notice the dishonesty in how CON$ argue! First he talks about consumption tax and I answer about a consumption tax which is undeniably regressive, but then he changes to a flat income tax which has nothing to do with a consumption tax and wasn't discussed even remotely in my post.

Typical whacko regressive..
Now he bitched earlier about how unfair it was to have the first 20k tax free for everyone and then everyone pays the same rate on every dollar over that, because people who didn't earn much more than the 20k paid a lesser % of their income than those who earned millions.

But an even greater inequality exists with with a consumption tax that he favors, except the inequality favors the highest earners the most. Someone living at or below the poverty level consumes all their income and so all their income is taxed at say 10%, but a billionaire who might consume only 1% of his income pays only a .1% tax rate on his income.

To quote yourself, "Where you cannot see this as inequality is beyond me."

Whether someone consumes all or most of your income is of no consequence to you, me, nor the government... nice try

Just simply state it, fuckmuffin.... you only favor equal treatment when it benefits you and unequal treatment for others when it benefits you...

I did not equate the consumption sales tax to income tax... however.. I did show where you guys don't think the flat system of sales tax is unfair... but you to with a flat system proposed for income taxation.... hypocrisy

 

[DiamondDave]

Reread her post, she didn't say they benefit more.

And it's been pointed out to you numerous times that higher income earners pay the same rates on the same dollar earned as lower earners but you choose to either ignore that or simply do not care as long as it gives you a chance to rail on your hated poor. Your contempt for them seeps through your every post.

No they do not.. because you, the progressivist, do not wish to count every dollar.. because it gains your goal of the unequal treatment system that benefits the lower earners over the higher ones.. envy at its finest

Your hatred of those who do better than you seeps thru every post

Oh... and I showed you EXACTLY how the higher earners do NOT pay the same rates.... yet you continually ignore it... those first 20K are not unicorn farts, they are earned and they do exist

You ******* disgust me... with your obvious sanctimony

The dollars not counted by the "progressivist" are not counted for everyone. Get that thru your head, man. The rich get the same break the poor do.

And being a single renter with no kids making more than 50k in taxable income, I'm getting a real kick out of the accusations you keep trying to make about my dog in this race.

You were already shown that they do not... 3.3% rate does not equal 9.992% rate

 

[DiamondDave]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the higher income earner benefit from the progressive system?

For instance, $100,000 in income at a 10% flat tax would mean $10,000 in taxes, while with the $20,000 deduction it would mean only $8,000 in taxes.

Because it is just another disguised way of making a progressive system with differing %'s paid based on income.. a punishment system....

The higher income earner does not benefit more... they are the ones that end up paying the higher %% compared to those earning less.. the inherent unequal treatment by government in the system... I have pointed out the examples numerous times.. and you either choose to ignore them, or simply do not care as long as it benefits you at the expense of 'the evil rich'

It doesn't benefit them MORE but it does benefit them vs. a flat tax rate. I just showed you how a $100,000 income would have a smaller tax burden with the $20,000 deduction than without it.

I hate to break it to you, doofus, but I'm one of the evil rich.

You are an idiot.

Is it the same discounted rate as the person making 19K or the person making 30K?? No

Idiot

 

[saveliberty]

Taxes on consumption are considered regressive. The poor must spend a higher percentage of their total income on consumed goods than the rich. Much of a rich person's spending is considered discretionary.

 

[Bern80]

So, Bern, are you also against a flat tax with a standard deduction of $20,000?

You might have to explain what you mean by that a bit more.

The one we were talking about above.

Everyone gets taxed 10% of their income. Everyone gets to deduct the first 20,000 of income. In other words, the first 20,000 is not taxable.

With a tweak of maybe just the first 15k being none taxable. I say that because I bet you would be surprised at the number of people who make less than 20k a year but still have a reasonable standard of living. A single guy can live fairly comfortably on 20k a year and I'm saying that from personal experience. The point is not to burden those who are truly destitute with extra expenses right? So I think the number should be a bit lower, because believe it or not 20k a year would exclude an awful lot of people who certainly have the capacity to pay. Think about it. 20k a year is a $9.60/hr job. That's entire labor classes that would be exempt from taxes, like wait staff for example. And I know 20k a year seems like it would be tough to live on, but you have to remember not all of these people are trying to support families. They are teenagers, whos needs are being really being met by their parents or they are husbands and wives who's spouses are taking in more income. And frankly if you are a parent AND single AND making less than 20k a year, you are in need of some serious life reevaluation. I don't have a problem with your concept, but I also believe that if taxes are a necessary burden then EVERYONE needs to pay them thus an income exempt from taxes is going to have to be pretty low.

 

[edthecynic]

I am not buying what you are selling.... you want nothing more than a different color of a progressive system, with advocating others paying more of a % than you on the dollars they earn

In a simple to figure system of a flat 10% tax rate on income

Mr 25K in a system without a floor pays 2.5K or a 10% rate on his income... Mr 25MIL pays 2.5MIL or a 10% rate on his income... that , bud, is equality in treatment...

Mr 25K in a system with a 20K floor pays $500 or a 2% rate on his income... Mr 25MIL pays 2.498MIL or a 9.992% rate on his income

Where you cannot see this as inequality is beyond me

So equal % on every dollar spent or earned on every citizen shows animosity towards the poor??

Seriously... you can't make this shit up.... equal treatment regardless of what a person is, does, etc is wrong to you... but some paying nothing or lesser rates than others is OK because it's not you and you get something out of it at the expense of someone else...??

Typical whacko progressive..
Equality is only OK when it benefits you, and unequal treatment is ok for others when it also benefits you... priceless

Seriously... you can't make this shit up....
Notice the dishonesty in how CON$ argue! First he talks about consumption tax and I answer about a consumption tax which is undeniably regressive, but then he changes to a flat income tax which has nothing to do with a consumption tax and wasn't discussed even remotely in my post.

Typical whacko regressive..
Now he bitched earlier about how unfair it was to have the first 20k tax free for everyone and then everyone pays the same rate on every dollar over that, because people who didn't earn much more than the 20k paid a lesser % of their income than those who earned millions.

But an even greater inequality exists with with a consumption tax that he favors, except the inequality favors the highest earners the most. Someone living at or below the poverty level consumes all their income and so all their income is taxed at say 10%, but a billionaire who might consume only 1% of his income pays only a .1% tax rate on his income.

To quote yourself, "Where you cannot see this as inequality is beyond me."

Whether someone consumes all or most of your income is of no consequence to you, me, nor the government... nice try

Just simply state it, fuckmuffin.... you only favor equal treatment when it benefits you and unequal treatment for others when it benefits you...

I did not equate the consumption sales tax to income tax... however.. I did show where you guys don't think the flat system of sales tax is unfair... but you to with a flat system proposed for income taxation.... hypocrisy

You proposed a consumption tax, and when I pointed out that consumption taxes are regressive you then dishonestly added in an income tax as if it was in the post I replied to.

"Just simply state it, fuckmuffin...." you only favor regressive taxes while whining about "equal treatment under the law" if a tax is even slightly progressive.

 

[Kuros]

Taxes on consumption are considered regressive. The poor must spend a higher percentage of their total income on consumed goods than the rich. Much of a rich person's spending is considered discretionary.

Right, but we can adjust the tax to account for this.

FairTax

 

[kaz]

Taxes on consumption are considered regressive. The poor must spend a higher percentage of their total income on consumed goods than the rich. Much of a rich person's spending is considered discretionary.

Right, but we can adjust the tax to account for this.

FairTax

SaveLiberty is correct, but you're wrong about this because all taxes other then the death tax are consumption taxes. Corporate and individual taxes of employees and all payroll taxes must be build into the price of the products that companies sell. Progressive taxes are offset by increasing pay to compensate for them. So then baked into the prices people pay for products, as SaveLiberty pointed out they are regressive. So, all taxes but the death tax are actually regressive.

 

[DiamondDave]

Seriously... you can't make this shit up....
Notice the dishonesty in how CON$ argue! First he talks about consumption tax and I answer about a consumption tax which is undeniably regressive, but then he changes to a flat income tax which has nothing to do with a consumption tax and wasn't discussed even remotely in my post.

Typical whacko regressive..
Now he bitched earlier about how unfair it was to have the first 20k tax free for everyone and then everyone pays the same rate on every dollar over that, because people who didn't earn much more than the 20k paid a lesser % of their income than those who earned millions.

But an even greater inequality exists with with a consumption tax that he favors, except the inequality favors the highest earners the most. Someone living at or below the poverty level consumes all their income and so all their income is taxed at say 10%, but a billionaire who might consume only 1% of his income pays only a .1% tax rate on his income.

To quote yourself, "Where you cannot see this as inequality is beyond me."

Whether someone consumes all or most of your income is of no consequence to you, me, nor the government... nice try

Just simply state it, fuckmuffin.... you only favor equal treatment when it benefits you and unequal treatment for others when it benefits you...

I did not equate the consumption sales tax to income tax... however.. I did show where you guys don't think the flat system of sales tax is unfair... but you to with a flat system proposed for income taxation.... hypocrisy

You proposed a consumption tax, and when I pointed out that consumption taxes are regressive you then dishonestly added in an income tax as if it was in the post I replied to.

"Just simply state it, fuckmuffin...." you only favor regressive taxes while whining about "equal treatment under the law" if a tax is even slightly progressive.

I did not propose a consumption tax, idiot... I proposed a flat income tax

When a tax is even 'slightly' progressive... it is still inherently unequal treatment

 

[Ravi]

You might have to explain what you mean by that a bit more.

The one we were talking about above.

Everyone gets taxed 10% of their income. Everyone gets to deduct the first 20,000 of income. In other words, the first 20,000 is not taxable.

With a tweak of maybe just the first 15k being none taxable. I say that because I bet you would be surprised at the number of people who make less than 20k a year but still have a reasonable standard of living. A single guy can live fairly comfortably on 20k a year and I'm saying that from personal experience. The point is not to burden those who are truly destitute with extra expenses right? So I think the number should be a bit lower, because believe it or not 20k a year would exclude an awful lot of people who certainly have the capacity to pay. Think about it. 20k a year is a $9.60/hr job. That's entire labor classes that would be exempt from taxes, like wait staff for example. And I know 20k a year seems like it would be tough to live on, but you have to remember not all of these people are trying to support families. They are teenagers, whos needs are being really being met by their parents or they are husbands and wives who's spouses are taking in more income. And frankly if you are a parent AND single AND making less than 20k a year, you are in need of some serious life reevaluation. I don't have a problem with your concept, but I also believe that if taxes are a necessary burden then EVERYONE needs to pay them thus an income exempt from taxes is going to have to be pretty low.

Good points.

I was also thinking about people living on SS, maybe not having any other income but maybe no longer having a mortgage benefiting from this as well.

So basically everyone would start out with the same break. It would help people just starting out and help people at the end of their lives. And in between it would still give even the highest earners a break on that portion of their income.

I doubt this will ever happen simply because the wealthy would be against giving up all their loopholes.

 

[edthecynic]

You might have to explain what you mean by that a bit more.

The one we were talking about above.

Everyone gets taxed 10% of their income. Everyone gets to deduct the first 20,000 of income. In other words, the first 20,000 is not taxable.

With a tweak of maybe just the first 15k being none taxable. I say that because I bet you would be surprised at the number of people who make less than 20k a year but still have a reasonable standard of living. A single guy can live fairly comfortably on 20k a year and I'm saying that from personal experience. The point is not to burden those who are truly destitute with extra expenses right? So I think the number should be a bit lower, because believe it or not 20k a year would exclude an awful lot of people who certainly have the capacity to pay. Think about it. 20k a year is a $9.60/hr job. That's entire labor classes that would be exempt from taxes, like wait staff for example. And I know 20k a year seems like it would be tough to live on, but you have to remember not all of these people are trying to support families. They are teenagers, whos needs are being really being met by their parents or they are husbands and wives who's spouses are taking in more income. And frankly if you are a parent AND single AND making less than 20k a year, you are in need of some serious life reevaluation. I don't have a problem with your concept, but I also believe that if taxes are a necessary burden then EVERYONE needs to pay them thus an income exempt from taxes is going to have to be pretty low.

It all depends on where you live! In my area, rent alone will set you back $1,000 a month not including utilities. There is no mass transportation, so no one will hire you without reliable transportation, which not only involves the cost of the vehicle, but also gas, insurance and maintenance. Then you have food, clothing, and don't you dare get sick!

 

[edthecynic]

Either that or DD's extreme hatred of the poor makes him willing to pay more in taxes just to stick it to them.

Pretty funny stuff.

Does support of an equal % sales tax on all purchases, regardless of income, show 'hatred for the poor'??

What I hate is a system inherently based on unequal treatment and where subjective bullshit rules the way...

Absolutely! Consumption taxes are extremely regressive!

Whether someone consumes all or most of your income is of no consequence to you, me, nor the government... nice try

Just simply state it, fuckmuffin.... you only favor equal treatment when it benefits you and unequal treatment for others when it benefits you...

I did not equate the consumption sales tax to income tax... however.. I did show where you guys don't think the flat system of sales tax is unfair... but you to with a flat system proposed for income taxation.... hypocrisy

You proposed a consumption tax, and when I pointed out that consumption taxes are regressive you then dishonestly added in an income tax as if it was in the post I replied to.

"Just simply state it, fuckmuffin...." you only favor regressive taxes while whining about "equal treatment under the law" if a tax is even slightly progressive.

I did not propose a consumption tax, idiot... I proposed a flat income tax

When a tax is even 'slightly' progressive... it is still inherently unequal treatment

You're a pathological liar, ... you proposed a flat "sales tax," which is a consumption tax to anyone who isn't a liar!!!