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

[Big Fitz]

51% of Americans Pay NO Incomes Taxes

What happens when the nation's wealth is redistributed to the top 10%. Oops.

Still don't get the concept that wealth is not actively distributed, Hairnet? It is the result of economic activity.

Economic activity?

Like $1trillion spent on F-35s, $billions in subsidies for the housing market through Fannie and Freddie, the $billions in equity leveraged buyout raids and the many $billions in derivatives. The FIRE economy of the past decade is fundamentally unsound, and the gov't actively intervened to prop it up with TARP and the Stimulus.

Let's not sit here and pretend that the gov't's wealth distribution goes one way. At least as much of it is transferred from the middle class to the rich as from the rich to the poor. Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs are better positioned to milk this redistribution machine than the stereotypical welfare queen.

And once again, for the cheap seats. End welfare. Corporate or otherwise.

Do you NOT get the concept? It's ALL wrong.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

You should provide everything for yourself that your capabilities allow.
It is not the job of others to provide ANYTHING for you.
And please spare me the nonsense about public safety and infrastructure. Those things are essential functions of government that we all know our tax dollars are used to fund.
Generally, there is no strong objection to taxation. Americans object to wasteful and irresponsible spending. We also object to ever increasing size of entitlement programs with no end in sight. We simply cannot continue to fund the growth of social spending when nothing is being done to control it. It's almost as though the taxpayers have been forced to hand over a blank check to government. That has to stop.
The bottom line is government does not need more. The status quo has always been when it came time to increase spending, taxes were increased or some new tax was created.
The American people are demanding fiscal responsibility.

 

[Bern80]

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.

Actually we're going to find out real soon. I think eliminating a lot of those loopholes was one of the budget points being debated right now (which I'm all for).

 

[Ravi]

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.

Actually we're going to find out real soon. I think eliminating a lot of those loopholes was one of the budget points being debated right now (which I'm all for).

Yeah, I heard the mortgage deduction might be eliminated for houses that cost over $500,000.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

Report after report has shown a growing majority, conservatively at 40%, of American workers pay no income tax, ZERO. Meanwhile the top 10% of American income earners fund 70% of total federal income taxes.

Where is the shared sacrifice?

It used to be hidden at UBS....until Eric Houlder....

....kicked some 1%er-ASS!

 

[DiamondDave]

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!

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!!!

No... I did not... reading comprehension must be one of your many weak points...

Asking a question about how someone feels about sales tax (which generally is a flat standard rate on every dollar... that does not discriminate on income, or whatever else) is not 'proposing a flat sales tax'

 

[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

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.

Wow. People will go out of their way to argue that black is white on this forum, won't they?

Consumption Tax

Consumption tax: a tax, as a sales tax, levied on consumer goods or services at the time of sale.

Income taxes are not consumption taxes.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

47%

That’s the portion of American households that owe no income tax for 2009. The number is up from 38 percent in 2007, and it has become a popular talking point on cable television and talk radio. With Tax Day coming on Thursday, 47 percent has become shorthand for the notion that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole.

Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 47 percent number.

Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer. - NYTimes.com

 

[Care4all]

i think sales taxes and consumption taxes are just stupid...why in the heck don't we abolish them all in the States that have them.....

How in the world does taxing what people buy, help anyone? It has to slow down the purchase of goods, less going towards the gdp of the nation if "things" are taxed.....? don't we want to sell more "things" to improve our economic position?>

the people spending their money buying "things" should be rewarded for contributing to the overall economic health of this nation and not punished, by taxing what they spend? No????

 

[Care4all]

47%

That’s the portion of American households that owe no income tax for 2009. The number is up from 38 percent in 2007, and it has become a popular talking point on cable television and talk radio. With Tax Day coming on Thursday, 47 percent has become shorthand for the notion that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole.

Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 47 percent number.

Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer. - NYTimes.com

What was it in 2008, do ya know?

 

[mmmjvpssm]

hell, just making sure nobody gets paid back MORE than they paid in out of that bottom 51% would be a good start. Second Christmas needs to end.

When you say "paid in" does that include all taxes or just income taxes?

We're only talking about income taxes.

If we're only supposed to consider income tax then the topic is bullshit. Where the hell are the "The poor pay more then the rich in medicare and payroll taxes then the rich! That's unfair!" threads?

 

[mmmjvpssm]

I thought they were the Obama tax cuts now. Or is that only if they don't work?

they are the bush tax cuts that Obama extended because Obama is smart enough to know that raising taxes in a bad economy is a recipe for failure.

If Obama extended them then they're the Obama tax cuts. He gets the credit

You know, just like it's "Obama's war" now? You can't have it both ways

 

[mmmjvpssm]

The poor pay more taxes then the rich so that means the poor were helped by the Bush tax cuts? Yeah right

As a percentage of income how much did a person making $30,000/year get as a tax break under bush's tax cuts?

As a percentage of income how much did a person making $300,000/year get under bush's tax cuts?

Answer those 2 questions using the actual numbers and, by using your very logic of how the poor pay more as a percentage of income, you will see the bush tax cuts actually helped the poor more than the rich.

Answering those two questions would cause him to have a mental break-down: the realization that he has been parroting propaganda and mindless class-envy bulls....

The Bush tax cuts, now the Obama tax cuts, has zero to do with all taxes except income taxes

 

[mmmjvpssm]

The poor pay more taxes then the rich so that means the poor were helped by the Bush tax cuts? Yeah right

As a percentage of income how much did a person making $30,000/year get as a tax break under bush's tax cuts?

As a percentage of income how much did a person making $300,000/year get under bush's tax cuts?

Answer those 2 questions using the actual numbers and, by using your very logic of how the poor pay more as a percentage of income, you will see the bush tax cuts actually helped the poor more than the rich.

I'm not sure I understand your logic here. Under Bush's tax cuts:

Everyone paid 10% on the first $8,500
Everyone paid 15% on additional to 34550
Everyone paid 25% on additional to 83,700
Everyone paid 28% on additional to 174,650
Everyone paid 33% on additional to 379,650
and everyone paid 35% above that on earned income.


The person making 300,000 per year saw their marginal tax rate drop by 6% on top of all of the lower rate deductions, not instead of them.

I'm talking all taxes, not just income taxes, all taxes

 

[saveliberty]

If true, it looks like the largest tax collected in Michigan is gasoline tax. How regressive is that? As the price of a gallon goes up, the state collects more tax.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Susan, your advocating stealing just a little (3-4%), so its okoay. Not really taking or stealing. I'll be by for your TV Monday. It is far less than 3-4% of your income I'm sure.

I don't believe that taxation is stealing. I find that argument just ridiculous.

That's because you're immune to facts and logic. What is the moral difference between taxation and stealing?

I don't know how old you are but if it hadn't been for the taxes raised this country would be in sorry shape.

Wrong. It would be in better shape.

I believe we should see that our country gets back in shape and we never again have to see a bridge fall due to neglect.

"Getting back in shape" means cutting government until it's a shell of its former self.

If there are no taxes how do we run the government?

 

[Care4all]

47%

That’s the portion of American households that owe no income tax for 2009. The number is up from 38 percent in 2007, and it has become a popular talking point on cable television and talk radio. With Tax Day coming on Thursday, 47 percent has become shorthand for the notion that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole.

Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 47 percent number.

Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer. - NYTimes.com

very interesting article, it should be read by everyone in full!

 

[saveliberty]

If there are no taxes how do we run the government?

Check history, we did for a very long time without income tax.

 

[MikeK]

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.

You didn't answer my question: Specifically what things are you providing for yourself that I am not or have not provided for myself? And what things do you presume I don't provide for myself?

Please provide those specifics and we'll take it from there.

 

[Big Fitz]

If there are no taxes how do we run the government?

Check history, we did for a very long time without income tax.

Excise taxes were the backbone of funding REASONABLE government. You know, something we haven't had since 1912.