Who are the 47% that pay no "income" taxes?

[Full-Auto]

It's a pretty ******* sad state of affairs when almost half the country doesn't make enough money to pay their taxes.

they make enough we just provide excuses.

The day a college student makes enough is the day we become the worlds greatest nation again.

WHAT IS ENOUGH?

Need or Want?

 

[Londoner]

And it's going to get worse.

There is no longer sufficient wages/benefits to support consumption. This means there is no incentive for the capitalist to add jobs, thus, the number of jobless people not paying taxes will increase.

The trend away from wage-based consumption started with Reagan, who was sent to Washington to help the suppliers boost profits by cutting operational costs, i.e., cutting labor costs (which boost profits directly) and cutting government programs (which decreases the tax burden on capital) and cutting regulations (which lead to efficiency gains [cough]corruption). Helping suppliers ("supply side economics") was done under the belief that higher profits would redound to the average consumer in the form of solid jobs, better benefits, innovative technology, and lower prices (all spurred by an increase in investment). When this failed to happen - because 1) jobs were shipped to communist China, and 2) mega-mergers monopolized necessary staples like heath care, allowing them to increase costs at 5x inflation - the Reagan revolution expanded the debt economy (by moving consumption to credit cards and various other debt vehicles. What did you expect the Reagan Revolution to do? Once wages went down, it needed to keep the domestic economy alive by other means so that it could continue to win elections and reform government on behalf of the wealthy interests which had stolen government from the middle class. Handing out credit cards was the best stimulus imaginable. And it worked for 30 years).

Meaning: consumption was - starting in the 80s - sustained by a steady, unprecedented increase in household debt. (Business loved it because people were buying their products in unprecedented volume. The downside is that a 30 year credit binge is like exploding a nuclear bomb over the future)

Which is to say: once you try to keep the economy going on debt (as opposed to increasing wages/benefits/entitlements), you require more and more debt to keep the patient alive (because the patient also has to cover interest in addition to new purchases). Eventually too many consumers become insolvent. So you have to find new outlets for pumping cash into consumption. This means you have to create increasingly complex, and increasingly risky forms of credit until eventually you have to expand credit fully to the "non-credit-worthy". Of course you know where this ends - the system eventually crashes. (and hard).

Don't take my word for it. People should study the steady rise in consumer debt starting in the 80s. By 2005 consumers in the aggregate - in order to make up for the failed trickle down - were spending significantly more than what they earned. And look what happened once they stopped spending (because the credit gimmicks finally destroyed them): the economy died, which is what happens when consumption slips into the abyss (which is exactly where it slipped once you removed debt-based consumption).

If you want more people to pay taxes, you will have to ensure that the staggering profits on top actually trickle down. You can't tax nothing, but don't try to convince the soldiers of the Reagan Revolution this. They believe in voodoo.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

This thread is about the 47% that get bashed for supposedly paying no taxes.

You need some help here Lakhota.. I used to train leftists to be better message board warriors -- so I've been thru this before..

To make this case that the 46% pay a fair share of taxes you should never leave out Fed/State Gas tax which is outrageously regressive and a large part of the cost of product. Similiarly Fed alcohol and tobacco taxes which in the case of tobacco accounts for MORE than the cost or profit of the product itself. There are also Fed PHONE taxes, Fed Cable taxes and Fed usage taxes such as on airfare.

Then you have the regressive ephemeral taxes of which the largest is the Fed policy to keep interest rates artificially low for waaay too long. Effects the "senior" demographics who planned to live off of the interest and dividends of their savings. Same effect as a regressive tax. Takes food right out their mouths. There's also inflation, a stealth REGRESSIVE tax that the GOVT now hides in manipulated statements of COLA that allow them to SCREW seniors and welfare beneficiaries into recieving less than their fair share of entitlements.

Man -- that was easy. You owe me bud...
Why did I do that? Because I HATE TAXES.... My goal is that EVERYBODY pays less. And because I can't stand to see the incompetence of how the left presents their arguments. It hurts me when both sides don't get a fair debate..

you actually make a pretty good argument for the 999 plan....all those federal taxes would go away....the regressive gas taxes, alcohol taxes, tobacco taxes, phone taxes, cable taxes, plane taxes, etc....... as well as the FICA taxes....

the kid working at McDs would no longer pay 7.5% in FICA taxes.....yes he would pay 9% income tax.....but then his employer would be able to give him a raise because the employer would no longer be paying 7.5% in matching FICA taxes....a 1.5% raise would offset the kid's shortfall....

seniors who planned to live off their investments would no longer have to pay 15% capital gains taxes.....and social security is not "earned income" so that should not be taxed either...

of course low interest rates and inflation would counter those gains....but if FED policy was curbed and corporations were to flourish because they are no longer shackled by punishing corporate taxes we would see a more competitive free market........more investing and growth.......therefore better returns on investments, less inflation, and lower prices.....

wishful thinking...

 

[oreo]

CHART OF THE DAY: These Are The 47 Percent

By Brian Beutler | October 14, 2011

What's really going on here is that about 47 percent of households paid no federal income tax in 2009. Either they owed nothing, or they got as much back from the federal government as they paid -- or more.

This ignores payroll taxes, state and local taxes, gas taxes, excise taxes and much more. But to hear conservatives talk about it, you'd think these people's entire tax burden was $0.00. In April, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), citing similar data, claimed "According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 49 percent of households are paying 100 percent of taxes coming in to the federal government." Notice the absence of the key qualifier, "income." And Grassley's far from alone.

Right now about one-third of the 47 percent are people who are too old to work, full time students, disability beneficiaries, long-term unemployed and other such despicable freeloaders. Because the 47 percent figure comes from using "households that file" as the denominator it includes people who have part time jobs and low paying jobs, Social Security and unemployment beneficiaries. The rest were people whose jobs paid little enough that, on net, they owed no income taxes. These people may have benefited from the stimulus' Making-Work-Pay tax credit, or saw their incomes drop enough during the recession to qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and so on.

More: CHART OF THE DAY: These Are The 47 Percent | TPMDC

We're talking about FEDERAL INCOME TAX. Your chart says it all out of this group-the 70% are paying "payroll taxes" which is social security/medicare taxes. Everyone who works pays that.

There are Americans who earn a very decent pay-check and because of deductions--mortgage interest--a couple of kids--etc. PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX on EARNED income. For instance I owe $199K on my mortgage--yet approximately $12,000.00 of that is mortgage interest per year.-I can deduct 100% of that each year because it is mortgage INTEREST. And it's enough to put me in a lower tax bracket--and for many it's enough to put them in a bracket to where they pay no federal income tax what-so-ever--depending on what their income is--in relation to their deductions.

And that's the 47% we're talking about.

 

[Londoner]

Helping suppliers ("supply side economics") was done under the belief that higher profits would redound to the average consumer in the form of solid jobs, better benefits, innovative technology, and lower prices (all spurred by an increase in investment).

We hear a lot about not taxing "job creators" so that they will invest and give us jobs.

Did anyone see where the Bush tax cuts went?

They didn't go into the real economy of goods and services - they didn't bring back America's manufacturing dominance. We didn't see a rise in the kind of solid jobs seen during the postwar years when the liberals tied American capital to American labor. We saw a sea of no-benefit retail temp jobs, i.e., stuff made in China and shipped back to malls so that low wage workers could sell stuff to low wage consumers using credit cards.

Have people taken notice of what the "job creators" are "creating"?

They're no longer creating solid American jobs. They haven't been creating solid American jobs for decades. America no longer makes anything.

To the contrary, the tax cuts are going, in overwhelming proportion, to insanely risky Wall Street garbage, to derivatives, hedges, and futures that are blowing up after making a small group of people insanely wealthy. People need to study the financialization of the economy and the increasing diversion of investments away from the real economy to speculative garbage. Job creators? Are you kidding me? Has anyone been paying attention to where surplus capital is going?

Reagan and the new investment class. From Job Creators to Speculators

Reporter: "President Reagan, isn't it true that a staggering amount of profits in recent years have been illusory? And that investment in the real economy is slowly being replaced by risky gimmicks like Leveraged Buyouts with a 90% to 10% debt to equity ratio? Financed by Junk Bonds. Shouldn't we try to incentivize real job creation instead of risky speculation based on massive leveraging?

Reagan: I'm not aware of that. I believe in freedom.

Reporter: It seems like we're making a dangerous transition away from healthy investment in goods and services. It seems like the profits made possible by your tax breaks are increasingly going into a Wall Street casino --a casino which makes one class rich off criminally risky ventures that eventually crash and harm the hard workers at the bottom. Aren't you afraid that we are incentivizing investment away from solid American jobs? Shouldn't we enact more controls over Wall Street's phantom speculative economy so that your famed "job creators" actually have an incentive to create actual jobs? If this trend continues, Wall Street will some day blow-up the entire economy.

Reagan: I'm not aware of that. I believe in freedom.

 

[Londoner]

the kid working at McDs would no longer pay 7.5% in FICA taxes.....yes he would pay 9% income tax.....but then his employer would be able to give him a raise because the employer would no longer be paying 7.5% in matching FICA taxes....a 1.5% raise would offset the kid's shortfall.....

Good post, well stated, but one thing I would mention. The elimination of matching FICA would likely be realized by shareholders in the form of cheaper cost of production. The workers have zero leverage over the company. The workers can be replaced in 1 second by those who will work for 1.5% less. All tax breaks flow to the top, obviously. Unless you have labor unions or labor scarcity.

Labor scarcity will likely never happen again, especially with the proximity of Mexico. Study the Reagan Amnesty bill designed to break union monopoly of labor in the southwest - especially California, where the bottom line of agriculture, food service, and construction has benefited immensely from illegals. The increase of illegal labor had a dual purpose. It not not only lowered the labor costs of business, but it allowed talk radio to mobilize the serfs around "Borders, Language, Culture". It was brilliant Nixonian triangulation, allowing the GOP to capture both the wealthy business owner and the poor cultural warrior a.k.a "blood and soil" nativist. Add Pat Robertson, and the GOP had an anti-science movement which took electoral triangulation to an art form: this allowed them to unify the creationists and business around a common enemy, i.e., one group doesn't want scientists sniffing around their biblical timeline, the other doesn't want Ph.d's dredging the Hudson for PCBs or analyzing the link between their high margin pesticides and Alzheimer's. Brilliant.

Let's face it: movement conservatism didn't take over the country because its stupid. Liberal morons don't get. If you don't have the power of profits behind your political movement, you don't have a political movement. This is why Clinton abandoned Labor for Wall Street in the 90s and deregulated everything but the kitchen sink. Look how that turned out.

 

[Dragon]

Same is true of most of Silicon Valley buds making $200K per year or more.. EVERYONE is overleveraged. The solution is NOT in tax policy. The solution is in boosting skill sets and providing new manufacturing and technology jobs. We can't all "service each other" to death and grow wages.

Sure we can, for as long as the service jobs last anyway.

You know that our manufacturing capacity in this country has not gone away; the line that the U.S. no longer makes things is untrue. You know that the main reason why manufacturing jobs, as opposed to manufacturing capacity, have declined is automation and improved efficiency, not outsourcing, although outsourcing has contributed too. We are making more stuff than ever, but we are employing fewer people to do it.

The same thing happened a long time ago in agriculture. The number of people engaged in farm work in this country is a tiny, tiny fraction of what it used to be. Do we have food shortages? Are we importing all our food, no longer able to feed ourselves? No, we just got much more efficient about how to grow food and are growing more than ever with less labor. Farm workers moved to the city and got factory jobs. Did they suffer for it? Yes, for a while -- until the labor-rights revolution of the 1930s, when manufacturing was unionized.

Is there something about a manufacturing job that makes it pay more than a service job? Not at all -- there's something about a union job that makes it pay more than a non-union job, that's all.

In order to create more manufacturing jobs, we would have to turn the clock back and make manufacturing less efficient. I hardly think that's a solution. Instead, what we need to do is unionize service jobs. There is no inherent reason why service work can't pay as much as manufacturing. Factory work used to pay shit, too (in third-world countries it still does). It's just a question of bargaining leverage.

Of course, that will only work until service work is largely automated, too. Then there won't be any jobs. We'll have permanent 50%+ unemployment. At that point . . .

Well, that's a discussion for another time.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

the kid working at McDs would no longer pay 7.5% in FICA taxes.....yes he would pay 9% income tax.....but then his employer would be able to give him a raise because the employer would no longer be paying 7.5% in matching FICA taxes....a 1.5% raise would offset the kid's shortfall.....

Good post, well stated, but one thing I would mention. The elimination of matching FICA would likely be realized by shareholders in the form of cheaper cost of production. The workers have zero leverage over the company. The workers can be replaced in 1 second by those who will work for 1.5% less. All tax breaks flow to the top, obviously. Unless you have labor unions or labor scarcity.

Labor scarcity will likely never happen again, especially with the proximity of Mexico. Study the Reagan Amnesty bill designed to break union monopoly of labor in the southwest - especially California. The increase of illegal labor had a dual purpose. It lowered the labor costs of business while allowing talk radio to mobilize the serfs around "Borders, Language, Culture". Movement Conservatism didn't take over the country because its stupid. Liberal morons don't get. If you don't have the power of profits behind your political movement, you don't have a political movement. This is why Clinton abandoned Labor for Wall Street in the 90s. Look how that turned out.

there's nothing wrong with "Borders, Language, Culture"....it would close that pipeline of low cost labor from Mexico.....while a 9% corporate tax would attract new business....

the 20-30 million illegals with underground cash-under-the-table jobs that go untaxed would be at least partly recaptured by a 9% federal sales tax....

 

[Londoner]

there's nothing wrong with "Borders, Language, Culture"....it would close that pipeline of low cost labor from Mexico.....

is why I voted for Perot. . . oh well

 

[ScreamingEagle]

there's nothing wrong with "Borders, Language, Culture"....it would close that pipeline of low cost labor from Mexico.....

is why I voted for Perot. . . oh well

which is why Cain might be the answer this time around....that giant sucking sound is only getting louder and louder....

however unskilled labor is not the only answer....new businesses will require educated labor...

 

[flacaltenn]

[B]CHART OF THE DAY: These Are The 47 Percent[/B]

By Brian Beutler | October 14, 2011

What's really going on here is that about 47 percent of households paid no federal income tax in 2009. Either they owed nothing, or they got as much back from the federal government as they paid -- or more.

This ignores payroll taxes, state and local taxes, gas taxes, excise taxes and much more. But to hear conservatives talk about it, you'd think these people's entire tax burden was $0.00. In April, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), citing similar data, claimed "According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 49 percent of households are paying 100 percent of taxes coming in to the federal government." Notice the absence of the key qualifier, "income." And Grassley's far from alone.

Right now about one-third of the 47 percent are people who are too old to work, full time students, disability beneficiaries, long-term unemployed and other such despicable freeloaders. Because the 47 percent figure comes from using "households that file" as the denominator it includes people who have part time jobs and low paying jobs, Social Security and unemployment beneficiaries. The rest were people whose jobs paid little enough that, on net, they owed no income taxes. These people may have benefited from the stimulus' Making-Work-Pay tax credit, or saw their incomes drop enough during the recession to qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and so on. [/quote]

More: [url=http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/chart-of-the-day-these-are-the-47-percent.php?ref=fpb]CHART OF THE DAY: These Are The 47 Percent | TPMDC[/url][/QUOTE]


We're talking about [B]FEDERAL INCOME TAX.[/B] Your chart says it all out of this group-the 70% are paying "payroll taxes" which is social security/medicare taxes. Everyone who works pays that.

There are Americans who earn a very decent pay-check and because of deductions--mortgage interest--a couple of kids--etc. [B]PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX on EARNED income.[/B] For instance I owe $199K on my mortgage--yet approximately $12,000.00 of that is mortgage interest per year.-I can deduct 100% of that each year because it is mortgage INTEREST. And it's enough to put me in a lower tax bracket--[I]and for many it's enough to put them in a bracket to where they pay no federal income tax what-so-ever--depending on what their income is--in relation to their deductions.[/I]

And that's the 47% we're talking about.[/QUOTE]

Exactly -- Take the example of the $50K family of 4 I gave above. Put them in HOME with Oreo's 12K interest deduction and VOILA --- A 47%er is now a family of four making $62K a year. Add a 10% church tythe or charity --- $68K per year. I've read of families up to $80K per year being part of the 47% ---- It's not hard to imagine. But the vast majority are probably NOT using long form..

 

[flacaltenn]

This thread is about the 47% that get bashed for supposedly paying no taxes.

You need some help here Lakhota.. I used to train leftists to be better message board warriors -- so I've been thru this before..

To make this case that the 46% pay a fair share of taxes you should never leave out Fed/State Gas tax which is outrageously regressive and a large part of the cost of product. Similiarly Fed alcohol and tobacco taxes which in the case of tobacco accounts for MORE than the cost or profit of the product itself. There are also Fed PHONE taxes, Fed Cable taxes and Fed usage taxes such as on airfare.

Then you have the regressive ephemeral taxes of which the largest is the Fed policy to keep interest rates artificially low for waaay too long. Effects the "senior" demographics who planned to live off of the interest and dividends of their savings. Same effect as a regressive tax. Takes food right out their mouths. There's also inflation, a stealth REGRESSIVE tax that the GOVT now hides in manipulated statements of COLA that allow them to SCREW seniors and welfare beneficiaries into recieving less than their fair share of entitlements.

Man -- that was easy. You owe me bud...
Why did I do that? Because I HATE TAXES.... My goal is that EVERYBODY pays less. And because I can't stand to see the incompetence of how the left presents their arguments. It hurts me when both sides don't get a fair debate..

you actually make a pretty good argument for the 999 plan....all those federal taxes would go away....the regressive gas taxes, alcohol taxes, tobacco taxes, phone taxes, cable taxes, plane taxes, etc....... as well as the FICA taxes....

the kid working at McDs would no longer pay 7.5% in FICA taxes.....yes he would pay 9% income tax.....but then his employer would be able to give him a raise because the employer would no longer be paying 7.5% in matching FICA taxes....a 1.5% raise would offset the kid's shortfall....

seniors who planned to live off their investments would no longer have to pay 15% capital gains taxes.....and social security is not "earned income" so that should not be taxed either...

of course low interest rates and inflation would counter those gains....but if FED policy was curbed and corporations were to flourish because they are no longer shackled by punishing corporate taxes we would see a more competitive free market........more investing and growth.......therefore better returns on investments, less inflation, and lower prices.....

wishful thinking...

Is that really in 999? No more gas, alcohol, tobac taxes?

 

[Lakhota]

WOW, this 9-9-9 Plan sounds like utopia. I can't wait to live there...with Dorothy and Toto and...

 

[Oddball]

WOW, this 9-9-9 Plan sounds like utopia. I can't wait to live there...with Dorothy and Toto and...

Just slightly more believable than your Marxist Utopia, powered by pixie piss and funded by pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.

 

[flacaltenn]

Same is true of most of Silicon Valley buds making $200K per year or more.. EVERYONE is overleveraged. The solution is NOT in tax policy. The solution is in boosting skill sets and providing new manufacturing and technology jobs. We can't all "service each other" to death and grow wages.

Sure we can, for as long as the service jobs last anyway.

You know that our manufacturing capacity in this country has not gone away; the line that the U.S. no longer makes things is untrue. You know that the main reason why manufacturing jobs, as opposed to manufacturing capacity, have declined is automation and improved efficiency, not outsourcing, although outsourcing has contributed too. We are making more stuff than ever, but we are employing fewer people to do it.

The same thing happened a long time ago in agriculture. The number of people engaged in farm work in this country is a tiny, tiny fraction of what it used to be. Do we have food shortages? Are we importing all our food, no longer able to feed ourselves? No, we just got much more efficient about how to grow food and are growing more than ever with less labor. Farm workers moved to the city and got factory jobs. Did they suffer for it? Yes, for a while -- until the labor-rights revolution of the 1930s, when manufacturing was unionized.

Is there something about a manufacturing job that makes it pay more than a service job? Not at all -- there's something about a union job that makes it pay more than a non-union job, that's all.

In order to create more manufacturing jobs, we would have to turn the clock back and make manufacturing less efficient. I hardly think that's a solution. Instead, what we need to do is unionize service jobs. There is no inherent reason why service work can't pay as much as manufacturing. Factory work used to pay shit, too (in third-world countries it still does). It's just a question of bargaining leverage.

Of course, that will only work until service work is largely automated, too. Then there won't be any jobs. We'll have permanent 50%+ unemployment. At that point . . .

Well, that's a discussion for another time.

Dragon:::

I stayed up late one night to educate you as to the IMPORTANT diffs between Service industry and Manufacturing. Evidently -- that didn't work. Not gonna dig it up because you're not getting it. It's not ALL about wages -- but wages are involved.

A manufacturer serves the WORLD from ONE location. A Service company has to multiply it's franchise in each individual community with a very limited LOCAL market. Thus if a manufacturer wants to DOUBLE their output and jobs, they can build ONE new factory. A big box retailer has to invest, construct and fight for market with maybe 100 new box stores. This results in MANY effects. The most important of which is use of capital to increase workforce. EASILY a 4 or 5 decrease in efficiency in capital. Also extreme more efficient in use of natural resources, land, and profit margin. That's why "stimulating" a Service economy doesn't work..

Thus service workers find themselves competing for a smaller number of local jobs with lower skill sets and cannot leverage higher salaries as easily on a local scale. You cannot take a chiropractor from Cleveland and put them in a much better labor market in Pittsburg. But with FACTORIES, labor can be attracted to locations that support "denser" jobs somewhat specialized jobs.

I realize the effect of automation. I'm an engineer. I've done some automation work. It's actually healthy for labor in that VOLUME goes up -- creating opportunities that didn't exist for DIFFERENT jobs. Take the automated checkout lanes at retail. Somewhat successful. Looked like a REAL THREAT to the stodgy ole union view of "a job". But it didn't DECREASE the number of Safeway employees. Instead the stores expanded Pharmacies, Deli Counters, specialty butcher displays, floral depts, ect. Just like automation in agriculture didn't implode the Ag labor force.. Instead you saw increases in Ag support jobs in biotech, processing, distribution, equipment maintenance and sales, ect. Nothing to be afraid of there except for the ability of your valued 19th Century Union concepts to keep up.


But what NEEDS to happen is to make AUTOMATION ITSELF a 21st Century American industry. Because THAT'S what needs to be manufactured. We need to drive capital to robotics, artificial intelligience, Software tools to be used to be used by lower skilled labor to write "robotic scripts" and to maintain the robots. We also need to take the lead in biotech, materials tech, data management and other industries BEFORE we lose them to the rest of the world.