Why should the poor not have to pay federal income tax

[Lovebears65]

A single person earning 30,000 a year of taxable income would pay around 3000 in federal taxes.

Add 2 children to that person's family and the tax will drop to zero.

(in ballpark figures here).

So, you want the 'poor', i.e., the lower income Americans to pay taxes?

Fine...

...take away those child based credits. But keep in mind, if you do, you'll probably be taking them away from your own family as well.

Are you middle class conservatives willing to pay MORE taxes in order to make the poor pay SOME?????

I would pay more if everyone had to pay. Its only fair and that is what OBAMA is screaming on the top of his lungs is to be fair right.

 

[Ernie S.]

do you know how group policies work? or how insurance companies determine their premiums?

I do. You see, I don't have health insurance. I pay my bills myself, so I actually help hold down the cost of health care by paying more a bit more than ins. company negotiated rates and making up for freeloaders that get care without paying the bill. Get it?

Wow, ernie is either a 100 millionaire, extremely irresponsible, or can predict the future.

Which is it?

Who pays when you wind up with emergency room bills you can't afford? Say someone with a 15k car insurance policy hits you and puts you paralyzed from the neck down in a wheel chair for the rest of your life - you got the dough to pay for that?

Mostly, I can predict the future with an expectable degree of certainty. Yes I'm gambling, but the odds are long in my favor and I accept the risk. If I was 30 years away from Medicaid, I, of course would have to rethink my situation.

What are the odds that that will happen? a million to one? I'll take those odds. Of course, that would automatically qualify me for Medicaid, something I've already paid for.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I don't recall that it does, but if memory serves me, there is something in the Constitution about equal protection. Maybe you could look that up and explain the constitutionality of a progressive tax structure.

Explain how its unconstitutional.

Its a tax on income. The 16th amendment allows this.

Its a tax not based on race, gender, religion, or ethnicity, any two people who have the same tax return will be taxed the exact same amount. Thus I fail to see the inequity.

Why should a person that makes 10 times the income pay 16.5 times the tax for essentially the same services?

Taxes are not paid for services. The payment of taxes creates no contract between you and the government.

And the answer to the question is that the people have decided that's what should be paid through their duly, Constitutionally elected representatives in Congress acting under the authority granted Congress in the 16th Amendment.

You seem to think there is a Constitutional requirement that laws be fair according to Ernie S. There is not.

Average family of 4 with a $50,000 annual income pays $7,200/year to the IRS.
The same family making $500,000/year pays, on average, 119,000/year.

And which family would you rather be in?

Take education alone. Average cost per pupil is around $9,000/year. Our hypothetical family making 50K doesn't even cover the cost of one of their children, while our 500K family pays enough tax to educate 13 kids. Justify that for me, OK?

How is it unjust to guarantee a tuition free basic education to all children? The education is a benefit given to the child. Most all children have zero incomes. By your logic most all children in a public school are leeches. I can guarantee you this - the children will wind up paying more taxes over their lifetimes if they have an education than if they don't.

 

[Ernie S.]

Sure I do, unless you're EXTREMELY wealthy, which I'd be willing to bet you aren't. You'd be an idiot to not have at least some sort of health insurance coverage in the event that you had a major incident happen. No one short of the super wealthy can afford the out of pocket expenses that long term cancer/heart attack/stroke/etc.. treatment requires.

Based on your complete ignorance as to how insurance works and what health care costs are like, I'm going to take a guess and say you really aren't very smart. Since we know you're not very bright, then theres a solid chance that you're not wealthy enough to go without insurance. Maybe you hit the lottery or something, but again I doubt that. So I'll take my chances and say you're dumb and broke. Feel free to prove me wrong though.

I have no need or desire to prove you wrong. I'll admit that some unforeseen catastrophic illness or injury could wipe me out, but based on my life style and current health, the odds are greatly in my favor.
I know exactly how insurance works. It works exactly like a casino. The company bets that the premium they receive will cover the payout when spread over the pool. The insurance company, like the casino, always wins.
Other than an injury covered by workman's compensation, for the last 10 years, my total payout for medical costs has been under $10.000. I have no chronic health issues and except for my cigarettes, motorcycles and tractor, my lifestyle poses little risk to my health.
Had I paid $7,200/year for insurance over these 10 years, I would have spent $62,000 needlessly. I'm only betting against the house here.
You are entitled to your opinion. Call me a fool if it makes you feel good about yourself, but the facts are, so far, I'm winning the bet.

but you stated you could afford 8 grand a month if you got cancer, now you say it would wipe you out......thats not being able to afford it, you are lying.

I said "unforeseen catastrophic illness or injury" I don't consider an illness or injury that cost me $8,000/month to be catastrophic. Or don't you get it that some people have money in the bank, investments, real property and stacks of gold and silver.
You claim I'm lying because YOU could not survive an 8 grand/month expense. Don't lump me in with yourself. Don't assume that I'm anything like you.

 

[Ernie S.]

how do you plan to stop them from drinking? Make it a law you can't? Not really making government smaller now is it?

Personally its a tough call, i understand both sides of this topic ( beer and cigs)

One hand i feel they shouldnt be wasting money on those things, on the other hand who am i to tell them they can't do these things?

i dont have this answer.

You're (the taxpayer) the poor sonofabitch paying the bills. There! Now you have the answer, OK?

But it would go against my smaller government policy of not telling people what to do.
It would seem in this case you would over look that in favor of nannystating.

You make this stupid argument all the time. Expecting people on government assistance to spend money provided to them from the pockets of taxpayers does not increase the size of government. If anything, it reduces it. If a food stamp recipient does not buy drugs, booze and smokes with his limited resources and instead applies that money to food for his family, he can get by with less assistance.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I have no need or desire to prove you wrong. I'll admit that some unforeseen catastrophic illness or injury could wipe me out, but based on my life style and current health, the odds are greatly in my favor.
I know exactly how insurance works. It works exactly like a casino. The company bets that the premium they receive will cover the payout when spread over the pool. The insurance company, like the casino, always wins.
Other than an injury covered by workman's compensation, for the last 10 years, my total payout for medical costs has been under $10.000. I have no chronic health issues and except for my cigarettes, motorcycles and tractor, my lifestyle poses little risk to my health.
Had I paid $7,200/year for insurance over these 10 years, I would have spent $62,000 needlessly. I'm only betting against the house here.
You are entitled to your opinion. Call me a fool if it makes you feel good about yourself, but the facts are, so far, I'm winning the bet.

but you stated you could afford 8 grand a month if you got cancer, now you say it would wipe you out......thats not being able to afford it, you are lying.

I said "unforeseen catastrophic illness or injury" I don't consider an illness or injury that cost me $8,000/month to be catastrophic. Or don't you get it that some people have money in the bank, investments, real property and stacks of gold and silver.
You claim I'm lying because YOU could not survive an 8 grand/month expense. Don't lump me in with yourself. Don't assume that I'm anything like you.

LOL! Doctors don't take gold and silver.

If you've got several million ready to liquidate in case of medical emergency, I'll buy that you are self-insured. I think its fool you'd risk that much money, however, as health insurance should be easily affordable to someone with your financial ability. If I were in your position I would carry a high deductible plan for catastrophic illness or injury to limit my risk exposure. Routine health issues are clearly something you can afford to pay as you need - but why risk millions?

Do you not carry other forms of insurance to protect your assets? Why wouldn't you carry health insurance to do the same? Why needlessly expose your assets to the whims of fate and chance when you can just pay for the risk at a set rate that is tiny compared to what is at risk? The more you can take fate and chance out of your financial equation, the more your financial worth will be under your control rather than the control of chance.

EDIT:
Now, chances are, you'll never suffer a catastrophic health problem and lose millions in the process. You'll probably go through life and that won't happen and in all likelihood you'll be able to say "See Ooopy - I was right. I saved a bunch of money". But there is small chance an expensive health care problem will befall you, and it will cost you millions of dollars. And in that case, I could say "Told you so". but right now - we don't know which of those two probabilities will happen - do we? The future cost of that risk - right now - is unknown - but we can compute an average of that risk (if we were so inclined to do the research) by multiplying the chances of you getting a catastrophic health problem times its cost. That value is essentially what health insurance charges you. Instead of exposing yourself to the risk of paying the higher cost - you simply pay the average cost based on the average of future outcomes - plus a small premium, as the insurance company must profit to exist. Now you have essentially taken control of the future cost - by paying the (approximately) known average cost - instead of allowing the future cost to be determined by factors you do not control. To not pay for the insurance is no different than non-skill based gambling games.

 

[Ernie S.]

Explain how its unconstitutional.

Its a tax on income. The 16th amendment allows this.

Its a tax not based on race, gender, religion, or ethnicity, any two people who have the same tax return will be taxed the exact same amount. Thus I fail to see the inequity.

Why should a person that makes 10 times the income pay 16.5 times the tax for essentially the same services?
Average family of 4 with a $50,000 annual income pays $7,200/year to the IRS.
The same family making $500,000/year pays, on average, 119,000/year.

Take education alone. Average cost per pupil is around $9,000/year. Our hypothetical family making 50K doesn't even cover the cost of one of their children, while our 500K family pays enough tax to educate 13 kids. Justify that for me, OK?

You justify it by virtue of the national interest, the greater good. Without regard to those, there's no point in having a nation.

Valid point, but if both of my families were paying the same rate, family 2 would still be paying enough to educate 8 kids.
I am not advocating that everyone pay the same amount, just the same fair rate.

 

[Ernie S.]

A single person earning 30,000 a year of taxable income would pay around 3000 in federal taxes.

Add 2 children to that person's family and the tax will drop to zero.

(in ballpark figures here).

So, you want the 'poor', i.e., the lower income Americans to pay taxes?

Fine...

...take away those child based credits. But keep in mind, if you do, you'll probably be taking them away from your own family as well.

Are you middle class conservatives willing to pay MORE taxes in order to make the poor pay SOME?????

Consider what happens when 50 million families that don't pay federal income tax, now start paying 3 grand. Assuming liberal don't see the $150 billion as a windfall to be spent assuring more special interest votes, wouldn't that lower the tax burden on those families that are paying all the taxes now?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

A single person earning 30,000 a year of taxable income would pay around 3000 in federal taxes.

Add 2 children to that person's family and the tax will drop to zero.

(in ballpark figures here).

So, you want the 'poor', i.e., the lower income Americans to pay taxes?

Fine...

...take away those child based credits. But keep in mind, if you do, you'll probably be taking them away from your own family as well.

Are you middle class conservatives willing to pay MORE taxes in order to make the poor pay SOME?????

Consider what happens when 50 million families that don't pay federal income tax, now start paying 3 grand. Assuming liberal don't see the $150 billion as a windfall to be spent assuring more special interest votes, wouldn't that lower the tax burden on those families that are paying all the taxes now?

You're right - it would be great if the average wages and salaries of those 50 million families went up to the point that on average they paid $3,000 in taxes a year. For the average family of 4, that would mean about 70k a year in income. That would be awesome, I agree 100%.

BTW - the median family of 4 makes 76502 and pays an effective tax rate of 4.68% - about $3600 a year.
The family of 4 making half of median pays an effective rate of -8.04% a year, for a tax benefit of $3075 a year.

These figures include EIC, child tax credits, etc. but no FICA. But including all payroll taxes (employer/employee share) - even the half median family of 4 generates net revenue to the government.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=226


The half median family of 4 will also not likley be half median family of 4 for ever. Their children will eventually grow up, and they will lose those exemptions and credits and EIC - and even the poor tend to make more money as they get older, as they become more valuable employees in whatever it is they do.


To ***** about the half median family of 4 not paying net income tax is basically to admit the American dream is not a reality for many Americans, as this half median family of 4 could pay net taxes and contribute if they were able to advance and make more money.

 

[Ernie S.]

but you stated you could afford 8 grand a month if you got cancer, now you say it would wipe you out......thats not being able to afford it, you are lying.

I said "unforeseen catastrophic illness or injury" I don't consider an illness or injury that cost me $8,000/month to be catastrophic. Or don't you get it that some people have money in the bank, investments, real property and stacks of gold and silver.
You claim I'm lying because YOU could not survive an 8 grand/month expense. Don't lump me in with yourself. Don't assume that I'm anything like you.

LOL! Doctors don't take gold and silver.

If you've got several million ready to liquidate in case of medical emergency, I'll buy that you are self-insured. I think its fool you'd risk that much money, however, as health insurance should be easily affordable to someone with your financial ability. If I were in your position I would carry a high deductible plan for catastrophic illness or injury to limit my risk exposure. Routine health issues are clearly something you can afford to pay as you need - but why risk millions?

Do you not carry other forms of insurance to protect your assets? Why wouldn't you carry health insurance to do the same? Why needlessly expose your assets to the whims of fate and chance when you can just pay for the risk at a set rate that is tiny compared to what is at risk? The more you can take fate and chance out of your financial equation, the more your financial worth will be under your control rather than the control of chance.

EDIT:
Now, chances are, you'll never suffer a catastrophic health problem and lose millions in the process. You'll probably go through life and that won't happen and in all likelihood you'll be able to say "See Ooopy - I was right. I saved a bunch of money". But there is small chance an expensive health care problem will befall you, and it will cost you millions of dollars. And in that case, I could say "Told you so". but right now - we don't know which of those two probabilities will happen - do we? The future cost of that risk - right now - is unknown - but we can compute an average of that risk (if we were so inclined to do the research) by multiplying the chances of you getting a catastrophic health problem times its cost. That value is essentially what health insurance charges you. Instead of exposing yourself to the risk of paying the higher cost - you simply pay the average cost based on the average of future outcomes - plus a small premium, as the insurance company must profit to exist. Now you have essentially taken control of the future cost - by paying the (approximately) known average cost - instead of allowing the future cost to be determined by factors you do not control. To not pay for the insurance is no different than non-skill based gambling games.

I see no fault in your logic. Yes, I'm betting that I can last 2.5 years without a catastrophic problem. You very well might get to say "I told you so", but it is more likely that I will be singing that song.
And yes. I'm willing to bet that I could pay a doctor in gold. It's very reasonable to assume that he would be happier to take a coin worth $1,730 in exchange for $1,700 in services than your Medicaid card.

 

[Valox]

Liberals buy votes by doing everything they can to keep the poor from paying income tax.

So, Reagan was a liberal?

Tax Reform Act of 1986, signed into law by Ronald Reagan on Oct. 22, 1986. He called it a “revolution” and “the most sweeping overhaul of our tax code in our nation’s history.”

Reagan was especially pleased that “millions of the working poor will be dropped from the tax rolls altogether” and that rich people and big corporations would “pay their fair share.” The law was indeed a major accomplishment, one that Reagan had every right to be proud of.

Bruce Bartlett: The Tax Reform Act of 1986: Should We Do It Again? - NYTimes.com

The last thing any republican wants to hear is the reality that their hero Reagan was a big gov't liberal.

It is simply amazing. It was just a few decades that Republicans were lauding at exempting poor people from income taxes, to complaining about how unfair it is that the poor don't pay income taxes.

This is one of the reasons I find it hard to support the GOP. They fight for tax cuts for the uber rich while championing tax increases for the poor.

 

[Lovebears65]

So, Reagan was a liberal?

Tax Reform Act of 1986, signed into law by Ronald Reagan on Oct. 22, 1986. He called it a “revolution” and “the most sweeping overhaul of our tax code in our nation’s history.”

Reagan was especially pleased that “millions of the working poor will be dropped from the tax rolls altogether” and that rich people and big corporations would “pay their fair share.” The law was indeed a major accomplishment, one that Reagan had every right to be proud of.

Bruce Bartlett: The Tax Reform Act of 1986: Should We Do It Again? - NYTimes.com

The last thing any republican wants to hear is the reality that their hero Reagan was a big gov't liberal.

It is simply amazing. It was just a few decades that Republicans were lauding at exempting poor people from income taxes, to complaining about how unfair it is that the poor don't pay income taxes.

This is one of the reasons I find it hard to support the GOP. They fight for tax cuts for the uber rich while championing tax increases for the poor.

So, basically your saying that the poor should just take our tax dollars and not contribute to anything..

 

[editec]

we need to remove mortgage deduction & child exemption hand-outs too

The mortgage interest deduction is a handout to the wealthy, I don't think it would get support amongst Republicans.

How is it a handout to the wealthy?

Are you aware of how many section 42 and section 8 and Mitchell Lama properties went co-op or condo offering insider prices tro existing low income familes as little as 5K to own a unit that has an open market value of 250K?

After 1 year, they were able to re-fiannce at market value and take out hoards of cash , get the interest deduction.

But then again, my guess is you have no idea what section 42 (LIHTC), section 8 and Mitchel Lama properties are.

In order to take the home owners tax breaks one's income need to be high enough that it makes sense to itemize ones deductions.


I can assure you that the wealthy can ALL take advantage of that IF they are paying a mortgage AT INTEREST.

So yes, it is perfectly reasonable to say that ONLY those with enough wealth can ever take advantage of that tax break.

I doubt half the homeowners in America get any benefit from that tax law at all.

 

[Valox]

The last thing any republican wants to hear is the reality that their hero Reagan was a big gov't liberal.

It is simply amazing. It was just a few decades that Republicans were lauding at exempting poor people from income taxes, to complaining about how unfair it is that the poor don't pay income taxes.

This is one of the reasons I find it hard to support the GOP. They fight for tax cuts for the uber rich while championing tax increases for the poor.

So, basically your saying that the poor should just take our tax dollars and not contribute to anything..

First off, "our tax dollars"? You don't pay taxes, so how are they "ours"? You have no skin in the game to be complaining about in the first place.

Second, the poor pay plenty in taxes. The income tax is not the only tax out there.

Third, how is taxing people in poverty going to solve everything?

Fourth, I agree with Reagan.

 

[DiamondDave]

It is simply amazing. It was just a few decades that Republicans were lauding at exempting poor people from income taxes, to complaining about how unfair it is that the poor don't pay income taxes.

This is one of the reasons I find it hard to support the GOP. They fight for tax cuts for the uber rich while championing tax increases for the poor.

So, basically your saying that the poor should just take our tax dollars and not contribute to anything..

First off, "our tax dollars"? You don't pay taxes, so how are they "ours"? You have no skin in the game to be complaining about in the first place.

Second, the poor pay plenty in taxes. The income tax is not the only tax out there.

Third, how is taxing people in poverty going to solve everything?

Fourth, I agree with Reagan.

The 'rich' also pay those other taxes... it is not like they are exempt from them
Nobody should be exempt from taxation AND EQUAL TREATMENT... it is flat out WRONG to have a sliding system that gives advantage to one at the expense of another

 

[Valox]

So, basically your saying that the poor should just take our tax dollars and not contribute to anything..

First off, "our tax dollars"? You don't pay taxes, so how are they "ours"? You have no skin in the game to be complaining about in the first place.

Second, the poor pay plenty in taxes. The income tax is not the only tax out there.

Third, how is taxing people in poverty going to solve everything?

Fourth, I agree with Reagan.

The 'rich' also pay those other taxes... it is not like they are exempt from them
Nobody should be exempt from taxation AND EQUAL TREATMENT... it is flat out WRONG to have a sliding system that gives advantage to one at the expense of another

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You complain about fairness regarding income distribution, but then champion fairness about taxation. It amazes me that people on the right claim "fairness" to be a subjective matter regarding income distribution, but an objective matter regarding taxation. All that spin makes one dizzy.

I will say it again, taxes are not supposed to be fair. By their very nature, taxes are unfair and a necessary evil to fund government.

In addition, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

 

[RDD_1210]

So, basically your saying that the poor should just take our tax dollars and not contribute to anything..

First off, "our tax dollars"? You don't pay taxes, so how are they "ours"? You have no skin in the game to be complaining about in the first place.

Second, the poor pay plenty in taxes. The income tax is not the only tax out there.

Third, how is taxing people in poverty going to solve everything?

Fourth, I agree with Reagan.

The 'rich' also pay those other taxes... it is not like they are exempt from them
Nobody should be exempt from taxation AND EQUAL TREATMENT... it is flat out WRONG to have a sliding system that gives advantage to one at the expense of another

More jealousy of the poor on display.

The progressive system does treat everyone equally. A flat tax does not. But you're definition of equal is short sighted and poorly thought out. That's probably why you're in the extreme minority that think the way you do.

 

[DiamondDave]

First off, "our tax dollars"? You don't pay taxes, so how are they "ours"? You have no skin in the game to be complaining about in the first place.

Second, the poor pay plenty in taxes. The income tax is not the only tax out there.

Third, how is taxing people in poverty going to solve everything?

Fourth, I agree with Reagan.

The 'rich' also pay those other taxes... it is not like they are exempt from them
Nobody should be exempt from taxation AND EQUAL TREATMENT... it is flat out WRONG to have a sliding system that gives advantage to one at the expense of another

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You complain about fairness regarding income distribution, but then champion fairness about taxation. It amazes me that people on the right claim "fairness" to be a subjective matter regarding income distribution, but an objective matter regarding taxation. All that spin makes one dizzy.

I will say it again, taxes are not supposed to be fair. By their very nature, taxes are unfair and a necessary evil to fund government.

In addition, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

I complain about FAIRNESS?? Do you even read any of my posts??

Jesus

I do not complain about subjective fairness.. I champion equal treatment on all aspects, with all the positives and negatives that go with it.... eliminate the subjectivity and you get rid of a lot that is wrong with our governmental system

You are right that taxes are not supposed to be fair... but EQUAL... and you are also right that we have a HUGE spending problem

 

[Lovebears65]

It is simply amazing. It was just a few decades that Republicans were lauding at exempting poor people from income taxes, to complaining about how unfair it is that the poor don't pay income taxes.

This is one of the reasons I find it hard to support the GOP. They fight for tax cuts for the uber rich while championing tax increases for the poor.

So, basically your saying that the poor should just take our tax dollars and not contribute to anything..

First off, "our tax dollars"? You don't pay taxes, so how are they "ours"? You have no skin in the game to be complaining about in the first place.

Second, the poor pay plenty in taxes. The income tax is not the only tax out there.

Third, how is taxing people in poverty going to solve everything?

Fourth, I agree with Reagan.

I do pay taxes. My husband I make 6 figures so we pay plenty of taxes.. Just tired of people living off the government at the same time they are wasting our fed tax dollars

 

[DiamondDave]

First off, "our tax dollars"? You don't pay taxes, so how are they "ours"? You have no skin in the game to be complaining about in the first place.

Second, the poor pay plenty in taxes. The income tax is not the only tax out there.

Third, how is taxing people in poverty going to solve everything?

Fourth, I agree with Reagan.

The 'rich' also pay those other taxes... it is not like they are exempt from them
Nobody should be exempt from taxation AND EQUAL TREATMENT... it is flat out WRONG to have a sliding system that gives advantage to one at the expense of another

More jealousy of the poor on display.

The progressive system does treat everyone equally. A flat tax does not. But you're definition of equal is short sighted and poorly thought out. That's probably why you're in the extreme minority that think the way you do.

You keep spouting your myth, as if repeating it will make it truth

By DEFINITION a progressive system is not 'treating everyone equally'

What a ******* idiot... but then again, we've known that about you for some time now