Today’s USA Today has a bombshell – at least for people who haven’t been paying attention: Nearly half of Americans pay no federal income taxes.
I’ve tried to explain this before to my liberal friends who insist that “rich people” don’t pay their fair share and whenever I’ve brought up that nearly half of Americans pay zilch to the fed in income taxes they scoff that it’s probably some far right propaganda. Nope. It’s real.
As April 15th comes up and I look at the million+ I pay in taxes (on behalf of myself and my S-corporation) I wince at all the economic opportunities that are missed because of the money being siphoned off.
To understand the real impact of taxes, this year’s tax bill will delay the completion of our new studio by about 6 months which in turn delays the hiring of approximately 23 new workers (not count the # of jobs that simply won’t be created period or the opportunity costs).
Taxes don’t hurt “the rich”. They hurt the people who work for a living.
How many people in america are considered "poor"?
And what is the income level to be considered "poor"?
Why does that matter? Poor or rich and American is an American and if we are to be seen as equals we have to accept that we are equals even if our financial states are different. I don't see why someone cshould be able to enjoy the benefits of being an American without contributing to it.
I am part of the 47% because my income is below $25 thousand a year, even more I am part of the 40% who not only do not pay taxes but get money back from the Gov't. While I won't be foolish enough to refuse money given to me willingly (rich people look for loop holes too) I would not be against eliminating some of these benefits I get if it meant saving this country from an economical disaster. I would gladly give up my tax refund if it meant it would benefit the country as a whole. But I need it to be done by eliminating credits towards people in my financial position. I won't simply give my money back just because of honor or something like that. The fact that politicians waste money only makes me wanna give them less.
Being poor is not an excuse to not do your part.
There is no real level of poor. Poor is a subjective word. By many opinions I am considered poor but I have things rich people have. There are people who lvwe in homes with no electricity but they don't consider themselves poor. People who live in the streets can be considered poor, but it's not like there aren't opportunities to change that, it's not as if being poor is a sickness with no cure.
I'm curious, how come when it comes to income tax people like you think those considered should pay little or no taxes but when it comes to sales tax, no one seems to complain. Rich people pay 6.5% sales tax here in Florida just like everyone elses does. How come that's no big deal? How come no one sees that as uneven for the poor? If I can pay 6.5% sales tax for any taxable item just like a rich person does, why can't we all pay the same in income taxes? Why should they pay more income taxes (percentage wise) just because they make more?
Did I said anything regarding sales taxes?
They are about 13% here in Quebec. I don't really have an opinion on the matter regarding their social effect. On the other hand, the more you spend, the more you pay them. So high-income people who spend more still pay more of those taxes.
Can I assume that you have wife & kids? Do you have various insurances? Retirement plan?
The answer to the first question is easy. 12-13% (I think it is 12.8 now, but it varies within that range).
The answer to the second question is the evil one. And diabolical!
Answer 2: The level to ensure 12-13% are classified poor due to the bell curve.
Told ya so!
As to the article, I am glad you put in the qualifying comment - "at least for people who haven’t been paying attention". most of us knew that already.
As usual you miss the point. Why do you even ask questions?
Again you miss the point. It's not about how much they spend all together, it's about how much they have to pay percentage wise regardless of the amount they spend. Do you think a person who earns over $250,000 should pay higher sales taxes just because they can afford it? How much more different is a sales tax to an income tax. It's still a tax. It may be for different purposes but it is still a tax. Again I ask how come when it comes to sales tax no one is claiming rich people should pay more because they can afford it?
Do you think 2 people buying the same product from the same store should pay sales taxes based on how much they make? Rich people already pay other taxes based on income. Hell some places in Europe determine the amount of a speeding ticket based on income, why not apply that here too?
What's your point? Does having kids and a wife make me special in some way? Rich people have kids and wives too. Various insurances? Lets see, car insurance, health insurance, life insurance, if I had a house home insurance. I don't understand your point.
Once upon a time, just like racism, economic status created a seperation amongst people in this country, today we still seem some of that. People with money think they are better because they got money. Does that mean we lower ourselves to their standards and punish them just because they have more money?
Actually, no. Because somebody who earns 25K with kids and a single person who earns 25K is two entire different level of living rate. Which is why I asked.
Gee, relax man. You sound so aggressive in your posts.
That.. is...
.....
THAT IS STUPID!!!
Brad that 47% that want you to pay more so no slacking off, chop chop. Entitlements are at stake you know.
For Cikomyr:
Poverty levels from US Sept. Of Health and Human Services http://liheap.ncat.org/profiles/povertytables/FY2010/popstate.htm
For all states (except Alaska and Hawaii) and for the District of Columbia
As an aside note. A family of 3 with a household income making $50K and average credits, gets all federal income taxes paid in back.
The Federalist Papers make a great case for taxation by consumption, rather than by headcount or property. The latter two are too given to claims of unjustness, while consumption-based taxes regulate themselves (i.e. if they are too high, people consume less, thus naturally reducing the income).
The only reason for Cikomyr to ask the question is he can't stand not pigeon holing people. "Victim = Respect" is how he operates. He has to know the "rich" from the "poor" because it helps him decide who deserves his respect and who doesn't.
I take this topic one step further. Of the people who do pay taxes, how many of us are actual "net tax payers". Add whatever that percentage to this 47% and you get the picture. Most Americans don't add a red cent to the federal budget... and lefties want to make the percentage of people who do shoulder the tax burden even smaller.
Brad isnt' talking about general numbers here, he is talking about people... People the left couldn't possibly care less about... both the ones left shouldering the burdon, and the ones left unemployed by draconian and bigoted tax policies.
Congratulations! You have just passed American Politics 101. now you are ready for advanced courses.
Needs repeating.
That is pure bullshit. You don't know anything about me, except that you feel convenient to slander me because I might hold opinions different than yours.
Yesterday, in a supermarket, the woman ahead of me in the line had a minutes-long (one-sided) discussion with the cashier about the fact that she doesn't like "multi-millionaires" because there are so many poor people and multi-millionaires have so much money they don't need.
I didn't say anything (the cashier was annoyed enough), but I was thinking. Let's assume she was right and people who have money they don't need should give it away. Let's forget games like "who determines what is needed" because there are enough people who would volunteer to make that decision and not all of them would be unreasonable about it.
But even assuming all these things, the question remains why we should pick on "multi-millionaires" (i.e. people with money) when money is not the only measure of whether somebody has more than he needs.
Money is simply a measure of wealth and wealth is created by spending time at a certain ability level. Ignoring ability (which would obviously result in an uneven "distribution" of wealth created, namely a _non-distribution_ where wealth stays where it was created) it comes down to how much time each individual decides to convert to money. Time itself is wealth too.
Now, if an individual with more money than he needs should give up that excess money, I figure that an individual with more time than he needs (perhaps the individual doesn't have a job) should also give it up. Personally, I value my time higher than my income which is why I sleep, play and study longer hours than I work.
Luckily we already know how much time an individual needs, as per the wisdom of European socialism: 131 hours/week. This is the full week's 168 hours minus the 37 hours of work a week.
This means that society can demand that the unemployed spend 37 hours of their time working for charity (or the state).
Oddly enough, this is not meant when left-wingers speak of "from each according to his ability". In fact today's socialism focuses mainly on the better-known second part of Marx's witty statement: "to each according to his needs".
To paraphrase the story going around the Internet - congratulations, you have just joined the Republican party!
And the part about Money? I totally agree! No one should benefit from their hard work more than anyone else! just as no one should benefit from being smarter than others, with better grades. So let us not limit ourselves to redistributing wealth, let us also redistribute GPAs. That way, everyone will have a solid 2.0 average!
Now how about sports! It is grossly unfair that through an accident of birth, some people are better at it than others. We should handicap all athletes like they so race horses! That would be more fair. Why can't Walter Middy Qb the next Super Bowl team? Because some arrogant elitists wants to discriminate against him because of a fact of nature. Time to redistribute sports as well!
We could go on until the cows come home, and it all means the same. Someone has it, someone wants it, but the latter does not want to work for it.
I don't want him to pay more, he should pay less so he can hire more people if he needs to.
No, thanks. I still like socialism, old-style such. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" still strikes me as an excellent principle. My problem with "socialism" today is that the first part is being ignored and the second part extended to cover every want.
I want governments to create distribution channels so that socialism can exist and be efficient. But I don't want governments to create distribution channels in order to create socialism.
This administration doesn't care if people create new jobs. In fact, they most likely discourage it as that will reduce the amount of people on government assistance, which is one of their top goals.
Not aggressive, passionate. That's the problem with people like you. You have a pre-judged mentality about Americans and everything we say or do is seen as if we are all battle hungry.
Ironically, rather than commenting on the point, you commented on the insult. You failed to defend your point with this comment Cykomir. We don't know you personally, but we know what you comment and unless what you comment does not portray who you are we can make educated guesses of who you are.
But here's the real kicker. Let's say these multi-millionaires did give up this excess money and it was given to those who were poor. Who's to say those who are not poor but are not rich either would also want a piece of that pie. Why would it be fair for the poor to get more money for less work or skills? Would this not simply make the poor population bigger an in turn shrink the middle and rich class? Even worse if less people worked in order to get this excess money from the rich how will the rich make more money to give away if it is these poor and middle class who work for them? In the end, rather than making the poor better, we would simply be bringing everyone down to the poor level and this is an improvement?
Because I don't feel like replying to an insult. If I made points to you calling you [Generate Random Insult for Republican=]a Redneck who just wanna spit into black people's face, you wouldn't feel like replying to the point like I have been civil in the discussion.
And that is where you fail horribly, with you "educated guess". You seem to have a very basic profile of peoples posting here. I have been called antisemitic earlier just because of some comment on Israel. You called me an Antiamerican, jumping a looooong way from my argumentation against USA exceptionalism toward a more rational, but not malevonent foreign policy history.
Ergo, by saying that "The USA aren't automatically in the moral right", I was put in the anti-american part of your spectrum, totally ignoring the nuances I'm trying to send across. It's easier to demonise the other side. The American political system runs on demonisation right now. The more you demonise them, the easier it is to dismiss what they say as fanatical nonsense.
I have been called antisemitic earlier just because of some comment on Israel.
Actually, that might have been because of the type of comment you made "on Israel".
It's not impossible to make an anti-Semitic comment on Israel, you know.
Ergo, by saying that "The USA aren't automatically in the moral right", I was put in the anti-american part of your spectrum, totally ignoring the nuances I'm trying to send across.
Perhaps you are perceived to have a history of using "aren't automatically" as a springboard to "cannot be". I don't now remember what it was you said about Israel but I have seen so many people use that strategy that it wouldn't surprise me if those who defend the US would hastily prepare a defence against that particular logical fallacy.
That was sarcasm Chuck, I know there are folks in the 47% that don't feel that way.
You are young yet. You will be assimilated.
No, you have socialistic leanings because you want to believe in the goodness of your fellow man. Your response above yells it (one part ignored, one part extended). Most of your articles do as well. You want to think that most people are altruistic at heart.
I was that way once too. But I got tired of being proved wrong.
The Democrat party is quite clever. I believe "ability" is a big part of their end game. When they can get the percentage, addressed in this article, to say 60% or more that's when the check will be due. The Democrats will have their coveted opposition proof majority. Then the government will "demand" your sweat (everyone has the "ability" to do that) to pay for your entitlements and other forms of government care. Basically, many will be the new indentured servants (the kind word for slavery), the government will be your master. Funny thing is how willing many are to help achieve this goal.
I've made parallel comparisons to to the pre-Civil War South before. The plantation owners didn't go away, they are in the government. The only difference is they are not solely whites now, and the new slaves won't all be black. Green is the only color that matters. Does anyone really believe a wealth politician lambasting the "rich"? Apparently so. Why some may ask? It's about power and control, some people crave it above all else. As for the slaves, in at a close second to life, they will fight tooth and nail to keep what they believe is owed to them. People are being conditioned now that their needs will be provided for them. they are the new rights, and we all fight for our rights. The politicians (plantation owners) will stay in power, earning more money off the labor, at the nationalized companies and beholding private businesses, and will sprinkle a few crumbs from time to time to keep the peasants calm. Step out of line, no health care, no job, and you whither and blow away.
The problem with Socialism is someone is always above the rules, someone always has the power and gets more of the benefit. Oh, it's a wonderful concept... if you live on a planet occupied by robots.
Cikomyr, ok, tell me this. Why was it so important for you to know the socioeconomic breakdown in a statistic where that isn't an issue?
So now, to sepatate my opinion of Cikomyr from the point I made... I'll repost just the point...
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
