Half of U.S. pays no federal income tax

[rhaig 0]

Quote

So, you agree that Income (money) is taxed, not people, right? Great, then quit whining as if there is a conspiracy against certain people.

you're the one bringing up conspiracies.

I just pointed out that you're being inflexible and narrow minded. But once I realized that was because you're a democrat, I get it now. How about this instead: Yes... you're right. I'm sorry. How uncaring of me. I feel horrible. You were right all along.

Is that better?

--
Rob

[CanuckInUSA 0]

If you want to work towards ending the insanity of the Federal Reserve and the rest of the Central Banks around the world, then you have an ally. If you want to work towards getting government spending under control (yes this does include military spending), then you have an ally. But if you just want to push for raising taxes for out of control government spending, well I think you know where I stand.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

So, you agree that Income (money) is taxed, not people, right? Great, then quit whining as if there is a conspiracy against certain people.

you're the one bringing up conspiracies.

I just pointed out that you're being inflexible and narrow minded. But once I realized that was because you're a democrat, I get it now. How about this instead: Yes... you're right. I'm sorry. How uncaring of me. I feel horrible. You were right all along.

Is that better?

I don't there was ever a tax conspiracy, it's the dellusion of the RW that the gov is out for rich people.

I'm very open minded, evidence of that is found with my stance on taxes and that I don't just automatically think the gov is out to get us. Your bretheren think that, I assume you probably do to at least a degree. I realize that whenever money moves, it's taxed; if a person holds and moves more money, they get taxed but only becuase they are moving the money, not because they hold the money.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

I'm very open minded, evidence of that is found with my stance on taxes and that I don't just automatically think the gov is out to get us. Your bretheren think that, I assume you probably do to at least a degree. I realize that whenever money moves, it's taxed; if a person holds and moves more money, they get taxed but only becuase they are moving the money, not because they hold the money.

see... there you go ASS-U-ME-ing things again.

Government, by it's nature, thrives on power. It's self-preservation mechanism is to increase it's power. We should not let it do that. I don't think it's out to get us, but I do think it's trying to increase it's control over our lives.

And yes, whenever money moves, it's taxed. The money paid to a worker in his paycheck is taxed. When he spends that money on a beer at the convenience store, it's taxed. When that money is reported as income by the store owner, it's taxed. When the store owner spends it for improvements in the store, or to open another store, it's taxed. (do you see a trend here...)

you're dead on that when money is moved in just about any transaction, it's taxed.

Holding money without interest is not taxed, but the interest on that money is taxed.

I'm all in favor of consumption taxes, but I think consumption tax (sales tax) and income tax is double taxation. I say pick one. And I think the fairest one to pick is a consumption tax.

--
Rob

[kallend 2,033]

Quote

If you want to work towards ending the insanity of the Federal Reserve and the rest of the Central Banks around the world, then you have an ally. If you want to work towards getting government spending under control (yes this does include military spending), then you have an ally. But if you just want to push for raising taxes for out of control government spending, well I think you know where I stand.

It would be interesting to see how many of the "rich elite" in the USA would have become rich had they been born in, say, Sudan or Botswana or Eritrea where there is no supporting infrastructure. The reason it is fairly easy (everything being relative) to become affluent in the USA is that we do have an infrastructure, primarily supported by TAXES, that is enabling. If you want to start a small business you have access to a literate and numerate workforce thanks primarily to public schools; you operate in a stable and lawful society thanks to taxpayer supported law enforcement, courts, etc., you have access to effective transportation and communication systems (FedEx doesn't work so well with 3rd world services); you have easy access to clean water and sewer services, and countless other systems working in the background, mostly provided by taxpayer support.

I have no time for whiny affluent people who fail to recognize or admit that their affluence owes a lot to taxpayer provided infrastructure.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

If you want to work towards ending the insanity of the Federal Reserve and the rest of the Central Banks around the world, then you have an ally. If you want to work towards getting government spending under control (yes this does include military spending), then you have an ally. But if you just want to push for raising taxes for out of control government spending, well I think you know where I stand.

It would be interesting to see how many of the "rich elite" in the USA would have become rich had they been born in, say, Sudan or Botswana or Eritrea where there is no supporting infrastructure. The reason it is fairly easy (everything being relative) to become affluent in the USA is that we do have an infrastructure, primarily supported by TAXES, that is enabling. If you want to start a small business you have access to a literate and numerate workforce thanks primarily to public schools; you operate in a stable and lawful society thanks to taxpayer supported law enforcement, courts, etc., you have access to effective transportation and communication systems (FedEx doesn't work so well with 3rd world services); you have easy access to clean water and sewer services, and countless other systems working in the background, mostly provided by taxpayer support.

I have no time for whiny affluent people who fail to recognize or admit that their affluence owes a lot to taxpayer provided infrastructure.

So you're not happy that 50% of the people don't pay into that system and help support what they use?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 2,033]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you want to work towards ending the insanity of the Federal Reserve and the rest of the Central Banks around the world, then you have an ally. If you want to work towards getting government spending under control (yes this does include military spending), then you have an ally. But if you just want to push for raising taxes for out of control government spending, well I think you know where I stand.

It would be interesting to see how many of the "rich elite" in the USA would have become rich had they been born in, say, Sudan or Botswana or Eritrea where there is no supporting infrastructure. The reason it is fairly easy (everything being relative) to become affluent in the USA is that we do have an infrastructure, primarily supported by TAXES, that is enabling. If you want to start a small business you have access to a literate and numerate workforce thanks primarily to public schools; you operate in a stable and lawful society thanks to taxpayer supported law enforcement, courts, etc., you have access to effective transportation and communication systems (FedEx doesn't work so well with 3rd world services); you have easy access to clean water and sewer services, and countless other systems working in the background, mostly provided by taxpayer support.

I have no time for whiny affluent people who fail to recognize or admit that their affluence owes a lot to taxpayer provided infrastructure.

So you're not happy that 50% of the people don't pay into that system and help support what they use?

I am indeed not happy that the rich have so tilted the table in their direction since the 1980s that the bottom 40% of the population now has only 0.2% of the wealth. That so many make so little that they dropped off the bottom of the federal income tax tables is a national disgrace. Thanks for making the point.

(However, it is an error to say that despite having a tiny fraction of the wealth that they don't "pay into that system". There are more taxes than just the income tax.)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Government, by it's nature, thrives on power. It's self-preservation mechanism is to increase it's power. We should not let it do that. I don't think it's out to get us, but I do think it's trying to increase it's control over our lives.

You deny paranoid fantasies of conspiracy, yet then you just describe them. Yes, you are a conspiracy theorist when it come to the gov. Watch this: Wal street and greedy corps/rich people got us into the Great Repiblican Depression and the recent Great Repiblican Recession, as well as the savings & loan mess, Enron, etc, etc, motther fucking etcetera. Oh, who was that bailing us out? Could it be the gov? FDIC? Sure it was, the very org that you fear vs the orgs that you embrace; you support thebad guys and fear the good guys in a conspiratorial way.

Quote

And yes, whenever money moves, it's taxed. The money paid to a worker in his paycheck is taxed. When he spends that money on a beer at the convenience store, it's taxed. When that money is reported as income by the store owner, it's taxed. When the store owner spends it for improvements in the store, or to open another store, it's taxed. (do you see a trend here...)

Actually many times you cite it's taxed, it's actually written off and therefore other profits not taxed:

1) The money paid to a worker in his paycheck is taxed.

--> And the employer writes off this amount against their profits, rendering some of the profits untaxable.

2) When he spends that money on a beer at the convenience store, it's taxed.

--> Yes

3) When that money is reported as income by the store owner, it's taxed.

--> Yes

4) When the store owner spends it for improvements in the store, or to open another store, it's taxed.

--> Wrong; the store owner writes off this amount spent to improve/expand against their profits, rendering some of the profits untaxable.

Quote

(do you see a trend here...)

Yes, you're paranoid and threrfore construct conspiracy theories.

Quote

you're dead on that when money is moved in just about any transaction, it's taxed.

Yep and written off on the other end.

Quote

Holding money without interest is not taxed, but the interest on that money is taxed.

Yep, but if you have so much money that you can live off the interest, other things are also true:

- You are filthy riuch; prolly > 5M.

- You could afford to donate all that int income and not pay any taxes.

- You have accountants that can help you reinvest that $$, increasing your portfolio value and avoiding taxes.

Quote

I'm all in favor of consumption taxes, but I think consumption tax (sales tax) and income tax is double taxation. I say pick one. And I think the fairest one to pick is a consumption tax.

This is an age-old argument and to tax everything in a lesser amount is better than clumping taxes. If we do away with sales tax, we have to incr property tax, payroll tax, etc. Now we have incentivized buying and dissuaded hiring and home-owning. We can work this formula all ways and we would incentivize some things while dissuading others, this leads to imbalance.

Bottom line is that roads, schools, etc have to be built and maintained, who's gonna pay for it; the lower 80% who hold 7% of all cash? Taxes need t be huge on the insanely wealthy; show me a time when taxes were low where the wheels haven't fallen off? It's a nice fanatasy to think we can have the top brkt in the 20's%, but it leads to disaster everytime; show me when it hasn't......you can't. So we're supposed to live on a deadly ideal that taxes are stealing while we watch our country go to the shitter? Brilliant.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I have no time for whiny affluent people who fail to recognize or admit that their affluence owes a lot to taxpayer provided infrastructure.

Virtually every class moved up a few notches under Clinton and his higher tax table. Most classes took a shit under Reagan and esp GWB and their ultra-low tax tables. How is it that people are too stupid to understand there is a taxation sweet spot and that is no where in the 30% area? Probably the 50-70% are, but I'm just being silly and going from history. I will ask Jebus and get back.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you want to work towards ending the insanity of the Federal Reserve and the rest of the Central Banks around the world, then you have an ally. If you want to work towards getting government spending under control (yes this does include military spending), then you have an ally. But if you just want to push for raising taxes for out of control government spending, well I think you know where I stand.

It would be interesting to see how many of the "rich elite" in the USA would have become rich had they been born in, say, Sudan or Botswana or Eritrea where there is no supporting infrastructure. The reason it is fairly easy (everything being relative) to become affluent in the USA is that we do have an infrastructure, primarily supported by TAXES, that is enabling. If you want to start a small business you have access to a literate and numerate workforce thanks primarily to public schools; you operate in a stable and lawful society thanks to taxpayer supported law enforcement, courts, etc., you have access to effective transportation and communication systems (FedEx doesn't work so well with 3rd world services); you have easy access to clean water and sewer services, and countless other systems working in the background, mostly provided by taxpayer support.

I have no time for whiny affluent people who fail to recognize or admit that their affluence owes a lot to taxpayer provided infrastructure.

So you're not happy that 50% of the people don't pay into that system and help support what they use?

That 50% are the backs under which the top 20% possess 93% of all cash and 85% of all cash and asset. Actually the lower 50% pay 3% of the total tax bill, basically nothing, but still a little. Are you hoping the wealth disparity spreads even more?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I am indeed not happy that the rich have so tilted the table in their direction since the 1980s that the bottom 40% of the population now has only 0.2% of the wealth.

During the so-called Roaring 20's the top .1% held the same assets as the bottom 40%.

Here's a site that covers US and world wealth distribution.

http://www.endgame.org/primer-wealth.html

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you want to work towards ending the insanity of the Federal Reserve and the rest of the Central Banks around the world, then you have an ally. If you want to work towards getting government spending under control (yes this does include military spending), then you have an ally. But if you just want to push for raising taxes for out of control government spending, well I think you know where I stand.

It would be interesting to see how many of the "rich elite" in the USA would have become rich had they been born in, say, Sudan or Botswana or Eritrea where there is no supporting infrastructure. The reason it is fairly easy (everything being relative) to become affluent in the USA is that we do have an infrastructure, primarily supported by TAXES, that is enabling. If you want to start a small business you have access to a literate and numerate workforce thanks primarily to public schools; you operate in a stable and lawful society thanks to taxpayer supported law enforcement, courts, etc., you have access to effective transportation and communication systems (FedEx doesn't work so well with 3rd world services); you have easy access to clean water and sewer services, and countless other systems working in the background, mostly provided by taxpayer support.

I have no time for whiny affluent people who fail to recognize or admit that their affluence owes a lot to taxpayer provided infrastructure.

So you're not happy that 50% of the people don't pay into that system and help support what they use?

That 50% are the backs under which the top 20% possess 93% of all cash and 85% of all cash and asset. Actually the lower 50% pay 3% of the total tax bill, basically nothing, but still a little. Are you hoping the wealth disparity spreads even more?

Absolutley....I'm for getting all I can and the rest of you can get fucked (but not really)

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you want to work towards ending the insanity of the Federal Reserve and the rest of the Central Banks around the world, then you have an ally. If you want to work towards getting government spending under control (yes this does include military spending), then you have an ally. But if you just want to push for raising taxes for out of control government spending, well I think you know where I stand.

It would be interesting to see how many of the "rich elite" in the USA would have become rich had they been born in, say, Sudan or Botswana or Eritrea where there is no supporting infrastructure. The reason it is fairly easy (everything being relative) to become affluent in the USA is that we do have an infrastructure, primarily supported by TAXES, that is enabling. If you want to start a small business you have access to a literate and numerate workforce thanks primarily to public schools; you operate in a stable and lawful society thanks to taxpayer supported law enforcement, courts, etc., you have access to effective transportation and communication systems (FedEx doesn't work so well with 3rd world services); you have easy access to clean water and sewer services, and countless other systems working in the background, mostly provided by taxpayer support.

I have no time for whiny affluent people who fail to recognize or admit that their affluence owes a lot to taxpayer provided infrastructure.

So you're not happy that 50% of the people don't pay into that system and help support what they use?

That 50% are the backs under which the top 20% possess 93% of all cash and 85% of all cash and asset. Actually the lower 50% pay 3% of the total tax bill, basically nothing, but still a little. Are you hoping the wealth disparity spreads even more?

Absolutley....I'm for getting all I can and the rest of you can get fucked (but not really)

That greedy mentality is called....Capitalism; it's about the money. The more ethical systems are called Socialism...... it's about social well-being. Hell, even Communism, altho a failed economic ideology, has a very pro-social aspect to it. Carl Marx's gravestone read, as translated: May the working people of the world unite. Here we stab each other in the back. Capitalism is extremely anti-social.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Bottom line is that roads, schools, etc have to be built and maintained, who's gonna pay for it; the lower 80% who hold 7% of all cash? Taxes need t be huge on the insanely wealthy; show me a time when taxes were low where the wheels haven't fallen off? It's a nice fanatasy to think we can have the top brkt in the 20's%, but it leads to disaster everytime; show me when it hasn't......you can't. So we're supposed to live on a deadly ideal that taxes are stealing while we watch our country go to the shitter? Brilliant.

where have I said the rich shouldn't be taxed?

Where have I said taxes should be low?

you're ASSuming again that those are my positions. Property taxes dissuade home ownership when people being invested in their surroundings is something we need right now. As horrible as the current tax system is, it's cost of operation is a major chunk of it's income. simplify. flat tax with allowances for dependents only, or sales tax with prebates based on dependents.

--
Rob

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'm very open minded,

Yep, you and Rhys too!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I have no time for whiny affluent people who fail to recognize or admit that their affluence owes a lot to taxpayer provided infrastructure.

I have about as much time for people who whine about how life in unfair, and have no respect for those who take the effort to make a better life.

You enjoy owning a plane. Every time anyone complains about the TSA, you smugly say: 'well fly yourself.'

Why are you able to be a shit about that? Because, as you stated earlier, you worked hard, got an advanced degree in science. Most people don't choose to do so. Many can't be bothered to finish high school. They also avoid the TSA, they take Greyhound.

[kallend 2,033]

Quote

Quote

I have no time for whiny affluent people who fail to recognize or admit that their affluence owes a lot to taxpayer provided infrastructure.

I .... have no respect for those who take the effort to make a better life.

Surely you got that backwards, or punctuated wierdly.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

What you think I have an issue with someone who is rich? How many times in this thread have I mentioned I could careless how much money someone has. I just find it hilarious when a rich person whines about other rich people.

The only rich people I object to are those that whine about paying taxes. Rich people who whine about their taxes are just hypocritical ungrateful jerks.

As opposed to the people who get free money in the mail complaining that it isn't enough? Imagine that... someone paying a third of their income in taxes being upset...those ungrateful jerks...


Unbelievable.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

I am indeed not happy that the rich have so tilted the table in their direction since the 1980s that the bottom 40% of the population now has only 0.2% of the wealth.

The rich are the only ones to blame for tilting the table? How about paying people to sit on their asses; do you think that has anything to do with people continuing to sit on their asses?

Quote

That so many make so little that they dropped off the bottom of the federal income tax tables is a national disgrace.

Fine. Tax everyone so nobody is left out.



***(However, it is an error to say that despite having a tiny fraction of the wealth that they don't "pay into that system". There are more taxes than just the income tax.}

True. Sales tax is applied to everyone. Apply income tax to everyone.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[champu 1]

Quote

...again, if you earn more, you have a higher pool of money, that pool gets taxed...

...because of the graduated scale. The tax bar is not flat and ascending, it's a curve. It's just a way of collecting more from those who have more...

...when there is a collection of $$$, that collecction of $$$ gets taxed, regardless of who's name is attached to it...

...if there is a pool of newly acquired money, a person is attached to it and has the burden of paying taxes...

My questions were rhetorical, I know how income tax works. It is levied when income is made, hence the name. But it is levied against you not the money itself. Thus you are taxed.

Looking at another post of yours...

Quote

I realize that whenever money moves, it's taxed; if a person holds and moves more money, they get taxed but only becuase they are moving the money, not because they hold the money.

And oops... the fragile distinction you were railing on falls apart. Again, I know what you're saying, but you're being antagonistically pedantic over a silly portion of the argument that you're not even keeping straight yourself.

Quote

I realize we all hate taxes, tell me, how would you pay for things if not taxes? The top 20% hold 93% of all cash, tell me, where are you able to get the $$$ from a lovely society that distributes their wealth so disproportionately?

Why do you attach this canned argument about paying for things and tax progressivism to the post? You stop replying to people when you do things like this and you show you're just replying to some imaginary package deal of a person you've made up full of nothing but ideas contrary to your own. There's no one on the other side of that receiver.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What you think I have an issue with someone who is rich? How many times in this thread have I mentioned I could careless how much money someone has. I just find it hilarious when a rich person whines about other rich people.

The only rich people I object to are those that whine about paying taxes. Rich people who whine about their taxes are just hypocritical ungrateful jerks.

As opposed to the people who get free money in the mail complaining that it isn't enough? Imagine that... someone paying a third of their income in taxes being upset...those ungrateful jerks...


Unbelievable.

Quote

The clock is ticking. And not just for last-minute tax filers. The Bush tax cuts are set to expire at the end of the fiscal year.

And you know what that means. As Congress takes up the FY2011 budget this summer, tea-sipping fiscal hawks will be circling Capitol Hill squawking about the deficit amid a chorus of angry voices screaming for an extension of Bush-era tax cuts that disproportionately benefited that minority of Americans with incomes over $250,000.

What remains to be seen is whether the voices of those who have signed Responsible Wealth's Tax Fairness Pledge will be heard. United for Fair Economy's Responsible Wealth network is a group of 700 millionaires calling on their economic peers (top 5 percent of wealth-earners) to join them in their efforts to put an end to the Bush tax cuts once and for all.

In taking the Pledge, each signer agrees to donate some or all of their tax savings from the Bush tax cuts to support tax fairness organizing and/or other economic justice efforts. An online Tax Break Calculator allows anyone to punch their 2009 income and get an estimate of their individual share of the Bush tax cuts.

Mike Lapham, director of the Responsible Wealth project and one of the millionaire Pledge signers, summarizes the rationale behind the initiative.

"These tax cuts were irresponsible when they were passed in 2001 and 2003. In the midst of a deep recession, they are downright inexcusable," says the paper mill heir.

"Low- and middle-income households only received a small portion of the Bush tax cuts. The overwhelming share of the income, capital gains and dividend cuts went to wealthy taxpayers."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/12-4

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[billvon 3,009]

>Tax everyone so nobody is left out.

Agreed! We should make sure that everyone pays into Social Security and Medicare.

[kallend 2,033]

Quote

Quote

I am indeed not happy that the rich have so tilted the table in their direction since the 1980s that the bottom 40% of the population now has only 0.2% of the wealth.

The rich are the only ones to blame for tilting the table? How about paying people to sit on their asses; do you think that has anything to do with people continuing to sit on their asses?

Quote

That so many make so little that they dropped off the bottom of the federal income tax tables is a national disgrace.

Fine. Tax everyone so nobody is left out.



***(However, it is an error to say that despite having a tiny fraction of the wealth that they don't "pay into that system". There are more taxes than just the income tax.}

True. Sales tax is applied to everyone. Apply income tax to everyone.

Since the bottom 40% only has 0.2% of the wealth, I think you're suggesting getting blood from turnips. Squeezing turnips may make you feel better, but it's not a very productive activity.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,009]

> Imagine that... someone paying a third of their income in taxes being
>upset...those ungrateful jerks...

I pay a lot more than that. But whine that your taxes are unfair if you like; it's a long and storied American tradition.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Since the bottom 40% only has 0.2% of the wealth, I think you're suggesting getting blood from turnips. Squeezing turnips may make you feel better, but it's not a very productive activity.

1) As of 2006, the bottom 40% had 11% of the income.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h02ar.html

2) Taxation is about both collecting revenue and changing behavior, like getting people to drive more fuel efficient cars. Positive income tax rates for the lowest earning quintiles would be about limiting votes for politicians with wastefully spending habits since everyone should feel the effects in their tax rates to support it.

Otherwise we're going to have an ever increasing group of people not paying income taxes extracting larger returns from those of us who do.