AP: Half of U.S. pays no federal income tax

[editec]

What percentage of all taxes collected by the IRS do the richest 1% pay, again?

I doubt if its 10% in total.

I confess I cannot find the answer to that, however.

But if you throw in the social security taxes and medicare taxes, I know damned well that the wealthiest segments of the population aren't paying the lions share of money collected.

We'll your wrong.

Taxation in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not really! If you check the citation for the chart you see it is from the CBO and if you check the CBO report cited you find the "income" used is the ADJUSTED income not the gross. Also if you read the disclaimer in the CBO report:

Notes: Pretax cash income is
the sum of wages, salaries, self-employment income, rents, taxable and nontaxable interest, dividends, realized capital
gains, cash transfer payments, and retirement benefits plus taxes paid by businesses (corporate income taxes and the
employer's share of Social Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance payroll taxes) and employee contri-
butions to 401(k) retirement plans. Other sources of income include all in-kind benefits (Medicare, Medicaid, employer-
paid health insurance premiums, food stamps, school lunches and breakfasts, housing assistance, and energy assis-
tance).

You can see that unrealized capital gains is not counted as income. So the wealthy, who are able to adjust their income the most and the bulk of whose income is capital gains have their share of income grossly underestimated while every possible gain that can be considered income for the bottom earners is counted as income making their share the highest it can possibly be. Furthermore even Stuttering LimpTard admits that the wealthy can adjust their income so they have no taxable income after adjustment.

An example is when Nelson Rockefeller was appointed VP he made his tax return public and on a seven figure income he had not one dollar in taxable income.

August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

Thank you for doing all that research. I appreciate you having gone though all that trouble, Ed.

Now please tell me what percentage of the people who are not paying FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, is going to the FEDERAL government in the form of taxes (but not federal income taxes).

For instance, what amount of money (broken down by class) do the classes pay for gasoline?

I mean, if one carefully structures one's statements to EXCLUDE all taxes other than FICA, then yes, the wealthy pay a higher percentage than all other classes combined.

But it takes more than FICA to keep civilization going.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you don't think the health of the nation is a vital national interest, you are daft.

But you're not talking about the "health of the nation" are, you?
You're talking about the health of individual citizens.... a whole different talk.

The People are the nation, genius. btw, our military comes FROM the People. A healthy and educated military is directly a national security national defense issue.

 

[boedicca]

I'd still like to see Polk respond to this:

Questions for Polk,

As you quite apparently believe those who are well off don't pay enough in taxes, how much should they pay? What % of their total income should be paid in taxes of all forms (Federal, State, local, payroll, property, sales) - and how should that be divided up among various government entities?

 

[Murf76]

If you don't think the health of the nation is a vital national interest, you are daft.

But you're not talking about the "health of the nation" are, you?
You're talking about the health of individual citizens.... a whole different talk.

The People are the nation, genius. btw, our military comes FROM the People. A healthy and educated military is directly a national security national defense issue.

Bullshit. It's a sad fucking excuse for wealth redistribution, whereby one citizen is forced to pay the personal expenses of another. Simple as that, and no amount of spin will change it. It only serves to enslave us all to Big Government.

The health of the nation requires free enterprise, and creative, responsible citizens. THAT's what's good for our "general" health. Making whole sectors of our population perpetual nanny-state dependents does NOT strengthen the nation.

 

[boedicca]

If you don't think the health of the nation is a vital national interest, you are daft.

But you're not talking about the "health of the nation" are, you?
You're talking about the health of individual citizens.... a whole different talk.

The People are the nation, genius. btw, our military comes FROM the People. A healthy and educated military is directly a national security national defense issue.

The biggest threat to health care is not lack of insurance - it is poor lifestyle choices such as overeating, smoking, drinking, and lack of exercise. Given your line of logic, the government should now be able to tell us what to eat, outlaw alcohol and smoking, and force everyone to exercise for at least an hour every day as a condition for living in the U.S.

 

[Polk]

I'd still like to see Polk respond to this:

Questions for Polk,

As you quite apparently believe those who are well off don't pay enough in taxes, how much should they pay? What % of their total income should be paid in taxes of all forms (Federal, State, local, payroll, property, sales) - and how should that be divided up among various government entities?

Why should I respond to it? It's a stupid question.

 

[boedicca]

I'd still like to see Polk respond to this:

Questions for Polk,

As you quite apparently believe those who are well off don't pay enough in taxes, how much should they pay? What % of their total income should be paid in taxes of all forms (Federal, State, local, payroll, property, sales) - and how should that be divided up among various government entities?

Why should I respond to it? It's a stupid question.

The fact that you can't answer it demonstrates how dumb and toxic your beliefs are.

You advocate the Rich paying more - but are unwilling to quantify a limit.

 

[edthecynic]

You side with the terrorists who call Americans thieves and tyrants. You side with the hateists who want to divide the people of America to destroy it from within.

Health care is no more redistribution of wealth than military spending is redistribution of wealth. Nowhere does the Constitution prohibit national health care and if the national legislature decides it is good for the general welfare of the country, which it did, then it is quite Constitutional as determined by Marshall long long ago.

If you don't like it you are quite FREE to move to a less progressive country, no one is forcing you to stay.

Hey, I'm not the one who has stated in this very thread that we should cut the military spending we rely upon to FIGHT terrorists. That was you. And when I say that your ilk are thieves and tyrants who would rob your neighbors and subordinate their liberties, that's a choice that YOU make, not I.

The word "health" is not mentioned even once in our U.S. Constitution. Not once. And when your neighbors are required to pay YOUR bills... hell yes, that is a redistribution of wealth... the money of one citizen, confiscated for the private use of another.

The General Welfare Clause has been abused by "progressives" since the time of FDR. But you've pushed it too far this time, here as we face the insolvency and unsustainable spending of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Even during the lifetime of the founders this argument was stale and disingenuous. Thomas Jefferson said:

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please… Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."

So, the depredations upon the Constitution thus far are exactly that... depredations. But rather than correct these disingenuous malignancies, people like you would continue to build on them in order to get what you want. To argue that "General Welfare" gives carte blanche to Congress for whatever pops into their tiny air-filled brains is a perversion of the spirit of Constitutional governance. You might as well argue that "Common Defense" allows a perpetual state of marshal law.



Now there are lots of other countries out there that apparently prize "progressivism". I suggest YOU find one. Because THIS country has supreme laws that will not be put asunder for your comfort. Save for that ancient contract with citizens, the federal government has no authority over us. When you throw it over the side like so much ballast, you've thrown away your power with it.

You may thank Barack Obama, for ripping the mask off of "Progressivism" and exposing the fascist beneath. We're onto the game now... and we're AWAKE.

Well there you go again, using the CON$ervative Straw Man argument. I simply pointed out your claim that entitlements were the biggest budget expense was wrong and that defense related expenses were more. You refused to read the link that listed them because you saw one word "progressive" that you didn't like. Just because you are regressive does not give you the right to change the fact that I said we SPEND MORE on defense than entitlements to your claim that I said we should CUT defense spending. Dishonesty like that tells me you know I'm right and you believe you have to change what I said to have any argument rather than admit I'm right.
Thank you.

And you keep bringing up the arguments against Hamilton that lost before the Supreme Court back in the days of Hamilton and Jefferson. The SCOTUS has already decided that since SS and health care are not PROHIBITED by the Constitution the national legislature is free to tax and spend on them. If you want to make SS and HC unconstitutional, then get an amendment passed that PROHIBITS them!!! Calling those who follow the Constitution thieves and tyrants just shows your complete hatred for the Constitution and this country.

Since you are the one who hates America, why should I leave? I like the progressivism here, why should I leave a place I like because you hate it? You and your fellow hateists should move to a country as regressive as you!

 

[NYcarbineer]

But you're not talking about the "health of the nation" are, you?
You're talking about the health of individual citizens.... a whole different talk.

The People are the nation, genius. btw, our military comes FROM the People. A healthy and educated military is directly a national security national defense issue.

The biggest threat to health care is not lack of insurance - it is poor lifestyle choices such as overeating, smoking, drinking, and lack of exercise. Given your line of logic, the government should now be able to tell us what to eat, outlaw alcohol and smoking, and force everyone to exercise for at least an hour every day as a condition for living in the U.S.

If it were feasible, I think that would be grand. Not a single aspect of my life was ever made better because I've had a lifetime of access to bad food, alcohol, tobacco, and sloth.

 

[boedicca]

The People are the nation, genius. btw, our military comes FROM the People. A healthy and educated military is directly a national security national defense issue.

The biggest threat to health care is not lack of insurance - it is poor lifestyle choices such as overeating, smoking, drinking, and lack of exercise. Given your line of logic, the government should now be able to tell us what to eat, outlaw alcohol and smoking, and force everyone to exercise for at least an hour every day as a condition for living in the U.S.

If it were feasible, I think that would be grand. Not a single aspect of my life was ever made better because I've had a lifetime of access to bad food, alcohol, tobacco, and sloth.

Wow.

Just plain wow.

You really don't value liberty at all do you?

 

[Samson]

The biggest threat to health care is not lack of insurance - it is poor lifestyle choices such as overeating, smoking, drinking, and lack of exercise. Given your line of logic, the government should now be able to tell us what to eat, outlaw alcohol and smoking, and force everyone to exercise for at least an hour every day as a condition for living in the U.S.

If it were feasible, I think that would be grand. Not a single aspect of my life was ever made better because I've had a lifetime of access to bad food, alcohol, tobacco, and sloth.

Wow.

Just plain wow.

You really don't value liberty at all do you?

You clearly don't understand how subjective the definition of "liberty" is.

Liberty means Lesbians must receive invitations to private parties where Alcohol Must NOT Be Served.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The biggest threat to health care is not lack of insurance - it is poor lifestyle choices such as overeating, smoking, drinking, and lack of exercise. Given your line of logic, the government should now be able to tell us what to eat, outlaw alcohol and smoking, and force everyone to exercise for at least an hour every day as a condition for living in the U.S.

If it were feasible, I think that would be grand. Not a single aspect of my life was ever made better because I've had a lifetime of access to bad food, alcohol, tobacco, and sloth.

Wow.

Just plain wow.

You really don't value liberty at all do you?

What liberty? You want to legalize all drugs? You want to get rid of the FDA? You want to take all the taxes off cigarettes? You want to let kids smoke and drink? You want to let gays serve in the military? You want to keep abortion legal?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm just curious, would 47% of Americans still pay no tax under the so-called 'Fair Tax'?

I don't see any answers here. While waiting for some, I'll take a guess that no, 47% of Americans would not continue to pay no taxes once the Fair Tax was implemented.

So, if that is true, then the Republican tax plan known as the Fair Tax, whatever else it did, would raise taxes on millions of middle income Americans.

Why do conservatives support that?

 

[boedicca]

What liberty? You want to legalize all drugs?

Yes - prohibition is a failure and just creates a huge underground economy from which organized crime profits.

You want to get rid of the FDA?

Yes. There is no reason why independent organizations cannot test and certify the safety of food and drugs. Given the democratization of information via the internet, unsafe products are outed very quickly. We don't need a massive government bureaucracy control this.

You want to take all the taxes off cigarettes?

Yes.

You want to let kids smoke and drink?

They already do. The government is not their parent - parents are responsible for instilling values and overseeing their kids behavior. Glamoring alcohol and smoking just makes both more attractive. I'm not advocating lowering the drinking and smoking ages - but the law is ineffective without parents.

You want to let gays serve in the military?

Yes. They already do. Pretending they don't is silly.

You want to keep abortion legal?

First trimester abortion has existed for millennia via herbal lore. There are valid reasons to keep it legal (incest, rape). I don't see that the government prohibiting it will be effective. Late term abortion for convenience of viable fetii is immoral and should be against illegal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What liberty? You want to legalize all drugs?

Yes - prohibition is a failure and just creates a huge underground economy from which organized crime profits.

You want to get rid of the FDA?

Yes. There is no reason why independent organizations cannot test and certify the safety of food and drugs. Given the democratization of information via the internet, unsafe products are outed very quickly. We don't need a massive government bureaucracy control this.



Yes.



They already do. The government is not their parent - parents are responsible for instilling values and overseeing their kids behavior. Glamoring alcohol and smoking just makes both more attractive. I'm not advocating lowering the drinking and smoking ages - but the law is ineffective without parents.

You want to let gays serve in the military?

Yes. They already do. Pretending they don't is silly.

You want to keep abortion legal?

First trimester abortion has existed for millennia via herbal lore. There are valid reasons to keep it legal (incest, rape). I don't see that the government prohibiting it will be effective. Late term abortion for convenience of viable fetii is immoral and should be against illegal.

lol, are you a politician?

 

[Modbert]

"Independent Organizations" to test and certify our food. Might as well just wear a giant sign screaming "please, bribe me!"

It'd end up being like the current financial crisis. We put up regulations to make sure people can't game the system, and do stupid shit that ruins it. Then Republicans and Moderate Dems come along and deregulate everything in the name of capitalism, and then the politicians are left trying to have investigations after tragedies happen due to massive corruption on a large scale that either ends up killing people or getting them sick. Oh, and nobody goes to jail despite the fact the SCOTUS just ruled that Corporations are people to the point that they can donate however much they want to campaigns.

As John Mellencamp once sang, "Ain't that america, you and me. Ain't that America, something to see."

 

[boedicca]

"Independent Organizations" to test and certify our food. Might as well just wear a giant sign screaming "please, bribe me!"

You don't think this already happens with the Government in charge?

It'd end up being like the current financial crisis. We put up regulations to make sure people can't game the system, and do stupid shit that ruins it. Then Republicans and Moderate Dems come along and deregulate everything in the name of capitalism, and then the politicians are left trying to have investigations after tragedies happen due to massive corruption on a large scale that either ends up killing people or getting them sick. Oh, and nobody goes to jail despite the fact the SCOTUS just ruled that Corporations are people to the point that they can donate however much they want to campaigns.

As John Mellencamp once sang, "Ain't that america, you and me. Ain't that America, something to see."

You're understanding of the financial crisis is sorely lacking. There are Many People to blame including:

- Those who passed the CRA which involved social engineering to get people who could not afford homes to own them.
- The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston which issued a white paper saying that banks should get rid of conventional lending standards in favor of "subjective" ones.
- The Feds threatening banks that they would revoke or not approve branch charters unless those banks made more loans to people who did not qualify for conventional loans.
- The banks that got the Feds to guarantee those "unconventional" loans with taxpayer money.
- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, packed with political patronage jobs, which bought up subprime loans and lied about their quality in their financial statements.
- The ratings agencies which stopped analyzing the actual mortgages in portfolios of loans to be sold off, and instead applied "algorithms" to facilitate processing huge volumes.
- Congress, led by Barney Frank, which deflected any attempts to provide better oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
- Mortgage brokers and real estate agents who encouraged people to take on loans that they did not have the income to support in order to earn commissions.
- Real estate speculators who took advantage of no doc/no down loans to buy properties to flip, severely bidding up prices in a frenzy.
- People who LIED about their income in order to buy houses they couldn't afford.

There are probably more, but that's my list right now.

 

[Modbert]

You're understanding of the financial crisis is sorely lacking. There are Many People to blame including:

- Those who passed the CRA which involved social engineering to get people who could not afford homes to own them.
- The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston which issued a white paper saying that banks should get rid of conventional lending standards in favor of "subjective" ones.
- The Feds threatening banks that they would revoke or not approve branch charters unless those banks made more loans to people who did not qualify for conventional loans.
- The banks that got the Feds to guarantee those "unconventional" loans with taxpayer money.
- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, packed with political patronage jobs, which bought up subprime loans and lied about their quality in their financial statements.
- The ratings agencies which stopped analyzing the actual mortgages in portfolios of loans to be sold off, and instead applied "algorithms" to facilitate processing huge volumes.
- Congress, led by Barney Frank, which deflected any attempts to provide better oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
- Mortgage brokers and real estate agents who encouraged people to take on loans that they did not have the income to support in order to earn commissions.
- Real estate speculators who took advantage of no doc/no down loans to buy properties to flip, severely bidding up prices in a frenzy.
- People who LIED about their income in order to buy houses they couldn't afford.

There are probably more, but that's my list right now.

Again, if there were real regulation, how much of that would of happened? It all goes back to the rules you make. The only one who is lacking in information is you. I'm not sitting there saying that deregulation was the only thing that caused this last crisis, however it was a major factor.

History tends to repeat itself in different ways, this would only be another one. The fact you'd be so willing to trust the independent organizations after the way insurance companies, oil companies, and other organizations run themselves is either nativity or ignorance.

Also, while you seem to think the internet is a all powerful source on the matters of getting information out, you seem to forget the small problem of conflicting information. Not only this, but you seem to forget just how much companies for the PR department, and could easily spread out disinformation. I mean holy shit, the cigarette companies have been doing it for how many years now? And you'll have some people on here who will tell you they do not believe second hand smoke is not bad for you.

Giving independent organizations the power to certify and regulate these drugs borders on the edge of insanity if not full blown insanity.

1.) How many independent organizations will there be?

2.) Who will have the final say what goes on the shelf?

3.) Will these drug companies, etc have the right to put "Approved by this, this, and this" all over their bottles, giving the consumer the idea that it's okay when in reality it could easily kill you?

4.) Will all these organizations have the same standards?

5.) What kind of power will these organizations have?

6.) What happens when organizations start competing against each other, as any capitalist part of the market will? Will we have companies rejecting drugs and other things just because of competitors?

7.) What about collusion?

8.) What about when these independent organizations are paid by certain companies to keep cheaper products off the market? Who do we punish? What kind of laws will be in place?

See, these are just the basic problems that I can come up with in less than 2 minutes of thinking. A capitalist pipe dream that's borne out of the idea that organizations have people's good in mind, when in reality all they have in mind is their company's bottom lines.

Come back when you wisen up a little more.

 

[boedicca]

Considering that a Regulation precipitated this mess - adding more ain't gonna prevent future ones.

The real issue is to stop socializing risk and privatizing profits. But that would inhibit the ability of Big Government to reward its cronies and punish its opponents.

 

[Modbert]

Considering that a Regulation precipitated this mess - adding more ain't gonna prevent future ones.

The real issue is to stop socializing risk and privatizing profits. But that would inhibit the ability of Big Government to reward its cronies and punish its opponents.

Actually, the deregulation is what helped caused this mess, not regulation. When you remove rules and standards in place from stopping people doing sleazy things that result in dishonest results then you're going to have things like this happen.

Again, you seem to just say "Let's just throw our drug testing and certification to independent companies" with no real plan. That's not only ignorant but dangerous. Are you willing to go to jail the first time a company takes a bribe and 10 people die because they took a product that should of never had been on the shelves in the first place?