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

[boedicca]

Nope - the CRA was definitely a regulation - and the Fed abusing its powers to threaten banks with charter revocation if they did not make enough loans to people who could not qualify for conventional mortgages is another flaw of regulation.

At the end of the day, what the government did was rig the game so that certain parties made excessive profits with the taxpayer footing the bill when the risk backfired. That is the moral hazard of government power - and the country is paying for it big time.

 

[Modbert]

Nope - the CRA was definitely a regulation - and the Fed abusing its powers to threaten banks with charter revocation if they did not make enough loans to people who could not qualify for conventional mortgages is another flaw of regulation.

At the end of the day, what the government did was rig the game so that certain parties made excessive profits with the taxpayer footing the bill when the risk backfired. That is the moral hazard of government power - and the country is paying for it big time.

Again, you want to focus only on the small small portion that I mentioned. We could go back and forth on this all day, at the end of the day I'm going to take the word of someone like Toro (whether I'd be right or wrong on this or anything else) who knows what he's talking about than someone like you. Also, another point is, at the end of the day, you've ignored all my other points and questions that I've brought up.

You have no real plan. These are the facts.

 

[boedicca]

Your plan is just more of the same Big Government which made things much worse - oh goody!

 

[Murf76]

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!

Sorry whack-o, but it's YOU who's wrong..... again.
Nondiscretionary spending is about two-thirds of the federal budget. That's where your fucking entitlement programs come from. And just because some fascist, piece-o-crap, "progressives" tell you different doesn't make it true.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/#usgs302a

It must suck to be you, lacking any kind of integrity or honor, succoring rats and thieves just to get your little crumb of government cheese. You know fully well that Hamilton's verbiage was taken as nothing more than an excuse to subvert the clear and obvious meaning of the Constitution. I've posted evidence to the contrary on nearly every aspect imaginable... and still you deny. Because at the end of the day, you're nothing but a shill, carrying water for fascists who hide their agenda behind polite-sounding, but otherwise meaningless, platitudes like "Social Justice".

You're undeserving of Liberty, willing to cast it away as you are, and I'd feel sorry for you if you weren't such a douche.

 

[Modbert]

Your plan is just more of the same Big Government which made things much worse - oh goody!

Not at all. You have no idea what my plan is or what my ideas on how I think the FDA can be more efficient.

All you're doing right now is deflecting, because you have no real ideas.

You see government as some evil entity that does nothing but evil in people's lives. And that's your opinion and you're more than entitled to it. However, if you take off the rosy glasses and see the world for what it is. Nothing in life is perfect, and neither is Government. And neither are independent organizations who you just want to radically give all this power too.

In a comic I read when I was younger, you may have to, there was a quote: "With great power, comes great responsibility." Great responsibility that these independent organizations should not honestly receive or be able to handle in the long run without a great deal of regulation. And what's going to happen, as with all things in life, is those regulations will be taken away piece by piece because these companies will complain that they are over regulated and cannot conduct business correctly.

It wouldn't be the first time in history such a thing has happened, and it sure will not be the last time. Study history a bit more, we cannot afford such mistakes at this point in our history.

 

[Murf76]

Your plan is just more of the same Big Government which made things much worse - oh goody!

Weird how they never wonder why it takes the FDA 10-20 years to approve a new drug as "safe", but it only take trial lawyers five to prove the FDA was full of shit.

Makes you wonder what exactly we're paying for, don't it?

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

I am not a 'fair tax' person. I am a flat tax person. And I think it should apply to all income above a very low threshhold and yes, that would mean that most of those 47% who now pay no income taxes would be paying some taxes.

I support that because it is intensely unhealthy for 47% of the population to bear no consequences of tax policy on the rest of the population. It is intensely unhealthy for 47% of the populaton to have incentive to keep people in power who will see to it that those 47% continue to pay no taxes.

Every American should have incentive to elect the best people to government who will govern in the best interest of ALL Americans, and not just a privileged few.

 

[Modbert]

I am not a 'fair tax' person. I am a flat tax person. And I think it should apply to all income above a very low threshhold and yes, that would mean that most of those 47% who now pay no income taxes would be paying some taxes.

Try for a flat tax without any write-offs. See how much support you get from the rich.

Don't forget the majority of corporations do not pay any federal income tax. But kerry on.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am not a 'fair tax' person. I am a flat tax person. And I think it should apply to all income above a very low threshhold and yes, that would mean that most of those 47% who now pay no income taxes would be paying some taxes.

Try for a flat tax without any write-offs. See how much support you get from the rich.

Don't forget the majority of corporations do not pay any federal income tax. But kerry on.

I don't have any problem with exemptions as long as they are applied uniformly and without prejudice across the board. I have a lot of problems with exemptions that benefit one group or class but others are not allowed to access.

But the issue is not who will support what. The issue is the net effect of the policiy that becomes the law of the land.

A policy that exempts half the population from any consequences of the tax code is a very dangerous policy.

 

[Modbert]

I don't have any problem with exemptions as long as they are applied uniformly and without prejudice across the board. I have a lot of problems with exemptions that benefit one group or class but others are not allowed to access.

But the issue is not who will support what. The issue is the net effect of the policiy that becomes the law of the land.

A policy that exempts half the population from any consequences of the tax code is a very dangerous policy.

Oh you crack up me Fox, how naive can you be or purposefully ignorant?

With a flat tax AND exemptions, the rich will pay no taxes and the majority of taxes will come from the poor and middle class. Think that through for a minute.

Also, have you ever thought for a minute that the reason that half the population doesn't pay any taxes is because they're so poor or have no job to make any money? Man, that has to go up there with the "best of best ideas."

C'mon, be sensible.

 

[Murf76]

Try for a flat tax without any write-offs. See how much support you get from the rich.

Don't forget the majority of corporations do not pay any federal income tax. But kerry on.

Corporations simply pass the cost on to consumers. There's no point in harassing them, particularly when you're dealing with essential goods and services. It just raises prices, often on those who can least afford the expense.

 

[Modbert]

Corporations simply pass the cost on to consumers. There's no point in harassing them, particularly when you're dealing with essential goods and services. It just raises prices, often on those who can least afford the expense.

So your excuse for not taxing Corporations is their process of passing the cost on to consumers? Why should anyone pay taxes if that were the case, since the cost is just going to be passed on to someone else? Or in reality, the only ones who would be paying taxes at that point are the ultra poor.

Sensible thinking is not your speciality is it?

Also, few things in life are essential. I can see you just make excuses for corporations, instead of asking questions. God forbid anyone like you ever get into power.

 

[Murf76]

Also, have you ever thought for a minute that the reason that half the population doesn't pay any taxes is because they're so poor or have no job to make any money? Man, that has to go up there with the "best of best ideas."

If Real Unemployment is somewhere around 17-18%, how do you figure that 47% don't pay taxes because they don't have jobs?

 

[Modbert]

Also, have you ever thought for a minute that the reason that half the population doesn't pay any taxes is because they're so poor or have no job to make any money? Man, that has to go up there with the "best of best ideas."

If Real Unemployment is somewhere around 17-18%, how do you figure that 47% don't pay taxes because they don't have jobs?

I can see reading comprehension is not your speciality either.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't have any problem with exemptions as long as they are applied uniformly and without prejudice across the board. I have a lot of problems with exemptions that benefit one group or class but others are not allowed to access.

But the issue is not who will support what. The issue is the net effect of the policiy that becomes the law of the land.

A policy that exempts half the population from any consequences of the tax code is a very dangerous policy.

Oh you crack up me Fox, how naive can you be or purposefully ignorant?

With a flat tax AND exemptions, the rich will pay no taxes and the majority of taxes will come from the poor and middle class. Think that through for a minute.

Also, have you ever thought for a minute that the reason that half the population doesn't pay any taxes is because they're so poor or have no job to make any money? Man, that has to go up there with the "best of best ideas."

C'mon, be sensible.

Come on, be sensible yourself Doggie.

How does it benefit a rich person more to be able to deduct the interest on his personal residence than it benefits a poor person to be able to deduct the interest on his personal residence? How does it hurt anybody for a poor person to be able to buy his first home because he can deduct that interest?

How does it benefit a rich person more to be able to deduct contributions to charity and support benevolent foundations and great institutions than it benefits a poor person to be be able to deduct charitable contributions?

And please elaborate on how deducting interest on his/her mortgage or deducting charitable contributions would exempt anybody from playing the flat tax?

 

[boedicca]

Doggie The Bubble Boy doesn't get the con game being played.

Big Government designs the tax system so that increasingly more people receive payments from it or work government jobs than actually produce. This creates a massive permanent voting base for Big Government.

There is one flaw: people's behavior are affected by tax policy. Eventually, The Rich will decline or be so bled out there is not enough to support the Leviathan. Then, taxes will be raised on The Poor (who, unlike the poor in other countries, are fat, have televisions, refrigerators, indoor plumbing...).

VAT - it's on its way if we don't stop Obamanomics.

 

[Murf76]

So your excuse for not taxing Corporations is their process of passing the cost on to consumers? Why should anyone pay taxes if that were the case, since the cost is just going to be passed on to someone else? Or in reality, the only ones who would be paying taxes at that point are the ultra poor.

Sensible thinking is not your speciality is it?

Also, few things in life are essential. I can see you just make excuses for corporations, instead of asking questions. God forbid anyone like you ever get into power.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Grow up, puppy. You act like you don't eat or shop. Where the fuck to you think the shit at the mall comes from? Seriously. You're regurgitating a bunch of nonsensical, leftist, vomit.

Are you living in a mud hut and weaving your clothes from whatever plant lint you find along the road? C'mon.

You fuckers are all fat and sassy enough to post this socialist pap from affordable home computers, probably while you're wolfing down a Ho-Ho and a Mountain Dew. And while your envy that somebody is getting PAID for the production of such things is palpable... the fact is, when you tax the corporate producer more, you're bumping up prices that YOU will have to pay along with everybody else.

 

[boedicca]

Question for Doggie: Did The Poor invent the computer you are using to pontificate on the internets?

 

[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?

I am not a 'fair tax' person. I am a flat tax person. And I think it should apply to all income above a very low threshhold and yes, that would mean that most of those 47% who now pay no income taxes would be paying some taxes.

I support that because it is intensely unhealthy for 47% of the population to bear no consequences of tax policy on the rest of the population. It is intensely unhealthy for 47% of the populaton to have incentive to keep people in power who will see to it that those 47% continue to pay no taxes.

Every American should have incentive to elect the best people to government who will govern in the best interest of ALL Americans, and not just a privileged few.

Since there are probably many many conservatives who agree with you, don't you find it a bit disingenuous of them to attack Obama because HE might raise taxes?

btw, just for the record we have numerous federal sales taxes already such as the gas tax that most people pay.

 

[Modbert]

Come on, be sensible yourself Doggie.

How does it benefit a rich person more to be able to deduct the interest on his personal residence than it benefits a poor person to be able to deduct the interest on his personal residence? How does it hurt anybody for a poor person to be able to buy his first home because he can deduct that interest?

How does it benefit a rich person more to be able to deduct contributions to charity and support benevolent foundations and great institutions than it benefits a poor person to be be able to deduct charitable contributions?

And please elaborate on how deducting interest on his/her mortgage or deducting charitable contributions would exempt anybody from playing the flat tax?

Do poor people own homes in large numbers now? The working poor, maybe, but raising taxes on them would result in either evening out from what they receive or costing them more.

All the flat tax does is benefit the rich, and with exemptions you might as well just hand them this country.