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

[Polk]

Except that much of the income of the wealthy isn't subject to income taxes (capital gains are taxed under a different structure) and also the huge handouts to the wealthy written into the tax code (I'm looking at you, deductability of mortgage interest).

And much of it is - take a look at AMT which reverses deductions.

The fact is: Most of the tax burden is born by a small ratio of the population. That is not good for society, as Tocqueville eloquently explained centuries ago.

You're right, it's not good that most of the tax burden is borne by such a small segment of society. Then again, that's occurs because of another problem: most of the income goes to a small sliver of the population. Bringing in Tocqueville is not really proper, as he was commenting on a society that was much more egalitarian than our own.

 

[edthecynic]

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

 

[edthecynic]

Several points.
1. The increase in federal spending projected over the next decade is almost entirely from increased Medicare and Social Security cost. Elect a Republican Congress tomorrow and a Republican President, and that increase will still occur.
2. The main people you hear talking about a VAT are Republicans.
3. The reality is that the long-term budget problem cannot be solved with both increasing revenues (raising taxes) and decreasing spending.

1) Agreed - we have a long term structural problem - but Obama has made it worse by adding a new Entitlement, partially funded with diverting $500B of Medicare taxes from that looming insolvent program.

2) Untrue - the Left has been jabbering about VAT for years (it's what the Europeans do!). It's the Motherlode of taxes and Big Government.

3) The only answer is to severely restructure government - including entitlement reform. The Chilean model for SS is a good start. Reduce the hand outs to the truly needy. Get rid of the morass of social engineering programs.

2) Wrong - the VAT is a consumption tax which the Right have renamed "The Fair Tax."
So this is just another example of the "tell enough truth and then shut up" tactic. What you leave out is most of that "jabbering" on the Left was AGAINST the Fair tax!!!!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Half of Americans already don't pay income taxes, and yet conservatives still tout that nonsense that LOWERING taxes will INCREASE tax revenues.

How? By creating jobs? By creating jobs, most of which won't pay enough to generate any taxes?

Something that started out as nonsense makes less and less sense the more facts you have...

 

[Againsheila]

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

The top 10% own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, they should be paying 90% of the taxes. We do have a very regressive system.

 

[logical4u]

Several points.
1. The increase in federal spending projected over the next decade is almost entirely from increased Medicare and Social Security cost. Elect a Republican Congress tomorrow and a Republican President, and that increase will still occur.
2. The main people you hear talking about a VAT are Republicans.
3. The reality is that the long-term budget problem cannot be solved with both increasing revenues (raising taxes) and decreasing spending.

1) Agreed - we have a long term structural problem - but Obama has made it worse by adding a new Entitlement, partially funded with diverting $500B of Medicare taxes from that looming insolvent program.

2) Untrue - the Left has been jabbering about VAT for years (it's what the Europeans do!). It's the Motherlode of taxes and Big Government.

3) The only answer is to severely restructure government - including entitlement reform. The Chilean model for SS is a good start. Reduce the hand outs to the truly needy. Get rid of the morass of social engineering programs.

2) Wrong - the VAT is a consumption tax which the Right have renamed "The Fair Tax."
So this is just another example of the "tell enough truth and then shut up" tactic. What you leave out is most of that "jabbering" on the Left was AGAINST the Fair tax!!!!!!

"The fair tax" is a straight forward sales tax to REPLACE the income tax (that means the amendment is nullified (so the gov cannot use the IRS to bully citizens). The VAT taxes every thing from raw materials, to energy, to the finished product, including transportation, increasing the the cost of the product dramatically (if we neeeded another nail in the coffin for our economy, this would be it). The dems want to make this an ADDITIONAL tax and keep the IRS to bully citizens (now, not only with income taxes, but healthcare too).

 

[The T]

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

The top 10% own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, they should be paying 90% of the taxes. We do have a very regressive system.

Why should they shoulder the burden?

 

[The T]

And yet conservatives want to lower income taxes further. So if you do that, 60, or 70, or 80% of Americans would then not pay income taxes, which would give the 'rich', and ironically their unrich conservative supporters, even more to gripe about.

Unless of course you were to lower income taxes ONLY on the 'rich', which is pretty much politically impossible.

What's wrong with scrapping the entire 16th Amendment since it is being used as a tool to manipulate people?

Why is the Tax Code so large and lethargic?

The Founders never meant for the people to be taxed directly...you DO realize this, do you not...and precisely for this reason.

It gives an avenue to the electorate to vote themselves into the largesse of the treasury.

But then you were never a student of history, were you?

Living in the past does not make you a student of history.

Non-Sequiter. Answer the question honestly. Unless you cannot.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

No, we don't.

Show us the IRS statute that states that FICA has a tiered tax structure....and YES we all pay the exact same amount into Social Security up to the federally mandated cap.

let me ask you this polk...why is there a cap on Social Security earnings?

The existence of a cap means the tax is not levied at the same rate. Every dollar earned over the cap is untaxed, resulting in a lower effective rate.

and in your infinite ignorance of the functioning of the Social Security system and the laws associated with it you fail to grasp yet another fact.

The money paid into Social Security is to obtain a benefit. The reason why there is a cap on the amount collected from employees is this. The benefits would be increased for people who paid more into the system and there would be a significant disparity between the rich and poor. Right now the cap doesn't allow there to be a significant disparity between benefits paid to different income levels.

and the fact of the matter is this. The FLAT TAX paid by all employed Americans into the Social Security system is EXACTLY THE SAME....PERIOD. The law states this and YOU cannot refute it.

 

[Murf76]

Of course, as you well know since you cited it earlier, Marshall said more than just that:

"We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional"

I recognize a hateist tactic of telling enough truth and then shutting up to create a scapegoat when I see it. You hate America and it's Constitution and will rationalize anything to demonize its leadership to justify your desire for its demise.

Hey, I'm not the one who stands with thieves and tyrants to deprive my fellow citizens of their hard-earned money and their birthright of freedom. That's you. Must be YOU who hates America and the Constitution. Must be you... projecting your shit onto me. Certainly, I am not the one who's twisting the meaning of our ancient contract with government in order to rob my neighbor.

Note that Marshall says "consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution". Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 describes the power to tax and spend. It includes the words "common Defence" and "general Welfare", as reasons WHY Congress is authorized the power to tax and spend. But note that in subsequent clauses, it goes on to give specific authorizations for providing the "common Defence" but none for providing healthcare and welfare payments to citizens.

The General Welfare Clause was never meant to allow Congress to take property (money) from one citizen and give it to another for the sake of redistribution. It was simply meant to convey a general meaning for why Congress is authorized to tax and spend.

But you know all that. Your protestations to the contrary are petty excuses for thievery and for compromising whatever integrity you might have otherwise had... because you want something for nothing just like any other thief does.

Blow it out your ass. You're not fooling anyone.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's wrong with scrapping the entire 16th Amendment since it is being used as a tool to manipulate people?

Why is the Tax Code so large and lethargic?

The Founders never meant for the people to be taxed directly...you DO realize this, do you not...and precisely for this reason.

It gives an avenue to the electorate to vote themselves into the largesse of the treasury.

But then you were never a student of history, were you?

Living in the past does not make you a student of history.

Non-Sequiter. Answer the question honestly. Unless you cannot.

What question? That the Founders didn't intend something? They intended the People to amend the Constitution if they so chose, didn't they?

 

[Murf76]

What question? That the Founders didn't intend something? They intended the People to amend the Constitution if they so chose, didn't they?

Why didn't they then? Why did they cram this healthcare pile-o-shit down our throats without addressing the fact that there's no Constitutional authority for doing it?

Know what I think?... I think it's because they KNEW that if they put it to a fair test of the amendment process, the American people would reject it.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

What question? That the Founders didn't intend something? They intended the People to amend the Constitution if they so chose, didn't they?

Why didn't they then? Why did they cram this healthcare pile-o-shit down our throats without addressing the fact that there's no Constitutional authority for doing it?

Know what I think?... I think it's because they KNEW that if they put it to a fair test of the amendment process, the American people would reject it.

That Murf....is FACT!!!!!!!!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

What question? That the Founders didn't intend something? They intended the People to amend the Constitution if they so chose, didn't they?

Why didn't they then? Why did they cram this healthcare pile-o-shit down our throats without addressing the fact that there's no Constitutional authority for doing it?

Know what I think?... I think it's because they KNEW that if they put it to a fair test of the amendment process, the American people would reject it.

Since it is now LAW, in accordance with the Constitutional procedure for making LAW, you are, essentially, talking through your hat.

 

[The T]

What question? That the Founders didn't intend something? They intended the People to amend the Constitution if they so chose, didn't they?

Why didn't they then? Why did they cram this healthcare pile-o-shit down our throats without addressing the fact that there's no Constitutional authority for doing it?

Know what I think?... I think it's because they KNEW that if they put it to a fair test of the amendment process, the American people would reject it.

Since it is now LAW, in accordance with the Constitutional procedure for making LAW, you are, essentially, talking through your hat.

-And IT is contested by 14 States Attornies, and being thwarted by 36 State legislatures...by their OWN Laws.

It ain't over by a long shot dipstick.

 

[boedicca]

1. In the long run, the only way you're going to be able to reduce the cost of Medicare is to reduce the cost of health care across the board. The only real way to do that is by not having a large population of sicky people running around untreated, developing worse and worse conditions, until they reach the point of qualifying for Medicare.

The only way to do that is to have people be responsible for paying for their own health care consumption. If they see what their poor lifestyle choices cost them, they'll have an incentive to modify their behavior.

2. Really? Because the main person I hear talking about it is Krauthammer.

It's not my problem you haven't been paying attention.

3. Privatizing Social Security will make the deficit outlook worse, not better. And, reduce "handouts"? Aid to the needy is almost zero already.

Aid to the need is most certainly not almost Zero. Our government has poured ungodly amounts of money into welfare in many forms, and the inane "war on poverty" nonsense.

Chile has a mostly privatized model that is quite successful. We'd be better off phasing that in over time and weaning people off of government income "insurance".

 

[Murf76]

Since it is now LAW, in accordance with the Constitutional procedure for making LAW, you are, essentially, talking through your hat.

Inactivity is NOT Commerce. The General Welfare Clause is NOT carte blanche for doing whatever the fuck you want. And the Necessary and Proper Clause only pertains to those functions which are enumerated.

Certainly the corrupt socialists in Congress passed this outrage, but that doesn't mean it will stand. You've got to get it past SCOTUS, and you'll be lucky not to have Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid overturned in the process. That is, if you even make it that far. Chances are better than average that we'll have it repealed before it makes it that far. Note that Bart Stupak was reelected with 65% of the vote last time, and in blue Michigan, he doesn't even have enough support to make another run.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So, how bright are these people? Their entire agenda depends on a very few people making good money being taxed into oblivion... BRILLIANT!!!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Abolish the IRS now... get rid of the income tax while you're at it.

 

[Polk]

1. In the long run, the only way you're going to be able to reduce the cost of Medicare is to reduce the cost of health care across the board. The only real way to do that is by not having a large population of sicky people running around untreated, developing worse and worse conditions, until they reach the point of qualifying for Medicare.

The only way to do that is to have people be responsible for paying for their own health care consumption. If they see what their poor lifestyle choices cost them, they'll have an incentive to modify their behavior.

It really doesn't. People know that being obese is horrible for their health, yet they still cram their faces full of Hohos.

2. Really? Because the main person I hear talking about it is Krauthammer.

It's not my problem you haven't been paying attention.

I have been. With the exception of a few people batting around the idea at the margins, most of the talk of a VAT has been coming from the right (including the aforementioned "Fair"tax movement).

3. Privatizing Social Security will make the deficit outlook worse, not better. And, reduce "handouts"? Aid to the needy is almost zero already.

Aid to the need is most certainly not almost Zero. Our government has poured ungodly amounts of money into welfare in many forms, and the inane "war on poverty" nonsense.

Chile has a mostly privatized model that is quite successful. We'd be better off phasing that in over time and weaning people off of government income "insurance".

The aid to the needy is almost nothing in the scheme of the budget. The entire federal budget for FY 2010 is 3.55 trillion dollars. Even the broadest measures of aid would only total about 400 billion (about ten percent of the sum).

The transition to a Chile-style system would cost several times more than the projected Social Security shortfall. If you have a small hole in your boat, you don't patch it by blowing out a bigger hole.