Are you one of the 53%

[editec]

Dragon.

Damned right its a lie.

Just like pretty much everything else these right wing trolls post here.

They know perfectly well that's a lie, but they keep posting it because LIES ARE ALL THEY GOT!

 

[Dragon]

They do not pay Federal Income taxes, they only pay Federal FICA taxes, which is funds paid into an account for their own benefit. Not the same thing.

For purposes of this thread, it is the same thing. That distinction is artificial. A tax is a tax is a tax is a tax: something you pay involuntarily to the government to defray public expenses. To claim on the basis of this artificial and unimportant distinction that taxes paid by the 47% aren't real taxes is a lie.

The premise of this thread is a lie.

 

[Uncensored2008]

9% of the people in that group get back more than they paid in, 38% just didn't owe any federal taxes after they took their standard deductions and personal exemptions etc....

and that 9% is the poorest of the working poor, who have children and received the EIC, and child tax credits....

the EIC was created and promoted by various presidents over the years to encourage people receiving welfare, to work.

If the EIC was not given to these lowest paid workers, then it would benefit them more to be on Welfare, which pays MORE than them working.

I'd rather give them a couple of thousand in an earned income credit, than pay the whole mother load to take care of them....and them working teaches their children self respect and good values compared to those collecting a welfare check.

I think we need to get our priorities straight, and the EIC is one of the smartest things our gvt ever thought of.... it might have even been reagan that thought of it...and kudos to him, as far as I am concerned.

I don't believe we need to punish them for being poor by making them pay federal income taxes in order for them to have a stake in the game....they have a stake in the game and they will look out for their best interest, with or without having to pay federal income taxes and they have EVERY RIGHT to look out for their own interest with or without them having to pay a penny or two in to federal income taxes.... senior citizens have paid taxes all their working lives and just because they are poor in retirement doesn't mean you need to punish them either...

Just as the wealthiest have every right to try to look out for their own best interest. (there were THOUSANDS OF THEM) that did not pay any federal income taxes, even millionaires....do you all think that they don't know what they are doing or what is in the best interest for them?

Everyone gets a shot at it....and sometimes we win and sometimes we lose.

and there is no one so far on this board that claims being in the 47%, (which is amazing to me considering all you folks with children that do get the child tax credits) so the Dems not supporting taxing the poorest among us more, have nothing personal to gain.

that's just how I view it...

Care

I understand your position, I just have a different take on it.

I view direct taxation to be inherently corrupt. Things like the EIC are bandaids to try and stem the bleeding from a fundamentally flawed system. One of the primary flaws in income tax is that it attacks INCOME, which is a regressive proposition, a means of "pulling the ladder up" by those whom income is not relevant to.

Indirect taxes, those on consumption or activities, ensure equitable enforcement. When you go to the store, you don't show ID to have your tax determined, what you buy determines the tax - no one, not friends of Obama or Mexican drug lords are exempt. Every dollar spent on taxable items is taxed. Currently, the very wealthy escape most taxation by the fact that they live on investments rather than income from jobs or business.

There is a proposal in the economics community to impose a "compliance cost tariff." The way this works is that when a product such as a panted toy comes in from Mexico, that has no clean air laws, the cost that compliance with US law is calculated and added as a tariff to the item.

I am NOT endorsing nor saying I agree with this, I am merely presenting it as a point of discussion. The plus side is that it would raise a great deal of revenue and put off-shore manufacturing on a more even plane with domestic manufacturing. The negative side is that it is regressive in nature and will affect the consumer through higher prices for goods. However, it may spur domestic industry providing more jobs.

It is an interesting proposal.

 

[Care4all]

you also forgot about getting rid of the capital gains tax and imposing a new national sales tax which would be disproportionately paid by poor and working class people who save less (if any) of their money than the wealthy do.

and forget taxing passive income.

Say sparky, doesn't a consumption tax ensure that passive and all income is taxed at the point of consumption? No loopholes or escape for party members?

Ah, but that's why you oppose it, taxes are for the little people, the Pelosi dynasty is to be exempt.

and the rightwingnut loons who are going to suffer most firght for this garbage?

brainwashed nutters.

You're as dumb as a bag of hammers..

Truth.

No uncensored, a consumption tax is regressive....that is why it is opposed. the poor and middle class spend more if not all of their available money consuming things. those with more money DO NOT.

and the things they do spend their money on, like lawyers and accountants and tax advisers are not being hit by a consumption tax, at least not that I am aware of.....?

If every penny you make, 100%, is used to consume things and only 10% of your money if wealthy is used to consume things, then you are unfairly putting the tax burden on to those people who have the least.

If you could show me that this is not the case...I am open to discuss it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No uncensored, a consumption tax is regressive....

Not true.

Consumption taxes in the modern era universally exempt items such as non-prepared food, milk, energy, rents, etc. So let's disburse with the nonsense about the poor being punished for trying to feed their kids, it's bunk. There isn't a state sales tax in the USA that does not exempt all of these. So the consumption tax is on those items which are not necessities for survival. Yes, shoes are a necessity, but not a survival level necessity the way food is.

So, is a consumption tax regressive? Do the poor shoulder more of the burden than the rest of society? The answer is "no." Individuals decide what they will buy, ergo what they are taxed on. You may say 'but the poor have to buy shoes, so they will be taxed." True, they will buy $29 shoes from Payless while Kobe buys $40,000 Bruno Mali shoes. The poor pay $2.90 in tax and Kobe pays $4,000 in tax. Just the way it should be.

You might say "a greater percentage of the income of the poor goes to buy goods than does the rich." To which I say "So what?" 87% of my income goes to buy things, and I make a healthy 6 figures between my two jobs. 13% off the top goes to the 401K, I really do want to retire someday, the rest goes into the house, repairs, cars, consumer goods, food, wine, more food...

that is why it is opposed. the poor and middle class spend more if not all of their available money consuming things. those with more money DO NOT.

So what? Those whom you call "rich," spend exponentially more on consumer items than you or I do. Michael Jordan was rumored to have gone clubbing at the Vegas Strip "Club 57" and dropped $350K in a single night. You and I don't do that. Regardless of whether that is a smaller percentage of his wealth than I would drop with a $200 dinner for the wife and I at Ruth's Chris, it still represents a huge chunk of taxes - had it been taxed, which it wasn't.

and the things they do spend their money on, like lawyers and accountants and tax advisers are not being hit by a consumption tax, at least not that I am aware of.....?

The irony here is that the "lawyers and accountants and tax advisers" are all to avoid taxes. A consumption tax renders those irrelevant, there are no loopholes for the rich to use to escape taxation. For the first time, they will have to pay taxes like the rest of us.

If every penny you make, 100%, is used to consume things and only 10% of your money if wealthy is used to consume things, then you are unfairly putting the tax burden on to those people who have the least.

Utter nonsense. Once again, remember that necessities are not taxed.

If you could show me that this is not the case...I am open to discuss it.

I just did.

 

[flacaltenn]

They do not pay Federal Income taxes, they only pay Federal FICA taxes, which is funds paid into an account for their own benefit. Not the same thing.

For purposes of this thread, it is the same thing. That distinction is artificial. A tax is a tax is a tax is a tax: something you pay involuntarily to the government to defray public expenses. To claim on the basis of this artificial and unimportant distinction that taxes paid by the 47% aren't real taxes is a lie.

The premise of this thread is a lie.

You can keep claiming that -- but only if you want to advocate the dismantling of the funding system for the UNIVERSAL insurance programs of Soc Sec and Medicare. To run these programs it was ALWAYS assumed that ALL workers would pay similiar premiums for similiar benefits. The accounting for these programs DEPEND on projecting income thru these premiums against liabilities.

Obviously you are attempting to hide the accounting for these UNIVERSAL programs while your side advocates that all Americans need UNIVERSAL Healthcare and other new UNIVERSAL programs.

No it is NOT a lie to say to 47% don't pay into the US general Fund. FICA funds go to FICA programs. And we should KEEP it that way. Because Congress has repeatedly shown that they can't be responsible for keeping their thieving paws off of the these funds.

I'm not RIDICULING the 47%. We're just reminding them (and their leftist minders) that their demands for the 53% to pay MORE should be conditioned with attempts to reduce spending first. And that the rhetoric of "fair share" cuts both ways. In fact -- as a Libertarian -- I'm happy that 47% are NOT burdened by the cost of ineffective, corrupt GOVT.. Just not fair that when the 53% criticize said GOVT for spending too much and growing too powerful -- they are "attacking the poor".

And BTW Cuyo --- The entire PURPOSE of EITC is to offset the burden of FICA taxes for the poorest taxpayers. It is a subsidy to pay their premiums for old age services.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No uncensored, a consumption tax is regressive....

Not true.....

Way true. End of story.

Sheesh, you don't get economics any better than you get history. I bet you are a professor who teaches it part time. I hated pointy headed liberals like you telling us hard working every day people we are wrong, when it is you liberal professors.

 

[flacaltenn]

No uncensored, a consumption tax is regressive....

Not true.....

Way true. End of story.

Sheesh, you don't get economics any better than you get history. I bet you are a professor who teaches it part time. I hated pointy headed liberals like you telling us hard working every day people we are wrong, when it is you liberal professors.

You're both right. A consumption tax covering EVERYTHING is bad for EVERYONE. I think we're losing sight of that.. The problem is that it is "MORE BAD" for the working poor.

But MOST consumption taxes are loaded with exemptions exactly to remove the naturally regressive nature. If you spend 87% of your income like Uncensored and others (hard to avoid today) then the option is to start shopping at KMart and not NordStroms. That's never an option for poorer workers. So consumption taxes narrow the choices that the market provides because premium goods and services will be punished. Not truly good for an economy that is trying to create maximum jobs and opportunities. Is it?

Those $200 dinners at Ruth's Chris get rarer (bad pun) and maybe Steak n' Shake biz starts picking up..

That's why I'm not leaping at 999 or the "Fair Tax". Not because of social equity --- but because it will pervert the market and threaten to narrow choices for consumers. Maybe an "unintended" consequence. But we should recognize that as an EXPECTED side effect. Tell THAT to the "Fair Tax" junkies.

 

[PredFan]

Yeah, I'm one of the 53%, and trying to make as much under the table as possible.

 

[Care4all]

No uncensored, a consumption tax is regressive....

Not true.....

Way true. End of story.

Sheesh, you don't get economics any better than you get history. I bet you are a professor who teaches it part time. I hated pointy headed liberals like you telling us hard working every day people we are wrong, when it is you liberal professors.

You're both right. A consumption tax covering EVERYTHING is bad for EVERYONE. I think we're losing sight of that.. The problem is that it is "MORE BAD" for the working poor.

But MOST consumption taxes are loaded with exemptions exactly to remove the naturally regressive nature. If you spend 87% of your income like Uncensored and others (hard to avoid today) then the option is to start shopping at KMart and not NordStroms. That's never an option for poorer workers. So consumption taxes narrow the choices that the market provides because premium goods and services will be punished. Not truly good for an economy that is trying to create maximum jobs and opportunities. Is it?

Those $200 dinners at Ruth's Chris get rarer (bad pun) and maybe Steak n' Shake biz starts picking up..

That's why I'm not leaping at 999 or the "Fair Tax". Not because of social equity --- but because it will pervert the market and threaten to narrow choices for consumers. Maybe an "unintended" consequence. But we should recognize that as an EXPECTED side effect. Tell THAT to the "Fair Tax" junkies.

florida!!! i loved the ruth chris's steak house in ft laud, and steak n shake makes THE BEST chocolate malt milk shakes....the burgers and fries are too greasy though!

i thought you were in calif? do they have steak n shakes and ruth chris' there?

 

[FactFinder]

Discuss government policies and candidates...

Actually I am one of the 46% that pays taxes and is just about as oppressed as that 56%.

Hey.. I think that adds up to 99%. A revelation! I must be a 99%er.

 

[Care4all]

many who are poor, will eventually climb the ladder and owe more in taxes as that happens......

 

[naturegirl]

Discuss government policies and candidates...

Actually I am one of the 46% that pays taxes and is just about as oppressed as that 56%.

Hey.. I think that adds up to 99%. A revelation! I must be a 99%er.

Ummm, 46+56 does not equal 99, you must be a product of government schools.

 

[FactFinder]

many who are poor, will eventually climb the ladder and owe more in taxes as that happens......

God Speed...

 

[flacaltenn]

Way true. End of story.

Sheesh, you don't get economics any better than you get history. I bet you are a professor who teaches it part time. I hated pointy headed liberals like you telling us hard working every day people we are wrong, when it is you liberal professors.

You're both right. A consumption tax covering EVERYTHING is bad for EVERYONE. I think we're losing sight of that.. The problem is that it is "MORE BAD" for the working poor.

But MOST consumption taxes are loaded with exemptions exactly to remove the naturally regressive nature. If you spend 87% of your income like Uncensored and others (hard to avoid today) then the option is to start shopping at KMart and not NordStroms. That's never an option for poorer workers. So consumption taxes narrow the choices that the market provides because premium goods and services will be punished. Not truly good for an economy that is trying to create maximum jobs and opportunities. Is it?

Those $200 dinners at Ruth's Chris get rarer (bad pun) and maybe Steak n' Shake biz starts picking up..

That's why I'm not leaping at 999 or the "Fair Tax". Not because of social equity --- but because it will pervert the market and threaten to narrow choices for consumers. Maybe an "unintended" consequence. But we should recognize that as an EXPECTED side effect. Tell THAT to the "Fair Tax" junkies.

florida!!! i loved the ruth chris's steak house in ft laud, and steak n shake makes THE BEST chocolate malt milk shakes....the burgers and fries are too greasy though!

i thought you were in calif? do they have steak n shakes and ruth chris' there?

It's Fla-Cal-Tenn -- because that's the story of my life. Not many Steak n' Shakes outside of the South --- worth coming back to.. In fact with Steak n' Shake and Sonic -- I don't think I've been to a McDonalds' or Burger King more than once a year..

 

[Care4all]

You're both right. A consumption tax covering EVERYTHING is bad for EVERYONE. I think we're losing sight of that.. The problem is that it is "MORE BAD" for the working poor.

But MOST consumption taxes are loaded with exemptions exactly to remove the naturally regressive nature. If you spend 87% of your income like Uncensored and others (hard to avoid today) then the option is to start shopping at KMart and not NordStroms. That's never an option for poorer workers. So consumption taxes narrow the choices that the market provides because premium goods and services will be punished. Not truly good for an economy that is trying to create maximum jobs and opportunities. Is it?

Those $200 dinners at Ruth's Chris get rarer (bad pun) and maybe Steak n' Shake biz starts picking up..

That's why I'm not leaping at 999 or the "Fair Tax". Not because of social equity --- but because it will pervert the market and threaten to narrow choices for consumers. Maybe an "unintended" consequence. But we should recognize that as an EXPECTED side effect. Tell THAT to the "Fair Tax" junkies.

florida!!! i loved the ruth chris's steak house in ft laud, and steak n shake makes THE BEST chocolate malt milk shakes....the burgers and fries are too greasy though!

i thought you were in calif? do they have steak n shakes and ruth chris' there?

It's Fla-Cal-Tenn -- because that's the story of my life. Not many Steak n' Shakes outside of the South --- worth coming back to.. In fact with Steak n' Shake and Sonic -- I don't think I've been to a McDonalds' or Burger King more than once a year..

I've lived in more places than i can count on my hands and toest! My father was in the USAF, and we were transferred around quite a bit and when I became an adult, I continued the venture with my husband as my "trying out another new State partner''..... We are on our 3 rd State since we've been married... it's been fun!

 

[EriktheRed]

 

[Dragon]

You can keep claiming that -- but only if you want to advocate the dismantling of the funding system for the UNIVERSAL insurance programs of Soc Sec and Medicare.

Actually, I can claim it as long as I'm willing to imagine doing that, and seeing how much people would be paying in federal taxes if it was all one tax program.

Obviously you are attempting to hide the accounting

The accounting for these programs is irrelevant to the question.

Look, the government has certain expenses, and we pay taxes to cover those expenses. This thread is based on a claim that 47% of the people are getting a free ride. There are only certain facts that have any relevance at all to the question of whether that claim is true.

1) How much to they pay, in total federal taxes, as a percentage of their income?

2) If their taxes (whether income tax or FICA tax or Cain's proposed consumption tax or whatever tax) were increased, how much would that hurt them, compared to raising taxes on people who make much more money (also given the total tax bite those wealthier people are paying now)?

There are no other relevant questions. That people's FICA taxes buy them eventual Social Security retirement benefits (assuming they survive to claim them) does not change the bite taken out of their paychecks NOW, and the impact that has on calculations of whether they are paying their fair share NOW. To ignore this tax burden because of an artificial accounting gimmick is just wrong.

 

[Full-Auto]

Very cute, I bet you stayed up all night with your crayons too!! Nice!!

 

[noose4]

Are you someone who actually pays taxes so the other 47% can get government assistance for nothing??

I am.

ETA, I'm talking about Federal Withholding Taxes............just to make myself clear. Some have a problem u n d e r s t a n d i n g. (did I type that slow enough?)

Yes I am and I support the 99% OWS movement.