Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We should end all refundable tax credits. Welfare payments should be paid through the welfare office only.
Furthermore we should send every filer a certificate at year end of their net payments for both payroll taxes and federal taxes. Plenty of people think they pay taxes when in fact they don't. A catch slogan like "Congrats - you paid zero federal income taxes last year! Thank a rich guy!" would help educate people about who pays the bills.
You can't help me because your argument is an unsubstantied strawman. According to you, you'd have us all believe that the "47%" are a bunch of hardworking business people sweating it out making no money for the betterment of America. Although your point is 100% irrelevant to the OP, I still gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked you to put forth evidence of your claims, of which you could not do.
No one, including me, is saying that none of these sole proprietors exist. I"m saying that you don't have the data to make the grand argument that you've made that these people make up a large swath of the 47% of American's who don't pay Federal Income Taxes. That makes it a strawman argument that works only in your mind. It doesn't do anything to debunk the OP. Not in the slightest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC Show me that these people exist in the first place
You're a business person, or so you keep telling us. Are you telling me you don't understand the concept of businesses running at a loss, the end result of that being that the owners don't pay INCOME tax? You don't understand the concept that out of 22,614,000 Sole Proprietors that filed in 2008, several of those people would have had a low adjusted income, because they put the money back into their businesses? Have you never had a meeting with an accountant that recommends businesses put their money into equipment rather than giving it to the federal government?
It does indeed debunk your stand that ALL 47% of Americans are getting a "free ride". I do indeed think it's FAIR that someone who's taking a risk and starting a business and is operating at a loss not be taxed to death while they're doing it. I think the country needs all that money back into the economy, especially at this juncture.
As usual, you make sweeping generalizations about the 47% and won't even acknowledge that there's a deeper picture. That ALL low income earners and or non INCOME tax payers aren't actually bums of some kind.
The largest "swath" of people not paying taxes are actually the elderly, FYI, at if you notice that their tax benefits stand at 44%. Followed by the working poor and people that take child credits at 30.4%. If you are someone that has a lower gross adjusted income, as a schedule C filer, you're going to get lumped into that category. Capiche? The other 25.6% is made up from people filing for education credits, itemized deductions, and what not.
What is it you're advocating for, exactly? What's your solution? Do you just feel like whining that it's not fair?
I'm a bit surprised that as a business owner, and a non liberal, that you're not cheering on those who are doing something with their lives, and taking some risks. Or that you want to retax the elderly.
So, 44% of your 47% are the elderly. How much "skin in the game" do you want them to have? IMO, they've already left plenty in, and I wouldn't ask them for anymore.
We should end all refundable tax credits. Welfare payments should be paid through the welfare office only.
Furthermore we should send every filer a certificate at year end of their net payments for both payroll taxes and federal taxes. Plenty of people think they pay taxes when in fact they don't. A catch slogan like "Congrats - you paid zero federal income taxes last year! Thank a rich guy!" would help educate people about who pays the bills.
In a decade of frenzied tax-cutting for the rich, the Republican Party just happened to lower tax rates for the poor, as well. Now several of the party’s most prominent presidential candidates and lawmakers want to correct that oversight and raise taxes on the poor and the working class, while protecting the rich, of course.
These Republican leaders, who think nothing of widening tax loopholes for corporations and multimillion-dollar estates, are offended by the idea that people making less than $40,000 might benefit from the progressive tax code. They are infuriated by the earned income tax credit (the pride of Ronald Reagan), which has become the biggest and most effective antipoverty program by giving working families thousands of dollars a year in tax refunds. They scoff at continuing President Obama’s payroll tax cut, which is tilted toward low- and middle-income workers and expires in December.
Until fairly recently, Republicans, at least, have been fairly consistent in their position that tax cuts should benefit everyone. Though the Bush tax cuts were primarily for the rich, they did lower rates for almost all taxpayers, providing a veneer of egalitarianism. Then the recession pushed down incomes severely, many below the minimum income tax level, and the stimulus act lowered that level further with new tax cuts. The number of families not paying income tax has risen from about 30 percent before the recession to about half, and, suddenly, Republicans have a new tool to stoke class resentment.
...
Representative Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, and several senators have made similar arguments, variations of the idea expressed earlier by Senator Dan Coats of Indiana that “everyone needs to have some skin in the game.”
This is factually wrong, economically wrong and morally wrong. First, the facts: a vast majority of Americans have skin in the tax game. Even if they earn too little to qualify for the income tax, they pay payroll taxes (which Republicans want to raise), gasoline excise taxes and state and local taxes. Only 14 percent of households pay neither income nor payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center at the Brookings Institution. The poorest fifth paid an average of 16.3 percent of income in taxes in 2010.
Economically, reducing the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit — which would be required if everyone paid income taxes — makes no sense at a time of high unemployment. The credits, which only go to working people, have always been a strong incentive to work, as even some conservative economists say, and have increased the labor force while reducing the welfare rolls.
The moral argument would have been obvious before this polarized year. Nearly 90 percent of the families that paid no income tax make less than $40,000, most much less. The real problem is that so many Americans are struggling on such a small income, not whether they pay taxes. The two tax credits lifted 7.2 million people out of poverty in 2009, including four million children. At a time when high-income households are paying their lowest share of federal taxes in decades, when corporations frequently avoid paying any tax, it is clear who should bear a larger burden and who should not.
You have any of your own thoughts or do you get paid for reposting NY Times articles?
I'm well aware of the distinction between payroll and FIT. In theory, payroll taxes are earmarked for SS and Medicare benefits. Everything else is funded by FIT or other excise and embedded taxes. At least at the federal level. Refundable tax credits foster an illusion - the illusion that people are not on welfare.
Ready to contribute something original and meaningful?
You're a business person, or so you keep telling us. Are you telling me you don't understand the concept of businesses running at a loss, the end result of that being that the owners don't pay INCOME tax? You don't understand the concept that out of 22,614,000 Sole Proprietors that filed in 2008, several of those people would have had a low adjusted income, because they put the money back into their businesses? Have you never had a meeting with an accountant that recommends businesses put their money into equipment rather than giving it to the federal government?
It does indeed debunk your stand that ALL 47% of Americans are getting a "free ride". I do indeed think it's FAIR that someone who's taking a risk and starting a business and is operating at a loss not be taxed to death while they're doing it. I think the country needs all that money back into the economy, especially at this juncture.
As usual, you make sweeping generalizations about the 47% and won't even acknowledge that there's a deeper picture. That ALL low income earners and or non INCOME tax payers aren't actually bums of some kind.
The largest "swath" of people not paying taxes are actually the elderly, FYI, at if you notice that their tax benefits stand at 44%. Followed by the working poor and people that take child credits at 30.4%. If you are someone that has a lower gross adjusted income, as a schedule C filer, you're going to get lumped into that category. Capiche? The other 25.6% is made up from people filing for education credits, itemized deductions, and what not.
What is it you're advocating for, exactly? What's your solution? Do you just feel like whining that it's not fair?
I'm a bit surprised that as a business owner, and a non liberal, that you're not cheering on those who are doing something with their lives, and taking some risks. Or that you want to retax the elderly.
So, 44% of your 47% are the elderly. How much "skin in the game" do you want them to have? IMO, they've already left plenty in, and I wouldn't ask them for anymore.
Quote:
You don't understand the concept that out of 22,614,000 Sole Proprietors that filed in 2008, several of those people would have had a low adjusted income, because they put the money back into their businesses?
This has been my point the moment you started this strawman argument. You assert that "sole proprietors" make up a large swath of the 47% of people who pay zero income taxes......I asked you to back it up......you couldn't......and yet you still flail along as if you think you have a solid point to make.
You even use the word "several" to make your case. LOL
Face it....you've tried to make a point that doesn't exist. Leave it at that.
Oh, and by the way:
Quote:
So, 44% of your 47% are the elderly. How much "skin in the game" do you want them to have? IMO, they've already left plenty in, and I wouldn't ask them for anymore.
LOL at the bolded. Hysterical!!
Your command of statistics is HORRENDOUS. I'm not going to explain to you why. I'm going to let you try to figure it out. Right now i'm laughing out loud.
This has been my point the moment you started this strawman argument. You assert that "sole proprietors" make up a large swath of the 47% of people who pay zero income taxes......I asked you to back it up......you couldn't......and yet you still flail along as if you think you have a solid point to make.
You even use the word "several" to make your case. LOL
Face it....you've tried to make a point that doesn't exist. Leave it at that.
I made my point perfectly well. I've posted to back it up.
Now, how about you back up your point that 47% of people that do not pay federal INCOME taxes are "able bodied people getting a free ride", as you stated earlier.
Please show how the percentage is made up of those people alone.
I'm sure the 44% of elderly, those on a fixed INCOME, aren't necessarily able bodied, for example.
1. Nobody should get a 'refund' for money they did not pay in the first place. Tax is to pay for services not a means of wealth redistribution.
2. There should be a minimum tax contribution that everyone should pay. It could be as little as $25 but it would establish the principal that everyone contributes.
1. Nobody should get a 'refund' for money they did not pay in the first place. Tax is to pay for services not a means of wealth redistribution.
2. There should be a minimum tax contribution that everyone should pay. It could be as little as $25 but it would establish the principal that everyone contributes.
Your command of statistics is HORRENDOUS. I'm not going to explain to you why. I'm going to let you try to figure it out. Right now i'm laughing out loud.
You do realize that the whole chart makes up 100%, right?
I made my point perfectly well. I've posted to back it up.
Now, how about you back up your point that 47% of people that do not pay federal INCOME taxes are "able bodied people getting a free ride", as you stated earlier.
Please show how the percentage is made up of those people alone.
I'm sure the 44% of elderly, those on a fixed INCOME, aren't necessarily able bodied, for example.
Lets see YOUR NUMBERS.
Look, guy. Your command of statistics is horrible. Your chart does NOT show that "44% of the 47% are elderly" who pay zero federal income taxes. It shows that 44% of 100% of tax credits are attributable to those are qualified to take those credits (ie. the elderly).
I'm done with this tit-for-tat. For some odd reason, you believe you've shown me that "sole proprietors" are a large swath of those who pay zero federal income taxes. And then you switch course and try to say it's attributable to the elderly using a false understanding of the statistics you use.
I'm not wasting my time with this anymore. You've proven nothing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
