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.
You have any of your own thoughts or do you get paid for reposting NY Times articles?
My belief is that I can either type or I can repost positions that I agree with that were already published in reputable news sources and expose readers to facts they previously were unaware. Why re-invent the wheel? Besides, I can't possibly respond to the list of replies showing up if I had to type each character.
The part where Ronald Reagan was proud of the very tax-credit that today's Republicans denounce was particularly notable. Today's GOP is so far to the right that even Reagan initiatives are ridiculed.
How can anyone logically argue for the rich to "pay their fair share" of federal income taxes when in fact 47% of American's pay ZERO federal income taxes?
Yes, most people pay payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare, etc). Those monies go to fund specific priorities, so there's no need for the obtuse to come forth and deflect. We're talking Federal INCOME taxes.....the money that goes to fund the public goods and services that we American's consume.
How is it "FAIR" that millions of a American's pay ZERO in light of the current class warfare schtick being pushed by the Left?
Where's the "fairness?"
You're making a big, and inaccurate, assumption.
Some of those forty-seven percent are very, very wealthy. Some of those people not paying federal income taxes are in the top 400 earners.
What's inaccurate about it? Earned income and investment income are two different monsters. Those handfuls of rich are minutiae compared to the millions of American's who don't pay federal income taxes. Should they pay? Of course.....and so should everyone else.
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.
Then prove yours. Where are your numbers that show that 47% of all people that did not pay federal income tax are "able bodied getting a free ride"?
If you qualify for the above tax credits, guy, then obviously you are making a qualifying low income, and in the real world in which we live, people that qualify for tax credits have their federal income tax burden wiped out by said tax credit. Therefore, not ending up owing any income tax. Which is what I presume is not "fair" about the situation. Geez, are you not able to extrapolate anything?
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.
See, now there's a reasonable solution. I agree with the principle that everybody should pay something. I don't agree that people living on an ultra thin margin (while working, or retired) for whatever reason, should have to choose between paying taxes and eating.
How can anyone logically argue for the rich to "pay their fair share" of federal income taxes when in fact 47% of American's pay ZERO federal income taxes?
"The rich" are INCLUDED in that 47%. You are assuming that all of those 47% are the lowest earners. They are not. (see previous links)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
Earned income and investment income are two different monsters. Those handfuls of rich are minutiae compared to the millions of American's who don't pay federal income taxes. Should they pay? Of course.....and so should everyone else.
They are two different monsters. One requires work, the other requires wealth. Those "handfuls" that are paying nothing (zip, zero, nada) in federal income taxes are largely the people who Obama and us on the left are talking about when we talk about fairness. If they even paid 15% on their income, that would still be less than I pay. How is that fair?
And if those minutia couldn't legally avoid taxes, that would be billions in the long run in revenues. You would have to tax millions and millions of poor to equal that. is that fair?
Then prove yours. Where are your numbers that show that 47% of all people that did not pay federal income tax are "able bodied getting a free ride"?
If you qualify for the above tax credits, guy, then obviously you are making a qualifying low income, and in the real world in which we live, people that qualify for tax credits have their federal income tax burden wiped out by said tax credit. Therefore, not ending up owing any income tax. Which is what I presume is not "fair" about the situation. Geez, are you not able to extrapolate anything?
You hit the nail on the head. This is EXACTLY why it's not "fair" to zero in on the rich while completely ignoring the 47% of American's who pay ZERO federal income taxes.
Why should ANYONE.......rich, middle, or poor.....get a free ride?
"The rich" are INCLUDED in that 47%. You are assuming that all of those 47% are the lowest earners. They are not. (see previous links)
They are two different monsters. One requires work, the other requires wealth. Those "handfuls" that are paying nothing (zip, zero, nada) in federal income taxes are largely the people who Obama and us on the left are talking about when we talk about fairness. If they even paid 15% on their income, that would still be less than I pay. How is that fair?
And if those minutia couldn't legally avoid taxes, that would be billions in the long run in revenues. You would have to tax millions and millions of poor to equal that. is that fair?
NO free ride for anyone. That's been my position from Day 1. What's hard to understand about that?
You hit the nail on the head. This is EXACTLY why it's not "fair" to zero in on the rich while completely ignoring the 47% of American's who pay ZERO federal income taxes.
Why should ANYONE.......rich, middle, or poor.....get a free ride?
I'm glad you finally understand.
Dude, I understand perfectly, always have. Now where's your numbers to prove that ALL 47% of zero income tax payers are able bodied persons getting a free ride?
As for your ANYONE comment, I put it to you that the elderly on a low fixed income have already been taxed enough. Just because it's income doesn't mean it should be taxable income. There is working income and non working income.
How much do you want to tax the old folks, anyway?
Should the 15% in poverty also pay their fair share?
Yup.
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.
