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.
For example does a homeless person benefit from government patent protection services?
Patent protection is the same as any anti theft law and the enforcement is a public service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Those age 65+ are 13% of the population. Some of them are still working so the percentage of those paying no federal income tax would be less than that. If you have the population percentages of working (and therefore tax-eligible) students who pay and do not pay federal income tax, that would aid in this discussion. Likewise, the percentage of the working disabled (and therefore tax-eligible) who pay and do not pay federal income tax would be also helpful.
I'm not sure what the percentage of the enitre population is. It does seem like a sizable portion are working, but just don't make much. If we are to take away the tax credits they would likely pay, but we would have to take away take credits for everyone.
50 percent are in this category because their incomes are so low that they are less than the sum of the standard deduction and personal and dependent exemptions for which the household qualifies. As TPC Senior Fellow Roberton Williams has noted, “the basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax.”** Some 62 percent of the households who will owe no federal income tax in 2011 have incomes under $20,000.
Another 22 percent do not owe federal income tax because they are elderly people who benefit from tax provisions to aid senior citizens, such as the exemption of Social Security benefits from income tax for beneficiaries who have incomes below $25,000 for single filers and $32,000 for joint filers and the higher standard deduction for the elderly.
Another 15 percent (of the households who don’t owe federal income tax) don’t owe the tax because they are low-income working families with children who qualify for the child tax credit, the child and dependent care tax credit, and/or the earned income tax credit, and the credit(s) eliminate their income tax liability.***
If her property value goes up 20% as a result of restrictive zoning and housing policies, that doesn't show up on her tax chart either.
Because it's an unrealized gain that may just as well turn into an actual loss when the property is sold, depending on real estate market conditions at the time of the sale.
Sounds like you're a statist who believes government should be the arbiter of what willing property owners are allowed to sell.
No, it's the local VOTERS who elect the local government officials (and therefore approve their appointees) that are the arbiters of what willing property owners are allowed to sell.
These services and benefits are going to PARENTS comparatively. Not so much to childless adults.
You're getting the same federal government benefits and services that the middle class gets, but paying more than 50% less for them. What are you complaining about?
Ya see no I don't because I am not talking about tax liability. I am talking about net benefits. Try attaching user fees to the military and lest get started.
The net benefits of military expenditure to defend property are enoumously higher for the rich then for people who have no property.
Don't bother. This person's hate for the lower class clouds their judgement.
Ya see no I don't because I am not talking about tax liability. I am talking about net benefits. Try attaching user fees to the military and lest get started.
The net benefits of military expenditure to defend property are enoumously higher for the rich then for people who have no property.
That makes no sense. Explain how the rich get more military protection than any other U.S. resident, even the illegal immigrants.
I don't think there is an answer that you'll accept. But it's because they are poor and least responsible. They have always had more children, this isn't an American welfare issue, look around the world. THE POOR ALWAYS HAVE MORE KIDS. You just can't see the big picture and care more about punishing those people.
They're not punished. They're supported by artificial means. Those who are punished are those who have no control over the poor's irresponsibility but have to pay for it anyway.
That makes no sense. Explain how the rich get more military protection than any other U.S. resident, even the illegal immigrants.
The rich have more to lose, but I would add police protection in there as well. It's not a very fair comparison though. The rich pay more for police presence and receive more service as a result. My neighbor called the cops once and it took them 5 minutes to get here AND the police apologized for taking so long - turns out they made a wrong turn somewhere, but in another part of town the response time is close to 30 minutes.
That makes no sense. Explain how the rich get more military protection than any other U.S. resident, even the illegal immigrants.
Don't the rich have more to lose?
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.
