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.
The magic number of people not working and drawing a government entitlement of some sort such as welfare or union benefits is rapidly approaching and the rest will be a minority; I can only see one party rule.
The poor do not pay income tax and if they get government entitlements they do pay sales tax, but think a minute, doesn't the government give them the money to pay the sales tax with?
The poor do not pay income tax and if they get government entitlements they do pay sales tax but think a minute, doesn't the government give them the money to pay the tax with?
Yes they do.
That's why a sales tax is fair. You only pay for what you use.
Most food is npt taxed. People get food stamps, buy food and
still pay no tax.
The rich would pay what they use, poor pay for what they use.
The poor do not pay income tax and if they get government entitlements they do pay sales tax, but think a minute, doesn't the government give them the money to pay the sales tax with?
Actually some poor people do pay income taxes, especially those who don't have mortgage interest to write off (which many poor people do not have) and/ or have kids under 18.
However, even putting that aside for now, fact of the matter is that type of sales tax would sharply increase the tax burden of the poor, and sharply decrease the tax burden of the wealthy.
Any sales tax is considered regressive, especially as it tends to hit the poor disproportionately harder.
Just for argument's sake my total tax hit (federal, MD Income tax, local income tax, SS) is around 40%+. Any increase in federal income tax triggers an automatic increase in MD and local income tax. Also the way my pension (MD pension system) is set up takes it from post tax income and then is taxed again when I receive it.
Last edited by North Beach Person; 08-06-2010 at 02:54 PM..
Reason: spelling
In 2004, that's how much of the nation's wealth the bottom 25% held.
Here's another number:
13%
That's how much the middle 50% had (25.1-74.9% on the wealth scale)
And finally:
87%
There's your top 25%.
Somewhat misleading as it doesn't seem to consider the wealth accumulated in retirement accounts/pension plans. Chew on this:
Quote:
Over roughly the past half century, working people have bought up a huge chunk of big business. And union-sponsored pension plans rank among the biggest institutional investors. Working people, both union and non-union, now own a piece - and often a big piece - of just about everything in business, from multinational corporations to mini-malls down the street.
If you're a working person who contributes to a pension fund, mutual fund, or life insurance policy with a savings component, you're one of the new owners of big business (and many small businesses), too. ...This shift of business ownership from rich people to working people may be the greatest economic transformation since the Industrial Revolution.
So what does all this mean? Well, for starters, it should lead to an end of complaints about the profits of corporations and allegations about 'greedy corporations.' After all, much of that profit now goes toward the current and future retirement incomes of working people.
And of course the always consistent heartlessness of 'InformedConsent'.
I don't think it's heartless to expect everyone to have skin in the game. I'm far from the only one who holds that belief. The problem is the high percentage of the population (47% of American households pay no federal income tax whatsoever) that can vote themselves ever increasing amounts of government freebies and entitlements paid for by someone else (those who actually do pay federal income tax).
Neither our government leaders nor some of you have heeded this warning:
"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." - Elmer T. Peterson paraphrasing Alexis de Tocqueville in the December 9th, 1951 edition of The Daily Oklahoman
We've had half a dozen threads on this topic so next time do a little searching so that the rest of us don't have to keep answering stupid questions over and over.
The short answer is retired people normally don't make enough to pay Federal income taxes. As the baby boomers all hit retirement age ever more of the population is becoming retired and so ends up not paying net income tax.
well if you seen this before then you would have ignored this thread and ask for a merger instead of respond some people dont want to read old ass threads
I don't think it's heartless to expect everyone to have skin in the game. I'm far from the only one who holds that belief. The problem is the high percentage of the population (47% of American households pay no federal income tax whatsoever) that can vote themselves ever increasing amounts of government freebies and entitlements paid for by someone else (those who actually do pay federal income tax).
Neither our government leaders nor some of you have heeded this warning:
"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." - Elmer T. Peterson paraphrasing Alexis de Tocqueville in the December 9th, 1951 edition of The Daily Oklahoman
Seems we're in the midst of the collapse...
Are you in favor of the mortgage interest deductions, property tax deductions, and child credits??
That's why a sales tax is fair. You only pay for what you use.
Most food is npt taxed. People get food stamps, buy food and
still pay no tax.
The rich would pay what they use, poor pay for what they use.
It's fair.
Regressive taxation is fair? Trust me, I don't mind paying more in taxes now that I make nearly three times more than I did a decade ago. I could use more of my money then to pay for goods and services rather than in taxes. Now, I don't mind it.
In fact, didn't Adam Smith talk about fairness of burden?
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.
