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.
Couldn't make your point without quoting the whole original sentence?
Backspace-
"We in the Tea Party complain that only a small number of Americans are taxed enough already, we pay more than our fair share while many (almost half) pay no income taxes at all."
The percentage that not only do not pay any taxes but get back more than what was temporarily taken from their paychecks is nothing short of welfare.
So tea partiers view half of Americans as welfare collecting tax cheats and they want to raise taxes on the poor and middle class, while lower it for the rich.
So what's this shared sacrifice thing I keep hearing liberals going on about? I think the poor should sacrifice the Earned Income Tax Credit that would be a start.
We in the Tea Party complain that only a small number of Americans are taxed enough already, we pay more than our fair share while many (almost half) pay no income taxes at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutchman01
Over half of all americans don't pay taxes at all.
It's easy to see what has been talked about on Fox "News" recently, or what some rightwinger is whining about ... and there are plenty of those in the GOP Presidential primaries. (It always cracks me up how so many politicians rail against "Washington" in their desperate attempts to be sent to Washington.)
Much has been made of TPC’s estimate that fully 46 percent of Americans will pay no federal individual income tax this year. Commentators have often misinterpreted that percentage as indicating that nearly half of Americans pay no taxes. In fact, however, many of those who don’t pay income tax do pay other taxes—federal payroll and excise taxes as well as state and local income, sales, and property taxes.
Point 1 - No knowledgeable person is saying than half of Americans pay no taxes, or pay no income taxes. That individuals running for political office may say these things, or give the impression of saying these things, is understandable - they would say ANYTHING to get elected (so they can go to the Washington they hate).
About 46 percent of American households will pay no federal individual income tax in 2011, roughly half of them because of structural features of the income tax that provide basic exemptions for subsistence level income and for dependents. The other half are nontaxable because tax expenditures— special provisions of the tax code that benefit selected taxpayers or activities—wipe out tax liabilities and, in the case of refundable credits, result in net payments from the government. Most important of those tax expenditures are provisions that benefit senior citizens and low-income working families with children. While those factors particularly affect lower-income households, different provisions eliminate taxes for other households. Itemized deductions and credits for children and education are more important for middle-income households, while the relatively few high-income nontaxable households benefit most from above-the-line and itemized deductions and reduced tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
Point 2 - People whose incomes are very low end up paying no federal income tax. That should be fairly easy to understand. And then there are individuals and families with sufficient income to trigger federal income taxation, but due to deductions and credits, end up paying no federal income tax.
Point 3 - The statement "About 46 percent of American households will pay no federal individual income tax in 2011" ... in the vast majority of cases, this statement refers to individuals or families who either don't earn enough to trigger federal income tax (after taking applicable deductions and credits) as well as individuals or families who do earn enough but have additional deductions (like mortgage interest) to lower their taxable income.
BUT, there are also some fairly well-to-do individuals and families who pay no federal income taxes. From the first link above:
Quote:
Higher-income households pay no tax because of other provisions. Itemized deductions and credits for children and education are a bigger factor for households with income between $50,000 and $100,000. The relatively few nontaxable households with income over $100,000 benefit most from above-the-line and itemized deductions and reduced tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
So what's this shared sacrifice thing I keep hearing liberals going on about? I think the poor should sacrifice the Earned Income Tax Credit that would be a start.
I think the Tea Party should be honest about the fact that they want to lower the taxes on super rich and want to raise taxes on the majority of Americans.
And the wealthy get it right back and then some. Drive through any exclusive neighborhood and notice the extra wide sidewalks and freshly paved streets. Look at the ulta-rich and their mansions on the coastline where my tax dollars are spent by the millions to pump sand back up on the beach to protect their property. Notice how the grass on county and state roads leading up to exclusive communites is always freshly cut compared to similar roads and highways leading to middle class America.......I'm sick and tired of subsidizing the wealthiest of Americans.
everything you just described is NOT from federal tax dollars, but from state and LOCAL tax(property) dollars
So tea partiers view half of Americans as welfare collecting tax cheats and they want to raise taxes on the poor and middle class, while lower it for the rich.
nope
we want FAIR and EQUAL taxes for all
why should we DISCRIMINATE against one group and have them pay 35% while another group pays 10% or none???
make everything FAIR and EQUAL....either a FLAT TAX... or better yet...a SPENDING TAX
I buy and sell things (in a niche market) regularly, and it's obvious how easy it is to not report income, but I can also see how easy it is to avoid a consumption tax. Let's say I buy something for $10 cash and sell it for $20 cash. What tax collector is going to know whether I am reporting that sale (and the ensuing remittance of the sales tax) accurately? I deal mostly with repeat customers, so if I were dishonest I could underreport sales to them and accurately report sales to new customers (because to cover my rear I must consider the possibility their purchase might be a sting to catch tax cheats).
I'm not a Fair Tax proponent, but I have looked into the details of it.
In the example that you provide, I would assume that you're buying used goods and reselling them for profit. The Fair Tax doesn't apply to used goods, therefore your activity wouldn't be taxable. The Fair Tax is only applied to the consumer consumption of new goods and of all services.
Now if you were buying new goods and reselling them, then under the Fair Tax you'd either be a licensed distributor, which would make your purchases tax free, or you'd be foolish, because you'd be eating the cost of the Free Tax on your purchase and trying to pass it on via resale. The Fair Tax isn't a Value Added Tax where the value added in each production step is taxed - its a consumption tax that is only collected at the point of sale of new goods and of all services.
I'm not a Fair Tax proponent, but I have looked into the details of it.
In the example that you provide, I would assume that you're buying used goods and reselling them for profit. The Fair Tax doesn't apply to used goods, therefore your activity wouldn't be taxable. The Fair Tax is only applied to the consumer consumption of new goods and of all services.
Now if you were buying new goods and reselling them, then under the Fair Tax you'd either be a licensed distributor, which would make your purchases tax free, or you'd be foolish, because you'd be eating the cost of the Free Tax on your purchase and trying to pass it on via resale. The Fair Tax isn't a Value Added Tax where the value added in each production step is taxed - its a consumption tax that is only collected at the point of sale of new goods and of all services.
I'm inclined to support a consumption tax. But one concern I have is that our economy is largely based on consumption. Presumably, if you tax consumption you'll get less of it. So I'm wondering about the potential negative effect on the overall economy of the consumption tax.
The economists who were paid to provide an economic analysis of the Fair Tax concede that introducing the Fair Tax would immediately force the nation into a recession and that federal tax revenue would actually fall. After two years, these economists predict that the nation would finally recover from the recession and that tax revenues would increase above levels previous to the implementation of the Fair Tax, an effect that they attribute to a lessening of the tax accounting burden on corporations and individuals. Of course, other economists not involved in the initial study claim otherwise, that the Fair Tax would actually have to be raised from 30% to 40% to ever have a chance to be revenue neutral.
Even worse, the economy is a service economy - most of the GDP is from the service industries. Under the Fair Tax all services are taxed. And as many a conservative Republican has told me, if you want less of something then tax it. The Fair Tax will have a dampening effect on GDP - quite frankly, it's a job killer.
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.
