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.
That 47% barely make enough to live on. If you required that they pay taxes, they'd be out on the street (which would result in a massive increase in robberies, burglaries, identity fraud, thefts, etc).
You should pay attention to your local police news and take note of how many crimes are committed by people living in social service housing, housing authority properties, the projects, and etc. It really is quite telling and largely defeats your "if we give them more that amounts to less crime" argument.
So you're saying that lower income people should have no skin in the game? After payroll taxes, they should get a free ride for the rest of America's bounty?
In other threads I have suggested a $100 minimum federal income tax per person to ensure that everyone pays something.
I support a tax system which is flat overall, since state and local taxes tend to be regressive, I think some progressivity at the bottom might be required to achieve overall flatness.
If we're talking about a free ride for the rest of America's bounty the wealthy are enjoying that, so maybe it's time for a wealth tax.
We're heard the narrative before, that there's a vast stream of federal money going to people who are sitting on their a$$es eating Cheetos instead of going out and earning a living instead. These people are being bred into dependence on Uncle Sam's tit and having their work ethics destroyed.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities decided to add up the numbers and figure out how much money the federal government spends on the nonworking poor. The answer: about 10 percent of all federal welfare spending.
I highly doubt the 47% is made up entirely of "poor people".
I would suggest that many of them are small businesses/sole proprietors, who's itemized deductions substantially reduce their actual income.
They have "skin in the game" by going out and spending money in order to operate their businesses. There is the opportunity for them to create jobs and put money back into the private sector by buying equipment and inventory.
I would submit that that's better for all concerned as a whole than giving the three or four grand a year they may spend in the course of operating their business to the Government.
If by, "Account for it", you mean, "Pretend it isn't important," then sure you did that.
But it sounds to me like you have the answer, and you just don't find it convenient. The bottom line is that "Federal Income Taxes" cover less than 1/3 of the U.S. government's spending.
The question isn't "how much of government spending does the federal income tax cover." The question is why shouldn't everyone who makes at least some income contribute at least some money?
That's not what he said. He said that the lower income demographic get the vast majority of services provided by taxpayers, which does not necessarily mean "sitting on their a$$es eating Cheetohs instead of going out and earning a living instead." Working households are very much apart of that demographic.
But for some reason, that's not what you got out of it. So we get another one of your massive deflective fails.
Is it possible for you to not deflect? Just once in your entire career on this forum?
Did it ever occur to you that we're not talking about state and local taxes?
Of course it did. But you're not capable of staying on topic because it doesn't feed in to the bullschit that you peddle as Barack Obama's mouthpiece.
No, I bring it up because if your claim is that poor people don't "have skin in the game," state and local taxes are a good part of that skin.
But it is clear why the right omits these facts, they are trying to mislead America into thinking that the poor get off scott free in terms of taxes. If America did what the right-wing wants -- raise taxes on the poor, the result would be that the poor pay a higher percentage of the income to taxes than anyone else. -- which is what the right-wing wants.
As the graph CLEARLY shows, when all taxes are considered, each income group pays close to their level of income. The idea that the rich pay all the taxes and the rest are freeloaders off the rich is a lie.
Let's talk "FAIR SHARE" for a moment.
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?
Does this percentage include millionaires that fall in that category? I must because of this statement of yours accusing others of class warfare...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
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?
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.
Repost - 1
