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 title of the thread contains the keyphrase "Federal income tax". Zimbo said nothing to refute the argument since local and state taxes aren't the subject of the discussion. If the title of the thread said they paid no taxes, then the argument would be valid. Unfortunately for both of you, it's not.
Exactly. Two strikes against liberalism in the first two pages of the thread. I expected obtusity and obfuscation, but I didn't expect it to come so early and with so much ignorance.
Nope. The question is specific to federal income tax, so discussion of any other taxes is a subject for another thread.
psst... Your agenda is showing.
The correct answer ( the one you don't want to talk about) is fairly simple. It's fair for FIT to be progressive, because deficit spending and payroll taxes are regressive, and policy governing private sector monetary policy is extremely regressive.
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?"
1) I consider a person's "fair share" of federal income taxes to be a flat rate on all discretionary income. Since I don't know how much of the total discretionary income the "rich" (or the top 1%, top 5% etc) have, I don't know what their "fair share" is.
2) Payroll taxes are regressive, especially in the context that lower income people on average have shorter lifespans than the rest of us. This means the poor and working class are more likely to pay into Social Security and Medicare for decades and to die before taking money out of these programs. To insist they pay "more" federal income taxes on top of the payroll taxes just makes their tax burden even more regressive.
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).
1) I consider a person's "fair share" of federal income taxes to be a flat rate on all discretionary income. Since I don't know how much of the total discretionary income the "rich" (or the top 1%, top 5% etc) have, I don't know what their "fair share" is.
2) Payroll taxes are regressive, especially in the context that lower income people on average have shorter lifespans than the rest of us. This means the poor and working class are more likely to pay into Social Security and Medicare for decades and to die before taking money out of these programs. To insist they pay "more" federal income taxes on top of the payroll taxes just makes their tax burden even more regressive.
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?
Yes. why shouldn't they? They certainly get more government services than any other demographic.
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.
...
The claim behind these critiques is clear: federal spending on entitlements and other mandatory programs through which individuals receive benefits is promoting laziness, creating a dependent class of Americans who are losing the desire to work and would rather collect government benefits than find a job.
Such beliefs are starkly at odds with the basic facts regarding social programs, the analysis finds. Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percentof the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.
...
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).
So they shouldn't have any skin the game beyond payroll taxes? Being lower income (which does not necessarily equate to poverty) means a free ride?
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.
