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.
Why is everyone saying how people making what I do(under 30,000) pay no income tax? I pay federal and state income tax and I get no benefits like child tax credit,food stamps and all that crap.
What do you call people who live to work in not self-interest
Oh, besides the drama, you also live on half cooked servings... This is what I said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
What do you call people who live to work in not self-interest, but in others' interests? Besides, are you also suggesting that these people choose to earn less? Because if they didn't, they would be paying taxes, no?
Pathetic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatles4evr
One more time, it is about U.S. (United States) Federal Personal Income Tax, and no others.
Good. So now that you know, what tax were you talking about? Federal Income tax?
1) People of all ilk vote for politicans that promise them both benefits and tax cuts. Everyone wants something for nothing, even the rich. Case in point, California, where ballot initiatives have called for more and more spending without funding, since a previous initiative requires a 2/3 majority to raise taxes.
2) The rich can buy votes more effectively than the poor can elect true, uncorruptable candidates. This is a problem made worse by Citizens United, which allows SuperPACs of wealthy donors to heavily influence smaller races. Lets say we wanted to eliminated the carried interest exemption that allows hedge fund managers to treat their income as capital gains and pay a 15% tax rate. Do you realize how few people even understand that issue? Few politicans are going to tackle it if doing so means their opponent in the next election will suddenly have a million dollars of SuperPAC money running negative ads.
3) You're not going to magically make someone more responsible by taking away money they need to live. You're just going to make them poorer, and angrier.
4) Government spending is not out of control, except on the military. That's a conservative lie. As a share of GDP, it's the same as it's always been.
The mechanism of having to pay, at least in some small part, the sort of programs (wasteful or responsible) proposed and supported by the their ballot-box choices, will they tend to not vote for run-away entitlement spending funded by 'everyone else'.
One of the reasons Soc. Sec won't get fixed is that Congress-critters are NOT covered by it. If they had to suffer the insults of their dereliction, they would soon fix it, but they don't, so they don't. Ditto for non-tax-paying voters. They don't suffer the penalty of voting for irresponsible tax-and-spenders, so they don't have a reason in the world to vote against them, and every reason in the world (they'll get the largesse from their fellow citizens who actually pay taxes), to vote for them.
Like home ownership, having skin in the game will make them more-responsible, and perhaps work harder to be a more-productive citizen.
As far as spending and debt is concerned Obama the Destroyer has run up more debt in three years than Bush did in 8. Out of control.
47% of tax filers, pay zero or less (80% of the 47% "pay" less then $0) in income tax.
The top 1% of income earners, earn about 20% of all income earned, but pay about 40% of all income taxes paid (not their rate, but their total contribution expressed as a percent of the whole contribution from all taxpers).
Finally, we are talking about income tax, not wealth tax. You can have billions in gold bullion and pay nothing in income tax, because it is a tax on income, not wealth.
Oops. I did misread that. But point still stands, in an altered way.
Paying 47% of the income taxes and paying 47% of their income in taxes are two different things. Something often misunderstood. If the rich control 60-80% of the wealth in the nations, that 47% isn't proportional.
Still valid. Numbers are just wrong now. Context is off.
Quote:
Means those not paying income tax aren't making enough. We've had stagnant wages for decades now.
Still valid without any altering.
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.
