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 bottom 50% pays little or no taxes. These people need to start carrying their own weight and stop relying on the rest of us to pick up the slack for them. I didn't suffer through all those years of college just so I could hand over more of my money to cover their portion of the tax revenue. I'm sick of dragging all this dead weight around.
Are you kidding me??
The bottom 50% pay more taxes per capita than the richest rich in America. What the hell are you talking about??
Do you even understand the meaning of proportionate taxing?
Is there some kind of tax on only the poor that's then given to the rich that I've somehow missed? Please... show us the tax of which you speak.
Actually, the poor experience zoning (and housing regulations generally) as effectively a tax on those unable to buy a home. This tax is experienced on the ground as 'rent' in excess of the cost of owning within one's means.
Specifically, if a person P can afford to own X (e.g. a tiny home on a tiny lot) at a cost of $X, but government does not allow the sale and occupancy of X, and P instead pays $Y to rent Y, then P effectively pays a tax of ($Y - $X) on housing.
This applies also to the non-poor who cannot buy a home, but not to those who voluntarily choose to rent.
This 'tax' is given directly to landlords in cash, and indirectly to property owners generally in the form of higher property values. Where 'split roll' property taxes prevail, the tax paid by renters also allows owner-occupants to enjoy preferential property tax rates.
Most refundable tax credits are from EITC and only available to the working poor with children. Mortgages don't generate tax credits, they're a deduction. Tax credits will actually pay you money back on top of no income tax if they work out that way. A negative income tax. Deductions can't take you beyond 0 tax due.
While refundable tax credits usually involve children, EITC was expanded in the '90s to include childless adults. But EITC without children is quite lame, maxing out under $500.
I sware when i hear this i don't know to laugh or get sick. Obviously there had to be some form of wealth redistrabution before that has made the 1% and the .01% so rich? Don't you think?
The question is, is it voluntary? For instance, if you go to a concert, a good portion of what you pay goes to the band. That money has NOT been "redistributed" in any economic sense. It is a voluntary transaction on both ends. The money that you pay for the enjoyment that you get. If 37% of what the band earns, that you voluntarily gave to them, is taken by the government and given back to you, that IS redistribution. If the band members give money to charity and that charity helps you, that is NOT redistribution. It's voluntary.
A market is also not a zero sum game. In anything resembling a free market, the pie itself is almost always growing. Bill Gates did not get rich by making other people poor.
Individual liberty and a market economy has changed life so much for so many that it's almost inconceivable. The poorest here would be middle or even upper class in other parts of the world. There are still hundreds of millions, if not over a billion, people existing on less than $1 a day. If your household brings in over $34,000 a year YOU are in that evil 1% on a worldwide basis. Yet all I hear is people complaining that the system that brought us to this level is somehow inherently evil and wrong because it doesn't give everyone everything they want.
I'm not saying that everything is great. Corporate welfare is just as bad, if not worse, than individual welfare. Politicians get votes by promising to take from the rich and give to the poor while taking money from the rich to make them even richer. The cronies get their subsidies and make a lot of their profits from their friends in office and regulations and licensing that leave would-be competitors unable to afford to even get started instead of actually earning their money by selling goods and services to people who want them at the lowest price possible. Businesses too big to fail get bailouts so they don't have to bear the costs of bad decisions. Since no one knows what the laws (or more important, regulations) are going to be 5 years from now so there's no long term planning and everyone gets everything they can today.
Passive Income: Income received on a regular basis with little effort required. Closely related to the concept of "unearned income""
- How much time do you work to pay for your school loan? The poor doesn't have to pay. - A poor person gets lets say... $300 every month on their EBT. How much do you work to earn that (after taxes)? - Housing asst, free phone, assisted electric, free or subsidized healthcare etc... How much do you work to pay for yours?
How much do you work to pay those bills? The poor get "passive income" that me and you have to work and earn W2 (highly taxed) income to pay for our bills and to pay for their bills. To build a passive income we, the W2 income worker has to do without, save, invest to build wealth in hopes of building enough that will give us passive income like the poor get.
So... how many years would you work, how much wealth (money) would you need to invest to receive the same passive income that the poor get from the tax payer? And they want someone else to pay more taxes? That is greed.
I'm poor and 10% of my income indefinitely goes to repaying my school loan. I did not qualify for any financial aid and because I did not qualify for financial aid, my NYS scholarship was worth only $100 per year for books.
I receive no EBT, no housing asst, no free phone, no free or subsidized healthcare etc.
It's always a risk. Landlords have to maintain their properties ESPECIALLY in college towns. There are laws, codes, and requirements, and tenant advocates MAKE SURE those are followed to the letter. And student renters? Really? Do you really need to be told how many trash their rentals and have no assets and therefore can't be sued for damages? And speaking of lawsuits, renters sue their landlords for any perceived defect as they're the ones with assets.
Yes, and I saw on the ground the economics of what you describe.
It was extremely profitable for landlords, who had a captive market and were able to fully pass along every regulation-driven cost increase.
The tightening regulatory climate DID drive out the amateurs and the small landlords, allowing a dozen or so bigger landlords to gain larger and larger market share, facilitating further rent increases. These larger landlords were able to professionalize their operations, minimizing their downside in the process.
Tenant advocates? Sue their landlords? The local political climate was quite hostile to students, so good luck with that!
p.s. my landlord had low-maintenance, long-term, non-student tenants. The (homeowner) neighbors were happy to have us in the neighborhood - beat the alternative heh). The downstairs family had 4 kids in a 2BR unit. You can bet government would have been all over the house, the occupants, and the landlord for three unrelated students. But the four brothers from West Virginia who went to college together would have been okay. Go figure.
I agree. The current system keeps the middle class trapped and the poor don't care as long as the tax payer funded EBT cards keep chugging out money, nor do the big banks care, who do people think is making big money managing those EBT cards and handouts? It's time for the middle class to stop worrying about the poor and start worrying about themselves first, then they could help the poor.
There are over 72,000 pages to the current tax code. If government really wanted to help they would simplify it so everyone would understand it without having to hire CPA's to decipher it so taxes are filed without errors. But they won't. It is easier to fool people who don't understand then it is to fool knowledgeable people. Knowledge is power and with a 72,000 tax code the people don't have the power.
First, consumption taxes are regressive by their nature. They reduce taxes for the wealthy, who consume less and tax lower income people, who spend all they earn.
Second, who cares how many pages are contained in the tax code? Most of it doesn't pertain to the vast majority and those who it does pertain have no trouble computing their taxes. Those provisions also perform a certain need.
Third, the middle class does very well with a progressive tax code and making it into a consumption tax is contrary to the interests of most taxpayers.
First, consumption taxes are regressive by their nature. They reduce taxes for the wealthy, who consume less and tax lower income people, who spend all they earn.
They know that. The idea of a flat consumption tax is just a backdoor way to further decrease taxes on the wealthy, while shifting further burden to the middle and lower class. They know that, but it sounds good on paper so they run with it.
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.
