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.
Low earners should not pay taxes, so that business can grow, markets can grow, rewards trickle-up and EVERYONE wins?
No. Everyone should pay taxes. Eliminate the income tax and charge a flat VAT tax. Spend little = pay little in tax. Spend a lot = pay a lot in tax. It's directly proportionate to consumption of resources.
No poorer people are not necessarily paying state or city income taxes either.
I don't think a single mom making $15k should pay federal income taxes. Probably not a home owner at that salary so no property taxes to pay.
She is likely getting subsidized anyways by food stamps and possible section 8. In my state you don't pay sales tax on food in the supermarket. And anything purchase with food stamp money not sales taxed. So its likely someone like this is not paying hardly any taxes at all. What do you consider user taxes?
: smack::s mack:
Conservatives generally agree that taxes on business are passed through to consumers, and merely 'collected and remitted' by business, As such, landlords collect property taxes through the rent they charge, so renters cannot escape paying property taxes unless they escape paying rent. Landlords MUST be able to recoup ALL their costs (including property taxes) PLUS an acceptable profit; because they will sell unprofitable investments and put their money in a more profitable investment.
To illustrate, some years ago I approached the leader of a local landlord organization to propose a collaborative effort to reject an unfair tax on rental property. The leader said he'd consult his members for their opinion. A couple weeks later, the leader told me his members weren't interested, and that the members simply regarded the unfair tax as a cost of doing business, which was effectively borne by their tenants anyway.
In 36 states, property tax rates are higher on rental property than on owner-occupied primary residences, so in most states, renters pay more than their fair share of property taxes.
p.s. If renters magically escape property taxes, why don't homeowners sell their homes and avoid the burden of paying property taxes - instead of complaining about property taxes?
Well, a spotlight fallacy doesn't work. You have to look at a group's stats. Do the low-income have shorter lifespans? Yes. Do they still collect more in SS benefits than they paid in SS taxes, anyway? Yes. They're the only group that DOESN'T lose money on SS.
Cite, please! You think black men get back more than they pay into SS?
Yes, some do. In fact, 27% of all 1040 filers pay neither federal income tax NOR FICA because their refundable tax credits offset what they've paid in FICA and frequently even more beyond that.
Latest published tax data, for 2015. Source: left-wing think tank, Tax Policy Center...
A surprisingly large percentage (about 27%) of the income tax filing population isn't expected to contribute at all in regards to federal income and payroll taxes.
Federal Income Tax Units: 171.3 million (Excludes those who are dependents of other tax units) Federal Income Tax Payers: 93.8 million (Tax filers with a total federal individual income tax obligation of over $5 for the year, already withheld or not)
A tax unit is an individual tax return filer, or a married couple who file a tax return jointly, along with the inclusion of all (if any) dependents of that individual or married couple.
Tax Units with Zero or Negative Individual Income Tax:
77.5 million. 45.3% of all tax units.
Tax Units with Zero or Negative Sum of Income and Payroll Taxes:
Last I looked, childless taxpayers don't get refundable tax credits. EITC is DESIGNED to never give back to childless taxpayers more than they paid in.
FICA was sold as an insurance premium. Considering the people who don’t pay federal taxes will also get back more in SS than they paid in “premiums” I think it’s a fair statement.
"and the schools were private and charged tuition."
Really?
"The first free taxpayer-supported public school in North America, the Mather School, was opened in Dorchester, Massachusetts, in 1639."
"Republican governments during the Reconstruction era established the first public school systems to be supported by general taxes. Both whites and blacks would be admitted, but legislators agreed on racially segregated schools. (The few integrated schools were located in New Orleans)."
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.
