• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

American Millionaires: 1,400 Paid No U.S. Income Taxes In 2009

Yes and why exactly is that.... because they are not earning enough to be able to pay freaking income tax. Seriously this discussion.. or debate from the US right always forgets to mention WHY there are so many that dont pay taxes.

Looking at the income distribution... 70+% of Americans earn LESS than the median income... and if we use the OECD standard for poverty (60% of the median income of a country) then a whopping 55% of American's live in or are close to poverty. (Note by population I mean between 15 and 65 years of age).

So there is a reason so many American's dont pay taxes.. because their income is below the many deductibles there are out there........

so let me ask you this... is 30 k a year middle class?

I always seem to have to point this out. Thanks for doing it for me this time!

Half of the US population is lower class right now, making so little that we deem them too poor to contribute. Isn't that just plain stupid? From an economic point of view, wouldn't it be better for these people to be making enough to live comfortably, paying taxes, consuming luxuries, and putting money through the economy? A wealthy nation is built on a vast middle class, not upon the backs of the destitute. Get those 47% out of poverty, and we will ALL be richer for it.
 
The more I talk to the class warfare people the more I realize it's not about the money. It's not about taxes at all... it's about social justice and what's "fair" and whatever that means to the ideological folks who espouse that. I think all political groups can agree the amount NOT be paid by such a vast minority will not make a blip on any economic radar.

We hear reports from Fox News and other Republican outlets about the 47% statistic all the time. They never mention that they don't pay taxes because they don't earn enough.

Liberal outlets essentially do the same thing by pointing out a group of millionaires that don't pay taxes without explaining why they didn't pay taxes and it's suddenly a "cheap shot".

Don't get me wrong, I think both stats are retarded and don't really speak to the issue, but what's good for the goose...

On a related note. Why is it that the American people can bail out Wall Street, but when the American people need help Wall Street (read upper income brackets) aren't willing to bail us out by way of closing tax loop holes and returning tax brackets to their normal level?

Seems like a one sided relationship to me.
 
On a related note. Why is it that the American people can bail out Wall Street, but when the American people need help Wall Street (read upper income brackets) aren't willing to bail us out by way of closing tax loop holes and returning tax brackets to their normal level?

Seems like a one sided relationship to me.

Two different things IMO. They may overlap but still two different things. I don't support raising taxes on the "rich". (that doesn't mean they should be paying nothing) I do support making taxes on capital gains the same as regular income and I do support a tax on trades.
 
I always seem to have to point this out. Thanks for doing it for me this time!

Half of the US population is lower class right now, making so little that we deem them too poor to contribute. Isn't that just plain stupid? From an economic point of view, wouldn't it be better for these people to be making enough to live comfortably, paying taxes, consuming luxuries, and putting money through the economy? A wealthy nation is built on a vast middle class, not upon the backs of the destitute. Get those 47% out of poverty, and we will ALL be richer for it.

Well it depends on the answer to my question.. is 30k a year middle class?.. 40 k? 50K?.. how about 55k?
 
Well it depends on the answer to my question.. is 30k a year middle class?.. 40 k? 50K?.. how about 55k?

30k a year won't cover basic expenses in a lot of places. So no, 30k is not enough to be middle class. If a trip to the emergency room is outside your disposable income, you are not middle class. If you have to run on a broken car because you can't afford to fix it, then you're not middle class. If you can't afford a few luxuries, you're not middle class. 30k a year still means living paycheck to paycheck. That is not middle class.
 
They're probably retirees who've built themselves a nice nest egg or something.

Oh yeah, well they need to hand that nest egg over to Obama.
 
That is because their actions were not evidenced to us as anything other than routine, normal, ethical, and legal. Notice the huffington post drops an irrelevant claim, and then doesn't back it up. People on DP do more evidence-backing than the article, or the OP.

You really think it's odd that out of 250K people, that 1400 may have had sufficient deductions, loses, or paid in already last year, etc., that they might end up technically not owing (but routinely pay federal income in other years, etc.)?

No, I don't think it odd at all. As I've said, they're $1 million wage earners. As such, they have more opportuties to invest their earnings in tax shelters than the guy making $54k/yr. I don't begrudge them; I just get tired of hearing the same old one-sided argument where taxation is concerned, that a working-man making just over the poverty limit should pay more with less than a person who has more but pays nothing. Both are consumers. Both contribute to the national economy via consumption - purchasing goods and services. Critics call the working-poor mooches; I call many among the "super-rich" greedy when they show themselves unwilling to contribute more when the country is in economic crisis and many among them are at fault for bringing us to this point. But, the less fortunate played a role in this, too. You just have to ask yourself whose more at fault: the poor who were just trying to do better for themselves, or the wealthy who only saw dollar signs?

Now, to be fair there are many among the poor and working-poor who do come running to Uncle Sam with their hand out looking for all they can get. I blame the States for this because they encourage such behavior moreso than they do to change the laws and establish restrictions/limits for use of such state/federal programs. It's like that free cellphone issue that's being discussed in this forum; if those who see that program as something that undeserving poor people are taking advantage of, i.e., getting the lastest iPhone when a cheap-o cellphone will do, I say report such abuses accordingly. Do what you can to change the system. But to label everyone who needs help as lazy is about as foolish as labeling all wealthy individuals as greedy and heartless.
 
Last edited:
And why does this situation exist Mach?

Go back and see who the president of the USA was that proposed the mechanism that created the monster you and others on the right like to attack at every opportunity.

Does the name of George Bush II mean anything to you?

Do the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 mean anything to you?

Do you realize that 91% of the YES votes in Congress to pass those two tax cuts which created the 47% who do not pay federal income taxes came from REPUBLICANS?

While you decide to attack the 47% at every possible convenient opportunity, it would be fair and just for you to extend some of your ire and contempt for the REPUBLICANS who created that mechanism.

My contempt is for

1) those who say the rich need to pay even more taxes-income and death taxes-when so many pay nothing

2) those who demand so much government that the government "NEEDS" so much taxes

that is where the contempt ought to be directed at
 
My contempt is for

1) those who say the rich need to pay even more taxes-income and death taxes-when so many pay nothing

2) those who demand so much government that the government "NEEDS" so much taxes

that is where the contempt ought to be directed at


The rich demand government to protect their way of life. And it ain't cheap.
 
The more I talk to the class warfare people the more I realize it's not about the money. It's not about taxes at all... it's about social justice and what's "fair" and whatever that means to the ideological folks who espouse that. I think all political groups can agree the amount NOT be paid by such a vast minority will not make a blip on any economic radar.

I have been saying this for years-some people think the purposes of the income and death taxes are

1) to make society fair-meaning to avenge those who were born

a) stupid
b) untalented
c) unathletic
d) ugly
e) prone to obesity
f) to uncaring parents, or worse only one parent
g) poor
h) in an area with bad schools
i) handicapped

2) to punish those who were "given" breaks such as being

a) smart
b) pretty
c) the children of talented caring parents
d) athletically talented
e) born into wealthy homes


etc. Objectively fair for the proper purposes of taxes should reference share of income or share of use of government service. Not all the crap that those who think taxes should even things up.

One can not seriously claim that the top one percent are not paying enough (ie not paying their fair share) UNLESS they are taking into account other things
 
Last edited:
The rich demand government to protect their way of life. And it ain't cheap.

the rich demand no more than the poor

the rich tend to live in areas where there isn't much crime and tend to have well constructed homes with good locks and alarms

most violent crime is poor on poor or poor on lower middle class

and your laughably pathetic claim suggests that one guy who pays a million in taxes a year uses more protection than 140 million who pay nothing

complete and under BS
 
One can not seriously claim that the top one percent are not paying enough (ie not paying their fair share) UNLESS they are taking into account other things


The more you have the more it costs to protect. Right now the rich are getting the better end of the deal.
 
We hear reports from Fox News and other Republican outlets about the 47% statistic all the time. They never mention that they don't pay taxes because they don't earn enough.

Liberal outlets essentially do the same thing by pointing out a group of millionaires that don't pay taxes without explaining why they didn't pay taxes and it's suddenly a "cheap shot".

Don't get me wrong, I think both stats are retarded and don't really speak to the issue, but what's good for the goose...

On a related note. Why is it that the American people can bail out Wall Street, but when the American people need help Wall Street (read upper income brackets) aren't willing to bail us out by way of closing tax loop holes and returning tax brackets to their normal level?

Seems like a one sided relationship to me.


47% cannot pay a dime of income tax

My BS detector just redlined over that complete nonsense
 
That is because their actions were not evidenced to us as anything other than routine, normal, ethical, and legal. Notice the huffington post drops an irrelevant claim, and then doesn't back it up. People on DP do more evidence-backing than the article, or the OP.

You really think it's odd that out of 250K people, that 1400 may have had sufficient deductions, loses, or paid in already last year, etc., that they might end up technically not owing (but routinely pay federal income in other years, etc.)?

It's quite unlikely that you'll get a response to this because people don't care about the facts but rather the simplistic statistics, that can have multiple and varied meanings, that they don't truly understand.

Ignorance rules the day.
 
Last edited:
The more you have the more it costs to protect. Right now the rich are getting the better end of the deal.


Prove that lie

you are just making stuff up

if there is an invasion you are saying the army spends 1 million times more effort protecting a 25 acre estate where the property is worth 100K an acre versus 4 square miles of East LA or the South Bronx?

you seem to think the government will rebuild my house etc if there is a wr

your made up arguments are really pathetic. people like me have up to date insurance, we live in areas where our property taxes fund top of the line police and fire departments, we have smoke and CO detectors, alarms etc.

come up with a better facade to serve as a pretext for the class envy
 
Prove that lie


FDIC insurance, the guy with one dollar in the bank will cost less than the guy with one hundred dollars in the bank should the bank go belly up.

you want the protection pay for it.
 
It's not a joke but it's incomplete. It doesn't state a single reason why they paid no taxes. I'm curious.

Stating the reason, explaining it, would greatly undermine the purpose of this article, to make the lower class readers of Huffpo scream in outrage that their "right to (fill in govt hand out here)" might be endangered by these greedy selfish millionaires that don't pay taxes.
 
FDIC insurance, the guy with one dollar in the bank will cost less than the guy with one hundred dollars in the bank should the bank go belly up.

you want the protection pay for it.

that assumes the bank goes belly up-try again, its only covered to 200K and again that ignores the fact that every millionaire pays more income taxes than over 80Million Americans
 
315_cartoon_shovel_ready_hurwitt_large.jpg
 
that assumes the bank goes belly up-try again, its only covered to 200K and again that ignores the fact that every millionaire pays more income taxes than over 80Million Americans


Banks do go belly up. Oh and:

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][COLOR=#0000000]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Temporary Unlimited FDIC Coverage for Noninterest-Bearing Transaction Accounts

FDIC: Dodd-Frank Act - Frequently Asked Questions

I figured Mr. Rich lawyer guy would know this already.



[/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 
Stating the reason, explaining it, would greatly undermine the purpose of this article, to make the lower class readers of Huffpo scream in outrage that their "right to (fill in govt hand out here)" might be endangered by these greedy selfish millionaires that don't pay taxes.

As far as we know, they may have a case here.
 
Banks do go belly up. Oh and:

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][COLOR=#0000000]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Temporary Unlimited FDIC Coverage for Noninterest-Bearing Transaction Accounts

FDIC: Dodd-Frank Act - Frequently Asked Questions

I figured Mr. Rich lawyer guy would know this already.



[/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

who is going to be hurt more-a millionaire and his 200K or one of those salt of the earth types and his life savings? Few millionaires I know keep more than 50-60K in a bank account-it doesn't earn enough money there
 
Banks do go belly up. Oh and:

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][COLOR=#0000000]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Temporary Unlimited FDIC Coverage for Noninterest-Bearing Transaction Accounts

FDIC: Dodd-Frank Act - Frequently Asked Questions

I figured Mr. Rich lawyer guy would know this already.



[/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

what I do know is how lame your facades you throw up to hide your real reasons are
 
who is going to be hurt more-a millionaire and his 200K or one of those salt of the earth types and his life savings? Few millionaires I know keep more than 50-60K in a bank account-it doesn't earn enough money there


Are you trying to do the back stroke now?

trying-the-back-stroke.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom