• 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!

45 % of americans pay no federal income tax.

iguanaman said:
So you think rates should be based on what people CAN'T afford to pay?
Click to expand...

I already pointed out the absurdity of your claim.

mortgage deduction alone shows how little the tax rate is based on capability to pay.
 
The problem with looking at tax issues in only the context of income taxes is that there are many other forms of taxes that are really regressive that counterbalances the progressive rates for income taxes. For example, fuel is taxed pretty heavily at the pump and that takes a significantly bigger % of the income for the lower class. This is also true for property taxes.

Consumption or VAT taxes are generally not fair, imo, or they would be needlessly complicated to adjust for things like not taxing goods that are considered necessities (e.g. food). But who gets to be the arbiter of what is considered a necessity? Is a cell phone a necessity? How about a car?

Fact is, everyone should have some skin in the game and the only way to really do it in a manner that is neither regressive or progressive (in other words fair) is a flat tax. Everyone pays a certain set % and there is no such thing as tax returns. This would save a lot of money and also reduce corruption.
 
iguanaman said:
Many if not most Americans spend all they make every year so that is 100% being taxed. The wealthy often spend 10% or less of their income leaving 90% tax free. It also is an economy killer to penalize spending in a consumer based economy where 75% of our GDP is consumer spending.
Click to expand...

actually not really. it makes sense to go where the money is.

it isn't 100% taxed and well I can prove with just a bit of math.

so lets take a family of 4 that spends 25,000 a year. they have a tax liability of 5750. their prebate is 6767.
for a tax liability of -4%. not only did they not pay taxes they had a negative tax rate.

the person that spent 2m dollars has a tax liability of 460k they get the same 6767 prebate. for a effective
tax rate of 23%.

hmmm there goes your theory they are taxed 100%. -4% compared to 23%.

a family of 4 could spend up to 30k tax free.
if you take a really poor family that only spent 15k a year
they have a tax liability of 3,450. they get a tax prebate of 6767. they have a negative tax of -22%.
 
KLATTU said:
45% of Americans pay no federal income tax - MarketWatch
Despite the fact that rich people paying little in the way of income taxes makes plenty of headlines, this is the exception to the rule: The top 1% of taxpayers pay a higher effective income-tax rate than any other group (around 23%, according to a report released by the Tax Policy Center in 2014) — nearly seven times higher than those in the bottom 50%.

On average, those in the bottom 40% of the income spectrum end up getting money from the government. Meanwhile, the richest 20% of Americans, by far, pay the most in income taxes, forking over nearly 87% of all the income tax collected by Uncle Sam.

Rich people pay nearly 87% of all federal individual income tax in America.
Click to expand...

No ****?

Next you're gonna tell me that the people that own property are the ones paying property taxes? Or that the ones buying the most stuff are paying the most in sales tax?
 
akrunner88 said:
But it's tyranny that they don't pay taxes :roll:

It's a consumption based economy people. And the poor and middle class do most of the consuming. Get over it.
Click to expand...

that person that buys that 120k Porsche would pay more tax than someone else.
 
Fishking said:
The problem with looking at tax issues in only the context of income taxes is that there are many other forms of taxes that are really regressive that counterbalances the progressive rates for income taxes. For example, fuel is taxed pretty heavily at the pump and that takes a significantly bigger % of the income for the lower class. This is also true for property taxes.

Consumption or VAT taxes are generally not fair, imo, or they would be needlessly complicated to adjust for things like not taxing goods that are considered necessities (e.g. food). But who gets to be the arbiter of what is considered a necessity? Is a cell phone a necessity? How about a car?

Fact is, everyone should have some skin in the game and the only way to really do it in a manner that is neither regressive or progressive (in other words fair) is a flat tax. Everyone pays a certain set % and there is no such thing as tax returns. This would save a lot of money and also reduce corruption.
Click to expand...

We have a progressive income tax because it taxes income not spent at a higher rate which is a stimulant to our consumer economy and a method to put the lid on income disparity. You would abandon that because either you don't want a faster growing economy or you want income disparity to increase exponentially. Which is it?
 
Last edited:
The almost criminal part, is what the federal Government cost for each of us.
2015 expenditures 3.688 Trillion
2015 population 320 million.
Cost of Government services $11,525 per person per year.
 
iguanaman said:
We have a progressive income tax because it taxes income not spent at a higher rate which is a stimulant to our consumer economy and a method to put the lid on income disparity. You would abandon that because either you don't want a faster growing economy or you want income disparity to increase exponentially. Which is it?
Click to expand...

You've left out some other options that are on the table. For example, I believe in strong property rights. What's yours is yours and if we have to pool our money together to pay for common things then everyone pays equally (percent based). You do not gain any moral high-ground voting to take away money from other people to be used in a way that you deem is more appropriate. One of the main causes of the American Revolution was a lack of property rights.
 
KLATTU said:
45% of Americans pay no federal income tax - MarketWatch
Despite the fact that rich people paying little in the way of income taxes makes plenty of headlines, this is the exception to the rule: The top 1% of taxpayers pay a higher effective income-tax rate than any other group (around 23%, according to a report released by the Tax Policy Center in 2014) — nearly seven times higher than those in the bottom 50%.

On average, those in the bottom 40% of the income spectrum end up getting money from the government. Meanwhile, the richest 20% of Americans, by far, pay the most in income taxes, forking over nearly 87% of all the income tax collected by Uncle Sam.

Rich people pay nearly 87% of all federal individual income tax in America.
Click to expand...

So what? Not everybody pays tax on capital gains, either. Another load unfairly borne by the wealthy, right?

This is a useless number, more gas to fill political footballs. If you want a truer picture, you have to look at the total tax load paid by everybody; FICA, income, sales, business, property, state, and local. FICA taxes and consumption taxes fall more heavily on the poor - where is the outrage? Where is the call for fairness?
 
Citizen.Seven said:
Of course. The "it's not your fault, it's their fault" is like catnip: remove responsibility for failure, as well as provide a target for revenge. Make it a small group politically (1%), but of course the retaliatory policies will trickle down to those at lower levels.
Click to expand...

If you missed it, take a glance at my sig below.
 
iguanaman said:
So you think rates should be based on what people CAN'T afford to pay?
Click to expand...

No. I think rates should be fair, meaning everyone has to contribute. All people pulling the wagon, not just a few pulling and a lot sitting on their ass in the wagon doing nothing but getting free ride.
 
iguanaman said:
And anything you make them pay comes right out of our GDP in reduced spending. What does that get you? Taxing those that spend all they make in the economy is self-defeating. We need to tax money NOT spent at a higher rate if we want to grow the economy and raise revenue.
Click to expand...

Oh Geez. Here we go again with liberal economics. It is the rich's duty to take care of everyone.
 
KLATTU said:
45% of Americans pay no federal income tax - MarketWatch
Despite the fact that rich people paying little in the way of income taxes makes plenty of headlines, this is the exception to the rule: The top 1% of taxpayers pay a higher effective income-tax rate than any other group (around 23%, according to a report released by the Tax Policy Center in 2014) — nearly seven times higher than those in the bottom 50%.

On average, those in the bottom 40% of the income spectrum end up getting money from the government. Meanwhile, the richest 20% of Americans, by far, pay the most in income taxes, forking over nearly 87% of all the income tax collected by Uncle Sam.

Rich people pay nearly 87% of all federal individual income tax in America.
Click to expand...
Good grief. Haven't we been through all this before?

1) There are plenty of taxes other than federal income taxes. Payroll taxes, sales taxes, real estate taxes to name a few.

2) 3/5 of those who don't pay federal income taxes are workers. Most of these qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit, a bipartisan tax break for the working poor.

3) Another reason? People collecting Social Security. Most of those have paid taxes into that system for decades.

As to taxes.... The top 20%? They earn somewhere north of 60% of all the income in the US. Given that we have a progressive tax system, and that on average tax rates are near 30-year lows, paying 69% of total federal taxes is hardly an extortionate figure.
 
Beaudreaux said:
No. I think rates should be fair, meaning everyone has to contribute. All people pulling the wagon, not just a few pulling and a lot sitting on their ass in the wagon doing nothing but getting free ride.
Click to expand...
Erm.... That is not even REMOTELY what is happening. As I wrote to Klaatu:

There are many other types of taxes people pay, notably payroll taxes, real estate taxes, sales taxes.

3/5 of those who don't pay federal income taxes do in fact work, meaning that at a minimum, they're subject to payroll taxes. Roughly 20-25% are seniors, who are collecting Social Security.

The top 20% earns roughly 60% of all income in the US, and they pay roughly 69% of all federal taxes. That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an extortionate rate. It's also close to the lowest it's been in 30 years.

So, it really is not the case that there are 45 million slackers who refuse to contribute. Most of them work or are retired.
 
Moderate Right said:
Oh Geez. Here we go again with liberal economics. It is the rich's duty to take care of everyone.
Click to expand...

Its' not about duty, it is simple economics. Taking money from those that spend all their income in the economy is self-defeating because their spending is reduced by the amount of the tax. Taxing those that spend a small % of their income at a higher rate is only common sense if you don't want to slow spending and growth.
 
KLATTU said:
45% of Americans pay no federal income tax - MarketWatch
Despite the fact that rich people paying little in the way of income taxes makes plenty of headlines, this is the exception to the rule: The top 1% of taxpayers pay a higher effective income-tax rate than any other group (around 23%, according to a report released by the Tax Policy Center in 2014) — nearly seven times higher than those in the bottom 50%.

On average, those in the bottom 40% of the income spectrum end up getting money from the government. Meanwhile, the richest 20% of Americans, by far, pay the most in income taxes, forking over nearly 87% of all the income tax collected by Uncle Sam.

Rich people pay nearly 87% of all federal individual income tax in America.
Click to expand...

Groups and averages tend to hide an individual's tax rate. There is a huge variation in effective tax rates in the top 20% depending upon the source of one's income. The "Romney's" tax rates ought not be averaged in with those with higher effective tax rates. Working upper middle class with magnitudes lower income pay higher effective tax rates than the uber wealthy. That is what I take umbrance with, not that people on the bottom w/o a pot to piss in pay nothing.
 
Last edited:
Beaudreaux said:
No. I think rates should be fair, meaning everyone has to contribute. All people pulling the wagon, not just a few pulling and a lot sitting on their ass in the wagon doing nothing but getting free ride.
Click to expand...

The poor do their part by spending all their income to live. The wealthy not so much. Spending is what makes this country go round not sitting on billions and wanting to pay even less in taxes then their already record low rate.
 
Fishking said:
You've left out some other options that are on the table. For example, I believe in strong property rights. What's yours is yours and if we have to pool our money together to pay for common things then everyone pays equally (percent based).
Click to expand...
Good news! It's not perfectly proportionate, but it's reasonably close. The top pay a little more in total federal taxes than their share of income, but not by much. And with the exception of a small bump a few years ago, taxes have gone down significantly for the wealthy since the early 1980s.


You do not gain any moral high-ground voting to take away money from other people to be used in a way that you deem is more appropriate. One of the main causes of the American Revolution was a lack of property rights.
Click to expand...
You also do not gain the moral high ground by saying "what's mine is mine, and I hate taxes." ;)

And no, property rights weren't a big deal for the Colonists. It was mostly about the lack of political representation, lack of respect in various ways for the Colonists, how they weren't treated like citizens. It wasn't even so much about the tax rates -- e.g. many tariffs were lowered before the Boston Tea Party -- it was that the Colonists had no say and no choice in how taxes were adjusted.
 
Winchester said:
Groups and averages tend to hide an individual's tax rate. There is a huge variation in effective tax rates in the top 20% depending upon the source of one's income. The "Romney's" tax rates ought not be averaged in with those with higher effective tax rates. Working middle class with magnitudes lower income pay higher effective tax rates than the uber wealthy. That is what I take umbrance with, not that people on the bottom w/o a pot to piss in pay nothing.
Click to expand...

For some reason they are obsessed with getting blood from stones even when it is pointed out that most of us spend nearly ALL our income to help grow the economy. "Broadening the base" will mean less money spent, less profits and lower GDP growth for all of us.
 
iguanaman said:
For some reason they are obsessed with getting blood from stones even when it is pointed out that most of us spend nearly ALL our income to help grow the economy. "Broadening the base" will mean less money spent, less profits and lower GDP growth for all of us.
Click to expand...

The other thing is one has to look at an individual taxpayer over time. Most people are not stuck in the bottom 40% their entire lives, sure some are, but most start out young with families and as they age, income increases and the children move away they start paying ****piles in tax (when they are better able to do so). Fine and dandy for those paying lots now to criticize those who aren't... more than likely they've forgotten they probably didn't pay much if anything at one point as well.
 
iguanaman said:
Its' not about duty, it is simple economics. Taking money from those that spend all their income in the economy is self-defeating because their spending is reduced by the amount of the tax. Taxing those that spend a small % of their income at a higher rate is only common sense if you don't want to slow spending and growth.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with the rich being rich and the poor being poor? I used to be poor. My parents were fairly poor. I'm middle class now, striving to make myself better. Most of the poor can make their lives better if they choose to, just like I did. I didn't win the lottery. If they don't have any incentive to make their lives better, like I did, why should the rich take care of them? I'm jealous of the rich myself but I know it is not their job to take care of me just because they have oodles of money they don't need. Why can't a billionaire give me a measly $100,000? The answer: Because they don't have to and I don't expect them to. I have no problem in taking care of the sick and disabled.
 
The only fair tax is a flat tax: everyone pays the same rate. If you want a federal government that costs north of 20% of all income to run, then you better be willing to fork over your 20%. It's disgusting that so many people who pay nothing want some to pay knocking on 40% on some of their income. No deductions, no marriage penalty or benefit, no dependent deductions, etc. Each individual pays X% of income. Period. Otherwise, you have the current situation of the baby birds squawking for ever more without contributing anything, or a pittance. So, here's the tax form:

1. Gross Income: ___________
2. Multiply 1 by X%: ____________
3. Send the amount in line 2 to the federal government.

So, if you want a federal government that costs 20%, or 25%, or 30% or whatever of total income, then you will be contributing exactly that percentage of your income to it.
 
Fishking said:
You've left out some other options that are on the table. For example, I believe in strong property rights. What's yours is yours and if we have to pool our money together to pay for common things then everyone pays equally (percent based). You do not gain any moral high-ground voting to take away money from other people to be used in a way that you deem is more appropriate. One of the main causes of the American Revolution was a lack of property rights.
Click to expand...

So a strong economy is not an "appropriate" goal for Govt.? Why is that? Don't you think a faster growing economy benefits all including the rich? Would a flat tax be worth causing a depression? The Founders were indeed concerned with property rights but not the ones you worry about. They felt that ever citizen should be able to afford property and favored progressive and Estate taxes to prevent a wealthy few from owning too much.
 
Citizen.Seven said:
The only fair tax is a flat tax: everyone pays the same rate. If you want a federal government that costs north of 20% of all income to run, then you better be willing to fork over your 20%. It's disgusting that so many people who pay nothing want some to pay knocking on 40% on some of their income. No deductions, no marriage penalty or benefit, no dependent deductions, etc. Each individual pays X% of income. Period. Otherwise, you have the current situation of the baby birds squawking for ever more without contributing anything, or a pittance. So, here's the tax form:

1. Gross Income: ___________
2. Multiply 1 by X%: ____________
3. Send the amount in line 2 to the federal government.

So, if you want a federal government that costs 20%, or 25%, or 30% or whatever of total income, then you will be contributing exactly that percentage of your income to it.
Click to expand...

a tax on labor at any rate is a a no no. at no point do people get to decide how much of my time they get to take from me.

we can find other sources of revenue besides servitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom