PDA

View Full Version : Half pay pay no income tax



zeus3925
04-08-2010, 03:39 AM
Half of Americans pay no income tax.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36226444/ns/business-personal_finance/

Hew
04-08-2010, 07:00 AM
While it isn't new news, it bears repeating as many people are not aware of it (I can think of one liberal on this board who had no idea that nearly half the country doesn't pay a dime in federal tax).

ducknwork
04-08-2010, 07:01 AM
I guess there are a lot more freeloaders out there than we thought! This really stuck out to me:


The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.



What really annoys me is that you constantly here people whining and complaining about the rich getting tax breaks. In actuality, they are still paying more than their share of this country's taxes. That doesn't seem right somehow...almost like redistribution of wealth. (and Obama didn't cause this...(this time))

badbullgator
04-08-2010, 07:44 AM
So when obongo says he is going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans does this mean over half of them will now be paid more from the gooberment?

dnf777
04-08-2010, 08:51 AM
I did not realize it was that high. Maybe the author of that post could also point out what percentage of Fortune 500 companies pay no tax? That may be enlightening and intersting for some others on this forum as well?

Edit:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/12/news/economy/corporate_taxes/

nearly 2/3 of US corporations and 68% of foreign companies here pay no federal income tax.

If you read the article, you will see its not just small, struggling Mom&Pop shops either!

road kill
04-08-2010, 09:01 AM
I did not realize it was that high. Maybe the author of that post could also point out what percentage of Fortune 500 companies pay no tax? That may be enlightening and intersting for some others on this forum as well?

Edit:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/12/news/economy/corporate_taxes/

nearly 2/3 of US corporations and 68% of foreign companies here pay no federal income tax.

If you read the article, you will see its not just small, struggling Mom&Pop shops either!


Class envy......a basic progessive tenant!!:D



rk

Hoosier
04-08-2010, 09:08 AM
Class envy......a basic progessive tenant!!:D



rk

And from a physician at that.

How many tax dollars do those corporations produce through employee?

Goose
04-08-2010, 09:09 AM
What's wrong with not paying taxes? Most of Barack's Cabinet don't pay taxes. If they don't have to pay taxes why should anybody else? If it's ok for democrat Charlie Rangel not to pay taxes why should we?

We live in Cuba now.

Hoosier
04-08-2010, 09:19 AM
What's wrong with not paying taxes? Most of Barack's Cabinet don't pay taxes. If they don't have to pay taxes why should anybody else? If it's ok for democrat Charlie Rangel not to pay taxes why should we?

We live in Cuba now.

Now that's the new class envy.:)

YardleyLabs
04-08-2010, 10:41 AM
Any assessment of taxes needs to consider all taxes, not simply Federal income tax. The Federal income tax is moderately "progressive". That means that those with higher income levels pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than those at lower income levels.

By contrast, Federal payroll taxes and state and local taxes in almost every state are regressive, meaning that people with lower incomes pay a larger percentage or their incomes in taxes than those with higher incomes. The actual situation varies by state. In Pennsylvania, for example, the burden of state and local taxes consumes almost 12% of the incomes of poorest 20% but only 4.8% of the incomes of the richest 1%. (http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/text.pdf). Federal social security and Medicare taxes are also regressive since both apply only up to certain levels of income and also only apply to earned income, which excludes investment income.

As a consequence, for Pennsylvanians in the lowest 20% of income earners, total tax burden, including Federal and State taxes from all sources, totals 20-25% of income. For Those in the top 1% of income earners, total taxes are closer to 30%, although this does not reflect the full impact of reductions in estate, dividend, and capital gain tax reductions.

While the focus of most "tax burden" stories is on the percentage of total taxes paid by the highest income groups, it is much harder to find any mention of the percentage of income earned by this same group. Thus, it is true that the top 20% of income earners pays the bulk of Federal taxes. However, the top 20% of income earners also receives 56% of all income earned in the United States. The lowest 20% earn less than 5% of all income. (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/how-much-americans-actually-pay-in-taxes/) (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/how-much-americans-actually-pay-in-taxes/)

Mike W.
04-08-2010, 10:48 AM
Yardley,
You are missing the big part here. Though they "pay" taxes, those taxes are effectively rebated back to them in the form of standard deductions, and other tax credits. The bottom line is what taxes people end up paying at the end of the day, after taxes paid are netted against rebates, credits, etc.

And another point that you make....the top income earners "receive". No, they EARN it.
Big big difference there.

OK, so the 50% of the population that doesn't pay taxes probably receive 90% of the benefits given out by the government.

We live in a welfare state, plain and simple. You can sugar coat it with all the bullshit you want, but the facts are the facts.

YardleyLabs
04-08-2010, 10:59 AM
Yardley,
You are missing the big part here. Though they "pay" taxes, those taxes are effectively rebated back to them in the form of standard deductions, and other tax credits. The bottom line is what taxes people end up paying at the end of the day, after taxes paid are netted against rebates, credits, etc.

And another point that you make....the top income earners "receive". No, they EARN it.
Big big difference there.

OK, so the 50% of the population that doesn't pay taxes probably receive 90% of the benefits given out by the government.

We live in a welfare state, plain and simple. You can sugar coat it with all the bullshit you want, but the facts are the facts.
My "point" was that the percentage of taxes actually paid by the bottom 20% of the people is 20% and more. That is the net amount paid, not a theoretical tax rate. As to who benefits from government spending, you are way off. Good arguments can be made that government spending does more to benefit the holders of wealth and inome on wealth than it does to benefit individuals. Yes, the poor are the beneficiaries of welfare payments. But they did not benefit from the bailout of financial institutions, which cost more than all welfare payments put together. Yes, we live in a welfare state, and the greatest welfare recipients are those who earn their money by virtue of the economic infrastructure supported by the government.

Mike W.
04-08-2010, 11:38 AM
Everybody wants to blame the financial institutions when the shit hits the fan.

What about the "average Joe" who were working construction crews from 2003 to 2007. You know, the hardworking guy, who had some nice income, steady work from the housing boom. The guy who borrowed just a weee bit too much on a house that was more than he could afford. And went out and got him a nice new pickup that he could drive to the job site. Come on, everyone is entitled to the American dream. You know, the guy whose job was a direct product of the housing bubble. Now, he has somehow been screwed by the financial institutions because he can't pay a mortgage that he shouldn't have been in the first place, with a job that was created by the very people he is angry at.

Give me a break.

YardleyLabs
04-08-2010, 11:59 AM
Everybody wants to blame the financial institutions when the shit hits the fan.

What about the "average Joe" who were working construction crews from 2003 to 2007. You know, the hardworking guy, who had some nice income, steady work from the housing boom. The guy who borrowed just a weee bit too much on a house that was more than he could afford. And went out and got him a nice new pickup that he could drive to the job site. Come on, everyone is entitled to the American dream. You know, the guy whose job was a direct product of the housing bubble. Now, he has somehow been screwed by the financial institutions because he can't pay a mortgage that he shouldn't have been in the first place, with a job that was created by the very people he is angry at.

Give me a break.
I didn't "blame" the financial institutions, I pointed out that low income people did not benefit from the bailout. They didn't benefit because they do not have savings or investments that were threatened by the collapse. Every artificially stimulated "boom" creates economic activity. The housing boom was no different. There was a boom in construction jobs which added to a boom in consumption. Who reaped the greatest financial benefit from that boom? The guy nailing and taping sheet rock, or the guys in the financial institutions providing financing for the exotic instruments used to finance the boom? If you are trying to imply that the lowest 20% of income earners were responsible for the financial collapse, I would love to see your evidence.

ducknwork
04-08-2010, 12:14 PM
Jeff, I don't know about the lowest 20%, but I think A LOT of the blame for the collapse can rest squarely on the shoulders of Jon and Jane American.

J & J want (not need) a new house because all of their friends have an extra 1000 sq ft and a pool. (or tv, or car, etc) Not to mention, society tells them that they are not successful without big ticket material possessions.

They do not have the cash to buy what they want.

They both have good paying jobs, so they think credit is a good option.

Countrywide approves them for a $300,000 home loan, but in all actuality, they can only afford a $200,000 mortgage.

They are ecstatic to learn that they can buy a new house that they previously thought was out of reach. Rather than realizing what they can comfortably afford, they take advantage of the loan that Countrywide is offering.

Now, when they buy (or build) the new house, there is another couple that is out looking for a new home. The home building business begins to boom because there are so many people looking for a new home, but not just any new home, nice new homes at that!

So then the construction workers have extra cash from working OT, so they decide that they 'need' a new house as well. They buy or build, which increases the home construction market even more...Then those workers get OT and buy a new house as well...and it keeps going.

Eventually, people begin to realize that they cannot afford these homes because taxes go up due to false home values, or the car breaks down, or some other life emergency occurs. They failed to plan for a rainy day when they figured the payment they could afford.

The bank takes the house. Someone buys that house rather than building. The bank takes other houses of people in the same situation. Nobody needs a new home anymore. The construction workers not only lose their OT, but their jobs as well. The bank takes their homes.

I think you can make the connection from there to where we are now, and it all started with greed.

Moral of the story: Live below your means.

Mike W.
04-08-2010, 12:19 PM
ducknwork,

EXACTLY. Nobody wants to take any sort of personal responsibility in any way, about anything. Therefore, it's people like Yardley that find it all to easy and convenient to make excuses and pass the blame.

Cody Covey
04-08-2010, 12:37 PM
I got back 9 more dollars than i paid in last year. This was because of tuition rebates and Obama's tax credit I also claim 0 so they take out more during the year....damn i must be lazy haha.

Marvin S
04-08-2010, 01:13 PM
EXACTLY. Nobody wants to take any sort of personal responsibility in any way, about anything. Therefore, it's people like Yardley that find it all to easy and convenient to make excuses and pass the blame.

Personal responsibility is a product of one's upbringing. It is making one responsible for the decisions they make. That is extremely difficult when the world is full of permissive adults who are willing to give one more chance to little whoever.

Being the person who is making the "You are responsible for what you do" decisions is not easy. All to often parents want to be kids along with their kids, kids need adults to guide, example & mentor them.

There is a lot of merit in a spay neuter program for irresponsible homo sapiens :cool:.

But our POTUS is not someone quick to step up & say he is responsible for the many screwups of his vetting process or the campaign lies :( .

road kill
04-08-2010, 01:34 PM
Any assessment of taxes needs to consider all taxes, not simply Federal income tax. The Federal income tax is moderately "progressive". That means that those with higher income levels pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than those at lower income levels.

By contrast, Federal payroll taxes and state and local taxes in almost every state are regressive, meaning that people with lower incomes pay a larger percentage or their incomes in taxes than those with higher incomes. The actual situation varies by state. In Pennsylvania, for example, the burden of state and local taxes consumes almost 12% of the incomes of poorest 20% but only 4.8% of the incomes of the richest 1%. (http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/text.pdf). Federal social security and Medicare taxes are also regressive since both apply only up to certain levels of income and also only apply to earned income, which excludes investment income.

As a consequence, for Pennsylvanians in the lowest 20% of income earners, total tax burden, including Federal and State taxes from all sources, totals 20-25% of income. For Those in the top 1% of income earners, total taxes are closer to 30%, although this does not reflect the full impact of reductions in estate, dividend, and capital gain tax reductions.

While the focus of most "tax burden" stories is on the percentage of total taxes paid by the highest income groups, it is much harder to find any mention of the percentage of income earned by this same group. Thus, it is true that the top 20% of income earners pays the bulk of Federal taxes. However, the top 20% of income earners also receives 56% of all income earned in the United States. The lowest 20% earn less than 5% of all income. (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/how-much-americans-actually-pay-in-taxes/) (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/how-much-americans-actually-pay-in-taxes/)

WHAT?????


Read the title of this thread.
And I quote "Half Pay NO INCOME Tax."
We are not talking about anything but INCOME TAX!!!





rk

Henry V
04-08-2010, 01:43 PM
On a related topic, I know there is a lot of concern about "the redistribution of wealth".

Perhaps we should put all this in some perspective. From a recent study http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
There are all kinds of good tables and graphs on this website but maybe words are best here:).

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands.
As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).

In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.

We must be a great nation - 42% of the wealth held by the top 1% - awesome. Of course, all this wealth was hard earned fair and square and it would surely be the downfall of the nation to tweak the system by a fraction of a percentage or two. No, no, we must stay the course and get even more wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people (including corporations as defined by this supreme court of strict constitutionalists) so that there will be more to trickle down.

road kill
04-08-2010, 01:49 PM
On a related topic, I know there is a lot of concern about "the redistribution of wealth".

Perhaps we should put all this in some perspective. From a recent study http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
There are all kinds of good tables and graphs on this website but maybe words are best here:).


We must be a great nation - 42% of the wealth held by the top 1% - awesome. Of course, all this wealth was hard earned fair and square and it would surely be the downfall of the nation to tweak the system by a fraction of a percentage or two. No, no, we must stay the course and get even more wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people (including corporations as defined by this supreme court of strict constitutionalists) so that there will be more to trickle down.

Class envy, a progessive's tennant!!:D



rk

caryalsobrook
04-08-2010, 02:00 PM
I don't consider myself rich nor do I consider myself poor. This I attribute to 2 things my father taught me.

1. SPEND LESS THAN YOU MAKE.
2. IT IS NOT HOW MUCH YOU MAKE, IT IS HOW MUCH YOU SAVE.

If you don't believe these 2 things, ask the 75% of those who have won the lottery that were broke after 10 years.

Henry V
04-08-2010, 02:05 PM
Class envy, a progessive's tennant!!:D

rk

Yes, this is exactly what started this thread!

YardleyLabs
04-08-2010, 02:06 PM
WHAT?????


Read the title of this thread.
And I quote "Half Pay NO INCOME Tax."
We are not talking about anything but INCOME TAX!!!

rk
Because taxes are taxes, In New Jersey, unemployment insurance is only charged against the first $7000 of earnings, with everyone earning more than $7000 in income paying identical amounts for coverage. However, benefits depend directly on the income earned at the time of termination. A person fired from a job paying $100,000 per year wil be paid many times the amount that will be paid to a person earning $10,000 at the time of of termination. How is that "fair". A person working 60 hours per week to earn $90,000 per year will pay much higher income taxes than a person earning $90,000 in dividends on stocks inherited from a parent and , in addition, will pay another $7000 in social security and medicare. How is it "fair" for the person earning income based on wealth (earned or unearned) to pay a lower tax rate than a person earning their income based on their labor?

Julie R.
04-08-2010, 02:11 PM
I didn't pay any federal or state INCOME taxes last year, or the year before, and probably will owe little or nothing this year. I might even be eligible for Obamacare! If I had kids, I could be getting an earned income credit and I'd probably be eligible for food stamps if I applied. I do make use of the federal highway system, but figure the tax I pay on gas covers that. I do feel bad about not chipping in for national security. But given what I've paid in the past, I don't feel guilty for letting y 'all support me ;-)
Anyone wanna chip in for my $12,000 property taxes due next month?

road kill
04-08-2010, 02:13 PM
Because taxes are taxes, In New Jersey, unemployment insurance is only charged against the first $7000 of earnings, with everyone earning more than $7000 in income paying identical amounts for coverage. However, benefits depend directly on the income earned at the time of termination. A person fired from a job paying $100,000 per year wil be paid many times the amount that will be paid to a person earning $10,000 at the time of of termination. How is that "fair". A person working 60 hours per week to earn $90,000 per year will pay much higher income taxes than a person earning $90,000 in dividends on stocks inherited from a parent and , in addition, will pay another $7000 in social security and medicare. How is it "fair" for the person earning income based on wealth (earned or unearned) to pay a lower tax rate than a person earning their income based on their labor?
No, they are not!

INCOME TAXES are INCOME TAXES.

Other taxes are other taxes.

There is a difference.


No need to thank me, I am here to help!!:D



rk

YardleyLabs
04-08-2010, 02:25 PM
No, they are not!

INCOME TAXES are INCOME TAXES.

Other taxes are other taxes.

There is a difference.


No need to thank me, I am here to help!!:D



rk
What is that difference? How is a reduction in taxes paid based on mortgage interest an "income" tax. It sounds more like a housing credit. How are deductions and credits based on the number of children in your household an "income" tax? It sounds more like a way of paying middle class people for having kids.:rolleyes: If you want to talk about the fairness of how people are forced to pay a share of the costs of government, you need to look at all the ways they are forced to pay.

Unbelievable......:rolleyes:

Mike W.
04-08-2010, 02:25 PM
How is it "fair" for the person earning income based on wealth (earned or unearned) to pay a lower tax rate than a person earning their income based on their labor?


Very simple actually.

The capital that is earning interest or dividends was originally earnings at one point, and was fully taxed at ordinary income rates.

The person who is "earning income based on their labor" has the opportunity to save and invest his money, and the earnings on that money in turn will be subject to the tax rate on "income based on wealth."

YardleyLabs
04-08-2010, 02:37 PM
Very simple actually.

The capital that is earning interest or dividends was originally earnings at one point, and was fully taxed at ordinary income rates.
Your statement would make sense if the tax were based on wealth. It is not. The dividends earned from investments are income just as are the wages earned on labor. Or, for that matter, what makes income from dividends or capital gains (both ways of making money off of wealth) worthy of being taxed at a lower rate than income from interest on a savings account (another form of income from wealth)? Again I ask, what makes it better to tax the income from labor more than the income from wealth? Income is income. It should all be taxed according to the same principles. As long as only the income is being taxed, there is no double taxation.

luvmylabs23139
04-08-2010, 02:52 PM
Everyone should pay a head tax. That would be really fair. YOu want 6 kids then darn well pay for them. Pay your part of national defense.
Then maybe people would quit with the entitlement mentality!!!!
Everyone pays the same!!!!!!!!!

Byron Musick
04-08-2010, 02:54 PM
I could never understand why we did not adopt a flat tax system? Seems fair the more you make the more you pay?? Rats!!!!

Sabireley
04-08-2010, 03:09 PM
I could never understand why we did not adopt a flat tax system? Seems fair the more you make the more you pay?? Rats!!!!

A flat tax does not leave room for politicians to pander and curry favor with their constituents. The tax system is so complicated because the rules include or exempt people, companies, groups, states, etc. based on their ability to deliver votes. If you remove the power from congress to tinker with the already bizantine tax code, you remove a powerful vote buying tool. What will they do for votes then?

Mike W.
04-08-2010, 03:18 PM
Again I ask, what makes it better to tax the income from labor more than the income from wealth? Income is income. It should all be taxed according to the same principles. As long as only the income is being taxed, there is no double taxation.


You are embarrassing yourself with you lack of understanding of basic economics and fundamentals of capital formation.

None of the working man would have a job without private capital. Period, the end. There would be no Cisco, no Microsoft, no General Electric, no Exxon, nothing. All you would have would be a communist government which has been documented throughout history to collapse under its own weight, and yield a below average standard of living for those under it's domain.

Lower capital gains & dividend rates encourage capital to flow into the markets. This, in turn, promotes entrepeneurs & investors to form new companies and take risk. This risk is ultimately what breeds success and creates the jobs that employs this "average guy".

YardleyLabs
04-08-2010, 03:45 PM
You are embarrassing yourself with you lack of understanding of basic economics and fundamentals of capital formation.

None of the working man would have a job without private capital. Period, the end. There would be no Cisco, no Microsoft, no General Electric, no Exxon, nothing. All you would have would be a communist government which has been documented throughout history to collapse under its own weight, and yield a below average standard of living for those under it's domain.

Lower capital gains & dividend rates encourage capital to flow into the markets. This, in turn, promotes entrepeneurs & investors to form new companies and take risk. This risk is ultimately what breeds success and creates the jobs that employs this "average guy".
I suspect that my knowledge -- both academic and practical -- of economics is at least equal to yours unless you happen to be a PhD economist. There would be no capital without labor. Which of your examples would exist today without the efforts of their employees. Yes, the employees are paid for their services. So are the providers of capital. It has been a long time since capital formation depended on the wealth accumulated by a few. I didn't argue for preferential treatment of income derived from labor over income derived from wealth. I argued for equal treatment. There is no evidence whatsoever to show why the tax system should prefer one over the other. In fact, from an equitable perspective, one might easily argue that wealth should be taxed independently of income since much of the activities of government are based on protecting wealth (i.e. property) as distinct from individuals. That is the basis for property taxes in almost every jurisdiction and personal property taxes in some.

dnf777
04-08-2010, 05:18 PM
And from a physician at that.

How many tax dollars do those corporations produce through employee?

Hey, if you guys don't mind paying taxes for the rich, knock yourselves out! Me? I prefer everyone pay their fair share, so I'm not overburdened.

Hoosier
04-08-2010, 05:23 PM
Hey, if you guys don't mind paying taxes for the rich, knock yourselves out! Me? I prefer everyone pay their fair share, so I'm not overburdened.

I agree, and the share holders should pay on earnings. I also have a problem with people who have both hands out, taking from a system that they'll never contribute into.

Uncle Bill
04-08-2010, 06:14 PM
4 pages of erudition on taxes. I'm impressed. But your tag line has the Yardley answer in a nutshell, Tremayne. It's as I suspected, Yardley bloviates just to read his posts.

Other than what the IHOP Oracle stated Yardley, you can send in more of your income at any time...we won't object. Knock yourself out, if you think the poor are just not getting a fair shake.

Being poor, I'm all in favor of raising that 50% up to 60% real soon, especially since I know how ALL our oxen will be getting gored with those cap & trade and healthcare costs.

But I digress...Listen to the Oracles own magical terminology:

Tremayne Fields

maybe the government should take all your money and feed you rice so that you will respect them more.

sambo 3/31/10


Isn't that priceless? I'm betting Master Card is furious they didn't use that in a commercial.

UB

dnf777
04-08-2010, 06:40 PM
4 pages of erudition on taxes. I'm impressed. But your tag line has the Yardley answer in a nutshell, Tremayne. It's as I suspected, Yardley bloviates just to read his posts.

Other than what the IHOP Oracle stated Yardley, you can send in more of your income at any time...we won't object. Knock yourself out, if you think the poor are just not getting a fair shake.

Being poor, I'm all in favor of raising that 50% up to 60% real soon, especially since I know how ALL our oxen will be getting gored with those cap & trade and healthcare costs.

But I digress...Listen to the Oracles own magical terminology:

Tremayne Fields

maybe the government should take all your money and feed you rice so that you will respect them more.

sambo 3/31/10


Isn't that priceless? I'm betting Master Card is furious they didn't use that in a commercial.

UB

Oh if only they would tax logic. UB would get a refund every year.

Uncle Bill
04-08-2010, 07:53 PM
Oh if only they would tax logic. UB would get a refund every year.


How utterly clever. And you actually went to college so you can issue witticisms that deep? Your benefactors must just be popping their buttons, thinking about how wise their investment was.

You may think you are a Doctor, but most of the good ones I know, don't even have 10% of the free time you seem to have to respond to this BB. If you wish to challenge perceptions, how am I doing with this one?

UB

dnf777
04-08-2010, 08:16 PM
How utterly clever. And you actually went to college so you can issue witticisms that deep?
UB

No. I went to college to become a doctor. I hung out bars and clubs to learn how to get under the skin of guys like you! They dun learn't me well!

take a pill, and enjoy the weekend!

Buzz
04-08-2010, 09:39 PM
Hey, if you guys don't mind paying taxes for the rich, knock yourselves out! Me? I prefer everyone pay their fair share, so I'm not overburdened.

I'm with you on that one. I was just listening to Laura Ingraham's show on the radio. She was laying it on pretty thick about how overburdened the rich are and how sickening it is that so many people have no federal tax bill. Pretty soon she says, there won't be anyone left to pull the cart. See the rich are pulling the cart, and everyone else is just going along for the ride.

I wonder how familiar most people are with tax history? There is some interesting statistics here going back to 1913 at my link below. I think the highest marginal rate I saw on there was 93 or 94%. It is frankly astounding to me that anyone can argue that the tax burden is oppressive now compared to what we've seen in the past in this country.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Matt McKenzie
04-08-2010, 10:16 PM
Everyone here agrees that every person should pay his or her own "fair share". The question is what is a "fair share". Some believe that all persons who receive benefits should pay into the system. Others believe that only the evil, filthy, rotten, stinking rich and those horrible, polluting, labor-raping, profiteering corporations should have to pay "their fair share".
Then there's one who thinks that because the highest tax level was once much higher, those that are paying the highest tax level today should be happy about it because it is so much better. Following that logic, we should excuse overt racial discrimination because it is such an improvement over slavery.

Hoosier
04-08-2010, 10:27 PM
I'm with you on that one. I was just listening to Laura Ingraham's show on the radio. She was laying it on pretty thick about how overburdened the rich are and how sickening it is that so many people have a federal tax bill. Pretty soon she says, there won't be anyone left to pull the cart. See the rich are pulling the cart, and everyone else is just going along for the ride.

I wonder how familiar most people are with tax history? There is some interesting statistics here going back to 1913 at my link below. I think the highest marginal rate I saw on there was 93 or 94%. It is frankly astounding to me that anyone can argue that the tax burden is oppressive now compared to what we've seen in the past in this country.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

We should be careful with that logic. There are a lot of people who would consider you rich. Rich is in the eye of the beholder, and if you're making $30,000 a year a guy making $60,000 is looking pretty comfortable. So I'm sure there are a bunch of people who think you should be made to give a whole lot more.

KEITH L
04-08-2010, 11:31 PM
as i read so many post in regards to taxation i need to chime in a little so bare
with me. i believe there is no perfect process but one needs to recognize where
the money is actually coming from and how and why. i have no post highschool
education had ((no money at time))). but was taught at early age to live within my
((((budget of income)))). i feel that at least all americans do have this choice.
after 19 years of very hard work 1 of my jobs was being a door to door salesperson
and various 2nd jobs i averaged. about 85 hours a week i saved up enough money to buy
a business and go on my own. which was scary but now i am doing very well. i do pay
taxes in most cases more than the national average income. i survived several years
averageing about 40 grand a year payments working the tax breaks available but now.
no matter what if i dont expand or employ more people my responsiblity of taxation
has grown considerable. yes i would like to pay less but no matter what corp. out
there the taxation rules do catch up with all of them. some can keep growing but they
are in there own way contributing to the whole picture.. we do need some reform but
everyone needs to contribute educated or not rich or poor i don't believe in long term
welfare or foodstamps or unemployment. i can site a job opening available in every state
sometimes we need to make poverty or low incomed people a little less comfortable
in order to get them to dig themselves out of there comfort to make something of themselves........i was there


keith l
________
Honda civic gx (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_Civic_GX)

ducknwork
04-09-2010, 07:07 AM
Well said, sir. I especially like the last sentence you have! Two thumbs up!