Half the country (U.S.) doesn't pay taxes

The BBQ Pit
121

I never said 125 million. but 1 in 7 Americans are “lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health.” 125 million mioght be a good estimate of the people who are in danger of falling into poverty (40% of Americasn fall into this category).

But in the end, I’d rather make sure that anyone who wants a fishing pole can have one and some multinational conglomerate isn’t posting a billion Chinese fishermen up-river from you.

I presume that our social safety net pushes most people close to or over the line. But we still have people that go hungry for lack of food.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR83/ERR83_ReportSummary.html (PDF)

14.6% of Americans were food insecure (you missed at least a few meals from time to time but you could cope by eating less varied diets and relying on food stamps and food pantries). About 5.7% were very food insecure (you regularly missed meals). In 1.3% of households even your children were missing meals.

I’m not trying to tug your heartstrings but these numbers are the worst they have been since we started keeping track of these things and its part of the reason why our budget is strained. It seems to me that if you are going to engage in an austerity program then cutting taxes at the same time because the rich think they’re paying too much is a real slap in the face.

I think you’re talking about another poster. I was posting some numbers with cites so that we wouldn’t just be guessing.

Well, the poor in America are doing fantastic compaared to the average Somalian if thats what you’re trying to get at.

Its on the wikip page : Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia

“Poverty in the United States is cyclical in nature with roughly 13 to 17% of Americans living below the federal poverty line at any given point in time, and roughly 40% falling below the poverty line at some point within a 10-year time span.”

The point I was trying to make was that there is a reason that there are fewer people who are paying federal income taxes than there were a few years ago.

122

Conservatives keep talking about broadening the federal income tax base (as if that is the only source of government revenue). What we need to do is broaden the income base.

I could just as easily focus solely on the social security tax and gripe about how it is regressive and start pouting about how we should broaden the Social Secuirty tax base, get rid of the income cap, tax deferred compensation and carried interest and stuff like that.

123

Oh I thought we had moved beyondf the tax debate. If we’re still on the tax debate, I think we should increase taxes and make it even more progressive.

What percentage of the deficit going forward is the result of the bush tax cuts versus the recession versus the stimulus?

The tax cuts (if made permanent account for the lion’s share of the deficit.

And THATS why we need to raise taxes.

124

But … but … cutting taxes actually raises government revenue! Haven’t you ever heard of the Laffer Curve?

125

Uh no, it was systematically derailed into an exercise in income disparity complaints.

There’s a new thread on that today, if you’re interested. :cool:

126

Um, what?

Really?

I think teh idea is that they aren’t driving late model vehicles.

Just fighting terminological ignorance there.

Well, that’s a relief, because it sounded like you thought that the poor should be living in holes & showering only twice a week just to make sure they’re paying “enough” tax. Don’t ask Mr Forbes, he needs another 7 Bentleys this week!

Seriously, though, if people are to move into the ownership society, they need to be able to save capital. Taxing people down to poverty would not encourage either the American Dream or economic growth. That’s why personal exemptions should be above poverty line, & in fact originally income taxes (unlike payroll taxes) were only on very high incomes. Modern whining that some people don’t pay income taxes is ridiculous.

Wait, Nadir works for a defense contractor? So his funding stream depends on taxes, & he thinks the unrich should pay more in tax to prop up his industry? Yeah, he can be necklaced for all I care. Maybe when the USA goes bankrupt & his company has to sell products to mercenaries, he’ll settle for just selling to Richie Rich.

The number is 0. Can you say “zero,” or are you so medieval you don’t know what it means? Also, I don’t think you know what “carrot and stick” means, or you’ve mashed two different thoughts together somehow.

OK, mac, how do you feel about that? What should we do about Mike the Janitor’s ability to afford medical care, or help get his children start their own business? And why were we able to pay them more in the past, do you think?

Could it be really that it only seemed like more because confiscatory taxation was pulling demand out of the hands of elites & keeping certain kinds of prices (land, high-end medicine, advertising, the bond trade, I don’t know what all) more manageably low? That’s my suspicion.

127

Right, one really bad one, normally they do worse but nobody gave a shit until it was literally in their back yard.

Oops, I always thought it meant and old car, you know, a later model, as opposed to the latest model. Ignorance fought, let’s pretend I said “high mileage” unless now that means a crazy expensive car that gets 60mpg

I think poor people should live like people they are poor. There’s no sugar coating it, being poor sucks. But it’s way better than living in squalor like so much of the world’s poor. Having an apartment and a car means you aren’t poor. Living in a burned out shell of what used to be a car is poor.

So save capital instead of buying lottery tickets and wasting it on booze and smokes.

That’s why we don’t do it. Hence the title of the thread. People making less than $26k in the US start accumulating a damn lot of social programs. Are there enough social programs? Hell no, and the ones they have are fucked, but there are a shit ton of social programs, the rhetoric here would make you think otherwise. The US is closet-socialist nation, tell your parents already so you can start enjoying it.

Get a proper health care system like the rest of the world.

This one is bullshit. Even after the credit squeeze a few years ago capital has never been easier to get, and interest rates are insanely low. There is no way Mike the Janitor got a loan back in the 50s to help his illiterate son start some hairbrained scheme.

Businesses can start for what ever value you want to put in. Partnerships can be formed. Loans can be found. Or maybe they don’t need to start their own business.

Which “in the past?”

Pick a time and I’ll tell you why it seemed like this guy was paid more. But keep in mind 50 years ago he wasn’t commuting an hour to work. Medical care was cheap because it sucked. And the concept of consumer electronics didn’t exist.

If Mike the Janitor wanted to live like it was 1950 he could do so very cheaply. Problem is that he wants to live like it’s 2011 and stuff got complicated.

128

Fair enough.

129

What? I was all set for a fight. What am I supposed to do with all these websites I found backing me up?

130

Income disparity is part of the underlying rationale for progressive income taxation. The simple fact of the matter is that even people like Ron Paul believe that progressive income taxation is just and equitable. He thinks government should be smaller so that the overall tax burden would also be smaller but he doesn’t have a problem with the way the income tax burden is distributed because he also takes all the other taxes in our lies into account when calculating the tax burden.

131

There is a difference between poverty and abject poverty. Noone in America lives like the poor in rural India, noone. The point of this thread is that the rich pay more in taxes relative to their income because they have all the money.

I agree with where you ultimately land on a lot of things but your weird use of the concept of risk to justify where you end up is still baffling to me.

??? really?

Its true that it doesn’t cost a lot to start your own business. You can go around with a shoeshine box for very little money but the unfortunate fact of the matter is that most people cannot and will not ever run a business well enough to support a family. I’ve run half a dozen businesses and sold them only to watch them run into the ground.

Productivity is also a lot higher than it was back in 1950s.

132

Is that because Mike the Janitor is doing a better job? Did his skills as a janitor improve such that he now adds more value?

Or did someone else pay for him to have equipment and tools that get the place cleaned faster?

One of the hardest parts of traveling to third world (developing) nations is watching people try to clean using branches taped together with a rag wrapped around one end. It pains me as an engineer to watch inefficiency, as it would no doubt pain you as a humanitarian to watch suffering.

My in-laws in India have a servant that spent most her her time using a crappy little brush thing to sweep a huge floor. It was about 2ft long so she had to bend 90 degrees at the waste to use it. And because it never actually got the floor clean (which is actually kind of hard in rural India) she swept a lot. This job could have been done in a fraction of the time using a proper bush broom and mop. She also spent a huge part of her time grating coconut by hand to make coconut milk. A can of coconut milk here costs about $1-1.50, but would require me to spend about an hour to make.

If I brought her to the US and hired her to make coconut, minimum wage would make that can of coconut milk cost upwards of $6.

If I give her a $5 push broom and a $1 can of coconut milk, she’s finished in about 30min.

Pretty significant increase in productivity, none of which relates to her level of involvement. I don’t understand why we are surprised productivity is up while wages fall.

133

Not too long ago, I was exposed to the idea of Baumol’s cost disease (via this DailyFinance article), which I think is notable whenever discussing productivity and its economic effects. For this discussion, it seems like the following is most relevant:

My take on that – well, one of 'em, anyway – is that the movement of the US away from a manufacturing-oriented towards a service economy means that higher taxation levels will be (more like are) necessary to maintain any level of government operation. It’s simply a matter of time…

134

Ain’t THAT the truth. Heck, I just have to look at the storefront next to my dad’s to see that.

For that matter, it takes a special personality to start your own up: my dad is perpetually disappointed I don’t want to take over the store or, failing that, go into some kind of business for myself–he doesn’t get that he enjoys doing a little of everything, whereas I like my technical skills and have no desire to even briefly endure my own administrative overhead.

While it’s not surprising in that case, consider the difference between an accountant/bookkeeper with a paper spreadsheet and abacus vs. one with a computer–or even a calculator. At that point, you also have to factor in the additional training and skill investment the accountant needs to generate to use the newer, more productive equipment–so therefore, the accountant’s wages should take into account the increased training requirements to be an accountant and rise or maintain parity accordingly with increased production.

Then the question becomes “are more jobs like the housecleaner, or like the accountant?” I can’t answer that.

135

These days a couple guys with computers and communications and radios and satellites can do stuff that was literally incomprehensible just a few years ago.

But it takes alot of smart people with huge capital reserves to invest the time and money necessary to develop and field that technology.

Would that money have been better spent on food stamps, PELL grants and agriculture subsidies?

Keep squeezing that tax turnip and maybe it will be.

136

You lived in a burnt out shell of a car? You lucky bastard. I used to lie awake at night dreamin’ of living in a burnt out car.

137

With hard work and dedication maybe some day you’ll have a burned out shell of a car of your own.

And without hard work and dedication maybe some day the government will provide one for you along with an earned income tax credit.

138

I have some problems with this answer, some of which the author of the article seems to share. For instance, companies put more capital into computers for secretaries than they used to into typewriters, but it also takes a greater level of skill to use them. Productivity often comes with increasing complexity which requires greater skill.
The example given is that it takes as long today to learn a Mozart concerto than in the 19th century. But it could be learned more efficiently. The musician can not only read music (cheaper to copy) but listen to various performances, including tapes of her own. That should be faster. Hell, in 1964 I was more efficient at learning my bar mitzvah haftorah portion thanks to a record the Cantor made for me. I could practice without him being there to show me how to sing it. He was far more productive, though I don’t think I learned it faster.
I bet even teachers are more productive in finding and creating handouts and in doing grading.

139

The dumb thing about Baumol’s Cost Disease is that it doesn’t appear to even consider that there are two curves working here, one of which is the minimum demanded salary for jobs with no increased productivity. Certainly it takes no more effort to play Mozart now than in 1790–but as the cost of living has increased, the number of musicians who are willing to supply labor at 1790s rates has dwindled to a predictable zero. Fortunately for the musicians, there are enough people who want to hear music that the demand for performances is enough even as the musician’s supply curve adjusts to cost-of-living realities.

Fortunately, it’s only a problem for classical economists who assume wages and productivity are tied.

140

Well, higher (widget) productivity economy-wide means being paid less for the same (widget) output. Increases in (widget-producing) efficiency don’t necessarily mean improved conditions for (widget) producers. They mean cheaper (widget) goods for (widget) consumers.

Well, we used to spend taxes on tech research, but now we spend a lot on entitlements too. The problem is that it’s been politically encouraged to cut tech research but not to cut Medicare. So we’re protecting the more expensive spending more than the more progress-oriented spending.

I believe in social welfare & social insurance, but I think we have to protect & nurture the general welfare before the specific. We need big science and big education more fundamentally than big subsidies to retirees. But most of the political tendency (GOP & Dem, Tea Party & establishment) is to protect subsidies to retirees & make the biggest cuts in things like research, education, & regulation. We lose more utility but spend more money in the end.