No, 47% of Households don’t pay any.
You think that makes sense?
And ? They don’t have killer incomes, what’s there to tax ? They still chip in in the form of all *other *taxes (including all of the taxes that are injected into social security, welfare and health care, at least in my country), plus of course the actual work they do and services they perform for their community and for their country. They have just as much of a stake in it as you, they fucking live there.
And if I may misquote Palahniuk, the working poor cook your meals, haul your trash, connect your calls, drive your ambulances and guard you while you sleep. Do not fuck with them.
(Incidentally, an enlisted soldier’s wages do not pass the threshold for the second fed. income tax bracket, either. Even an E-9 with 40 years in the service does not earn over 8.5k. Cite. You reckon those blokes are freeloading bastards too ?)
Have you just 'ported in from the 19th century ? Cause I have a really hard time not hearing this sentence in the voice of one of those *Germinal *mine owners, sipping sherry and looking down on the miners for complaining. Oh, those dreadful poor. Drink all their wages, too. Tssk tssk.
Besides, the way I see it it’s the rich who owe the country that much more. Because it provided a framework for that fortune to come in.
It didn’t mess with their education, or interfere with their careers, didn’t dictate what they could or couldn’t do with their money, didn’t require all contracts to be approved by civil servants (or take a cut on business deals), didn’t make earning that much money illegal, did not nationalize their companies, did not confiscate their property arbitrarily and even helps protect it by catching the people who would try and take away or destroy that property, free of charge.
In short, it let you stay or become rich by virtue of not being Soviet Russia, or Somalia. Who’s taking things for granted again ?
Except thats not how the FAIR tax works. You are taxed on the purchase of new items in the USA.
It does not effectively impose a tariff at the border.
Don’t you get a VAT refund if you don’t live in Canada and you buy the car with the intent to take it out of the country??
So if I live in Canada and I move to the US, I have to pay a VAT differential for everything I bring here with me?
Oh, OK so in your analogy, the government is something that your children buy with their own money rather than have their father buy for them, so they will value government more, they won’t take government for granted and they will take better care of government?
I don’t think your analogy is very good but if your point is that paying taxes makes for better citizens, I can see the logic behind that but by that metric, you can’t limit yourself to just income taxes now can you?
When we collect more in payroll taxes than federal income taxes, I think its odd to characterize people who pay payroll taxes as not having a stake in the system. When these people are relying on entitlements to provide for much of their needs through their retirement, I don’t see how you can say that they don’t have a vested interest in seeing government run efficiently and demand good stewardship of their money.
90%???
Social security and medicare account for almost half of federal spending, it also accounts for almost half of federal revenue.
There is not dilution of skin in the game. Your access to your IRA is limited until you reach retirement, does that mean that the value of having skin in your IRA is really diluted?
Government is about more than just money. It regulates our entire lives. No one has more than a
Government is about more than just money. It regulates our entire lives. The only way one person could have less of a vested interest in their government than another is if they do (or would) live abroad.
As has been pointed out, this is only a fraction of the overall tax burden. Given that everyone pays roughly the same percentage of their income in taxes what does it matter that so many pay nothing to the main (and nearly only significant) progressive tax?
( Can a mod please delete the earlier mistaken post?)
Thank you, everyone, for what has turned out to be an informative and lively discussion thus far. I would like to point out a couple of items before this goes too much further:
- I was careful to indicate that I was not advocating a particular position, merely opening a discussion on the subject, so please be careful about assigning motive to me
- I’m fully aware that we are discussing, for the most part, Federal INCOME TAX…but for the sake of discussion, I agree that Federal taxes are far-reaching and impact even those who pay no income taxes in the form of gasoline excise taxes, interstate commerce, tariffs, etc.
- It is possible that point 2) above actually resolves the original question because Federal taxes of some sort are unavoidable by most if not all of the population, and therefore, all citizens are due representation of some form or another.
This is the one thing I agree with Friedman on, and I hate modern US libertarianism in general.
Yeah, sure. :rolleyes: Lots of people get EIC back in the spring. And paying taxes may inspire one to think about how that money is spent, which does not necessarily bode well for politics in the line of, “you get nothing back for your tax bill, it’s goin’ to da Pentagon!”
Of course people get services back for their taxes. Of course this means they may even get a net benefit from the government. That’s why government is worth it. I’m sorry if having public services for other people seems like such a massive burden to you. “Sorry,” in the sense of not really feeling any remorse at all.
That’s a damn twisted idea of 'fair." The rich guy has at all times the freedom to live as rich. That’s the power of money in the bank. So don’t pretend that his ‘self-denial’ is somehow making him equal to the poor.
In fact, your hypothetical miser who doesn’t spend his money is shrinking the GDP by not spending money, which tends to depress demand relative to his bank account’s proportion of the economy. Technically, if we want to maintain sufficient economic liquidity, he should be taxed more to keep the money flowing through the economy, rather than letting some “simple life” weirdos deflate GDP.
So there. 
This.
No, wait, this makes a certain orcish sense. From another thread:
The libertarian right apparently no longer see government as charged with ruling or governing the people. The welfare state has convinced them that the government is some kind of charitable fund, & they want to opt out of it like it’s the United Way or something.
Yet when you tell them it’s the government, they call you Lenin. 
The Democrats have unfortunately let the tax issue get away from them. When most Americans got more from the government than they paid in taxes the Democrats dominated the country. The average voter, and certainly low income voters, should see the government as a source of good things, granted by the Democrats, and threatened by the Republicans.
No, that’s messed up. We need to fix the tax system in this country, and I’m all for a progressive tax even though that will increase my personal tax liability.
although the soundbytes I’ve gotten highlight the low income rather than those who have loopholed their way to zero tax liability.
About47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That’s according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.
That is difficult when you parrot right-wing talking points. Moreover, the idea that there is something new going on with some people not paying Federal income tax is blatantly silly; we didn’t have any Federal income tax for the first 80 years, and a permanent income tax was only instated in 1913. For that first income tax, only those over with an adjusted income over $20,000 (in 1913 dollars) were required to pay. This means that the vast majority of citizens were not subject to it.
You know who’s really troubled by that figure that half of all households don’t pay income tax? You know who’s trying to fix that? The left. See, that’s just a symptom of the problem of the wealth divide. When you get a high percentage of the wealth concentrated in the hands of a small percentage of the population, things like that will happen.
So do states which are net beneficiaries of federal spending lose their senators?
I’m fine with that. Who says it should be progressive all the way to the top? That sounds reasonable only to someone who comes in with the preconceived idea that wealth redistribution is fair. If the bottom of our society has basic living expenses covered, then who cares how the people with $150k paychecks are measuring up to each other? After a certain point, it’s silly to measure tax burden as a percentage of income. Once you’re up in the well-off territory, it should be measured in absolute dollars. And in that case, the richer you are, the more you pay for society to continue to function..who cares what that is as a percentage of income?
Everybody keeps going on about Fairtax-this and Fairtax-that. Not once have I said “Let’s establish the Fairtax plan!” I’d never even heard that name until this thread. So whatever “they” advocate tells you nothing about my stance.
[quote=“Damuri_Ajashi, post:54, topic:579276”]
And the poor guy has no choice at all because he MUST spend everything he earns.
So what? The poor don’t deserve choice. They deserve food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. That’s it. Society doesn’t have an obligation to boost him up to the top of Maslow’s hierarchy. So the poor guy has to spend all his money…boo hoo. Shoulda done something with your life, buddy.
But how are you going to register it? In my state, when you register your car, you have to PROVE that you paid the sales tax on the vehicle. If you don’t, then they assess the tax again for the value over $2,500 (I think that’s the number). Why can’t they do that at a federal level?
As for people that would just amass a fortune and take it on the road with them, well…you’re always going to have that. But seeing as how we tax ex-pats now, it’s not like our power to tax stops at the border.
I thought I already answered that. You’d be able to write off the first $X, depending on your zip code. After that, it’s all considered “extra” or “luxury” or “discretionary” or whatever you want to call it. That part is taxed. Complicated? Well, yeah, but simple is rarely fair, and hardly ever manageable.
That’s a very odd statement to make in a debate like this, because everyone in this debate, including you, has his or her own “preconceived idea” about whether wealth distribution is fair or not, and how much wealth distribution in fair.
After all, you yourself said that you are “fine with” a system that is progressive and then gets regressive again. This is an explicit admission that you accept and support the wealth redistribution purpose of progressive taxation, at least to some extent.
The main difference between you and someone who argues for a more progressive system is exactly how much distribution is fair.
Exactly this. The problem isn’t that there are these lucky duckys who are basking in their tax free luxury hovels while the beleaguered rich have to shoulder the burden of only spending 6 weeks instead of eight on their world cruise. The problem is that the wealth distribution has been skewed to the point that a very large portion of the population is just barely hanging on. I don’t think there is anyone out there not paying taxes who doesn’t wish that they earned enough more money to be put in a taxable bracket.
A more equal wealth distribution would invariably lead to a more even tax distribution. The question is how to get from here to there.
By the same token, once you reach the 10 million dollar a year level, are you really going to notice whether your tax rate is 30% or 40% You still have more than enough money to do pretty much everything you want. While putting an extra $1,000,000/year into social services could change a lot of lives.