Dude, when I was a grad student, I didn’t pay any federal income taxes (well, to be technical, I paid them and then had them refunded). I made $16,000/year, which was enough to support me (just me), rent a not-a-hellhole but also not very nice studio apartment, buy a $2500 car with over 100K miles on it, buy groceries, and that’s pretty much it. Now, it wasn’t a horrible existence – I wasn’t starving or homeless or anything – but now I live the “typical suburban lifestyle” and I can tell you that I was pretty fucking far off it in grad school.
Oh, and need it be said that I was still “required to help support the government”? I just didn’t pay any federal income taxes; I of course still paid into Social Security, still paid sales tax, and still had to pay state income tax.
If we were to revert to 1990s-era taxes, do you know how much “extra” in taxes that person making $550,000 would pay on that additional $50,000 in income?
$1,500.
Would you really give up $50,000 in gross income because of a tax bill that’s $1,500 more than today?
You’re making the assumption that your lifestyle then was/is the upper limit not to be taxed. Clearly half of our population isn’t living the way you did then, and yet they still don’t have to pay any income tax.
I can tell you why that is but you probably won’t like it. What is happening is that Democratic congresspeople and Democratic presidents are continually seeking to raise the bar for what qualifies as insufficient income all out of proportion to reality of how they’re living, while seeking at the same time to soak the rich enough to make that possible. (And of course in so doing, they also have to keep redefining the definition of rich downward so as to bring more people into the tax-paying pool.)
This practice is called “buying votes with other people’s money”. To the degree they can give the majority of the populace tax breaks, they can increase the number of people who will vote for them. And, knowing that “the rich” make up only a small percentage of the population, they can do this and reap far more votes than they’ll lose. It’s all very cynical, really.
This is the reason why I’ve only mentioned their being exempted from income tax.
Where on earth did you get that idea? I mean, I can’t even remotely see why you’d make that inference.
Actually, none of what you say is quite clear. Jas09 has already pointed out that “half our population” is a statistical anomaly, that a more typical figure is 35-40%. But I shan’t quibble over 10-15%. What I will quibble over, however, is your characterization of the lifestyle of those who don’t pay income tax. You were just flat-out wrong in my case, but hey, maybe I was just one of the (un)lucky ones. Feel free to share with me the studies you’re referring to about the lifestyles of those who don’t pay income tax. (And don’t you dare say, “Just look around.” That’s bullshit and even you must, at some level, know it’s bullshit).
Skipping over the stuff about how Democrats are evil…
Patently false. Didn’t you say – and here, I’ll quote it for a second time, this time with gusto –
If there’s a distinction you’re making that somehow only includes only income tax, you must have used a 0.0001 point font, because I can’t see it.
Given the tone of that post I’m not gonna waste my time with you. You sounded reasonable at first and that why I took the time to answer you despite the fact that I’ve spent way too much time on this board the last couple of days.
In closing I would simply point out that Social Security and Medicare are not “the government”; therefore people paying into it are not “supporting the government”.
I’ll leave it to you to figure out or remain confused as to the rest of what I said.
Wow, really? Huh. Who knew conservatives had such delicate feefees…
That’s a pretty asinine distinction. Regardless, I still paid state income taxes (and gas taxes and sales taxes etc.) even when I didn’t pay federal income tax. So you’re still wrong, pal. Uncle Sam takes his cut from everyone.
Here’s a tip for future reference: no one will fault you for saying, “Sorry, I overgeneralized and misspoke. Thanks for the clarification.” It makes you look a lot less silly than these semantic hair-splittings you seem to be clinging to.
No, I’m afraid you’re wrong. Yes, Uncle Sam takes a cut of gas taxes, but they apply to everyone who buys gas and are not part of any income tax code; and no, Uncle Sam does not receive state and local sales taxes, and even if he did, once again they would not fall within income tax code.
Good advice, no doubt, and in some instances undoubtedly it would be good advice to follow. But this time you’re simply missing what I stated quite clearly. Kindly refer back to post #91, which is the post where I believe I first mentioned the 50% figure. In it, I clearly said:
<bolding mine now for clarification>
Notice first of all that I specifically said “income tax”, which to my mind means that I’m talking about federal income tax and not Social Security, Medicare or anything else. Another hint is that no taxes but federal taxes apply to all households in the country, so this also should have tipped you off that I was talking about federal income tax.
Secondly, don’t you think it’s a reasonable expectation, when discussing practices regarding federal income taxes, that people will understand that you’re talking about federal income taxes and not state taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, excise taxes, and any other type of tax? Why should I have been expected to anticipate that you would lump all taxes in with it when I was clearly talking about federal income tax, and then to post a mea culpa for my oversight in having not done so?
Stop and think for a minute about what you’re doing here. You have misunderstood (or overlooked) what it is that I actually said, and now you’re trying to shift the blame to me for what is in fact an error you made in reading comprehension. Frankly, I think a mea culpa on your part would be the gentlemanly thing to do at this point, and you can expect a gracious response from me if you do.
Thank you, so you finally admit that even someone who pays $0.00 in income tax contributes to the government. Was that so hard?
I guess it was hard after all. Look, I didn’t say that gas taxes are part of income tax code. That’s a silly thing to say. I do, however, hold gas taxes up as an example of taxes senso lato that the government gets to collect. You know, arguing against something you said that I’ll quote for a third time now (with super-duper emphasis this time) and you’ll obviously ignore (rather than refute, because you can’t):
Fair enough; I was glib and misspoke. Uncle Sam (i.e., the federal government) does not get my state income taxes. However, government (i.e., the government of the State of Ohio) did get my state income taxes. Again, me contributing to government without having to pay federal taxes.
That’s great, and the only objection I have with post 91 is the fact that you don’t want to acknowledge that 50% is an aberration… but as I also said, that’s fine, I can overlook a 10-15% difference. But what you said in post 91 doesn’t change the fact that you also said what I quoted above.
An entirely reasonable expectation. One I originally made, in fact, based on post 91. But then you went and changed your position by saying that those who pay no federal income tax “are no longer required to help support the government.” Full stop. If anyone’s lumping income taxes with other taxes, it’s you with THAT VERY STATEMENT.
Starving, I posted this chart in the debates earlier. It is very simple to follow with line graphs. If you spend a little time, i am sure you can follow it. The fact is by nearly any measure you dig up, the rich and corporations are paying less and less taxes all the time. It has been going on since Reagan.
The wealth in America is getting focused into a smaller and smaller group. It is dangerous to the American system .
I started a thread called “Ask the rich person” because (i) someone had recently started an “Ask the poor person” thread and (ii) I’m kind of an asshole. All I said about how much I make is that I make in excess of $250k (I may have thrown a little more on in passing, such as “well in excess,” I’m not sure). And some people said “you ain’ rich, you still have to work! Talk to me when you have $10 million in the bank.” So I said “OK, maybe I’m not rich, whatever.” Whereupon others said “geez, you make over $250k, how can you say you aren’t rich?” Whereupon I :rolleyes:ed all over myself.
So, I think some of the use of “rich” in quotes is just to avoid the whole argument over what is rich and what isn’t. It’s a way of saying “so-called rich” or “rich, however you may want to define it, I don’t feel like fighting about it.”
I think the $250k number was bandied about in Obama’s election campaign as the cut-off for the folks Obama wants to stick it to. He vowed not to raise taxes for anyone making less than that, for one thing. So, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for you to have that stuck in your head as the line for “‘rich’” (extra quotes for extra quotiness).
I’m beginning to wonder just how long you’ve been out of college. If you’re a former grad student I’m guessing you much have skipped a few grades here and there, 'cause grown-ups don’t split hairs and take delight in little victories that no one cares about which have nothing to do with the subject at hand. You might want to take note of the fact that you’re the only one in the thread taking this tack.
It’s all well and good that you brought this up gonzo, but as they say - what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I’m talking about individual income tax rates and the fact that our government keeps raising the level of income as to who should be required to pay income tax while simultaneously lowering its definition of “rich” in order to take up the slack. What does that have to do with corporations and the ultra-rich who can take advantage of what are, let’s face it, government-created tax loopholes in the first place?
Such a pity they have no one to protect them, no allies in the Halls of Power, they are cast heartlessly onto the Hamptons, set adrift in the ski slopes of Aspen. If you have tears, prepare to shed them…