Out of curiosity, could you give a source for this 40% of the labor force not paying taxes? Seems a bit high to me, but you seem to use that figure quite a bit.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Tea Parties
- Thread starter USMC Helo Bubba
- Start date
Out of curiosity, could you give a source for this 40% of the labor force not paying taxes? Seems a bit high to me, but you seem to use that figure quite a bit.
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=155
This is for 2005 The ** figure for 2008 is approx 38%, estimated. Higher for 2009, but 2010 off the charts, maybe 44-45%.
The Chief got you a good link. I believe I also saw it buried on the Census web site one day. It is a pretty undisputed number for recent years. That it seems high to you is because it IS shocking. Check out ratios of how much of the tax revenue of the country is paid by so very very few. It simply is not healthy and will damage the country. Educate yourself and join the debate.
Thanks for the help guys. I'm writing a thesis concerning immigration. A section therein could be improved with a discussion of tax payouts/receipts. Don't mind if I do a bit more digging and use this...
Regarding this 40% number, is it that 40% don't pay federal income taxes, but DO pay state, county, local, sales, property, etc...taxes, or 40% literally pay NO taxes at all?
40% of American's pay no federal income tax (check out the link, it is IRS data). No telling what various states' tax policy is, some have no income tax at all. But in my state the tax system is almost completely harmonized with the federal, just different rates. So in my state it is very likely that 40% pay no state income tax as well, but I don't know. Everyone that works pays federal payroll taxes. I think that is fair. But some politicians think it is unfair that less affluent employees help fund their Social Security or Medicare. The day may come when 40% of workers don't pay any payroll taxes if some members of Congress have their way..
Correct. The figures here are just Fed Income taxes. Whether or not you have state income taxes is your own call, and whether or not those taxes are deductible from federal taxes is also another issue.
Looking at the data, alot of The Chief and Wink's concerns are backed up by facts, but I would submit the following as a counter argument
Assume you need $100 per year to stay alive (keeping in check your needs for food and shelter) Alot of individuals are making about $110 in our imaginary economy. If out of that $10 must come payment for their local community services, not much is left for the federal level, and presumably none for savings. Let us assume the $10 is spent on federal and state taxes all told. G-d forbid he incurs medical expenses. Either way this individual will work until he dies.
If in that same economy an individual earns $1000 dollars, he has about 900 dollars to save or spend on stuff that is for our purposes optional. (Motorcycles, Guns) I would argue that taxing that person at a higher rate will not diminish his quality of life to a significant degree, even if you taxed him ten times as much ($100) as our first example (10). He will still 80X more discretionary income than the starvation line individual. (110-100 to stay alive *80 equals the 800 he would have after 1000-100 for living-100 for State and Federal Taxes)
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Well, I'm not making 10X the poverty level like your example.
Equal pay, equal taxes. Tax all income the same.
Or tax based on consumption.
But the current system sucks much ass.
Saying that higher taxes are OK because me, the "well off person" you feel "Can afford it" sound all nice and noble..
Get back to me when you are handing over between 30 and 45 percent of you gross income all told between income tax, property taxes (and I have a VERY modest home. It has wheels) sales taxes (lets assume you can't buy everything at the NEX, because you can't, and they still tax things like fuel) while lets say your brother pays NOTHING and uses far more social services while living in a nicer house.
It's easy to sound noble when you are one of the ones not paying.
Equal pay, equal taxes. Tax all income the same.
Or tax based on consumption.
But the current system sucks much ass.
Saying that higher taxes are OK because me, the "well off person" you feel "Can afford it" sound all nice and noble..
Get back to me when you are handing over between 30 and 45 percent of you gross income all told between income tax, property taxes (and I have a VERY modest home. It has wheels) sales taxes (lets assume you can't buy everything at the NEX, because you can't, and they still tax things like fuel) while lets say your brother pays NOTHING and uses far more social services while living in a nicer house.
It's easy to sound noble when you are one of the ones not paying.
MB, I wouldn't even begin to comment on your particular situation. I freely admit that I'm in no way qualified to discuss the myriad ways our current system is letting you down.
My point in my above post is that I do see the fairness in some of our more productive citizens paying more for the upkeep up the system. They're benefiting most from it and it doesn't hurt their Q of L very much.
Is it an extreme example? Yes. However, there are individuals making money in that kind of ratio. Some CEOs make more than 300X of their worker's average wage. I do think it's fair that Warren Buffet pays more to uphold our society than I as a guy just trying to get on his feet can.
To illustrate my point, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
My point in my above post is that I do see the fairness in some of our more productive citizens paying more for the upkeep up the system. They're benefiting most from it and it doesn't hurt their Q of L very much.
Is it an extreme example? Yes. However, there are individuals making money in that kind of ratio. Some CEOs make more than 300X of their worker's average wage. I do think it's fair that Warren Buffet pays more to uphold our society than I as a guy just trying to get on his feet can.
To illustrate my point, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Ouch, hit a nerve.
Payroll taxes, what they are now called. Originally called by the politicians "Insurance Contributions" hence FICA or Federal Insurance Contribution Act. Now "Taxes" used by POLs as example of how unfair the system is, that is, everyone pays the same and the "rich", those that make over $107K a year (rounded up) pay nothing on income above that level.
Lets take a look at what the Pols are talking about. First they want the "low income" folks to pay no FICA, think the Stimulus Package has a rebate of 2 months for low income. Not sure specifics, could be wrong. The Dems also want to eliminate the cap of $107K and make all income subject to FICA.
Take a look at a fellow, self employed that pays 16% of income or about $16,000 a year in FICA. Now lets move that cap up to $250K and that same fellow pays $40K year year FICA. Now move that cap up to a cool million that the same chap now pays $160,000 in FICA. Now we talking serious $$. We as legislators can really have some power with all that coin.
Note: The FICA rate is currently 7.7% (or so) for employee, matched by the employeer's 7.7% So end sum is same $$ to Government.
Now lets look at payout when you retire. Now since we have a means test for Social Security Payments, those folk that make more than certain amount have their payments reduced by serious amounts, currently up to 60%. They paid for the system, yet get no benefits.
Hmmmm..... now FICA is simply a welfare system?
Well now the POLs do not want you all to know all of this. And a whole bunch of unamerican bastards do not want me to attend any of the "Tea Parties", trying to intimidate by insulting, belittling me for atending.
Indeed.
Why would it be inherently more fair to tax on consumption than income? Despite the number of Fair Tax discussions we've had here, this is still not quite clear to me.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Because if I choose to donate a large percentage of my income to charity, or invest it, or whatever, I don't pay tax on it.
Basically accomplishes the same thing as the overly complex tax code, but evens out a lot of the married vs single vs 1 kid vs 10 kids disparities.
Basically accomplishes the same thing as the overly complex tax code, but evens out a lot of the married vs single vs 1 kid vs 10 kids disparities.
Yeah, but if you're taxing based on consumption, then basically, you're going to have to beef up the sales tax to huge levels. Thats very regressive because it's poorer people what tend to consume more relative to their income. Wealthier people who can save more do much much better under such a system
In numbers, Make 100, Taxes are 25 Percent of every dollar, You pay 25 dollars in tax, or 25% percent tax
Make 1000, but only spend 100. Choose to save the rest. You pay 25 dollars in tax, but only 2.5% of your income.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Jynx, in most consumption based tax schemes I have seen, things for basic sustenance like food, clothing items under $50, and rent were not taxed. They can eat, clothe themselves and have a place to live.
I see way too many "poor" "rollin' on 22's" and wearing outfits that cost more than a set of AWGs.
I see way too many "poor" "rollin' on 22's" and wearing outfits that cost more than a set of AWGs.
The notion that the Fair Tax would be regressive and harm the poor is one of the biggest misconceptions about it. I forget the exact details, but they fully address all of this in the books and website.
The other option is a 12% flat income tax with no loopholes and 12% flat corporate tax, no loopholes.
The other option is a 12% flat income tax with no loopholes and 12% flat corporate tax, no loopholes.