Obama '08?

@okie,

okie wrote:

I am telling you close to 40% of the people pay no income tax. Look it up. This should be common knowledge. This is old news, I am surprised you don't know it.

New news to me, Okie. Where can we look it up? Please provide a link to your claim that this is common knowledge. Thank you for any info you can give us.

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

okie wrote:

I am telling you close to 40% of the people pay no income tax. Look it up. This should be common knowledge. This is old news, I am surprised you don't know it.

New news to me, Okie. Where can we look it up? Please provide a link to your claim that this is common knowledge. Thank you for any info you can give us.

Here are the figures for 2006:

Quote:

March 30, 2006

Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million
by Scott A. Hodge

Fiscal Fact No. 54

With the April 17th deadline for federal tax returns looming, Americans are sharply aware of their federal income tax liabilities. However, one aspect of federal income taxes they may not be aware of is the growing number of Americans who pay zero federal income tax after taking advantage of deductions and credits.

During 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans"or 41 percent of the U.S. population"will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006.1 This total includes those who pay no tax, and those who pay some tax upfront and are later refunded the full amount of the tax paid or more.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html

And for the current tax situation, here is CBS News take on it:

Quote:

(CBS) On April 15, don't be surprised if the line at your local post office is a bit shorter than usual. That's because your neighbors may not be paying any income taxes this year.

An astonishing 43.4 percent of Americans now pay zero or negative federal income taxes. The number of single or jointly-filing "taxpayers" - the word must be applied sparingly - who pay no taxes or receive government handouts has reached 65.6 million, out of a total of 151 million.

Those numbers come from an analysis published yesterday by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. Neither is a low-tax or conservative advocacy group; the Urban Institute was created under the Johnson administration during the Great Society era, and it receives most of its funding from the federal government.

"You've got a larger and larger share of people paying less and less for the services provided by the federal government," says Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "The concern is that the majority can say, 'Let's have more benefits, spend more,' if they're not paying for it. It's 'free.' That's not a good thing to have."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/15/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4945874.shtml

This is why on the 'conservatism' thread, some of us are strongly advocating a tax reform that would not soak the rich job producers with heavier taxes but would rather spread out the burden so that everybody pays at least a little. It is an extremely unhealthy situation for40+% of the people to have a vote that results in benefits to themselves and imposes no consequences whatsoever on themselves.

It is also why the President's promise to cut taxes for 95% of working Americans rings really hollow.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

95% of those workers who pay taxes will see their tax cut.

Obama has included "workers and their families."

The problem with this statement is Obama is including people that prepare tax returns, not just people that pay taxes. Many people that prepare the returns and are considered taxpayers, they not only pay no tax, but get money back.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxie, I must thank you for providing two sources that shows the percentages of income earners who pay no taxes. This chart shows the up and down trend of non-taxpayers, so the fact that 95% of workers and their families will see a tax reduction is truly misleading.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Fiscal%20Facts/Nonpayers%202006/ff-20060330.jpg

I hate it when our government plays numbers games to fool the American People, and that goes double for Obama who promised "transparency" in his government. Lying is not transparency.

I am going to write Obama/white house and tell him his lying must stop, and that his rhetoric will no longer be trusted by this voter.

3 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

okie wrote:

I am telling you close to 40% of the people pay no income tax. Look it up. This should be common knowledge. This is old news, I am surprised you don't know it.

New news to me, Okie. Where can we look it up? Please provide a link to your claim that this is common knowledge. Thank you for any info you can give us.

Foxfyre provided a link, and I quote:

"During 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans"or 41 percent of the U.S. population"will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006.1 This total includes those who pay no tax, and those who pay some tax upfront and are later refunded the full amount of the tax paid or more."

1 Reply

@okie,

Actually, what Obama is actually saying is he will increase the payments to workers that already pay no tax, so the payments using the tax system has actually become a social welfare program. But they are not taxcuts, that is ridiculous.

To be honest, the Bush administration used the same kinds of words when talking about taxcuts, it included the increase of pay backs over and above what people were getting back by using tax credits. Yet even while Bush did this, and the rich payed higher and higher percentages of the tax revenue, he was still accused of favoring the rich.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Everybody pays taxes, at least sales tax and property tax (possibly indirectly through rent payments).

That is true, that is why I was careful to say "income tax," not just simply "tax."

This is not talked about very much, but I believe one of the dirty little secrets is that most people are far more impacted by the social security and medicare tax, which takes 15% of what everyone earns up to the threshold, which I think is close to a 100K now, or more. I realize only 7.5% comes out of the paycheck for employees, but the employer pays another 7.5%, which he could pay in wages if he did not have that overhead.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I hate it when our government plays numbers games to fool the American People, and that goes double for Obama who promised "transparency" in his government. Lying is not transparency.

I am going to write Obama/white house and tell him his lying must stop, and that his rhetoric will no longer be trusted by this voter.

ci, are you feeling okay? You don't seem to be yourself this evening? Have you awakened from a deep sleep, or ????? I am pinching myself to try and figure out if I am reading this correctly. Am I dreaming?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I wrote to the White House:

Quote:

CONTACT US

President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible administration in American history. To send questions, comments, concerns, or well-wishes to the President or his staff, please use the form below:
Thank you.
You can also call or write to the President:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I will check back and see what you wrote to the White House, ci, as all I see in the above post is a blank form. Again, I am pinching myself, could ci have actually awakened from a deep sleep and suddenly realized Obama has been lying to us all this time? That seems a possibility, but I will await confirmation from ci.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I'm a firm believer that these people who pay no income taxes, should not be allowed to have a say in increasing the taxes of those that do. They should also not have a say in deciding how the income tax money is spent.

40% of the population is able to vote for people who promise them things, KNOWING that they will not have any responsibility for paying for it.

It's bullshit.

That being said, as someone who payed upwards of 10k in taxes last year, I am willing to pay more taxes in order to balance our budget. I really want to see everyone pay some share of their income in taxes though.

4 Replies

@maporsche,

I am NOT willing to pay more in taxes to balance an irresponsible, too far reaching, too oppressive, too big government budget. I want that budget declared null and void and replaced with a responsible one. I am more than willing to pay my fair share for those things the government must and should do. But we shouldn't ever agree to pay for whatever just because some idealist thinks would be wonderful to do or have or they can solidify their next election by pandering to special constituencies or fooling the gullible masses.

And the problem is far worse than just those 40+% who pay no income taxes at all. The problem is those who want to solidify their power, prestige, and fortune who are actively trying to get more and more people who don't pay income taxes to vote for them. How do they make those promises? By expecting people like you who do pay taxes to pick up the tab.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

If more people were responsible for paying taxes, I'm pretty sure you'd see more politicians working towards a responsible budget. I don't like paying taxes for things I don't support either, but it's going to be that way regardless of what you or I do.

However, Foxy, you and will differ on how our tax monies should be spent. For example, I think our defense budget is much too large. I think we can reduce by at least 30% and still maintain by far the most advanced military in the world and hold on to our sole-superpower status (at least regarding military might).

I would invest that money into national healthcare, and I prefer single payer.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

I understand where you are coming from, but I must disagree with your conclusions about who is able to vote. It's the congress and president who spends taxpayer monies; it's up to us to make sure they do so responsibly, but we all know that becomes an oxymoron. It's not only the federal government that overspends; it's also local and state governments. They do not have good financial management skills.

What angered me about Obama is that he continues to lie about who will benefit from his tax cuts. To me, this is a major lie that now makes me skeptical about his honesty, and I told him that in my communication to him.

I know all politicians "lie," but we expect some ethics from a man who claims he is a religious person, and said his administration will be "transparent." It's not transparency when he lies.

2 Replies

I was not an Obama supporter, so I am not surprised or disappointed in his performance so far in office. Indeed in several respects he has been better than I expected.

I think Foxfyore made a good point earlier about populist politicians who get votes (and personal power & wealth) by promising good deals to large groups of citizens (for example those who pay no or little income tax), in a situation that will knowably - in the long term - end up bad for everyone as a result. A good analogy may be the union bosses who attained a good deal of power and personal wealth by promising (and fighting for) above market wages, restrictive work rules that limited efficient innovation, and lifetime full medical benefits and that ultimately killed the industries they were deriving these benefits from. (Think of our former steel industry; our collapsing automobile industry; and our failing public education system.)

I believe Obama has been very good in rhetorically describing many of the contradictions we face, both in our domestiv affairs and our foreign policies. I also believe that some increase in government regulatory power is indicated in our current situation. However I fault him for what appears to me to be a very cynical willingness on his part to pay off powerful democrat constituency groups (Unions, and several groups heavily involved in government handouts - including those that don't pay income taxes) particularly in areas in which it appears he really knows better. The recent charade in which Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd and other Democrat Congressional figures absolved themselves, their previous actions and those of their appointed minions like Franklin Raines to stoke the fires in FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC that directly led to the mortgage bubble, called out very loudly for some intervention by our new president. However, sadly we saw only silence.

Obama has the potential to be a great president and unify the people around solving the core issues before us. Unfortunately he appears unwilling to take on the self-serving loonies in his own party - even in a situations that strongly suggests he could do so successfully. Perhaps this is one of the bad consequences of the many compromises he made during his fast ascent through the cesspool of Chicago politics.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Well maporsche, if you want to implement that then the first step is you have to take any FICA tax out of the general fund. Most people that pay no income tax DO pay FICA since FICA is on GROSS income and not on the taxable income.

Simple example.
A family with 2 kids that earns $20,000.
You would pay zero in income taxes.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/individual_rates.pdf
(A family making $26,000 would pay nothing in income taxes.)

However, the government would have received $2480 in revenues from the $20,000 that the family earned.

The "paid no taxes" argument is usually full of **** because they ignore 50% of the federal revenues when they make such an argument.

3 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Well maporsche, if you want to implement that then the first step is you have to take any FICA tax out of the general fund. Most people that pay no income tax DO pay FICA since FICA is on GROSS income and not on the taxable income.

Simple example.
A family with 2 kids that earns $20,000.
You would pay zero in income taxes.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/individual_rates.pdf
(A family making $26,000 would pay nothing in income taxes.)

However, the government would have received $2480 in revenues from the $20,000 that the family earned.

The "paid no taxes" argument is usually full of **** because they ignore 50% of the federal revenues when they make such an argument.

Please explain. I assume the $2,480 you say the government collects is in the form of payroill taxes; half of which are paid by the employer and half by the employee. So in your example the employee would have paid only $1,240, which is just 4.7% of his $26K income -- not bad compared to the 32% of income I pay (after deductions) in payroll and income taxes.

Are you claiming that 50% of total Federal revenues is in the form of payroll taxes? In the first place these are premiums on social security retirement and disability insurance, and not funds for the general expenses of government. In the second, half of them are paid by employers, not the employees.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I'm a firm believer that these people who pay no income taxes, should not be allowed to have a say in increasing the taxes of those that do. They should also not have a say in deciding how the income tax money is spent.

40% of the population is able to vote for people who promise them things, KNOWING that they will not have any responsibility for paying for it.

It's bullshit.

I assume you are being flippant about "these people who pay no income taxes should not be allowed to have a say..." Does that mean that those folks who pay a lot of taxes should get 2 or 3 votes?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob, Good post, except (and there's always one) that both parties are guilty of "payoffs" to their monied interests. Let's not kid ourselves; that's how they get re-elected into office.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie, What you have never figured out and never will is that I calls em the way I sees em; it doesn't matter which party. Do I have bias? Who doesn't? You're always asleep; your posts rarely have any reality.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know