http://www.politifact.com/virginia/...antor-says-almost-50-percent-americans-dont-/ Eric Cantor says almost 50 percent of Americans don't pay income taxes But because the U.S. uses the tax system to distribute money, it reduces the tax liability for 51 percent of tax filing units to, or below, zero. Williams said that’s largely due to popular tax breaks, or tax expenditures. "There are lots and lots of them. We estimate they total more than a trillion dollars a year in reduced taxes and in fact the bulk of those go to the top end of the income distribution," he said. Even so, because high earners have so much income liability, the breaks still don’t bring them down to zero. But popular lower and middle income breaks like earned income tax credits, child credits and mortgage interest deductions do get a majority of the population off the hook. Not only are we nearing that situation, but as the Joint Committee on Taxation pointed out shortly after Cantor’s statement, we moved beyond it. So we find the Majority Leader’s statement True.
you are correct, sorry. study that i've been looking at that says 17% don't pay includes SS tax, FICA, state income tax etc.
Well, I think the republicans are a bit hypocritical for complaining about the situation. The reagan tax cuts removed the bottom 6M taxpayers from the tax rolls altogether, and each succeeding set of tax cuts removed even more lower income earners. I personally think nobody should pay $1000 in taxes and get back $2000 in credits. In fact, everyone, IMO, should pay at least something, just so they have a sense that govt. is taking their money and spending it. Or to have a vested interest in what govt. spends on. That study says $1T in tax breaks to everyone. Eliminate those and we're pretty close to balanced budget. But I'd prefer we cut $1T in spending instead. I'm not seeing that govt. needs to be 2x bigger than it was (spending wise) than 10 years ago. And technically, we have a workforce of ~120M and a population of ~310M, so there's 190M who don't work at all or pay income taxes or SS or anything...
so because they dont make enough money at their multiple minimum wage jobs to have any tax liability, it is their own fault denny? what do you propose? raising their liability? america needs a middle class for revenue....and taxing the poor and asking them to make up for it is so fucking stupid its not even worth talking about
1/2 the people who earn wages aren't poor. I'd propose at least $10/month in federal tax for anyone with a paycheck. Taxes is the price of GSA trips to Vegas, you know. Or better yet, it's the price of "society."
This really is the crux of the issue, well stated. If you don't have a vested interest (ie govt taking taxes from you) then there is no incentive\reason for concern over what gov't spends all the tax money on. Everyone should have to contribute, even if it is only a little bit.
I was thinking about this in a slightly different context recently: college towns. College students get to vote where they go to school, quite often, and in towns that have large student bodies and/or smaller non-college communities, a population that turns over ever four or five years could establish laws and ordinances that hurt the people that are permanent residents. It's a pretty significant moral hazard that I'm surprised isn't a bigger deal than it is. I think that there's a similar moral hazard when people vote who have no investment in the larger system and income taxes, in particular. If there is no reason for someone to fear increased taxes (because they won't pay them), then that person will very often vote in favor of them... or if a person gets benefits with no costs, it's unlikely they will vote against their own interests. I don't know what the answer is. Ed O.
There is no answer or "solution". It is one of the key flaws of democracy. It is why this country was founded as a republic and not a democracy. Property rights, rule of law, strong minority rights, senates with disproportionate representation, etc. are all there to slow or prevent tryanny of the majority.
An astute analysis. This is essentially why we have a constitution, instead of a savage direct democracy where the majority faction is like a brutal tyranny. Unfortunately in welfare states like Greece (and soon the US), nobody wants to cut anything even when we go broke.
Re'd. Great post. We have many people who pay no taxes- both wealthy & poor. We have many people who don't vote. While the majority pretty much gets their way, we have other checks & balances that are to keep some sort of general protection for the minority. But income taxes have become so unrepresentative of the people. Like Denny pointed out, if you have skin in the game you have to pay your share- no matter how small or large it may be. But decades of loopholes, liberal policies and conservative protections have rendered the system nearly useless. And this is why I don't care for any of the candidates for President (including Obama). All they seek it to protect the status quo of a deeply damaged system that is used to reward & punish citizens more so than fairly collect taxes. At some point in time we need a few politicians decision makers to think outside the partisan box.
I'm fine with a progressive tax system, but like Denny wrote, EVERYONE has to have skin in the game. If my taxes have to go up, then everyone's taxes need to increase as well. I don't care if it's a dollar a year, everyone needs to share in the pain.
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville
He's not talking about pay a %, he's talking about the rich paying $0 and the bus driver even paying $1. Way out of context here. Before Reagan's tax reforms, depreciation on investment real estate could trivially wipe out all a rich person's taxable income
