People complaining about people not paying federal income tax should know the truth ... not the propaganda spewed by some radio personalities. Here are facts courtesy of Forbes Magazine, a Republican Bible. The vast majority of non-income taxpayers fall into three categories:
• 17 percent includes students, people with disabilities or illnesses, the long-term unemployed, and other people with very low taxable incomes. Also included would be people like our soldiers who are exempted from paying income taxes while they are on active duty in a war zone.
• 22 percent of people who did not pay federal income taxes in 2009 are people 65 or older who have modest incomes.
• 61 percent are working people who pay payroll taxes but are not paying income taxes.
William Maslen
Mesa
sockratties posted at 7:51 am on Thu, Oct 4, 2012.
So if you don’t get to vote unless you pay taxes doesn’t income tax become a poll tax? If you pay twice as much tax do you get to vote twice? Sounds like the SuperPACs. Of course that mother of three who lost her husband in Iraq and works as a waitress putting her kids through school is a freeloader civilian, not a citizen, so she shouldn’t be allowed to vote, huh?
Some here have said SS is going broke. Not so. $2.6T of our debt is owed to the SS fund. It was borrowed and squandered by congress. Congress would like to find a way to get out of paying it back so they act like it’s costing the U.S. money. SS actually makes money but the Fed has to pay a modest interest on the none negotiable notes they used to replace the cash.
Entitlements, by the way, refers to money that is collected for a purpose and paid out, such as Social Security. The term in no way refers to the derogatory interpretation those who dislike paying what is owed would like to imply, such as recipients being special. The government made a contract with wage earners: They would take part of their income and at a specific age they would receive a certain amount in return. Congress would like to find a way to wiggle out of their end of the deal and keep the money. They want to blame the recipients for running out of cookies but it is congress that has their hand in the cookie jar.
loose stool posted at 4:39 pm on Wed, Oct 3, 2012.
People that dont pay federal taxes should not be allowed to vote, with the exception of soilders and people living on SS. The rest of them are civilans not citizens.
VofReason posted at 1:17 pm on Wed, Oct 3, 2012.
Interesting, the author above has reconciled that 100% of the people who do not pay taxes are just good upstanding citizens who are hard working or a victim of circumstance. So no one is taking advantage of the system? So what about the people who do pay taxes, are they just all people born with a silver spoon in their mouth that are money grubbing Republicans?
VofReason posted at 1:13 pm on Wed, Oct 3, 2012.
Here is something, if the premise is that we want to get out of SS what we pay in, why not let people just keep their money and use when they want. Or is the other premise that people are too stupid to save their money to take care of themselves and that the Government need to take it from you now and then hire a bunch of people who are union, get platinum benefits with a pension to give some protion of it back to you after expenses later. Wait don't answer that.
Arizona Willie posted at 12:20 pm on Sun, Sep 30, 2012.
Don't forget, folks. The LARGEST tax increase in history on the MIDDLE CLASS came during the Reagan administration when they removed the deduction for interest, except for interest on your home mortgage ( now they want to take that away too ).
They also made people start paying Federal Income Tax on money they received in Unemployment Compensation, which previously was not subject to Federal Income Tax.
These tax increased costs the Middle Class and Lower Class BILLIONS of dollars in extra taxes and were used to pay for the TAX CUTS that Reagan gave the 1%.
Ever since Reagan we have been rolling back regulations on business and giving tax cut after tax cut to the wealthy because the Republicans claimed it would create more jobs if the wealthy had more money.
Looks like we got LIED to.
Where are all the jobs they said would be created?
In China.
Arizona Willie posted at 9:34 am on Sun, Sep 30, 2012.
What Kansas has done is exactly what Mitt Romeny plans to do --- but doesn't dare tell you.
Kansas has given massive tax breaks to the wealthy -- up to $20,000 / year, and at the same time, has INCREASED TAXES ON EVERYONE ELSE.
Brought to you by the Republican Party. The Party of Borrow and Spend. The party of the Elite who don't believe they need to worry about the 47%.
If the Republican ideology is so prosperous and right for America… Why are so many " strongly Republican " states poor, rank near the bottom in education and provide such low levels of average income
Arizona Willie posted at 11:41 am on Sat, Sep 29, 2012.
Kansas has started enacting the Republican Plan for America.
Kansas has enacted a massive tax cut --- FOR THE WEALTHY --- while raising taxes on the regular folks!!!
Here is a link to the FACTS.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/28/929011/kansas-governor-blame-europe/
fae4now posted at 11:29 am on Sat, Sep 29, 2012.
Very nicely put Willie.
I don't imagine I could possibly live long enough to see the day where my moral compass defends and protects someone who rigs the legal system and tax code with payoffs to make it perfectly legal to dodge taxes on million and billions in off-shore accounts while at the SAME TIME condemning as a "taker/moocher" the guy who got his legs blown off in war and now depends on the government for not doing his fair share.
How small would my mind have to be.... how much would I have to hate my fellow man
to adopt this mindset? I cannot comprehend it.
Arizona Willie posted at 10:50 am on Sat, Sep 29, 2012.
Having read thousands and thousands of posts in many political forms, I have observed that middle and lower class right-wingers all have a " victim " mentality.
They complain about people who get welfare, or receive money from any social program, and they complain about people who owe no federal income tax.
When you come down to it and analyze their language, you realize that at the heart of the matter… these people feel they are not getting a fair shake.
They feel like people are taking advantage of them.
They feel that other people are getting something that they don't get.
They believe they are paying the bills for other people.
They believe that people who get public assistance are sponging off the system and could be working but they're too lazy, and that they are paying the bills for those lazy people.
It is so sad to see these people being so badly misled.
It is a triumph of right wing hate radio.
The Republican Elite ( who own the media and the Republican Party ) have had their minions persuading these folks to hate those who are in a worse position than they are, and have directed their attention away from themselves and what they are doing to these same Republican partisans.
They have persuaded them to vote and act against their own best interest and to vote in people who are dedicated to keeping the masses ignorant and underpaid.
They have been brought up on double-speak where right is wrong and wrong is right and black is white and white is black.
They accuse liberals of having a victim mentality and thinking they are " owed " something, but from their writings you can clearly see that they feel like they are " victims " and being cheated by people who get public assistance that THEY have to pay for in taxes.
They RESENT being required to pay taxes for social programs that help others.
They seem to be angry, bitter people
Have you ever seen a right winger post in favor of something?
They are always against just about anything.
fae4now posted at 10:23 am on Fri, Sep 28, 2012.
Chatmandu,
My question remains - with whome shall we begin? A great many of those who pay no taxes are the most vulnerable in our society so put your hatchet where your mouth is - who will you strike down first?
Your claim that only republicans are interested in entitlement reform is patently false. I and all my liberal/progressive pals are 100% in favor of eliminating the 30 billion dollar annual subsidy to the oil companies for instance. If there is a liberal out there who disagrees, please introduce yourself!
The difference between repubs and dems is in our view of WHICH entitlements are in need of reform. [wink]
P.S. Willie you are right on the mark. Corporate America has reported skyrocketing profits and lavish executive compensation paid for by cuts to worker wages and benefits and shifted the burden to the government/taxpayer. Our outrage belongs with corporate America. Why should anyone who works for a living require food stamps or other subsidies to survive?
Arizona Willie posted at 8:59 am on Fri, Sep 28, 2012.
Some people complain about 47% not paying any federal income tax, but they should be complaining about laws that allow employers to pay so little that people are on the verge of starvation.
They say 25% of children in America go to bed hungry!
Out of that 47% who owe no federal income tax, 61% are working but they make so little that the government has determined they should not pay any extra tax.
A good portion of that 61% are in the food industry. Many are waiters, who get paid as little as a $1.98 / hour and are expected to survive on tips.
It is a moral crime for the law to allow them to be paid so little.
chuckles3 posted at 8:11 am on Fri, Sep 28, 2012.
Boy am I confused by all the SS fans out there who state you should get back what you paid in......if everybody gets back what they paid in, why is the system going broke? Is that the new math?
And I thought Reagan and Bush tax cuts were only for the rich?
wdgnas posted at 6:11 am on Fri, Sep 28, 2012.
chatmandu002: are you including some 60% of the corporations that pay no federal income tax in your 47%?
when the republicans want to reduce (cut) the increases on social security and medicare it is alright. your social security and medicare is not being cut, you're just going to see less money.
when the tax advantage (cuts or whatever you want to call it) are taken away, the republicans whine "you are raising my taxes." don't look at as a tax increase, you're just not going to be able to write off as much.
CSalafia posted at 5:05 am on Fri, Sep 28, 2012.
82% of Americans pay federal income taxes.
47% have a net zero Federal income tax burden.
Why?
Well, thanks to Reagan's EITC and the Bush tax cuts.
Those whining about the 47% are just jealous that THEIR taxes didn't get cut to a net zero.
chatmandu002 posted at 10:59 pm on Thu, Sep 27, 2012.
fae4now,
You are quick to use children and the disabled to reply with a smart question. Please be reminded that the 47% are tax filers and not children or anyone that does not make enough to file income taxes. Also some of the fixed income seniors paid federal income taxes before the Bush tax cuts took effect. Those that paid taxes before the Bush tax cuts should start paying now. Reinstating the Bush tax cuts at a rate of 25% per year for the next 4 years would not be to sever an economic shock. All federal subsidies, tax deductions and tax credits(including the earn income tax credit) should be reduced by 25% per year for 4 years. Not to be forgotten is a cut of 5% to the federal operating budget per year for 4 years. Of course entitlement reform is a must which only the republicans seem willing to try.
fae4now posted at 9:09 pm on Thu, Sep 27, 2012.
So Willie and DonMey,
Assuming that the amount contributed by the hypothetical couple above earned a reasonable rate of return over the decades that those funds were entrusted to government care, there should be plenty there to cover their 'entitlement' . Unless of course someone intends to raid the piggy bank again while crying poor.
And I have no problem with the term entitlement - they are indeed entitled to it. It's their money!
fae4now posted at 8:49 pm on Thu, Sep 27, 2012.
Ok Chatmandu, I'm with you.
Let's make those 47% ante up! With whome shall we begin? The disabled, children? Or perhaps the soldiers who risk their lives for us each day? I know- let's go after the modest fixed incomes of the seniors! And while we're at it I propose a ban, on the basis of discrimination, on all those 'senior discounts'. Talk about entitlement attitudes! Hmfff!
[beam]
DonMey posted at 4:51 pm on Thu, Sep 27, 2012.
Nunya - According to Army.com, enlisted men are tax exempt, but officers only have certain kinds of income (which is most of it) included. I wasn't aware enlisted had a different tax exemption; that's a little odd.
DonMey posted at 4:43 pm on Thu, Sep 27, 2012.
Wilie - Here's the quote I was referring to for SS:
A married couple retiring last year, after both spouses earned average lifetime wages, paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank
So I was actually wrong about how soon it started; I thought it was still only for "future" retirees.
chatmandu002 posted at 3:18 pm on Thu, Sep 27, 2012.
It's time for more of the 47% to start paying their fair share. Repeal ALL the bush tax cuts at a rate of 25% per year for four years. Cut the federal budget by 5% per year for four years. Cut federal income tax credits by 25% per year for four years. Cut federal subsidies by 25% per for four years.
truth posted at 2:39 pm on Thu, Sep 27, 2012.
Social Security is not the deal it once was. A married couple that earned average lifetime wages and retired in 2011 paid about $598,000 in S.S. taxes over their careers, but can expect to collect only about $556,000 in benifits. Associated Press. The problem can be solved if the multi millionaires who pay under 15% Federal taxes were to pay their share of S.S. the system would work and the cheaters eliminated using SSI.
Nunyabezwax1 posted at 12:41 pm on Thu, Sep 27, 2012.
DonMey - you are incorrect. When a soldier is deployed in a hazardous duty zone, ALL of their money is non-taxable -- as it should be.
Nunyabezwax1 posted at 12:40 pm on Thu, Sep 27, 2012.
Social Security is not an entitlement program. SS taxes have been paid and the amount you are eligible to receive is directly related to how much you paid and for how long. Absolutely infuriating that people are calling it entitlement! It is not.
Arizona Willie posted at 11:09 am on Thu, Sep 27, 2012.
DonMey, how much you get OUT of Social Security depends entirely on how long you live after you begin to collect Social Security.
I don't know who has been lying to you about Social Security, but it's obvious they are good at it.
There is absolutely no reason why you would not get a decent return except the actuarial tables.
If you live a risky life, heavy drinking, bungee jumping, sky diving you run the risk of not living long enough to collect as much as you paid in.
But that's a rare situation.
As long as you have paid into Social Security properly during your working years, the program will pay you benefits based on what you earned. Just like it has done for many many years.
The program could be fixed beyond all question merely by removing the earnings cap.
Social Security and Medicare have been two wonderfully successful programs, that have enabled millions of people to live out their years in some measure of comfort. We don't see old people begging in the streets as in 3rd world countries.
DonMey posted at 10:07 am on Thu, Sep 27, 2012.
With the exception of medicare and social security, payroll taxes ARE income taxes.
And while the 65+ crowd will scream SS isn't an entitlement, their generation takes more out of Social Security than they put in. People my age are actually going to be among the first who pay MORE into Social Security than we'll get out of it, and it will only get worse for younger generations.
And "war zone" soldiers are still paying income taxes. The EXTRA money they are paid for being in a combat zone is tax free, but their pay is made up of several different sources.