SCOTUS Takes Up 2nd Amendment Case  |   Home  |   The Letter to Parents

53% Of Us Are Paying for the Rest of You

You’re welcome. 

In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.

The ranks of those whose major federal tax burdens net out at zero—or less—is on the rise. The center’s original 2009 estimate was 38%. That was before enactment in February of the $787 billion economic recovery package, which included a host of new or expanded tax breaks.

Posted by Owen at 2051 hrs
Politics + Politics - General

1. Isn’t that fair and equitable though? Shouldn’t the haves provide what is needed for the have nots?

   This nation is sliding toward socialism as income redistribution reaches near 50-50 proportions. The funny part is how clear it is, yet the lefties continually try to muddy the waters with personal attacks on anyone who dares point it out (e.g. Sarah Palin) and by making the term itself [socialism] taboo.

   However, the truly sad part is that if you tried to tell someone that they pay no Federal income tax they would call you a liar, because the see the money coming out of their checks every week, and think that what comes back at the end of the year is just a portion of what they paid. They think they deserve it, because “they pay taxes”........ BUT THEY DON’T.

   We lost the battle when we allowed so much social welfare to be built into the tax code.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 01, 2009 at 0652 hrs
   
   
   

2. To paraphrase Henry Hazlitt, we pick each others’ pockets by way of the tax man, each of us thinking we can get the better part of the swindle. 

   Actually, the poor DO pay taxes, because the ONLY way taxes can be paid is to be eventually included in the price of goods and services.  The more expensive the government, the higher the price of goods and services.  And since we all buy “stuff,” we all directly or indirectly pay taxes.  Unfortunately, because most of these taxes are hidden in the case of the poor, they do not realize what government is costing them.

   And as we are finding out now, Big Government tends to cause Big Unemployment.  More money for government means less for the private sector, where in general, things cost half of what they do when government participates. 

   Another idea from Hazlitt’s book, “The Conquest of Poverty.”  NO ONE should be allowed to vote unless the amount they recieve from government directly or indirectly is less than what they pay in taxes.  This would mean public employees, most students, those on welfare of any kind would be barred from voting.  I like it, but see little prospect of such a sensible policy passing any legislature in the country.  Think about it. if you are on the receiving end, you have a built in conflict of interest.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 01, 2009 at 0845 hrs
   
   
   

3. I know it won’t happen, but I am all for increasing the sales tax and eliminating property tax.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 01, 2009 at 1235 hrs
   
   
   

4. @ Ken
   Pretty simplistic and short-sighted view of who should vote. Service members, veterans on pensions, police officers, even our politicians.  You would take the vote from all of them?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 01, 2009 at 1337 hrs
   
   
   

5. And the alternative is that the have nots vote to take from the haves, or we all vote to take from each other, and we wind up with the financial mess and tremendous debt we have now.

   
   But do not worry, I can not imagine a scenario where the self interested would be barred from voting-which means our problems are likely to get worse, especially since very few recognize any limits on government.  EVERYTHING is up for grabs now, as we race to the bottom with an ever growing government taking more and more of what we earn for the purpose of redistribution.  And every incentive is for folks to clamor for more of the same.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 01, 2009 at 2139 hrs
   
   
   

6. Warren Buffett explained in an interview with Tom Brokaw that his taxes are low: 17.7% for total taxable income.

   Out of 15 people surveyed in his office: The average for the office was 32.9% for total taxable income.

   Warren: “One third of the entire budget comes from payroll taxes. And payroll taxes on income, just like income taxes, are taxes on income.”

   Warren: ” . . . And the payroll tax is over $800 billion out of two and a trillion, or something like that. And people don’t understand—they—they—that the rich pay practically no payroll tax. I mean, I paid payroll tax last year on $90 odd thousand, whatever the number is. I paid income tax on $66 million. But my double income tax, one of ‘em quits at $90,000. And the remaining $66 million does not get taxed with payroll tax. So, the person who makes $60,000 in our office gets ta—taxed in full on the payroll tax, and taxed in full on the income tax. And—and all the statistics you read, particularly the one don’t like taxes, well now, they totally ignore the payroll tax. And it’s huge now.

   Tom: Of all the tax lines that you’ve seen proposed over the years, a flat tax, a consumption tax, a more progressive income tax, which is the one that appeals to you the most?

   Warren: Well, in theory a progressive consumption tax makes the most sense. I mean, if you tax the people who use the resources of society rather than ones who—who—who provide the resources of society, that makes more sense. And a consumption tax can be very progressive.”

   I’ll add that this idea may encourage people to save money
   Instead of the 3,000 square foot home, one is encouraged to choose the 2,500 square foot home and bank the savings; instead of buying bananas in Wisconsin, people buy apples and support local industry (JPenterman)

   http://www.cnbc.com/id/21553857/
   Posted by JPenterman on August 10, 2009 at 1539 hrs

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2009 at 0047 hrs
   
   
   

7. I agree with you. The question is, how do we solve it?  Cutting spending and lowering the top bracket proportionally would make those who do pay taxes happy.  But there are services government provides that are valuable (we can have another discussion about which services those are) But that still leaves the people in the lower brackets paying nothing.
   We could get rid of the Earned Income Tax Credit.  Sure, Reagan supported it and it’s the cornerstone of the welfare reform proposal which conservatives supported at the time.
   And lowering the zero bracket and increasing taxes on the poor would be hated by liberals and conservatives since it would violate the “No tax increase” pledge all candidates are expected to sign.

   A national sales tax?  A value added tax?  Anybody?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2009 at 0854 hrs
   
   
   

8. Thank you

   Now how can we stop that from happening, considering it shouldn’t be that way in the first place?

   Posted by mommablogger on October 02, 2009 at 0922 hrs
   
   
   

9. aarp claims 35 million members.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2009 at 2049 hrs
   
   
   

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.