Realcent.org

This is why....in my opinion....Obama is likely to win again. The majority of the campaign strategy will be to say he wants to tax the rich, and the big corporations are evil. At the same time he will imply that he want to give the little guy everything free. Free education, free health care, free housing, etc...


HALF of Americans don't pay income tax despite crippling government debt
151.7m people - 49.5% of the U.S. population - paid no federal income tax in 2009, figures show

By Daily Mail Reporter
UPDATED: 18:21 EST, 22 February 2012

Only half of U.S. citizens pay federal income tax, according to the latest available figures.

In 2009, just 50.5 per cent of Americans paid any income tax to the federal government - the lowest proportion in at least half a century.

And the number of people outside the tax system could have climbed even higher since as the economic downturn has continued to bite and unemployment has remained high.


Figures: This graph from the Heritage Foundation shows that half the population of the U.S. pays no federal income tax at all

The decreasing number of taxpayers threatens government revenues, and could also cause resentment from those who believe that welfare recipients are taking money out of the economy.

151.7 million U.S. citizens paid no federal income tax in 2009, according to figures compiled by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank.

In 1984, the middle of the Reagan era, 85 per cent of Americans paid federal income tax, meaning just 34.8 million people did not.

More...Obama to CUT corporate tax to 28% and set even lower rate for manufacturers
'There are forces of evil in the world': Santorum defends his Satan warning... by comparing himself to Reagan

Ten things to watch for in the GOP debate - including Santorum's religion talk, Romney attacking and anyone sounding presidential

The figures include children, the retired and others who do not participate in the labor force.

Nonetheless, they largely reflect the sudden jump in the unemployment rate after the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent recession.

Unemployment rose from around five per cent at the beginning of 2008 to a high of 10 per cent in October 2009.

Crisis: Unemployment has declined slowly under Barack Obama
As well the increased number of jobless people, the reduction in the number of taxpayers is a result of low-income workers taking pay cuts and reduced hours, and therefore slipping out of the tax system.

It also includes people who illegally fail to file a tax return even though they might have earned enough money to do so.

Another finding by the Heritage Foundation shows that 21.8 per cent of U.S. citizens receive financial assistance from the federal government.

This means that 67.3 million people - a record high - are 'dependent on the federal government', excluding government employees who rely on the public sector for their salaries.

The conjunction of fewer taxpayers with higher welfare payments has led to intense pressure on the public purse, with the national deficit running at $1.3 trillion per year.

The Heritage Foundation argues that the reduction in the number of taxpayers will create an electorate dominated by non-taxpayers, who will always support higher taxes and spending because their own money is not at stake.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1sarwgjWz

I keep hearing this stat, and I see the graph, but something doesn't sound right here. Most children don't pay income tax. A large portion of the elderly also probably don't. Then there's 1-income couples, and then of course the very poor and unemployed. 50% doesn't sound that outrageous. The 12% indicated by the graph in the late 1960s seems impossible. Something is missing here.

I make every effort to avoid Federal income tax

stevkc wrote:I keep hearing this stat, and I see the graph, but something doesn't sound right here. Most children don't pay income tax. A large portion of the elderly also probably don't. Then there's 1-income couples, and then of course the very poor and unemployed. 50% doesn't sound that outrageous. The 12% indicated by the graph in the late 1960s seems impossible. Something is missing here.

So if don't think 50% is outrageous then what percent is in your opinion? Do you think the top 10% of income earners should foot the bill for 70% of all people living in the US? Is this fair in your opinion?

What do you think is a fair way to tax all people or do you think most people should be given a FREE pass?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from and hopefully we both can agree to disagree if we need to.

I don't think anyone should pay income tax, I think all taxes should be in the form of sales tax. The tax rate could be determined by the type of item being sold:
Food = no tax unless it is at a restaurant.
clothes 2%
furniture 5%
gas 10% (or whatever percentage is needed to maintain roads)
entertainment like movies, CDs, games etc... 20%
alcohol & cigarettes 25%
normal stuff would have lower taxes while luxury items would be higher.

bman wrote:I don't think anyone should pay income tax, I think all taxes should be in the form of sales tax. The tax rate could be determined by the type of item being sold:
Food = no tax unless it is at a restaurant.
clothes 2%
furniture 5%
gas 10% (or whatever percentage is needed to maintain roads)
entertainment like movies, CDs, games etc... 20%
alcohol & cigarettes 25%
normal stuff would have lower taxes while luxury items would be higher.

I disagree with the way you've broken those down because you're still favoring industries and trying to force the will of the government on the people through higher taxation. 25% sin tax...pfft...and why should mahogany end tables be taxed at a lower rate than a board game like Candyland or Monopoly? Should the tax on a $300 pair of heels really be the same as a $25 bottle of wine?

A straight percentage with an exemption for food is all that's needed.

bman wrote:I don't think anyone should pay income tax, I think all taxes should be in the form of sales tax. The tax rate could be determined by the type of item being sold:
Food = no tax unless it is at a restaurant.
clothes 2%
furniture 5%
gas 10% (or whatever percentage is needed to maintain roads)
entertainment like movies, CDs, games etc... 20%
alcohol & cigarettes 25%
normal stuff would have lower taxes while luxury items would be higher.

just because youre "rich" enough to afford some "luxury" items shouldnt mean youre taxed more on those items IMHO...

Flat tax period. No deductions. Everybody pays.

aloneibreak wrote:just because youre "rich" enough to afford some "luxury" items shouldnt mean youre taxed more on those items IMHO...

My thoughts exactly. A luxury tax on nonessentials (like coin collections) will only serve to drive down the value of our PM holdings.

Copper Catcher wrote:

stevkc wrote:I keep hearing this stat, and I see the graph, but something doesn't sound right here. Most children don't pay income tax. A large portion of the elderly also probably don't. Then there's 1-income couples, and then of course the very poor and unemployed. 50% doesn't sound that outrageous. The 12% indicated by the graph in the late 1960s seems impossible. Something is missing here.

So if don't think 50% is outrageous then what percent is in your opinion? Do you think the top 10% of income earners should foot the bill for 70% of all people living in the US? Is this fair in your opinion?

What do you think is a fair way to tax all people or do you think most people should be given a FREE pass?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from and hopefully we both can agree to disagree if we need to.

I think he met 50% is not implausable when you figure in children and the elderly. However he thinks 12% in the 60s is unlikely. I don't believe he was making a value judgment.

I'm pretty sure this 50% only includes those of working age and excludes children and those (elderly and otherwise) who are institutionalized. I believe that today's number is much higher because the tax code includes many deductions and tax credits that didn't exist 40 years ago. As a result many of those who make 30k and above pay zero in net federal income taxes.

Shifting the tax burden to those who create the wealth and away from lower income earners is (IMHO) tantamount to vote buying. For what its worth I believe in a national sales tax to replace all other federal taxes. Taxation should be based on consumption, not production.

No82s wrote:Flat tax period. No deductions. Everybody pays.

I agree with this and then we could do away with most of the IRS. Some say the rich would get a lot richer and the poor can't afford any tax but I have seen some arguments that suggest otherwise. If everyone had the extra money to spend instead of paying income tax with it how much more stuff would we all buy? I could do quite a bit with the 14K I paid out to them last year!

Until Uncle Sam stops the wasteful spending it won't make a difference anyway.

You can't get blood out of a stone. Sure, let't tax them so we can hand out even more soup at the soup kitchens. I bring food to the food pantries and believe me it's starting to dry up fast.

Income tax should be abolished. Period. It's immoral and unethical.

To all the whiny statists who complain about lack of revenue to fund your commie welfare programs and your imperial wars, and a bloated bureaucracy of government departments designed to do your thinking for you and protect you from yourself, take note. This nation was at it's peak, with the largest middle class ever known to man, when people world wide aspired to be "Americans". When we were a humble Republic and truly were the "land of opportunity" and "land of the free", with the most personal freedom and liberty ever in recorded history, when we had NO income tax. No IRS , no MaMa Government and no CENTRAL BANK.

Grab a cigarette and a cup coffee, sit down and relax, and ponder that for a while...

But, if this nation truly desires to be an imperial welfare/warfare State, then an income tax becomes inevitable. So, if that is the road we choose to travel, we will obviously need a source of revenue.

If we truly want equality and everybody paying their fair share, not the Democrats Alice in Wonderland interpretation of the word, but the real definition of the word, a flat tax is not it. It gets a lot closer, but no. Ditto with a national sales tax. You still have some paying more into the kitty than others. Yet not receiving any more services than the others.

The total Federal bill will need to be determined. Then a head count of everyone who reside within our nation. People utilizing the benefits, safety and services of said nation. Divide that number into the first number. The resulting figure is your annual tax bill. it's as fair as it gets, with EVERYBODY paying their fair share for equal services.

Nowhere ever,in society anywhere, has the pricing of products and services been a moving target, based on the purchasers income. Why is it different with taxes..?

Bluegill wrote:Income tax should be abolished. Period. It's immoral and unethical.

To all the whiny statists who complain about lack of revenue to fund your commie welfare programs and your imperial wars, and a bloated bureaucracy of government departments designed to do your thinking for you and protect you from yourself, take note. This nation was at it's peak, with the largest middle class ever known to man, when people world wide aspired to be "Americans". When we were a humble Republic and truly were the "land of opportunity" and "land of the free", with the most personal freedom and liberty ever in recorded history, when we had NO income tax. No IRS , no MaMa Government and no CENTRAL BANK.

Grab a cigarette and a cup coffee, sit down and relax, and ponder that for a while...

But, if this nation truly desires to be an imperial welfare/warfare State, then an income tax becomes inevitable. So, if that is the road we choose to travel, we will obviously need a source of revenue.

If we truly want equality and everybody paying their fair share, not the Democrats Alice in Wonderland interpretation of the word, but the real definition of the word, a flat tax is not it. It gets a lot closer, but no. Ditto with a national sales tax. You still have some paying more into the kitty than others. Yet not receiving any more services than the others.

The total Federal bill will need to be determined. Then a head count of everyone who reside within our nation. People utilizing the benefits, safety and services of said nation. Divide that number into the first number. The resulting figure is your annual tax bill. it's as fair as it gets, with EVERYBODY paying their fair share for equal services.

Nowhere ever,in society anywhere, has the pricing of products and services been a moving target, based on the purchasers income. Why is it different with taxes..?

If we are being fair then and asking everyone to pay their "fair share" of the National Debt they eveyone would owe $50,011 per citizen versus $138,165 per taxpayer according to
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Copper Catcher wrote:
If we are being fair then and asking everyone to pay their "fair share" of the National Debt they eveyone would owe $50,011 per citizen versus $138,165 per taxpayer according to
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The annual Federal budget and the outstanding debt for past expenditures are 2 different things.

As far as the outstanding debt. To be truly fair, the people who accrued that debt should be the ones to pay it off. Not future generations (some not even born yet) who had no say in the matter.

I kinda like what Bluegill wrote because this would make elections more realistic.

Now we are in danger of a majority of voters who can just vote daysefes mo from the goobermint programs.

Bluegill's system would really wake folks up! If I had the option of locking in my portion of the debt in exchange for no more future tax and to free my kid from this burden, I would take on the $138,165 and pay it off over the course of the rest of my life.

My hands would be clean of it, I would do it.

Couple thoughts here...

first I DESPISE income AND property taxes. If you want to tax a second property or a business property ok. Still not a fan, but taxing a family home or even farm is dead wrong imo. Being taxes to own something is absolutely sick imo...

I also have major issues with income taxes. I dont think I should have to jump through hoops to pay tax on income, or even that I should ned a license to mow my neghbors yard for instance, or sell them eggs from my chickens... whatever it is.

So I support a sales tax. However sales taxes really hit the poor more then the wealthy. I never verified the numbers but I once heard a flat tax plan that taxed EVERYTHING including food at 23%. BUT EVERYONE got a check for the estimated amount of taxes paid up to the poverty level. they claimed that since this gets rid of the IRS, and the need for many social programs that we would bring in as much as we do now. Yeah sure, losers might gather together like sardines and live off the cash, but who cares, doubtful many would starve under such a plan. (it would also be taxed as they bought things of course)

If they ran the numbers well and the claims were legit I think that would be the ideal methodology.

As for 50 percent not paying INCOME taxes, keep in mind many of these are poorer folks of course. the higher end of the category this might not be so true, but for many of them that 7-11 percent sales tax is a big hit. That 40-50 bucks for a license plate or a drivers license is a big hit. the large chunk of tax on their fuel is a big hit. there are scores of them. Nearly meaningless to the wealthy but pretty steep for many.

No82s wrote:Flat tax period. No deductions. Everybody pays.

well this is the logical solution, the problem is most americans reject reality.

Treetop wrote:first I DESPISE income AND property taxes.

Same here. Why should we fine people for making money and buying houses?

So I support a sales tax. However sales taxes really hit the poor more then the wealthy. I never verified the numbers but I once heard a flat tax plan that taxed EVERYTHING including food at 23%. BUT EVERYONE got a check for the estimated amount of taxes paid up to the poverty level. they claimed that since this gets rid of the IRS, and the need for many social programs that we would bring in as much as we do now. Yeah sure, losers might gather together like sardines and live off the cash, but who cares, doubtful many would starve under such a plan. (it would also be taxed as they bought things of course)

What you're describing there is called the Fair Tax. I still don't like the socialist aspect of it, but there's no way we're going to end socialism overnight.

theo wrote:

Copper Catcher wrote:

stevkc wrote:I keep hearing this stat, and I see the graph, but something doesn't sound right here. Most children don't pay income tax. A large portion of the elderly also probably don't. Then there's 1-income couples, and then of course the very poor and unemployed. 50% doesn't sound that outrageous. The 12% indicated by the graph in the late 1960s seems impossible. Something is missing here.

So if don't think 50% is outrageous then what percent is in your opinion? Do you think the top 10% of income earners should foot the bill for 70% of all people living in the US? Is this fair in your opinion?

What do you think is a fair way to tax all people or do you think most people should be given a FREE pass?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from and hopefully we both can agree to disagree if we need to.

I think he met 50% is not implausable when you figure in children and the elderly. However he thinks 12% in the 60s is unlikely. I don't believe he was making a value judgment.

I'm pretty sure this 50% only includes those of working age and excludes children and those (elderly and otherwise) who are institutionalized. I believe that today's number is much higher because the tax code includes many deductions and tax credits that didn't exist 40 years ago. As a result many of those who make 30k and above pay zero in net federal income taxes.

Yes, correct. 50% does not seem all that outrageous when you factor in EVERYONE, including children and the elderly. The chart says "Half of Americans." Its true in my household--I and my working wife pay income taxes and my apparently deadbeat kids in elementary school do not. That's 50%.

Reread my post. They DON'T include everyone.

I think what we really need is the data that shows how many "wage earners" are, and are not, paying income taxes. How many of them not only don't pay income tax, but receive an Earned Income Credit...

Also, how many people who can't be considered "wage earners" , but yet still get a check from the government... Basically pay a negative income tax.

also if they don't have to do it, can argue for the bandwagon and get out of them myself?

Everyone Should Pay Their Fare Share.....Right?

http://www.youtube.com/user/RightChange?v=kpVePoI5Fyg