Current Events > 44% of Americans don't pay income tax.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://slashdot.org/submission/6954159/44-of-americans-wont-pay-any-federal-income-tax

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/model-estimates/tax-units-zero-or-negative-income-tax-july-2016/t16-0121-tax-units-zero-or-negative

So basically the people who work the hardest, produce the most, and don't have any kids...are keeping the country afloat for the people who work less, produce less, and have more kids than the rest.
---

Thank liberal highchool radicals and college elites

federal income tax, not income tax

do not pretend the two are interchangeable as you are in your topic post. sales taxes, state taxes, and other such taxes all 'keep the country afloat'

and you can't get blood from a stone. that 44% of americans have basically none of the wealth of the nation.
---

...I bet our own President didn't pay taxes either...actually, he admits to that.

TheVipaGTS posted...

...I bet our own President didn't pay taxes either...actually, he admits to that.

Yes he does

TheVipaGTS posted...

...I bet our own President didn't pay taxes either...actually, he admits to that.

this is a red herring and also the one released return showed he paid taxes
---

Local taxes are often flat and most cities don't have deductions. State taxes exist. Sales tax. Property tax. And you are trying to squeeze dry people who are going to pay somewhere between Jack and shit.
---

Darkman124 posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

...I bet our own President didn't pay taxes either...actually, he admits to that.

this is a red herring and also the one released return showed he paid taxes

its not a red herring when TC makes a statement like he did in the OP....People on both sides of the coin avoid taxes, but he's trying to make the narrative "these poor people don't pay it so the hard working elite people have to pick up the slack for them!"...

fenderbender321 posted...

They need to change the tax code so that if you have kids, you have to pay more in taxes...because YOUR kids are the ones who are sucking up the resources from school and stuff. It makes no sense. To each their own.

this is how you create poverty

go fuck yourself
---

Darkman124 posted...

federal income tax, not income tax

do not pretend the two are interchangeable as you are in your topic post. sales taxes, state taxes, and other such taxes all 'keep the country afloat'

and you can't get blood from a stone. that 44% of americans have basically none of the wealth of the nation.

I knew it was federal income tax, I just forgot to add that to the topic title. Considering how small most state income taxes are, though, it's not a big deal. Sales tax, state taxes, and "other such taxes" don't contribute as much to keeping the country afloat as do the massive federal income taxes.

And that 44% of Americans might not have the wealth of the nation...but they sure do consume it, and contribute to the pressures on the social safety nets by having kids they can't afford, financing shit they can't afford, etc.
---

I actually agree that the EITC is too generous for those with children, and think the exclusion for SSI is worth debating (even though it would be suicide to talk about politically)

but I think its fair not to tax people who make less than, what, 10k? 5k?
---

fenderbender321 posted...

They need to change the tax code so that if you have kids, you have to pay more in taxes...because YOUR kids are the ones who are sucking up the resources from school and stuff. It makes no sense. To each their own.

Nah, we should just reduce the federal income tax burden on people who don't have child tax credits and the like.
---

most high earners are not some uber "hard workers" having a bigger bank account isn't some sign of work morality lol
second people who make the most should have to do more financial lifting on taxes (considering they have much less effect/affect on their income I'm not sure why I'm supposed to feel bad for them)
wait you are trolling why am I giving you a serious response
---

Balrog0 posted...

I actually agree that the EITC is too generous for those with children, and think the exclusion for SSI is worth debating (even though it would be suicide to talk about politically)

but I think its fair not to tax people who make less than, what, 10k? 5k?

I'm all for not taxing people who make less than 10k as long as we also don't tax people who make 10k from a side hustle, and as long as we reduce income taxes on single high-income producers.
---

meingott posted...

Considering how small most state income taxes are, though, it's not a big deal. Sales tax, state taxes, and "other such taxes" don't contribute as much to keeping the country afloat as do the massive federal income taxes.

prove it

and keep in mind that it's not jsut these people--it's the VAST majority of Americans who pay more in payroll taxes and state income taxes than federal income tax

the gradated income tax system ensures that only the very wealthy can possibly pay a high rate. your rate is almost certainly less than you think it is.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/most-americans-pay-more-payroll-tax-income-tax
---

coolboy11 posted...

most high earners are not some uber "hard workers" having a bigger bank account isn't some sign of work morality lol
second people who make the most should have to do more financial lifting on taxes (considering they have much less effect/affect on their income I'm not sure why I'm supposed to feel bad for them)
wait you are trolling why am I giving you a serious response

Why should a single high-income earner be penalized for not having children? They pay the most in every tax despite not contributing as much to the stress on the welfare system/social safety net/public resources.
---

Darkman124 posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

They need to change the tax code so that if you have kids, you have to pay more in taxes...because YOUR kids are the ones who are sucking up the resources from school and stuff. It makes no sense. To each their own.

this is how you create poverty

go fuck yourself

I second this motion.
---

Darkman124 posted...

meingott posted...

Considering how small most state income taxes are, though, it's not a big deal. Sales tax, state taxes, and "other such taxes" don't contribute as much to keeping the country afloat as do the massive federal income taxes.

prove it

and keep in mind that it's not jsut these people--it's the VAST majority of Americans who pay more in payroll taxes and state income taxes than federal income tax

the gradated income tax system ensures that only the very wealthy can possibly pay a high rate. your rate is almost certainly less than you think it is.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/most-americans-pay-more-payroll-tax-income-tax

It's basic math. Federal income tax constitutes most of the tax revenue that funds the government and the public sector, doesn't it?

My rate is 30% of my income after federal/state/local. Not including property tax, sales tax, etc.
---

Is this saying they don't pay federal income taxes at all, or they don't pay federal income taxes when they file? I've been getting refunds of between $100 and $500 for years when filing my taxes, but I've definitely been paying federal income tax throughout the year.
---

meingott posted...

coolboy11 posted...

most high earners are not some uber "hard workers" having a bigger bank account isn't some sign of work morality lol
second people who make the most should have to do more financial lifting on taxes (considering they have much less effect/affect on their income I'm not sure why I'm supposed to feel bad for them)
wait you are trolling why am I giving you a serious response

Why should a single high-income earner be penalized for not having children? They pay the most in every tax despite not contributing as much to the stress on the welfare system/social safety net/public resources.

because having children is something our government has decided to subsidize via tax credits since childcare expenses are crazy high

would you prefer there be a state daycare system?
---

Oooo dis is guuuud
---

meingott posted...

Considering how small most state income taxes are, though, it's not a big deal. Sales tax, state taxes, and "other such taxes" don't contribute as much to keeping the country afloat as do the massive federal income taxes.

they're pretty substantial

something like 10% of your income on average goes to state and local taxes in the U.S.

it varies a lot though obviously

figuring out what percent of income goes to federal taxes is actually kind of hard to figure out because the federal tax code is a giant clusterfuck
---

meingott posted...

It's basic math. Federal income tax constitutes most of the tax revenue that funds the government and the public sector, doesn't it?

you have to weigh the income tax portion of the inflow budget of the federal government against the sum of all 50 state governments

i dont think that is basic math and i certainly dont think you can assume it

so prove it
---

meingott posted...

My rate is 30% of my income after federal/state/local. Not including property tax, sales tax, etc.

i asked federal only. try again. look at your 2016 return and take line 63, minus line 57

leave out self-emplyoment tax, that is payroll tax and poor people pay that.
---

Brian-Dawkins posted...

Oooo dis is guuuud

---

Darkman124 posted...

meingott posted...

coolboy11 posted...

most high earners are not some uber "hard workers" having a bigger bank account isn't some sign of work morality lol
second people who make the most should have to do more financial lifting on taxes (considering they have much less effect/affect on their income I'm not sure why I'm supposed to feel bad for them)
wait you are trolling why am I giving you a serious response

Why should a single high-income earner be penalized for not having children? They pay the most in every tax despite not contributing as much to the stress on the welfare system/social safety net/public resources.

because having children is something our government has decided to subsidize via tax credits since childcare expenses are crazy high

would you prefer there be a state daycare system?

No, I'd prefer that there be lower taxes for people who are single high-earners. Or an income tax credit for single high-earners who help their parents or siblings with education and living expenses (me)
---

meingott posted...

Or an income tax credit for single high-earners who help their parents or siblings with education and living expenses (me)

it's called claiming dependents

you should be doing that if they dont have an income
---

Balrog0 posted...

meingott posted...

Considering how small most state income taxes are, though, it's not a big deal. Sales tax, state taxes, and "other such taxes" don't contribute as much to keeping the country afloat as do the massive federal income taxes.

they're pretty substantial

something like 10% of your income on average goes to state and local taxes in the U.S.

it varies a lot though obviously

figuring out what percent of income goes to federal taxes is actually kind of hard to figure out because the federal tax code is a giant clusterfuck

yeah. all i know for sure is that at the end of the day, 30% of each check goes to uncle sam and uncle illinois, and that's without any refund coming my way next april.

meanwhile someone who has kids and produces less gets favorable tax treatment AND a larger portion of my tax dollars than i do.
---

meingott posted...

meanwhile someone who has kids and produces less gets favorable tax treatment AND a larger portion of my tax dollars than i do.

those of them who are employed as contractors are likely giving up a minimum of 25% between sales/state income and paying the full payroll tax for SSI/medicare

you really dont have enough understanding of the tax code to argue about it
---

Darkman124 posted...

you have to weigh the income tax portion of the inflow budget of the federal government against the sum of all 50 state governments

i dont think that is basic math and i certainly dont think you can assume it

so prove it

why is the sum of all 50 state governments relevant to the equation? we're concerned with each individual state's income tax revenue compared against the amount they get from the federal government for public spending.

Darkman124 posted...

meingott posted...

My rate is 30% of my income after federal/state/local. Not including property tax, sales tax, etc.

i asked federal only. try again. look at your 2016 return and take line 63, minus line 57

leave out self-emplyoment tax, that is payroll tax and poor people pay that.

it's still well into the double digits.
---

Darkman124 posted...

meingott posted...

Or an income tax credit for single high-earners who help their parents or siblings with education and living expenses (me)

it's called claiming dependents

you should be doing that if they dont have an income

they do have incomes, but not nearly enough. the point was that being a single high earner doesn't mean we're free of familial obligations and the like. i can't claim them as dependents. the tax system does not treat me favorably the way it does people who consume more than they produce. why?
---

meingott posted...

meanwhile someone who has kids and produces less gets favorable tax treatment

Their tax credit helps them be more productive
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/15/upshot/supply-side-economics-but-for-liberals.html?_r=0

The clearest example of a program that appears to increase labor supply and hence the United States’ economic potential is the earned-income tax credit (E.I.T.C.), first enacted in 1975 and expanded several times since then. It supplements the income of low-income workers, and numerous studies find that its existence means more Americans work than would in its absence.

For example, there was a major expansion of the program that was passed in 1993 and phased in over the ensuing years. Jeffrey Grogger of the University of Chicago finds that it was a major driver of higher employment among single mothers. By 1999, his research suggests, 460,000 more women who headed their household were working than would have been without the E.I.T.C. expansion. That is more, in his estimates, than the number of such women who were pulled into the work force by welfare reforms or a booming economy during that decade.

Child care subsidies appear to work the same way. It’s a pretty straightforward equation that when government intervention makes child care services cheaper than they would otherwise be, people who might otherwise stay home raising their children instead work. More women work in countries that subsidize child care and offer generous parental leave than in those that don’t.
...
For example, the food stamp program was introduced gradually in the United States from 1961 to 1975. Hilary Hoynes of the University of California, Berkeley, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach of Northwestern University and Douglas Almond of Columbia University have found that low-income children who benefited from the program were healthier and more likely to be working decades later than otherwise similar children in counties where the program arrived later. There is similar evidence of long-term economic benefits from high-quality childhood education.

---

Darkman124 posted...

meingott posted...

meanwhile someone who has kids and produces less gets favorable tax treatment AND a larger portion of my tax dollars than i do.

those of them who are employed as contractors are likely giving up a minimum of 25% between sales/state income and paying the full payroll tax for SSI/medicare

you really dont have enough understanding of the tax code to argue about it

source that shows that a meaningful subset of people who have kids and produce less...are employed as contractors and giving up a minimum of 25% of their income to taxation?
---

Darkman124 seems like he's getting real tired of Proudclad's shit. He's posting in his topics and fucking his mother much more frequently than he has in previous weeks/months.
---

Darkman124 posted...

you really dont have enough understanding of the tax code to argue about it

he isn't really arguing tax code. He's arguing over the role of a government/society, and the two of you have constitutionally different views of that role.

From what I can gather, you view society as existing to help up those who need it, and Proudclad views it as a burden that people are forced to carry, and those who need it less shouldn't have to contribute as much to it. I'm sure you know this and that this argument is just taking form in the medium that is the tax code. Neither of you will budge on this. So why argue?
---

meingott posted...

My rate is 30% of my income after federal/state/local. Not including property tax, sales tax, etc.

no it's not. you rate is going to be 20-25% and that's assuming you live somewhere with a high state income tax. I pay about 15% in federal and another 3% to PA and i make decent money. My taxable income gets lowered some by having a 401k and the large amount of interest i'm paying on my student loans is a deduction is about the only deduction I can take since I'm single and not a home owner.
---

I would guess a large portion of that 44% of Americans are kids, basement dwellers or housewives.
---

meingott posted...

they do have incomes, but not nearly enough. the point was that being a single high earner doesn't mean we're free of familial obligations and the like. i can't claim them as dependents. the tax system does not treat me favorably the way it does people who consume more than they produce. why?

you can claim them as dependents

all they have to do to allow this is not take their deduction for themselves

that's how it works. do that and youll pay less in taxes.

meingott posted...

why is the sum of all 50 state governments relevant to the equation? we're concerned with each individual state's income tax revenue compared against the amount they get from the federal government for public spending.

you claimed the sum of state/local/sales/payroll is dwarfed by federal income tax payments

i call bullshit on that claim

i also call bullshit on your claim that your real federal income tax--not self-employment tax--is high. i believe your net tax is very high but it's because youre paid on a 1099 which fucks the workers over. blame your boss.

post the following from your 2016 1040:

(line 63-line 57) divided by line 37

this will shield your personal info and tell us your tax rate

mine is 12.2%
---

I Like Toast posted...

meingott posted...

My rate is 30% of my income after federal/state/local. Not including property tax, sales tax, etc.

no it's not. you rate is going to be 20-25% and that's assuming you live somewhere with a high state income tax. I pay about 15% in federal and another 3% to PA and i make decent money. My taxable income gets lowered some by having a 401k and the large amount of interest i'm paying on my student loans is a deduction is about the only deduction I can take since I'm single and not a home owner.

he pays a 13% payroll tax, i dont doubt his net tax is ~30%
---

Those 44% won't vote for Romney no matter what!
---

Drpooplol posted...

he isn't really arguing tax code. He's arguing over the role of a government/society, and the two of you have constitutionally different views of that role.

From what I can gather, you view society as existing to help up those who need it, and Proudclad views it as a burden that people are forced to carry, and those who need it less shouldn't have to contribute as much to it. I'm sure you know this and that this argument is just taking form in the medium that is the tax code. Neither of you will budge on this. So why argue?

idk about darkman or pradclad but the reason I think it is worth arguing about is that facts matter more than your opinions, so your opinions should be well-informed by them

specifically speaking to this difference in opinion about what society should do and who should pay for it, your opinion should be informed by the empirical reality of the situation which is more nuanced than just the federal income tax -- the income tax is the largest source of revenue for the federal government, but that only makes it a plurality. another significant source of revenue is the payroll tax, which is disproportionately paid by those making much less than $1m in income, actually. This is also true of excise taxes, which make up a significant but smaller portion of federal revenue

when you add those things up, plus state and local income taxes, you see that taxes are spread through society in various ways because -- believe it or not -- people have kind of thought about this shit and you can't just get away with taxing rich people a shitload and not taxing anyone else despite what this one statistic might make you think
---

drpooplol: the issue is mostly that he is blending together multiple kinds of taxes for himself and not for the people he is criticizing

i am not really trying to make an argument for government roles here, just debunking inaccurate taxation data
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Wrong. Try again.

No, seriously dude, you've just created a recipe for a vicious cycle where those who need the most (because market income isn't sufficient for their needs) are also paying the most, which in turn results in them needing more.
---

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/
---

Wife and I have 4 kids and we have to pay income tax, shit, my property tax alone was like $4000 last year so whatever. Some of us productive parents DO pay taxes in the USA.
---

Darkman124 posted...

you claimed the sum of state/local/sales/payroll is dwarfed by federal income tax payments

i call bulls*** on that claim

i also call bulls*** on your claim that your real federal income tax--not self-employment tax--is high. i believe your net tax is very high but it's because youre paid on a 1099 which f***s the workers over. blame your boss.

post the following from your 2016 1040:

(line 63-line 57) divided by line 37

this will shield your personal info and tell us your tax rate

mine is 12.2%

17% for federal income tax for 2016, will be a good deal higher in 2017. i'm not paid on a 1099, i'm salaried.
---

Webmaster4531 posted...

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

Simple solution: end block grants, immediately.
If the fifty states can't afford it, it's fantasy to assume that all fifty can.

meingott posted...

17% for federal income tax for 2016, will be a good deal higher in 2017. i'm not paid on a 1099, i'm salaried.

i could've swore you told me you were a contractor
---