Who pays — and who doesn’t pay — income taxes
The Tax Policy Center has released its latest statistics about who pays — and who does not pay — federal income taxes. According to its numbers, 46.4 percent of “tax units” in America will pay no income tax this year.
More than half of those non-paying units make less than $16,812. More than 80 percent make less than $33,542. Some will no doubt focus their outrage on those lower-income folks, but I’m more intrigued by the fact that 3,000 “tax units” with incomes above $2.18 million paid no income tax. All in all, 446,000 “tax units” with incomes above $103,465 paid no income tax on that money, a figure that includes capital gains taxes.
Now let’s put that in context, historical and otherwise.
First, personal income taxes account for just 44 percent of federal revenue. Payroll taxes account for 37.1 percent of revenue this year, and those taxes are paid by almost all of these “tax units” who don’t pay income taxes, with the exception of those whose main income is Social Security, pensions or investments.
Second, while the percentage of revenue raised through the personal income tax has remained relatively stable since World War II, the mix of revenue from other sources has shifted noticeably. Compared to 60 years ago, the payroll tax has tripled in importance as a revenue source, while the corporate income tax has fallen by two-thirds.
Let the call to raise taxes on the poor, the elderly on fixed income and lower-income earners begin.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
720 comments Add your comment
thomas
June 29th, 2011
9:07 am
Jay
June 29th, 2011
9:01 am
To keep the tax burden down as low as possible. That way the increase they must charge the consumer is also smaller. With a smaller increase they run much less of a risk of losing their client base by charging too much for their product and/or service.
Apparently they feel as if it is better to spend alot of money in order to ensure they continue to make alot of profit.
Aquagirl
June 29th, 2011
9:07 am
You were ending a rant and I merely change a few things and mirrored your rant.
I named things that exist in the real world: corporations, Neal Boortz, his radio audience. You subbed a fictitious group that apparently scares the pants off of you. Why not something at least a little creative, like the Skittles-crapping unicorns?
By the way, how do you REALLY feel about Neal Boortz?
Actually I used to listen to him when he was entertaining. After going to 4 hours a day (and sadly enough, perhaps developing some early Alzheimers) he turned into a bore and a crank. But I never confused him with real news, he’s an entertainer.
Now, his talking points drones, I’ve never liked them. You can tell when the pod people show up, mumbling a catchphrase over and over thinking that it’s a brilliant, clever point that trumps any discussion. Uh, no. Only in Boortzland, where they reside. Problems are solved there with catchphrases and imaginary constructs, no questions asked.
poison pen
June 29th, 2011
9:08 am
Leg, be careful with Granny, she will ” Piffle ” you, or tell you ” your not nice “
(ir)Rational
June 29th, 2011
9:09 am
I just wish to point out that now we have liberals claiming that liberals are a “fictitious group.” Really? Or are they claiming that the government is a “fictitious group?”
CJ
June 29th, 2011
9:10 am
Gordon asked, is it unreasonable for everyone to have some “skin in the game?” Yes. It turns out that compassion for the poor is also good economics.
The people who aren’t paying taxes aren’t saving money either. Not a dime. They don’t have money to save.
My brother, for example, previously out of work when his employer went out of business, now makes $30,000 a year and has a 16 year old son. Every dime goes to keeping his head above water. His air conditioner has been permanently out for three years and he can’t afford to replace it (have you noticed how hot it gets). He has to borrow money from my parents when his car breaks down. He is living paycheck to paycheck.
Asking people in his situation to pay taxes is not only cruel, but it’s bad economics. We all agree that taking a dollar that will definitely be spent out of the economy is counterproductive. So taxing those who live paycheck to paycheck definitely hurts the economy.
In fact, one of the best ways to boost the economy is to help the poor and lower middle class keep more of their money–those living paycheck to paycheck (or worse) will undoubtedly spend it. That’s why the EITC, unemployment insurance, food stamps, etcetera are not only compassionate, but they’re great forms of stimulus for the economy. We all benefit.
AmVet
June 29th, 2011
9:10 am
If you take more from society than you contribute, then you shouldn’t get a vote.
What’s up with this incessant and demented desire by rightists to disallow the right to franchise? I find it beyond bizarre. (Actually Jed already addressed this – disallow any voters as long as they are not dead red, right?)
And my nomination for the Freudian slip of the day – We get into who pays what and how much they pay et…It is boring.
(I can picture fingers in ears, yelling, so as to not hear the ugly truth.)
The good news is that after three decades of getting clobbered themselves, some of the more enlightened cons are actually starting to drop out of the Flagellants Club.
And some of the truly brave new-age Republicans are starting to broach the subject of the massive giveaways and handouts available ONLY to the wealthy and to the artificial entities called corporations.
Welcome to the American plutocracy.
The Leg Lamp is a "major award".....
June 29th, 2011
9:11 am
Aquagirl
June 29th, 2011
9:07 am
“Skittles-crapping unicorns”
I don’t think I could come up with that one even if I were to take a hit of some bad acid.
Hmmmmmmmm
June 29th, 2011
9:11 am
A mind is such a terrible thing to waste… Jay, do you really believe any of the dribble that you write….
Paul
June 29th, 2011
9:11 am
Mighty Righty
Read an article while overseas (sorry I don’t have the link – would pick up a paper at the hotel and read the international section) describing the tremendous number of flights corporate jets made for conferences or meetings – that were right next to one of the homes owned by the CEO. If the flight hours for such exceed a certain level, it’s supposed to have tax implications. But oversight and reporting requirements are lacking and many CEOs mislead.
So I’ll give Sen Reid credit for a concept, even if the specifics of his words did not satisfy.
jms
June 29th, 2011
9:12 am
“I’m more intrigued by the fact that 3,000 ‘tax units’ with incomes above $2.18 million paid no income tax.”
You’re entitled to that but I’m more intrigued by the 62,939,000 tax units in the lowest two quintiles that paid no income tax. $16 a year from them would generate $1 billion. Everyone should have some skin in the game.
The Leg Lamp is a "major award".....
June 29th, 2011
9:14 am
jms
June 29th, 2011
9:12 am
“Everyone should have some skin in the game”
That’s what I’ve been saying, but Jay took me to task over it.
Paul
June 29th, 2011
9:14 am
AmVet
“If you take more from society than you contribute, then you shouldn’t get a vote.”
Actually, I find the concept when applied to nearly half a million of our wealthiest households rather bemusing…..
Soothsayer
June 29th, 2011
9:14 am
I see it’s time once again to b*tch and moan about taxes. How many here would like to receive a tax decrease? What if the federal government reduced spending to an extent that everyone’s taxes could be reduced?
Take a look at this chart. It simply boggles the mind.
To think that as recently as 1996 spent only $1.6 trillion in total! Even as recently as 2001 our total spending was less than $2 trillion. Now, in 2011 that number has grown to $3.8 trillion. Since 2000, the Pentagon’s budget has doubled. And that doesn’t include the extra for Iraq and Afghanistan.
In fact, we have increased our national debt from $5.2 trillion to $14.3 trillion in just 15 years. How much longer can this madness continue?
AmVet
June 29th, 2011
9:14 am
Welcome back, Paul.
How was Blokeland? USinUK told us you rendezvoused…
Granny Godzilla
June 29th, 2011
9:14 am
“corporate jets are owned by corporations! Individuals own personal jets”
ARe not corporations considered individuals now?
Isn’t that what the right wished for?
Is now a ggod time to say – be careful what you wish for?
(ir)Rational
June 29th, 2011
9:14 am
jms – Apparently, asking them to pay even a dollar is cruel, and will permanently sink the economy, so don’t look for that to ever happen. But hey, why should they pay? I mean, it is only fair that they reap the benefits without having to pay for it right? I mean, that is what we’re all looking for is fairness. Or have I been reading this blog for too long?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 29th, 2011
9:15 am
We are writing to urge you to put our country ahead of politics.
For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you increase taxes on incomes over $1,000,000.
We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.
Our country faces a choice – we can pay our debts and build for the future, or we can shirk our financial responsibilities and cripple our nation’s potential.
Our country has been good to us. It provided a foundation through which we could succeed. Now, we want to do our part to keep that foundation strong so that others can succeed as we have.
Please do the right thing for our country. Raise our taxes.
________________________________
At least there are some who do understand the real struggle.
@@
June 29th, 2011
9:15 am
And how, pray tell, does jay intend to stop corporations from passing their tax burden onto the consumer? Without an answer to that question, this discussion goes nowhere with me.
If the Bush tax cuts benefitted only the rich, as Democrats have been claiming for years, why are they now saying that letting ALL the tax cuts expire will hurt the middle class? Which is it: Did the Bush tax cuts help the middle class, or didn’t they?
EVERYONE got a tax cut!!!!!
Raise taxes on business and our costs of engaging with business goes up.
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
June 29th, 2011
9:17 am
Jay:
How much do you pay ?
olderandwiser49
June 29th, 2011
9:17 am
Your illustration simply points out what most Americans already know – the tax system is badly flawed. It is past time for our government to start giving SERIOUS consideration to a flat tax applicable to every person (regardless of income) and every company. No more deductions, write-offs, tax shelters, or low-income/10 dependents issues. Our tax book would be two pages long. Page 1 would tell you to fill in the blanks on Page 2, and where to mail your return. Page 2 would have three blanks: Total Income X Flat Tax Rate = Tax for the year. Not only will this save the government a ton of money by reducing the IRS and its associated paperwork by 90%, it will also spread the tax burden to all entities, including those who now pay nothing but avail themselves of all the services. It will also increase government revenue, and make tax income amounts predictable enough that even the Democrats might finally be able to propose a budget!
Get It Right
June 29th, 2011
9:17 am
Important point – Jay is talking about Income Tax. Many of those 3,000 “tax units” did not have a job that paid an income, thus, no incomve tax. They made money from investments.
td
June 29th, 2011
9:18 am
“More than half of those non-paying units make less than $16,812″
And how much Federal benefits do these people also receive? Food Stamps, TANF, Medicaid, WIC, Low income Tax Credit, Low income energy assistance, Section 8 housing. Since most of these are single mothers then non taxed Child support. How much is all of this free benefits worth per year?
Gordon
June 29th, 2011
9:18 am
CJ@9:10,
Good post. You make some good points. But I wonder what percentage of the pool spend every dime to keep their heads above water. This points to a consumption based tax, where if you really are spending your money that way you pay no tax, but if you aren’t you do pay tax. Maybe your brother and others like him could pay 3% federal income tax, but no sales tax on food, rent, and other basic neccesities to make up for it.
BADA BING
June 29th, 2011
9:18 am
Stop all attempts to increase taxes, put your laser focus on JOBS, then you will have more ‘tax units’ making more ‘tax dollars’. With a job, these ‘units’ will be able to support their ‘family unit’.
Jay
June 29th, 2011
9:18 am
Paul, welcome back. USinUK was regaling us with stories of your London meetup earlier.
As to corporate taxes, this year they will amount to 1.3 percent of our GDP. That’s the lowest of any of the 34 major industrialized countries.
some guy
June 29th, 2011
9:20 am
More liberal bull crap to try to raise taxes. Last year I got caught in AMT and had to write a hefty check to the IRS.
Adam
June 29th, 2011
9:21 am
Thomas: and are in effect paid by the fed to work.
And if you stopped that, you would hamper job creation. Right? Because then it would be more beneficial for them to be on welfare or unemployment, which is just so dadgum easy to get doncha know?
Uncle Jed: Every citizen shouls have “skin in the game”,
While I agree with how you qualified this later, this statement here is part of the problem, because of how it is often qualified by others to mean the lower incomes should pay more and the upper incomes should have their taxes cut. Sometimes this is even disguised as “FairTax” or flat tax ideas, names that don’t seem to cause people to react the same way, but nonetheless cause an unfair burden on the lower incomes versus the higher.
Leg Lamp: Why not all?
The problem is not that there are some who dont’ have skin in the game, the problem is that those that do have skin in the game have not put in enough. And the ones who don’t, well, according to this report those are either people who avoid taxes entirely by not having any income tax liability AND no payroll taxes, which can only occur if you are in upper income with amazing tax professionals, or if you can’t work and are probably homeless.
As to the article itself, this clearly shows the corporate taxes in America are NOT “the worst in the world.” So get off it, if you still think that.
Jeffrey
June 29th, 2011
9:21 am
If our system was actually “for the people” as opposed to for elected officials and major lobbyist, perhaps they would provide an outside audited analysis of all options including taxation of what we spend vs what we make, flat tax, elimination of IRS et al. Perhaps this will put taxpayers in better position to make informed decisions as opposed to following party dogma which so clearly reflects motives via sales pitches to protect the status quo. Speaking from experience, many of those in the 2% of high wage earners have no issue paying higher taxes if we felt more value was obtained by Washington for every dollar spent. Until Washington shows respect for our tax revenues regardless of who pays, many (not all) “rich” folks will balk.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 29th, 2011
9:23 am
Poor corporations having to pass their tax burdens on to consumers….let’s see. If your income is $17,000 a year, most of that is probably spent on food and shelter. We all can’t have $1 million dollar accounts at Tiffany’s. Do I feel bad that if you spend, oh say, $750,000 on a diamond necklace, part of that may be tax. Or if you by a private plane, then part of that is tax. Tough luck.
Jay
June 29th, 2011
9:25 am
Get It Right got it wrong.
The income tax figures INCLUDE capital gains taxes on investments, etc.
BADA BING
June 29th, 2011
9:25 am
Why more tax money. The ‘brainless units’ (politicians) will just waste more.
willie lynch
June 29th, 2011
9:25 am
So let’s see if I have this right. Real wages have been stagnant for almost 40 years. Corporations are paying less taxes than ever. Employees are paying more of their earnings in payroll taxes.
Sounds like the corporations are eating their cake too. They haven’t raised wages and they’ve lowered their own share of the tax obligation. Must be great to have lobbyists.
Paul
June 29th, 2011
9:25 am
AmVet
Thanks. It was wonderful. Beautiful scenery, knowledgeable guides, learned lots.
Yes, USinUK and I had the first ever Bookmania reunion. First thing we did was head for a pub and raise a toast to Jay and the Bookmaniacs. I must say, she’s much as I pictured her from the blog – a rich and interesting background, wonderful conversationalist, fun to be with – and most gracious. Was on the trip with my wife, sister and brother-in-law. It’s reflective of her character that much of our conversation did not dwell upon the blog, personalities and politics, but was a wonderful few hours of getting to know another person.
I’m not home yet – had a direct flight into Houston so will be driving up to DFW later this morning.
And with the exception of the occasional morning paper, it was most refreshing to not hear the incessant political drumbeat. What was more amazing was, I didn’t feel any pangs of withdrawal!
Jay
Heartful thanks to you for facilitating our meet across the pond.
Adam
June 29th, 2011
9:26 am
Leg Lamp: Do you run your households this way? When your expenses exceed your income do you demand a pay raise so you won’t have to alter your present lifestyle?
Better question: When you are spending LESS than you take in, do you ask for a pay cut? Well, that’s what the government did.
You guys cut taxes too much. We need to hit the reset button on that. In addition, we also need to cut back spending. But trying to do one and not the other isn’t going to work. What about ATTACK THE PROBLEM FROM BOTH ANGLES do you not UNDERSTAND?
AmVet
June 29th, 2011
9:28 am
Two thoughts on these corproate parasites (Hat tip Lil BB).
Back when this country was rockin’ and rollin’ after WWII, they actually paid their fair share. And wonder of wonders! They weren’t devastated then by an appropriate tax burden.
Secondly, for three decades we’ve all witnessed the results of the ever burgeoning American Corporatocracy, whereby the purveyors of HUGE money have gotten pretty much everything they’ve asked for – most of it at the expense of you and me.
Aided and abetted by these contrived, endless and increasing giveaways, handouts, subsides, loopholes, tax “shelters”, bailouts and generally cooking of the books. You tell me. Look around and describe exactly just how swimmingly that has worked out for your average American family.
Who is worse off than it was in the 1980s…
Quit being little Dick Cheneys. (”Nobody saw this coming.”) This very scenario has been forewarned repeatedly by people MUCH smarter and infinitely more ethical than him, going all the way back to Thomas Jefferson…
Dan
June 29th, 2011
9:29 am
I am surprised to see payroll taxes as such a large part, I suspect that means it includes the portion the company matches, in other words half would be the companies contribution.
real john
June 29th, 2011
9:29 am
Ahhh. the same ole class warfare article’s libs love. What the libs forget to mention is the free (or almost free) Medicaid, food stamps, welfare checks that many of these people also receive…
Why is it so hard for libs to understand…the government was not formed to “take care” of everyone. Its just not substainable. What is happening in Europe IS going to happen here in the U.S. and much worse unless major changes are made.
Everyone laughed at Bush when he tried to push the privatized accounts for Social Security. Like it or not, Bush’s and Paul Ryan’s, voucher type programs WILL be the future of the U.S. for Medicare and Social Security. Every Republican, Democrat, and economist that I have read, agree on one thing; these programs cannot contiue as they currently are. Every time the Republicans attempt to have an adult conversation about the changes that HAVE TO be made, the libs run commercials pushing granny off a cliff to scary voters to death…By doing this the libs continue to make the situation worse, and will end up hurting the people the SAY they care about the most..
Also Jay, so you think its a good idea to raise our corporate tax even more? They I’m SURE that will help bring more jobs in. Why do libs not understand, if you continue to talk about raising taxes, businesses are not going to hire. Many businesses are sitting on the sidelines because all the libs do is complain that they aren’t paying enough in taxes. Why should they hire more people when they are also getting kicked in the stomach by the Democrats.
Poor, Poor, Pitiful Thee
June 29th, 2011
9:30 am
My child has joined the ranks of the employed this summer by working part-time for minimum wage at a grocery store in our little community of 99% white, 76% Republican occupants. So far it has truly been an eye-opening experience — who would have ever guessed there were so many tall and short, fat and skinny, married and divorced white folks relying on food stamps, day after day, week after week, month after month. I can imagine the grief this must cause any Republican to see so many people living off of other’s hard-earned money. And to think that my child has to bear witness to that while toiling away to save up money to help pay for college. I expect to hear any day now that it is simply terrible that no income taxes are being deducted and only a paltry amount of payroll tax. My poor child really needs to contribute more.
If you ship our jobs overseas - you pay!
June 29th, 2011
9:30 am
We need to take a look at the corporations that ship their jobs overseas and tax them twice the amount! Why are you beating a dead horse about low income people paying taxes when corporations don’t? I am a conservative, so I am not for ANYONE getting away with no taxes, but there is a heck of lot better chance of getting the money from the corporations.
poison pen
June 29th, 2011
9:30 am
BADA BING
” Why more tax money. The ‘brainless units’ (politicians) will just waste more. ”
Bada, exactly what I have said many times on this post, however the libs just can’t comprehend that concept.
rk
June 29th, 2011
9:32 am
where’s the comparison on entitlement spending for these low income earners today vs. 1951?
James
June 29th, 2011
9:34 am
In general terms from $100.00 of payroll paid out by corporations average wage earners receive 59% ($59.00) and the government receives 41% ($41.00). add property taxes, sales taxes etc. I think we need to raise taxes and increase the size of our government. To our government ” take you hands out of my pockets”
Corp. Employee Fed Gov. St. Gov.
Gross Payroll $100.00
SSTAX ($6.20) ($4.20) $10.40
Medi ($1.45) ($1.45) $2.90
Futa ($8.00) $8.00
Suta ($3.00) $3.00
Fed IT ($10.30) $10.30
ST IT ($5.49) $5.49
Net $59.91 $31.60 $8.49
Hmmmmmmmm
June 29th, 2011
9:35 am
No matter what you call it, payroll tax, income tax, if you work in this country for a legite business, you PAY taxes…. You pay taxes to a corrupt and broken political system. A political system that pits the left vs. the right and laughs all the way to the bank… Pathetic..
CJ
June 29th, 2011
9:35 am
Gordon,
I hear what you’re saying.
For the record, there are two ways of thinking behind a progressive income tax system in which the poor pay nothing or very little:
1. It’s good economics…Money that will be spent stays in the economy (poor and working class). Taxes are limited to taxes on income that is less likely to be spent. Taking money household surplus, so to speak, and injecting it directly back into the economy isn’t the goal of government. But if you have to tax, that is the best way to do it. That’s why Republicans are wrong when they claim that raising taxes on incomes over $250,000 will hurt the economy. Most of the money that would be taxed, isn’t going into our economy.
2. Decades before Karl Marx was born, Adam Smith wrote that progressive taxes make sense because those with higher incomes are benefiting the most from government products and services. So he argues that if two people use the same highway to get to work, the guy who makes the most is benefiting the most from that highway.
The point of progressive income taxes isn’t to punish the rich. It’s to apply a tax that raises enough revenues in a way that makes the most economic sense.
Left wing management
June 29th, 2011
9:35 am
Leg lamp: “So what is your solution to protect jobs, higher taxes?”
The situation is so deeply structural that no single adjustment in a tax rate here or there is going to turn it around. But as a practical matter I do believe that we could pull back from the fiscal cliff we are currently at simply by allowing the disastrous and fiscally ruinous Bush tax cuts to expire — on all brackets.
But on a more general level, and at a minimum, we must confront the simple fact — which will be very traumatic for many Americans — that our brand of shareholder capitalism (as compared to the “shareholder” capitalism of say a Germany has put us on an utterly ruinous path.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
June 29th, 2011
9:36 am
Well, I see Bookman’s back to the Wealth Envy again after a little time out to try and make us get gay married.
All I know is I pay taxes right out of my paycheck. It says so right on the stub. It ain’t my fault if I get all of it back and then some, thanks to something they call EIC. I never wrote the tax laws.
Anyhow, I work for a living. Unlike that woman with two kids I saw in WalMart last night. She was wearing these fancy clothes and a whole bunch of jewelry and the kids were in real high price blue jeans and Gucci loafers. I was suprized when she pulled out a wad of food stamps to pay for the fancy steaks and lobsters she bought. When I followed her out of the store she got into a Cadillac Escalade and drove away.
That’s what’s wrong with this country. Not the corps. paying low taxes or a few hundred thousand rich people paying not a penny. We got to get rid of these Entitlements.
That’s my opinion and it’s very true. Have a good day everybody.
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
June 29th, 2011
9:36 am
Don’t raise taxes on anyone. Cut spending, reform entitlements and repeal ObamaCare as we sure don’t need another entitlement.
lynnie gal
June 29th, 2011
9:37 am
Any time you mention taking away those Bush tax cuts from the wealthy, the right wing cries, “Class Warfare!” or “Wealth Envy!” But they find no conflict of conscience to attack the poor and elderly for not “paying taxes.” This is class war alright. It’s obvious to all who open their eyes to see. Republicans are advocates for the wealthy only. It’s always been that way, and is even more pronounced today.
poison pen
June 29th, 2011
9:37 am
Poor Poor, Pitiful Thee,
Why is your child taking away jobs from those people on Welfare, foodstamps, unemployment and ADC.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 29th, 2011
9:37 am
Why do millionaires get mortgage deductions while the rant is on to cut Medicare for seniors. Let’s cut the millionaire entitlements.
markey mark
June 29th, 2011
9:38 am
For all of you discussing corporations and taxes….I seem to remember that the New England states had a thriving yacht building industry some years ago. Then, the powers that be passed a “luxury tax” on yachts in this country. Today, most yachts are built in England, New Zealand, and Europe. Wonder how many blue collar workers that little plan threw out of work? (the rich just buy ‘em, they don’t build ‘em). Another case of (a) be careful what you wish for, and (b) the law of unintended consequences….
Aquagirl
June 29th, 2011
9:39 am
I don’t think I could come up with that one even if I were to take a hit of some bad acid.
See? It’d probably enhance your posts.
The Leg Lamp is a "major award".....
June 29th, 2011
9:40 am
Adam
June 29th, 2011
9:26 am
Wow, ending with ALL CAPS. Yeah, hat really drives home the point.
“You guys cut taxes too much”. You guys? Sorry, that dog won’t hunt. I’ve been paying taxes since Nixon. What entitlements have I received? Nada. What entitlements have I expected to date? Nada.
As far as cutting taxes too much, if Congress gives a tax cut that, for arguments sake, puts us in a position that we’re spending more than what we’re taking in, then I believe they have the obligation to reduce spending accordingly.
WE DID NOT GET IN THIS MESS BY UNDER TAXING, WE GOT IN TO THIS MESS BY OVERSPENDING. WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? (sorry for the all caps).
Left wing management
June 29th, 2011
9:40 am
Bada Bing: “Why more tax money. The ‘brainless units’ (politicians) will just waste more.”
The tendency to categorically dismiss all government use of revenue from taxation as “waste” is in my view a rather infantile posture to take. I’m quite sure that such a mentality would be just as likely to be up in arms in the event that all the services from which we benefit daily and which flow directly from tax revenues — functioning roads, schools, basic law enforcement — were to go away, leaving us in a Hobbesian state of nature.
(ir)Rational
June 29th, 2011
9:40 am
Recon – that makes too much sense. And you better leave my food stamps and Section 8 housing alone! How am I going to keep my iPhone and my Benz if I got to pay for my own food and a place to live?
poison pen
June 29th, 2011
9:40 am
Keep up, because they made the laws. They also get to deduct 2 houses if they own 2 and most do.
real john
June 29th, 2011
9:41 am
Keep Up the Good Fight!
Fine you want to cut mortgage deductions for the rich, then cut them for ALL. That’s only fair, right? Be careful what you wish for. Just like the Bush (cough, cough Obama) tax cuts. 95% of Americans are actually getting a cut, which probably means for just about everyone on this board. I wonder what you think about those cuts, if you went back and saw just how much it has saved YOU in taxes the last few years…hmmmmm, I don’t see many Democrats writing extra checks to the IRS for the difference
jj
June 29th, 2011
9:41 am
Just asking because I don’t know the answer.
When they net out the lowest 10%-20% and say in essence they get cash back above and beyone anything witheld are they including things like ADC, Food Stamps (now called SNAP so as not to offend anyone) housing allowances and any other fed program available to them?
ty webb
June 29th, 2011
9:41 am
“…to cut Medicare for seniors.’
come on, you forgot the whole “as we know it” crap. Nonetheless, such a statement is still a bunch of BS…with or without that inane qualifier.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 29th, 2011
9:43 am
Why PP, we agree. The tax lobbyists and lawmakers have given the millionaires a lot of entitlements that the family making $17k a year will never see. Let’s cut those entitlements.
(ir)Rational….Don’t worry, I am sure your shopping trips to the Whole Foods for the liquor will continue.
Misty Fyed
June 29th, 2011
9:44 am
Tax them….Tax them all I say…No more shelters for the rich…No more earned income tax credits for the poor. If you live here, you owe a tax. If you have an income; pay a percentage. If you have no income; you owe a flat set fee. If our representatives pass new spending, they pass a new tax to pay for it. A tax that is shared among all citizens, not just target groups.
AmVet
June 29th, 2011
9:44 am
“Also Jay, so you think its a good idea to
raiseincessantly lower our corporate tax burden even more? As we’ve been doing for decades?They I’m SURE that will help bring more jobs in.Which as you can see has created so many more really good jobs. Why do libs not understand, if you continue to talk about raising taxes, businessesare not going to hire.know it is just that – talk. In this regard, our elected reps now work for the business interests, not us. Many businesses are sitting on the sidelines becauseall the libs do is complain that they aren’t paying enough in taxesthey know they can still reap record, massive profits by doing next to nothing for employees, consumers, taxpayers and shareholders. Why should they hire more people when theyare also getting kicked in the stomach by the Democrats.can make more money than ever by using creative bookkeeping?DwayneL
June 29th, 2011
9:44 am
Exactly, the ones that already don’t pay taxes are the ones screaming on the successful people to pay more taxes! The system is flawed and as long as these people live off the govt. they will continue to support the demcocrats that keep supporting them, even though it’s bankrupting this country.
Dan
June 29th, 2011
9:46 am
@lynnie people aren’t attacking the poor for not paying, they are simply pointing how inane it is to say the “rich” don’t pay their “fair” share, when there is already a hugely progressive tax sytem and a large segment that pays little or nothing. Furthermore even if you taxed the top 1% at 95% you wouldn’t dent the deficit. Spending cuts, and there is a plethora of wasteful unnecessary spending, is the only way to resolve the debt issue
(ir)Rational
June 29th, 2011
9:46 am
Keep – not really relevant, but I don’t shop at Whole Foods and I don’t drink. But thanks for that useless tidbit.
matrixband
June 29th, 2011
9:46 am
I wonder how many of the “Tax units” are, for instance, teenagers or college students, who make a bit of $$$$, pay their payroll taxes, but make WAY too little to pay taxes. For instance, on my block, there are probably more tax returns filed that are of that “tiny income-teen-student” category than there are “real” income earners, because so many people file on return for a couple, but a single return for each of their kids???
It’s gotta skew the data somehow, but I wonder how much?
EK
Left wing management
June 29th, 2011
9:47 am
Keep: “Why do millionaires get mortgage deductions while the rant is on to cut Medicare for seniors. Let’s cut the millionaire entitlements.”
It’s too late for such simple appeals to “common sense” justice as that. That’s so 20th C now. The world we live in now is one in which financial might makes right and if you ask why you’re told to shush and that that’s just how it is. History is a reasonable process after all and those who are at the top of the heap at this late stage must be there for a reason don’t you know?
Poor, Poor, Pitiful Thee
June 29th, 2011
9:47 am
Why is your child taking away jobs from those people on Welfare, foodstamps, unemployment and ADC.
They’re still hiring, poison, so no job has been taken away from anyone.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 29th, 2011
9:49 am
real john, well at least you acknowledge the entitlements you are getting. We can cut all the deduction or cap it at a level for everyone if there are solid policies behind it (let’s remember the housing industry has a lot of lobbyists and does drive a lot of Georgia’s economy).
But as to the continued silliness of “you can write a check”, yep I can. But really, your response to your perceived unfairness about unequal taxes is that some others can sacrifice more to pay for you. So much for shared sacrifice. In your world its everyone must sacrifice for you.
Jay
June 29th, 2011
9:50 am
Matrix, those who are claimed by others as dependents are not included in “tax units” for this purpose.
Peadawg
June 29th, 2011
9:51 am
““Why do millionaires get mortgage deductions while the rant is on to cut Medicare for seniors. Let’s cut the millionaire entitlements.””
And I say do both.
godless heathen
June 29th, 2011
9:52 am
Jay, They hire those tax lawyers and accountants so that the shareholders and customers don’t pay anymore taxes than the laws require. The terms “Return on Investment” and “Competitive pricing” mean anything.
Funny thing is when you libs stick it to the corporations like you want to do, you are in fact hurting your very own investments, 401ks, money markets, and pension funds. Look at who actually owns the stock in these corps. Most of it is owned by the very people you claim to be looking out for – working Americans.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 29th, 2011
9:52 am
(ir)Rational…and I doubt you live in Section 8 housing and that you use food stamps to pay for your iPhone and your Benz…but that did not stop you from posting those lies. Thanks for those useless lies.
Adam
June 29th, 2011
9:53 am
Leg Lamp: “You guys cut taxes too much”. You guys? Sorry, that dog won’t hunt. I’ve been paying taxes since Nixon. What entitlements have I received? Nada. What entitlements have I expected to date? Nada.
Way to miss the point. “You guys” as in Republicans, who went hog wild for tax cuts, as in this is what you voted for (feel better now that I used bold instead of caps?
)
Your entitlement came in the form of a tax stimulus check from Bush, btw.
As far as cutting taxes too much, if Congress gives a tax cut that, for arguments sake, puts us in a position that we’re spending more than what we’re taking in, then I believe they have the obligation to reduce spending accordingly.
Starve the Beast theory? Drown the economy in a bathtub? Yes I know you didn’t say these things, but come on. You’re basically saying that you would run your household like this:
1) Household got spending under control, has some debt, but is taking in more than it is spending.
2) Household says “Let’s ask for a pay cut, so we can encourage ourselves to spend less and produce more.” One member of the household tells all his friends that his real plan is to make sure the Household spends even less, by getting the pay cut in the first place.
3) Household debt starts spiraling out of control. In order to attempt to fix the problem, they incur more debt to get ahead of some bills, with the hope that one day their boss will just give them the wage they had before. Not more, or anything, just what they had before.
4) The boss, of course, says once the money is taken away he can’t give it back to you, of course. Well, maybe in 10 years… no you’ll have to wait 2 more… maybe. Oh and btw unless you agree to this I will make sure you default on all your debt and your house gets foreclosed on.
5) Household, still barely managing to hold its head above water, does manage to cut spending back as much as possible without completely starving the children (though a couple of them look thinner than they should and one has died).
6) Household is hoping beyond hope that in one more year, they will get their original wage back and might be able to pay more on some of this debt, but boss is still inserting himself into their personal lives and threatening not to reset the wage back unless they cut more of their household spending.
This, of course, is a more accurate depiction of the government as household, even though it makes no sense in the real world to make the comparison at all. But there you go.
WE DID NOT GET IN THIS MESS BY UNDER TAXING, WE GOT IN TO THIS MESS BY OVERSPENDING. WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
THE PART WHERE IT’S NOT TRUE, JERK.
The Leg Lamp is a "major award".....
June 29th, 2011
9:54 am
Left wing management
June 29th, 2011
9:35 am
You’ve got to be kidding. Eliminating the “Bush tax cuts for the rich” would generate just how much income each year? We’re $14 trillion in debt! Also, why didn’t Obama end the “Bush tax cuts for the rich” as promised?
Anyway, I will support modest tax increases if, and only if, spending is cut 5-fold.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 29th, 2011
9:56 am
Adam, I suppose you don’t understand “I did not get fat by over-eating, I got fat by under exercising” either…..
The Cons semantics are just absurd.
Ralph
June 29th, 2011
9:57 am
Wow this is serious…
(ir)Rational
June 29th, 2011
9:58 am
You understand the concepts of sarcasm and satire, right Keep?
But to be honest with you, no I don’t live in Section 8 Housing, don’t use food stamps and actually don’t drive a Benz. I work 40-50 hours a week, and haven’t received a raise in a few years. I live paycheck to paycheck, and have been reducing my expenditures so that I can cover everything I owe with my paycheck. I stopped shopping at Publix because it is expensive and started going to Aldi. Stopped eating out, started cooking more. Canceled my cable because it was expensive and now read all my news online. I am budgeting, if I can do it, maybe the government should try it. As somebody pointed out, if my expenses go up, I don’t go to my boss and tell him to give me more money, I budget.
waterstim
June 29th, 2011
9:58 am
EVERYONE SHOULD PAY SOMETHING. EVERYONE.
Chris
June 29th, 2011
9:59 am
Jay…The payroll tax is paid 2/3 by the employer and 1/3 by the employee. So yeah the “little people pay some of their freight, but mostly it is on the backs of the employer.
Chris
June 29th, 2011
10:00 am
jj— all those extra perks, like food stamps, etc are ON TOP of the working credits that end up SENDING income to the lower classes.
Gordon
June 29th, 2011
10:01 am
CJ,
Thanks for your response. I do agree with the progressive tax, and always have. Higher income earners should pay more, and pay a higher percentage. My concern is that I fell 45% is a very high number for people who pay no federal income tax at all. I think it “Balkanizes” the population into those who feel they are contributing and those who don’t. I say this understanding that 1) most who don’t pay federal income tax do pay the payroll tax, but the perception there for most people is that they are saving for their own retirement, and 2) most of those who currently do not pay federal income tax do in fact contribute to our society.
I favor lower rates, fewer loopholes, and a much simpler system that has more participants, with allowances made to make up for people like your brother who spend their money constructively. One such allowance could be lower rate on the first 20,000 of income on the payroll tax, or perhaps combining the payroll tax and income tax together.
Jay
June 29th, 2011
10:02 am
Chris, I believe the payroll tax is 50/50, and economists classify even the amount technically paid by the employer as a tax on the person’s labor, which it is.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 29th, 2011
10:02 am
waterstim…Everyone
How much should babies pay? How about those who make no income? Why those little girls on the corner selling lemonade–how much should they pay?
Soothsayer
June 29th, 2011
10:03 am
James @ 9:34: your FUTA calculation is wrong, it should be $0.80. FUTA is paid by the employer, it does not come out of your check. Since FUTA is only payable on the first $7,000 of an employee’s salary each year the maximum amount per employee, per year is $56.
Your SUTA calculation should be $2.70 which again, is paid by the employer. SUTA is payable on the first $8,500 of each employee’s salary per year. Or a maximum of $229.50 (at the standard 2.7% rate — some pay far less) per year. Once again, this tax is paid by the employer not the employee.
Also the employer’s portion of SS & MC does not come out of the employee’s paycheck, it is paid by the employers.
The federal and state income tax withholding could literally be anything based on the employee’s number of dependents, income etc. So you cannot make a blanket statement with regard to withholding.
AmVet
June 29th, 2011
10:03 am
Paul, I knew you two would have a wonderful time. (Must have something to do with the fact that there were wonderful people involved!) One day, I would love to see a Bookman gathering here in Hotlanta, where we could break bread together (or just have a few drinks) and enjoy each others company away from the “You suck! No, you do!” horseplay here!
Adam
June 29th, 2011
10:03 am
Keep Up: Good analogy. To stop being fat faster, one would think the best solution is to eat less AND exercise more, while making sure that you get the proper amount and types of food while exercising.
Or, you could JUST exercise (spending cuts only), while blaming your eating habits on the person who used to run your household, who happens to be fatter than you (Spending and tax levels of 2001-2008). And then, when someone suggests maybe you should also eat a little bit more of one thing (tax the rich) while exercising more properly (reasonable spending cuts) because studies show (economists agree) that will produce better and faster results, you just scoff at them and do the wrong kind of exercises (cut Medicare) while eating the wrong kind of food (more tax cuts for the rich while increasing tax burden on the poor).
Adam
June 29th, 2011
10:06 am
(ir)Rational: As somebody pointed out, if my expenses go up, I don’t go to my boss and tell him to give me more money, I budget.
Ok, but would you go to your boss and ask for a pay cut if you were taking in more than you were spending? Would you, after years of spending more than you are taking in after the first request of a pay cut, ask for ANOTHER pay cut?
The Leg Lamp is a "major award".....
June 29th, 2011
10:08 am
Adam
June 29th, 2011
9:53 am
Ha! Ending your argument by calling names. Classic lib approach.
Your example regarding asking for a pay cut is ridiculous, but hey, anything goes in your left leaning world.
The “cut back on what you cannot pay for” concept is very elementary. So simple even a caveman could figure it out (sorry GEICO). Actually, it’s so simple my 11 year old niece understands it. Her allowance must equal or be greater than what she can spend.
What do you think retirees do? Maybe at retirement they were earning $70K per year. Unless they lived well below their means, which Congress cannot seem to do (notice I didn’t identify one party), then they will more than likely have to cut back on what they spend when retired. They seem to get it. At least my parents did. My 11 year old niece seems to get it. For the life of me I cannot understand why liberals cannot get it.
Mighty Righty
June 29th, 2011
10:08 am
As long as we give benefits to non tax payers the non tax payers will gladly take those benefits and beg for more. I call them the moocher class. We tax payers have allowed a moocher class to be created by our politician. The moocher class is growing and is at this time almost irreversible. Jay and his Democrat run media friends will say that the moochers pay taxes in the form of payroll taxes. However, the moochers receive benefits specificly tied to those taxes in the form of Social Security, and medicare and in fact they most likely will receive far more than they pay in. Who among us would not accept freebies if offered? Free food? Why not? Free lottery tickets? Why mot? Free utilities? Why not? Free clothes? Why not? How about a big screen tv or maybe a new Mercedes? Why not? Free Health Care? Why not? Where does it end? When the 46% becomes 56% our life as we know it will end. Our founders knew this would eventually happen. The looney left likes to talk about the greed of the evil rich. Believe me, the greed of the evil rich will not destroy this nation. We will be destroyed by the greed of the poor.
Bosch
June 29th, 2011
10:08 am
“If you take more from society than you contribute, then you shouldn’t get a vote.”
Why do these people hate democracy?
(ir)Rational
June 29th, 2011
10:10 am
So, when taxes were cut, Adam, did tax revenues go down? Cause that seems to be the basis of your argument. I’ll go ahead and answer the question for you, they didn’t, they went up.
(ir)Rational
June 29th, 2011
10:10 am
Bosch – why do people mistakenly think we live in a democracy?
The Leg Lamp is a "major award".....
June 29th, 2011
10:11 am
Adam
June 29th, 2011
10:03 am
No, no, no. You got it all wrong. Fat liberals are “victims” of companies like McDonalds who force them to eat multiple Big Macs everyday, thus opening the door for huge lawsuits that seek to make things “fair”.
markey mark
June 29th, 2011
10:12 am
THE PART WHERE IT’S NOT TRUE, JERK.
and that is why I rarely post on this blog anymore….the lack of civility. Jay, I thought you had rules of behavior here…..
melvinowens
June 29th, 2011
10:13 am
only in this country is there a problem with the wealthy bearing the brunt of the tax burden. in my opinion, millionaires should not be receiving tax refunds.
Jack
June 29th, 2011
10:13 am
Granny prepares tax returns for all income levels. That’s how she knows about all this stuff. And Bookman’s liberal squeal is simply another suggestion that we should take from the rich and give to the poor.
AmVet
June 29th, 2011
10:14 am
(ir)Rational, because we do?
Jay
June 29th, 2011
10:14 am
“So, when taxes were cut, Adam, did tax revenues go down?”
I’ll answer your question for you, (ir)Rational. Yes, they went down.
uhoh
June 29th, 2011
10:15 am
Corps collect tax, they don’t pay tax. For the APS students in the bunch, if you want the prices of goods and services to go up, tax the corps more. If you want corps to be more competitive in the world markets and add more jobs because business is better, don’t tax the corps.