finknottle Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 I've been ranting lately on the fact that we will soon reach the milestone of having the majority of households paying no income tax. This article distills my concerns nicely: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2..._vanishing.html Another way of looking at the problem (according to figures in the article): Only 11% of those households who file income tax returns at all contribute more in taxes (overall, including payroll etc) than they consume (as their share of national expenses). It is no surprise that the price of higher taxes for more spending programs at the federal level has become irrelevant to the majority of voters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 I've been ranting lately on the fact that we will soon reach the milestone of having the majority of households paying no income tax. This article distills my concerns nicely: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2..._vanishing.html Another way of looking at the problem (according to figures in the article): Only 11% of those households who file income tax returns at all contribute more in taxes (overall, including payroll etc) than they consume (as their share of national expenses). It is no surprise that the price of higher taxes for more spending programs at the federal level has become irrelevant to the majority of voters Interesting article. Everyone wants a tax break, everyone wants something from the government, most are terrified of cutting military spending, ending the costly occupation of Iraq etc. Something has to give Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Interesting article. Everyone wants a tax break, everyone wants something from the government, most are terrified of cutting military spending, ending the costly occupation of Iraq etc. Something has to give It's the economy - stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 It's the economy - stupid. Can you tie the tax policy and budget deficits to the economic problems of today? I have seen a few people do that but I'm not convinced, but I'm willing to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Interesting article. Everyone wants a tax break, everyone wants something from the government, most are terrified of cutting military spending, ending the costly occupation of Iraq etc. Something has to give You know, I'm not looking for a tax break I have enough breaks. I just don't want to pay any more. I don't want anything from the government. I'm easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Seconded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 You know, I'm not looking for a tax break I have enough breaks. I just don't want to pay any more. I don't want anything from the government. I'm easy. I don't need anything from the government, either. Not individually, at least. Though if they wanted to give me one of those patented Obama/Biden ranibow-farting unicorns, that would be a nice little novelty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Though if they wanted to give me one of those patented Obama/Biden ranibow-farting unicorns, that would be a nice little novelty. I got two. Ya want one of 'em? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I don't need anything from the government, either. Not individually, at least. Though if they wanted to give me one of those patented Obama/Biden ranibow-farting unicorns, that would be a nice little novelty. LOL! But seriously, the sooner these ass clowns start having a serious conversation about reducing our benefits on S. Security and the Medi's the greater the liklihood I may have even a one percent chance of seeing some of the money I've contributed over my lifetime. The longer we let it go, the more !@#$ we are. People don't miss things they don't have... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HBSS151 Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 LOL! But seriously, the sooner these ass clowns start having a serious conversation about reducing our benefits on S. Security and the Medi's the greater the liklihood I may have even a one percent chance of seeing some of the money I've contributed over my lifetime. The longer we let it go, the more !@#$ we are. People don't miss things they don't have... We do our semi-annual review with the financial planner - we look at all the numbers, and just for sh*ts and giggles, we add in our long paid SS numbers/benefits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I've been ranting lately on the fact that we will soon reach the milestone of having the majority of households paying no income tax. This article distills my concerns nicely: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2..._vanishing.html Another way of looking at the problem (according to figures in the article): Only 11% of those households who file income tax returns at all contribute more in taxes (overall, including payroll etc) than they consume (as their share of national expenses). It is no surprise that the price of higher taxes for more spending programs at the federal level has become irrelevant to the majority of voters Christ, you must be drunk from all of your distilling! And I am surprised the "cognoscenti" here bought into this one--ok I'm not, it fits right into what the right believes. This idiot--you finknotaclue--is taking averages and making generalizations. The 11%...what is the average income of the 11%? Of course they pay more in taxes than the average amount that they "consume" in government services--they take in 50% of the income!!! Example: Two different people--Warren Buffet and you. He's got billions of $s worth of assets, and you, well who knows, but let's assume $100K. Should Warren pay the same $20K to the government to protect his assets as you? Who has more to lose? Think of it as insurance. Would you pay the same amount to insure your $100K vs. Warren's $1 billion? If you have more to lose, you damn well better be paying more to "insure against the loss of your assets." And could you please explain what the hell you mean by "the price of higher taxes for more spending programs"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Christ, you must be drunk from all of your distilling! And I am surprised the "cognoscenti" here bought into this one--ok I'm not, it fits right into what the right believes. This idiot--you finknotaclue--is taking averages and making generalizations. The 11%...what is the average income of the 11%? Of course they pay more in taxes than the average amount that they "consume" in government services--they take in 50% of the income!!! Example: Two different people--Warren Buffet and you. He's got billions of $s worth of assets, and you, well who knows, but let's assume $100K. Should Warren pay the same $20K to the government to protect his assets as you? Who has more to lose? Think of it as insurance. Would you pay the same amount to insure your $100K vs. Warren's $1 billion? If you have more to lose, you damn well better be paying more to "insure against the loss of your assets." And could you please explain what the hell you mean by "the price of higher taxes for more spending programs"? Was any of this really in question? I mean, is anyone surprised that the tax code is effectively wealth distribution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Was any of this really in question? I mean, is anyone surprised that the tax code is effectively wealth distribution? Most people do not understand that, IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Most people do not understand that, IMO And those of us that do understand that point to that as the reason why we're saying "enough is enough." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted October 9, 2008 Author Share Posted October 9, 2008 Christ, you must be drunk from all of your distilling! And I am surprised the "cognoscenti" here bought into this one--ok I'm not, it fits right into what the right believes. This idiot--you finknotaclue--is taking averages and making generalizations. The 11%...what is the average income of the 11%? Of course they pay more in taxes than the average amount that they "consume" in government services--they take in 50% of the income!!! Example: Two different people--Warren Buffet and you. He's got billions of $s worth of assets, and you, well who knows, but let's assume $100K. Should Warren pay the same $20K to the government to protect his assets as you? Who has more to lose? Think of it as insurance. Would you pay the same amount to insure your $100K vs. Warren's $1 billion? If you have more to lose, you damn well better be paying more to "insure against the loss of your assets." And could you please explain what the hell you mean by "the price of higher taxes for more spending programs"? I'm talking the politics of public policy, and you can't let go of morality. There is no debate about whether higher earners should pay more than lower earners - go find a flat-taxer if you want to battle that strawman. I am only interested in the political ramifications - how spending proposals are received by the voting public - when a critical mass of the voters are not effected by the costs of the programs proposed. If X% of the country pays no taxes after tax credits, under what circumstances would they oppose any spending program at all? They would either support it or at worst be indifferent. It's somebody elses nickel. I'll make this clearer since you seem to have comprehension issues: this is not about the 11% paying more than they take in. It is about the number 11% itself - more precisely, it is about where significant numbers should lie: the lines between no taxes and taxes, between no income tax and income tax, between being a net consumer of federal resources and net contributer, etc. It is about finding the right positions to give all americans a stake in fiscal responsibility. Those first two lines are more or less irreversible: once a segment or portion of the population pays no taxes, no politician can initiate a tax on them. The lines can only go upward, and only the rates on those already paying something can be realistically tweaked. If we continue to shift the lines upward then the majority of the country will have no stake in paying for national programs. But as long as they can vote, politicians will propose spending on them - they are in the business of getting elected, after all. The check on this, those who have to pick up a portion of the bill, are becoming a smaller and smaller piece of the electorate. If you don't believe me, institute democracy in your family and see how the kids deal with allowances, household spending and budgets (assuming you have more kids than wage-earners). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I'm talking the politics of public policy, and you can't let go of morality. There is no debate about whether higher earners should pay more than lower earners - go find a flat-taxer if you want to battle that strawman. I am only interested in the political ramifications - how spending proposals are received by the voting public - when a critical mass of the voters are not effected by the costs of the programs proposed. If X% of the country pays no taxes after tax credits, under what circumstances would they oppose any spending program at all? They would either support it or at worst be indifferent. It's somebody elses nickel. I'll make this clearer since you seem to have comprehension issues: this is not about the 11% paying more than they take in. It is about the number 11% itself - more precisely, it is about where significant numbers should lie: the lines between no taxes and taxes, between no income tax and income tax, between being a net consumer of federal resources and net contributer, etc. It is about finding the right positions to give all americans a stake in fiscal responsibility. Those first two lines are more or less irreversible: once a segment or portion of the population pays no taxes, no politician can initiate a tax on them. The lines can only go upward, and only the rates on those already paying something can be realistically tweaked. If we continue to shift the lines upward then the majority of the country will have no stake in paying for national programs. But as long as they can vote, politicians will propose spending on them - they are in the business of getting elected, after all. The check on this, those who have to pick up a portion of the bill, are becoming a smaller and smaller piece of the electorate. If you don't believe me, institute democracy in your family and see how the kids deal with allowances, household spending and budgets (assuming you have more kids than wage-earners). Brilliant post Fink. You could repost it in a new thread with the title 'Why our Country is in Deep Excrement'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts