OT: does obama bring change?

[SimonM]

That's true. But if everyone had to pay SOMETHING, it would be more fair than the system we have now where ~40% pay NOTHING.

Perhaps, instead, it comments on the level of poverty in the USA at this time.

[BoulderDawg]

That's true. But if everyone had to pay SOMETHING, it would be more fair than the system we have now where ~40% pay NOTHING.

Just exactly how is a six month old baby suppose to pay taxes?

[SimonM]

I am assuming he is referring to those of employable age... I hope he is anyway otherwise there is considerable problems with his statistics.

However that raises a good question: are the unemployed included in this figure?
If yes what is the age cut-off applied?
Who provided the statistics?
What was the source of their data?
Are students included in the figure? Do employed students receive tuition based tax credits as they do in Canada?

[1bad65]

Perhaps, instead, it comments on the level of poverty in the USA at this time.

I think it shows the tax inequities.

While some pay NOTHING, many others pay over 35%. That's not fair.

[1bad65]

I am assuming he is referring to those of employable age...

Common sense is not a given with BD. I forget SOME PEOPLE aren't rational.

However that raises a good question: are the unemployed included in this figure?
If yes what is the age cut-off applied?
Who provided the statistics?
What was the source of their data?
Are students included in the figure? Do employed students receive tuition based tax credits as they do in Canada?

I think anyone of working age should have their income taxed. The low brackets can be a low percentage, but it has to be something. And every income tax increase must raise EVERY bracket too. To me, that gives everyone some "skin in the game".

Also, my optimum choice would be a flat tax. A flat sales tax, to be precise. But if we are not willing to scrap the current system, what I typed in the above paragraph is how I would make the current system apply to ALL.

[BoulderDawg]

I think it shows the tax inequities.

While some pay NOTHING, many others pay over 35%. That's not fair.

Did you not read my post about fairness?

Where did you get the idea that life was fair?

Personally I don't think it's fair that a young mother does not have money to pay to feed her child. However you Neos find no problem with that.

[1bad65]

"During 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans—or 41 percent of the U.S. population—will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006.1 This total includes those who pay no tax, and those who pay some tax upfront and are later refunded the full amount of the tax paid or more."

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html

[SimonM]

Also, my optimum choice would be a flat tax. A flat sales tax, to be precise.

A flat tax is nothing more than a method whereby the wealthy divert the entire tax burden to the middle class. It is class warfare plain and simple.

As for sales taxes... well... they just don't provide sufficient revenue for the operation of government.

And I say that as somebody from a country where we have two flat sales taxes (one federal, one provincial), a graduated federal income tax and a graduated provincial income tax.

Ok, I saw your answer.

So it is all those returning a tax return. So that is any individual who is currently employed or has been employed in the past along with every registered voter (if you sysetem is anything like what we have up here). So it would most likely include students who may defer the cost of tuition against income and will certainly include people on federal assistance.

It would certainly include every employed person who lives below the poverty line.

It also makes the assumption of a certain number of non-reporting households (which means that the number is inflated by the same tax evaders that probably are members, people presently in prisons, and, depending on the tax foundation's sources, possibly homeless people and / or people who have died between the completion of the census and the compilation of their statistics. It may also be an estimated number in which case it is entirely useless.)

The language used to refer to those people who pay taxes and later receive a refund equal to their payment is obfuscatory since they are most certainly not outside of the US tax system.

The source for your statistics was a lobby group in favour of reduced taxation.

All in all it raises serious doubts about your 40% figure.

I would call it a seriously flawed statistic.

But thank you for your compliance with my request.

[BoulderDawg]

I think anyone of working age should have their income taxed. The low brackets can be a low percentage, but it has to be something. And every income tax increase must raise EVERY bracket too. To me, that gives everyone some "skin in the game".

Also, my optimum choice would be a flat tax. A flat sales tax, to be precise. But if we are not willing to scrap the current system, what I typed in the above paragraph is how I would make the current system apply to ALL.

if everyone had to pay SOMETHING, it would be more fair

Which is it? All people or everyone of working age...Can't be both. So one way or the other you lied about it. Don't worry. You're in good company with people such as myself, Obama and Ward Churchill.

[Reality_Check]

Well keep in mind 40% don't pay any income taxes. So I don't consider that fair either.

The problem I have with certain people not having to pay taxes others do, is that they can vote to raise other people's taxes, while they don't even have to pay any themselves.

Sigh . . .

http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/foru...&postcount=794

I'm referring to income taxes. They are BY FAR the largest percentage of taxes the middle class pays.

Actually, no (page 19, Chart 5)....

http://www.kc.frb.org/PUBLICAT/ECONR.../4q06davig.pdf

From my link: "Since payroll taxes are paid only up to a certain amount of income, payroll taxes comprise a larger share of the tax liability for low- and middle-income households versus high-income households. Mitrusi and Poterba (2000) estimated that payroll taxes were higher than federal income taxes for 44 percent of all U.S. households in 1979, and that percentage increased to 67 percent in 1999."

Of those 40% that don't pay income taxes (could you please post a link to that statistic?), how many pay taxes via a payroll tax?

[1bad65]

Where did you get the idea that life was fair?

Comrade Obama promises it will be fair under him.

Personally I don't think it's fair that a young mother does not have money to pay to feed her child. However you Neos find no problem with that.

The problem is she had a child she could not afford to care for. It YOU have a proplem with it, give to charity. Or go to a shelter and pass out YOUR money. Leave MY money alone.

Back in the days before welfare and government assistance, people didn't have kids they couldn't afford. Now there is no penalty for it. And guess what? Illegitimacy rates have shot through the roof, especially in the black community.

[Reality_Check]

"During 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans—or 41 percent of the U.S. population—will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006.1 This total includes those who pay no tax, and those who pay some tax upfront and are later refunded the full amount of the tax paid or more."

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html

That says nothing about payroll taxes; which make up a far larger burden on low to middle income Americans.

[1bad65]

A flat tax is nothing more than a method whereby the wealthy divert the entire tax burden to the middle class. It is class warfare plain and simple.

No, it's a system where somone who CONSUMES more, pays more. A very fair system. If you buy 1 new Mustang, and I buy 5, my tax burden is 5x yours. Sounds fair to me.

As for sales taxes... well... they just don't provide sufficient revenue for the operation of government.

They do in states where they control spending. Notice Texas and Florida (who have no state income tax) are doing ok, while California (who has state income taxes) is dead broke and may need a Federal bailout.

[1bad65]

That says nothing about payroll taxes; which make up a far larger burden on low to middle income Americans.

I'm all for getting rid of that tax. Is Obama?

[1bad65]

Of those 40% that don't pay income taxes (could you please post a link to that statistic?), how many pay taxes via a payroll tax?

You want to bring that up, YOU find the stats.

I'm talking about income tax, which is the biggest tax those who pay it pay.