E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSUpdated at 3:15 p.m. PT
Americans are growing increasingly frustrated with our country’s Byzantine federal tax system, but not because we feel overtaxed.
Most Americans believe the biggest problem with taxes is that wealthy people don’t pay their fair share, according to poll results published Tuesday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.
The feeling of outrage over the privileged classes is growing, according to the poll results, which only confirm the widespread anger that has helped fuel this fall's Occupy protests on Wall Street and nationwide.
Pew Research Center
Only a minority of Americans seem at all outraged by the taxes they pay themselves.
Among those surveyed, only 38 percent said they pay more than their “fair share” in federal taxes, compared with 55 percent who answered affirmatively in a similar 2000 poll. By contrast 52 percent said they pay “about the right amount” in taxes, up from 41 percent in 2003.
When asked what bothers them most about the federal tax system, only 11 percent cited the amount they pay in taxes. An overwhelming 57 percent cited the perception that wealthy people don’t pay their fare share, while 28 percent chose the complexity of the tax system.
Public opinion on taxes shifted rather sharply about a decade ago, perhaps in response to two big rounds of tax cuts passed during the George W. Bush administration. In 2001 65 percent of Americans said their taxes were too high, but that fell to 50 percent by 2003 and has stayed near that level, according to an annual Gallup poll on the topic.
Michael Dimock, associate director of the Pew Research Center, said he found the latest results striking.
"We are in an era when public dissatisfaction with government is at an all-time high, yet there is actually less resentment about what people are paying in taxes than what people had a decade ago, when the government was viewed much more positively," he said.
The view of the tax system differs starkly depending on political affiliation.
Among Republicans, the complexity of the system was cited as the biggest problem, with only 38 percent saying wealthy people don’t pay their fair share. Among Democrats, 73 percent cited the fairness issue as the No. 1 problem.
Yet Republicans are no more likely than Democrats to say they pay more than their fair share in taxes. A Pew poll last month found that 53 percent of Republicans favored attacking the deficit through a combination of both tax hikes and cuts in federal programs, unlike the more uniform anti-tax view expressed by Republican political leaders.
"I think there is more diversity of opinion among Republicans in this issue than some people might imagine," Dimock said.
The survey of a nationwide sample of 1,500 adults was conducted this month and has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points. Click here to see full results.
Related:
Leave a Comment:
Keep in mind that almost half the nation pays no federal income tax. Unfair? You decide.
I think loopholes should be closed before any tax increases hit. But if increases hit, just hit the 1%. The middle class needs tax breaks, if anything.
Wow, after reading the first few comments here, it appears that NBC's attempt to fan the class warfare flames is fizzling. Nobody here is blasting those evil rich; rather, it seems, we'd like to see eveyone pay his/her fair share. Imagine that, NBC!
I think more of our OVERALL taxes should stay at the state and local levels where we can keep an eye on our own money and make decisions that affect ourselves more directly. States that create better economic environments SHOULD be rewarded with more money to spend instead of laundering it through the fed govt. Poorly run states would eventually learn from the more successful ones. Laboratories of democracy and all that.
I'm tired of that ridiculous argument. Half of the nation can't afford to pay taxes, genius.
It doesnt have to be alot. Just enough for people to want to fight to lower it.
Loopholes are just a codeword for tax law. Loopholes implies that companies and individuals are doing wrong... when they are just following current tax law.
I don't like the term loopholes because its misleading.
I don't think we should raise taxes on anyone, if anything everyone should have lower taxes and our government should reassess as a whole its role in america and our lives. The insane spending needs to end...
The rich also have a great argument -- why allow them to raise taxes when the funds aquired don't even go to solve the problem?
Loopholes are called that when "someone else" get them. When we get them they are called credits or deductions.
This study may be indicative of some people's opinions, but when those they chastise pretty much support the whole country, it becomes a worthless opinion in my mind. I pay too much income and capital gains taxes. When I sell stock with less than a year hold time, the gains just go straight to income. I do not get the 15% rate so many people are mad about... And when I do hold long enough, and go get 15%, then I'm being taxed for what? For keeping the economy afloat by risking my own money on the investment?
Anybody who claims to be speaking for the 99% when they say I should be paying more can put on concrete shoes and take a swim, for all I care. My dollars keep this nation running. If you don't like it, I'll gladly take my capital elsewhere.
The lower income people who pay no federal income taxes do not make enough money to pay those taxes, although they do pay plenty in other taxes (sales, gas, alcohol and tobacco, etc.). Would you rather they be made to pay the federal income tax as well? Because all that means is that instead of spending that money with local merchants, they would have to turn around and give it to the federal government instead. So in your zeal to inflict some hurt on the working poor, you would also end up hurting local businesses in your hometown as well. The only winner in this scenario be the federal government. Is that what you want to see?
Yeah, dude, my heart bleeds for you . . .
Closing loopholes is increasing taxes on those to whom the "loophole" previously applied. bear in mind that the child tax credit, home mortgage deduction, and other deductions, exemptions, and credits taken by the middle class are also loopholes.
They don't pay federal income tax because they don't earn enough money. They do pay sales tax, Social Security, Medicare and every other tax levied on things other than income. Everybody pays taxes. Think a little - it helps.
Taxes have a bad connotation. They're payments...They're really no different than paying your electric bill or your insurance bill. I find a lot more value in my payments to the Government than I do to my payments to the private sector. Funny though..whether paying the government or private sector the money still ends up in the hands of the rich and corporate tills.
I say were being taxed to much by the rich!
I'm sick of you liberals saying that people that pay SS are paying taxes ... those aren't real taxes, they'll get that money back and then some ... it's essentially an annuity (forced savings). You think a little ... moron!
Everyone is subject to payroll taxes (unless you earn your income through investments alone - which is a wealth people thing). It is a flat tax for people who earn up to $109,000. After that you pay a smaller and smaller percentage of your income as a payroll tax. Let's never forget, the payroll tax (which was supposed to fund social security and medicare) hits the people that earn less far more than it hits people that earn more.
And yet the right loves to scream about the "fact" that SS won't be around for us to enjoy! Get real!
SS and Medicare take a significant percentage from the paychecks of the working poor. Percentage wise the wealthy pay next to nothing on their massive earnings because SS and Medicare TAXES are capped so only incomes under are charged $106,000.
We are required to pay taxes under threat of jail, so taxes are not like paying a bill. Anyone who thinks they are getting a better value from government than the private sector needs their head checked. Government charges more and more, they retire earlier than most, and do less and less for the dollars we pay.
The class warfare is on, and Obama and the left are full steam ahead with their envy/warfare hatred. It is as disgusting as it is idiotic.
Go ahead lefties, I hope you run the table, take over super-majorities in both houses of Congress and I hope Obama gets re-elected. You will lose all your excuses and be exposed for the lazy lying con-men and women that you are. The world economies show that leftie politics leads to financial disaster. Conservative policies work. The only problem is that we have not had a truly conservative government in the US in modern history.
And I'm tired of Tpublicans changing their story when it suits them. Aren't you the folks claiming that SS and Medicare are dead? Not much of an investment there is it? So let's do what the Tpublicans want us to do and turn SS over to Wall Street and Medicare over to the Insurance Companies; they're trustworthy with an excellent track record, right? And if there are problems I'm sure the market will correct its self, right? ...who's the moron?
The only time I ever see or hear the expression "evil rich" it is from a conservative believing that that is what progressives think. Those conservatives are wrong. What the progressives seek is fairness. Theodore Roosevelt, conservative hero, believed in progressive income taxes. Ronald Reagan supported an increased tax rate for the wealthy, as did George H. W. Bush. The George W. Bush tax cut has been a failure by any measure and why would anyone believe that that mediocre (at best) President was an economics expert anyway?
Progressives do not believe the rich are evil. They merely understand that a good economic system does not place the majority of the country's wealth in the hands of a few. The most vibrant economy is one in which the majority of citizens participate.
Oh, you mean like "trickle-down" economics? Yes they work great for the 1%. For the rest of us the only thing trickling down is wet, warm and yellow. Have a nice day.
Or as Bush Sr. called it "voodoo economics". he was right even back in Reagan's day...didn't work then either....but they're still trying it.
Paul F - you and the other right wingers are always playing the same sad song. The class warfare was started by and egged on by the GOP. First, very few people get back what they pay into SS - they don't live long enough. So, moron, you think a little (I know it's a stretch but try). When the top 1% are paying 17% in taxes and I pay 25% they are not paying their share. Get over yourself. And, as has been pointed out, the poor do pay taxes on food, anything they buy, SS, etc. No one gets off without paying taxes - again moron!
ruken you do realize that the 47% non taxpayers is false information? that is based of some crap pulled of off census tax payer info. that 47% includes the retired elderly, under work age children, imprisoned inmates, institutionalized mental people and illegals.
@eric1964
Sorry Eric but you're the one with the false information. 47% is the number of HOUSEHOLDS that file a return but end up paying no Federal Income Tax. None of the groups you mention would be included in the figure except retirees drawing income from SS and pensions.
Maybe check some facts for yourself BEFORE you parrot what you've heard others say.
If the Corporate Republican't Tea Baggers had their way, people would make 5 cents a day and the elderly would be living in the street or the poor house.
Maybe this is why the Republican'ts in congress have only a 7% approval rating while the Democrats have a 33% approval rating.
And thats my opinion.
this is to SELFMADE13..... you make more money in investments because of the work and toil of the middle class, what the middle class spends, and what the middle class does without so a corporation can make excessive profits. You are not the sole support of the American public and if you want to take your marbles and leave then please do!
Well fed people make many bricks, the sick make little and the dead make none... If the United States lost all the middle class to poverty then who will buy the products, which make the corporate profits, which make your investments pay.
I knew this poll would be liberally biased. How about making this a choice, "I'm sick and tired of paying for ever expanding government, entitlements for the lazy, and bloated paychecks of useless public sector workers, politicans, and bureaucrats."
If I run my house budget like the goverment runs the country I would be living in the streets, they spend Billions of dollars like it were nothing , I think we need to implement the fair tax where you get your check and no taxes are takin out only when you consume goods and products , so this way everyone would pay their fair share the rich would pay theirs because they would purchase the most expensive things like new cars, yatchs, and aircarafts and the tax would be high on these products , like I said before what did people do before ssi checks and medicare, food stamps, the ones that are getting ssi have not paid into what they are getting out of it now.
Government sanctioned fraud is what pisses me off. Fractional reserve banking is what is destroying our country. It is a huge ponzi scheme. Even if these rich crook bankers payed 50% of their gains toward taxes they are still getting rich off of money they didn't earn. They produce nothing and walk away with all of our money. People need to wake up and realize that we are slaves to a system of usury and fraud. Arguing over who pays what in taxes is missing the point of what is happening to our country.
These surveys are always laughable. After all how many people really know how much the rich pay? Here's the latest numbers from the IRS in percentage of taxes collected for the Tax Year 2009. Also note that despite Eric's bogus claims the numbers come from people who actually filed returns:
Bottom 50% by Adjusted Gross Income.........2.3%
25%-50%.......................................................11%
Top 25%..........................................................86.7%
The top 1% that OWS screams about pay 36.7% of all income taxes collected. I wonder how the survey would come out if those who are polled were told the facts first.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff285.pdf
chasfh711
Oh puleeeezz...they can't pay taxes but they can buy cigs/booze and I would sure like to see their CELL PHONE BILL TOO!! By the way...some states have NO sales tax either!!
I'M TIRED OF THE "POOR" PAYING FOR NON-ESSENTIALS TILL THEIR MONEY IS GONE...THEN COMPLAINING THAT THEY CAN'T PAY RENT OR BUY FOOD~~~
This is the most ridiculous article I have read in a while.
First it says,,,
Now, regardless if you think we are overtaxed, which Constitutionally we are, they say this,,,
The reason the rich don’t pay their “fair share” is because of the aforementioned BYZANTINE federal tax system.
Now, leaving the “fair share” idiocy aside because the rationale most of the uneducated masses use is ridiculous, let’s see if we can break this irrational notion down.
IF, there is a discrepancy in the tax system not getting its fair share from those mean, nasty, rich, fat-cats, the only blame can be is on our criminal progressive tax system. As I have posted here numerous times, regardless of the upper income bracket, which has ranged from the current level of 35% up to 92% in the 30’s, overall tax receipts have stayed at basically 18% of GDP. Income tax receipts stay right around 8.6% of GDP. So, how does raising the taxes on the demonic 1% fix anything? Other than the obvious class-warfare and envy the proponents refuse to admit to, this is the conundrum we face.
The next ridiculous proposal is to eliminate “loopholes”. A loophole is simply an ambiguity in a system, such as a tax, law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system. The common misperception is that it’s an obvious written avoidance that only the heinous rich can exploit. As such, I challenge anyone to find one of the loopholes and show me how it can be eliminated. If it can be eliminated, how long will it be before the next loophole is found, by the army of authorities that only the wealthy can afford, and be used?
Now, remember, our manipulative progressive tax code is over 72,000 pages long. There are over 1,120 different tax forms. So where do we start? Keep in mind there have been about 4,428 tax code changes in the last 10 years. There were approximately 580 changes in 2010 alone. Between 1986 and 2005 Congress passed over 14,400 amendments to the tax code, this equates to almost 3 changes every day for 19 straight years. Where do all these tax code changes begin? In Congress. Those thousands of earmarks, that are included in just about any legislation, contain the majority of all these changes. The tax code is written in ambiguous terminology on purpose so only the armies of tax consultants, tax lawyers, financial analysts and MBA’s can decipher them. Usually in a way that benefits their tax avoidance needs.
So, the burning question remains for you class-warfare, envy spewing proponents of the “fair-share” mentality, where do you propose we begin? This is the reason no one can take your “fair-share” stupidity seriously. You blather on and on about some mythical “even playing field” but none of you have a solution. At least not with respect to the current dysfunctional progressive tax code. When someone proposes the only other rational tax systems, the Flat Tax or, more appropriately, the Fair tax, you still squeal that it’s not “fair”.
So, having said that, I’ll wait for the barrage of responses I usually get regarding some social or economic injustice, usually by the insecure Liberal mindset.
the constitution doesn't contain a tax limit.
Goodlooking - sweet, you imply that the poor are to poor to pay income taxes, yet the earned income tax credit rewards many to remain poor. Also, many that collect welfare are now 3rd generation recipients. I have a niece capable of being employed, yet she plays the system that allows her to get more government money than most seniors on SS.
Our tax laws are too complex. Every wage earner needs to have skin in the game when it comes to individual income taxes.
If you are old enough to draw a paycheck the government automatically withholds income tax. Then again, maybe you are one that claims so many exemptions so that you have none withheld.
spg64 You are wrong!! Ther is no cap on income subject to Medicare taxes! All earned income (and now some unearned income due to health care reform) is subject to Medicare tax. Then when I am receiving benefits, if my income is above a certain amount, my premiums will be increased! A good deal??!! Only if you are on the receiving end! And there is a cap on wages subject to SS tax for a reason. I hate to disappoint you but SS was never designed as a vehicle for wealth transfer. Taxes are capped because benefits are indexed to contributions and there is a cap on benefits! Is not taxing a portion of the benefits based on income not enough wealth transfer for you!!??
Hey Shortordercook: I'm with you on those bloated paychecks of the useless public sector workers.
I say we get rid of all police, both state and local. That way I can haul a$$ down the Interstates at 90 or 100 mph (Ya gotta remember I'm a lot better driver than the rest of the idiots out there). And I can pack heat to protect myself locally.
Fire departments? I got a garden hose here to take care of any problem. And as far as sewer and water, if there's a problem, I can crawl down in the sewer and fix the problem. I don't mind the smell. (Norton is my hero).
Don't even get me going on school teachers. I'm smarter than average and a high school grad, so I can teach my kids all they need to know to get along in this complex world by home schooling them.
We also don't need all those pesky rules and regulations to keep the air clean, our workers safe, and my money safe in the banks. Corporate America and the banking sectors will surely police themselves. No more darned rules and regulations.
NOTE: The above is called SATIRE. I know a lot of public sector workers: they are called friends and neighbors. They do some jobs that others wouldn't want, or are not qualified to do. Quit bad-mouthing them. A special thanks to all nurses: Thanks you folks. You're under paid and overworked.
Merry Christmas to all.
If I seem a little pi$$y, sorry. My old friend Paul, the Old Marine , died and I shall miss him. Great guy and great family. RIP and SEMPER FI!
There are far to many special exemptions and loopholes. These allow certain people and businesses to pay less than their fair share. I do not think that all of the rich are not paying their share, only some that have managed to use their influence to get special exemptions written into the tax code that benefit them. We need to do away with all of these special exemptions and level the playing field again. Then we might have enough tax revenues to cover what is going out. The only problem is that the liberals in Washington will want to spend these increased revenues instead of using them to pay down the debt. I also do not agree with tax credits that allow people to get refunds that exceed what they paid in. If you want to provide assistance, do it above board, not hidden in the tax code where most people do not see it is happening.
So why do they call it a tax bill at times? Bounce enough checks you'll be do'in some jail time. You'll probably even go to jail faster than under tax liability cases.
Let's see.. I get roads, education, safe food, Protection, We got rail roads, Men on the moon, safety nets to meet minimum basic necessities. Safe cars, environmental protections, a rule of law that doesn't discriminate, National public lands and state parks, wheeew the list goes on.. If we could only get the private sector to stop ripping off the Government....
Let's see... what value is left in anything from the private sector... hmmmm ....ohhhh... They have huge boxes of cereal for $1.77 on sale at Menards..
I better go watch some fox news and get my head on straight. Brainwashing should fix me right?
I don't understand this article, I don't hate Texas.
It's true, almost half the nation pays no federal income tax. Do you think that half is the wealthiest half or the poorest half? Maybe it's a little bit of both? Did GE pay any income tax last year? No. How about many of our other wealthiest corporations that paid little or no income taxes?
But lets all get real Republican on this evil and point out that so many single welfare mothers and other working poor are among that 47% that paid no federal income taxes! If you are a corporation that makes millions a year and pays no taxes, shame on you! If you are a struggling single mom that makes $25,000 a year and pays no taxes, shame on you!
As an upper middle class taxpayer who is funding both of your azzes, I am not happy with either of you. But I am a lot less happy with the likes of GE freeloading at MY expense than I am with the lower income mom who is just trying to make ends meet. I guess that means you right wing diptards will say that makes me a libtard. Well you're wrong, and by the way, I'm tired of paying for your lazy right wing don't-wanna-work azzes too!
I don't mind paying my taxes. Just don't make me jump through hoops so that some fat cat can deduct the caviar on his yacht or use a loophole to pay for lobbying ...
Taxes - Texas...what's the difference?
Hilarious....Another Libtard claiming that people standing in the welfare lines vote Republican against their own self interests. BTW GE didn't pay taxes because their CEO helped write Obama's Stimulus package so they could eliminate their tax bill by claiming Clean Energy Credits. No Republicans voted for the POTUS Trillion Dollar Cronie Capitalism giveaway but yeah go ahead and blame them anyway. People like you do the BSDNC proud.
What?,
You can always tell an uneducated neo-con when they use the word Libtard. After that you can bet 99% of the time you will read Fox News BS.
Interesting that only 5% of Americans make $155K to $343K a year (actually only 4% - the 1% makes up the last %). With a work force of 155,000,000 only 7,775,000 (4%ers total is 6,2000,000) make that much. The 1%ers start at $344,000 a year and there is only 1,550,000 of them?
The math just never adds up - you can't keep the 1%ers with the top 5%ers because the guy making $155,000 a year isn't paying nearly as much as the guy making $500,000.
You have to take every percentage on its own - the lumping system is too flawed.
I'll never forget the year the Iraq war started and I paid over 50,000 dollars in Income Tax. Not a lot of money when you consider that one 2,000 bomb cost a little over 40,000. I was really pissed off about that.
Considering the top 25% of earners hold 87% of the wealth (top 25% = $54.2 trillion in 2009) how is paying 86% of the taxes unfair?
It's wealth that gets taxed, not persons.
...eeeexcept, that was Bush, so yes the republicans voted for it. Obama's Stimulus was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which went to road construction and the like.
Most business owners didn't even give them selves a salary - they just took funds from the business (a draw)...never paying into the Federal tax fund as an employee/employer. They had other taxes, but those fell into the loophole areas. As of August 2011 an employer can no longer take a draw without paying a 12.4% tax for SS and a 2.9% tax for Medicare....something tells me they will just find a new loophole.
LOL @ Blazera ; now only 95% of Arizona's city and county roads look like the surface of the moon - before the ARRA it was 100%. Arizona never pays for anything on its own - loves Federal hand outs then bashes them at election time.
Actually I don’t hate paying taxes. I just hate the fact that we opt for using income tax rather than a much more practical consumption tax system. With a consumption tax not only do we save the billions it cost to run the IRS but also we save many more billions by eliminating tax cheats – even drug kingpins and corporate CEO’s will be paying taxes when they buy their luxury yachts, etc. There would be no "loopholes". Also people don’t have to feel like they are being penalized for working harder and making more money when they get put into a higher tax bracket. But unfortunately although there is no downside whatsoever to replacing income tax with a consumption tax it will never happen. That is because both the republicans and the democrats get lots of money from large corporation by promising them tax breaks, among other things. A consumption tax would put an end to that. Also the IRS would not go down without a fight and they would probably threaten to audit any politician who tried to enact such a system. Only an independent candidate would ever even suggest such a thing but as we all know the way the system is set up an independent candidate can never get into office. Every poiitition knows for a fact that it would be a much better system yet they will never do it because it would cut heavily ito thier kickbacks.That’s our system of government, like it or not.
LOL@Blaze' again....The standard Liberal reflex...It's Bushes Fault! What a load of crap. Only $105 Billion of the Stimulus went to infrastructure. $288 Billion of it was Tax Incentives including Clean Energy Credits which G.E.'s chief executive, Jeffrey R. Immelt, the chairman of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, used to create a tax benefit of $3.8 Billion for GE.
I've got an even better idea. Follow the money--right out of the US. Don't come back.
@Bill Tobin-3515916
Last I checked, those jobs were at state or local level, not federal. Huge difference.
This poll should not be surprising.
- From the years 2000-2008, the wealthy received Big Tax Giveaways
- The tax reductions for the elite was recently extended
- The wealthy utilize many tax loopholes
- They have special accountants to reduce their taxes
- The Capital Gains tax rate is only 15% compared to the 33% tax rate for personal income.
This poll illustrates that Americans have not fallen asleep on the issue of taxes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html
Within a capitalistic frame work, those who eat a bigger piece of the cake should also do the bigger part of the clean-up work afterwards. Meaning, make more money pay a higher percentage of taxes. The amount of numeric money available in a capitalistic economy is limited to the lifetime value of a person multiplied by the size of the population. You make more money, you pay more taxes. It is that simple. Otherwise we have a system that rewards the rich and punishes the middle and poor classes. The middle pay the bulk of the taxes and the poor get marginalized and eventually end up being called criminals as they try to physically survive. I would be happy to pay higher taxes making more income. NO PROBLEM!!!!
Ah, yes, you don't call it an "income tax." You call it a "payroll tax." Then you complain about the poor not paying "income taxes." Well, guess what. It's still a tax.
There is no doubt the federal government spends too much money, most of it on excessive military spending. One thing that is very annoying to me are the people stating that we spend too much on welfare and blame all the countries troubles on poor people, illegal aliens, Social Security or Medicare. The nation’s problems are NOT caused by any of these things; the real problems are wasteful military spending, servicing the national debt and insufficient federal revenue.....period.
This poll only looks at personal income taxes per individual but the real discrepancy and loss of federal revenue is caused by a system that rewards speculation. Speculation meaning rampant day trading in the stock markets, fast turnover real estate deals, over speculation and just plain gambling on commodities and on and on and on.
Since the early 1980s these short period transactions have been the major factor for so much of the nation’s accumulative wealth flowing up to the top 1% of Americans citizens. During this same time period everyone else has lost ground. If these get rich overnight transactions were taxed by just a tiny amount, say 1% and if long term capitol gains taxes were raised to around 20%, we could bring the federal budget into surplus and pay off the national debt in a short period of time. After the debt was paid off we could use the surplus revenue to transform this country into something truly amazing and the likes of which the world has never seen.
This culture of speculative greed is a phenomenon that has only come into play in the last 30 years and has been accompanied by lower income tax rates not just for upper income individuals but everybody. The combination of not taxing speculative financial transactions and historically low income tax rates have unbalanced the federal budget for decades and have put the country into smothering debt. This situation will only get worse until we take serious steps not only to reshape the federal government so that it operates more efficiently but more importantly simplify the entire taxation system and create new and fairer ways of generating federal revenues.
Sure, we have a messed up system, everybody wants something for free, EVERYBODY!!! Rich, middle and poor...
Let's start here, "Trickle Down" does not work, period. I've been waiting over 30 years, how much longer should we wait? (But hey, if folls still believe it, they keep telling the story)
Bush tax cuts? Remember? In his words, "we have a surplus, why should the gov"t hold this?" Well, that fictitious surplus has been long gone, don't ya think? End them, it's a handout to mostly the wealthy.
Subsidies, corporate welfare, big business on the dole, why? End it.
Mortgage interest write-offs (Yes, I'm guilty, I like this one, it's my "loophole") Either way, it's a giveaway. Sure the wealthy have this, but it's mostly a middle class loophole.
The poor, sure, they pay taxes, but somehow not nearly enough. I love it when I go through town and see a big "Flat Screen TV" in the back of a junker, while I go home and turn on my tube TV. (Could I afford more than the 1 flat screen I have, sure, but why?)
Welfare, it's still a lifestyle. Make them work for their checks, no work, no check. Oh, and drug testing for everyone, from the President on down to the welfare recipient. I am forced to take one to pay all gov't employee salaries, down to the welfare check, it's only be fair.
Take religion and private sector money out of elections. Maybe something might actually get done if our elected officials weren't constantly seeking donations. If the church wants to be part of politics, let them pay taxes.
But basically, it's our own fault this system is so screwed up. We jump at the "freebies" that are promised to us in exchange for a vote. All the while, as we get excited about the freebies, the top tier in the country (and world) is laughing at us watching us jump up and down for a tiny piece of cheese.
Which is why we have to export our military to other destinations because they are not allowed to guard America's borders. What exactly am I paying taxes for?
Flat tax--for everyone--rich and poor alike. For folks close to poverty level, they can claim an extra deduction. Otherwise, everyone pays all the same. It's the only fair way to tax.
It is definitely time for a flat tax. People have turned into complete retards and are being duped by the Democratic party. This is what happens when half the country has NO skin in the game. Now O'bama is cutting the money taken out for SS which is the only tax half of Americans pay.....and it is for thier own @!$%#ing retirement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What kind of retards think that this system is unfair for the poor? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE???????????
Thanks for destroying America libs
Sorry but flat tax is not fair. The rich should pay taxes commensurate with their income. Higher income for some means quite a few Americans are relegated to the poorer side of the tracks. That would be fair.
Its not fair to deduct federal and state taxes out of my paycheck while living in the HIGHEST TAXED STATES my high mortgage tax and every possible thing you can imagine is Taxed again should be enough.
I love how the question is worded 'perception' because that is truly what it is.
First we tax based on income, not wealth (except for a few taxes like on inheritance). Based on income the wealthy pay a significant percentage more of their income (even if you include capital gains) then the other classes.
But, for some reason the argument that those like OWS are using is that we should tax on wealth. However, even based on wealth we do a pretty decent job of a fair taxation. The upper 1% pay 38% of overall income tax while holder 42% of wealth. The upper 10% pay 70% while holding 80% (approximately). So to say our tax system is unfair is overstating the problem. Our their tweaks we can make to do better, of course.
The problem with this newer wave of 'Fair' taxation propogated by some in the OWS crowd and government is that it is based on thing the government has no real control over, my pay. To keep it brief what they follow is a marxist style of taxes, putting more and more taxes on the top, while reducing everyone elses, in order to slow the building of wealth.
Kornfed: I don't think you appreciate the negative impact a flat tax would have. EVERY economist agrees that a flat tax is a regressive tax and puts way too much emphasis on the poor and middle class while the wealthy and upper classes get a huge tax break.
Virtually every modern economic theory agrees (starting with Adam Smith in a Wealth of Nations) that a progressive tax is best. “It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
― Adam Smith
Not everyone paying little or no tax is a deadbeat. Certainly, there are those in the minority that fit this bill. However, the significant majority of those in this class are hard working people that just can't get further ahead because the uber-wealthy have shipped their jobs overseas and lined their own pockets in the pursuit.
Liberals believe that the rich don't pay enough because that's what Obama told them to believe.
If some rich people pay less in taxes, it's because of the complicated mess our tax system is.
All income is not taxed equally. Money made from investments is taxed at a lower rate than our pay checks. THAT is why Buffet pays at a lower rate than us. Not because of the Bush tax cuts. He didn't give a special rate to the rich, like Obama would like you to believe.
Bob, a progressive tax rate is also a progressive form of punishment, to punish those who dare to make more, have more. Lol, the more evil and greedy a rich person is, the more he needs to be punished. And, of course, he's evil and greedy because he's rich.
There is no reward in being and staying poor. Have u reported your niece so she can stop exploiting the government and contributing to the financial burden on the rest of the honest tax payers ?
Have you seen your water bill lately. The price you pay is bracketed by the volume of water consumed. I totally disagree with you regarding the rich being evil. We are not. I am middle class yet consider myself rich in this life. I have no need to be a billionaire. What is evil is the system which would guarantee that the poor get poorer and the rich richer. Where and when do we say enough is enough. That is evil. In life and within the economy and government we should also adopt such a graduated strategy as with the water bill. First, physical needs must be guaranteed. Food, shelter, clothing for EVERYONE. NO TAXES. The first rung is mainly intended for the young. Once these items are guaranteed then we should look at education and health. Third is profit and wealth. Once off the first free tax rung then each subsequent rung should have minimum settings and should be taxed accordingly. Below 50K 10%, first $100K @ 27%, beyond that 50%, on income (this is just an example to illustrated my point).
Not dare to make more, have more, but TAKE MORE while paying less. Remember that capitalism is a limited framework just like fresh water. There is only so much money to go around. So yes, IF YOU TAKE MORE YOU SHOULD PAY MORE.
I am sure that given the chance the poor and middle class would also dare to make more and have more. I remember in college economy 101 the chapters speaking on competition and how stifle any new entries in the market place. Oh yes, the market place is also a limited resource.
The only thing this poll illustrates is that Americans are incredibly gullible whenever a politician claims all of their problems can be solved by making someone else pay for the solutions.
@G. Bud
Yeah and never mind the fact that due to pork, special interests, and waste we all pay 2-3 times as much for all of those things as we would if they were provided by the private sector. Who cares about that as long as we aren't required to actually think for ourselves. Much easier to simply allow the puppet masters to tell us what we want and who should pay for it.
Please note that Ruken is correct that about half pay no Federal taxes, but anyone working pays income and social security taxes out of their paycheck, so in effect they are paying taxes (it's not like they are getting a completely free ride).
Social security is a tax you get back if you live long enough. Federal taxes are the subject of this article, not state. The answers available give almost half the population only one answer they can select.
At this point in the discussion, facts just don't matter. Say it in print long enough and it becomes true. The "rich" just don't pay their "fair share". After all, EVERYONE knows they got it through crooked means, right? People will believe the BIG lie much easier than the little ones.
cutie12, you are suspended for a day for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
Lets see, what do we build that basically only the well off get to use - With public money. We build roads up mountains that only have 30 cabins and no public camping. We build docks than will never be used by anyone but a fat cat to tie up their yacht at so they can eat at Rays. We build public runways so the rich can land their private planes....I'm sure I missed a few, but you get the picture.
Cut off and gouge the poor and see if that fixes Americas ills, I'm pretty sure it won't. Corporate welfare has always been far bigger than social welfare, and it has been around since before Obama was born.
A rather weakly worded question. What happened to the answer - I pay enough but 47% of my fellow Americans don't pay anything for the same services?
Also, keep in mind that those paying taxes are the ones that are higher income, so they are less likely to be using said social services that they pay for.
Whereas those that do not pay taxes are lower income, so they are more likely.
Where do these politicians think the tax dollars come from.??
The more they tax & spend, the higher the goods & services have to go to cover the tax, the more tax dollar that they will need to maintain their style of governing.. They have a spending problem.!!
If there is no profit in business there is no incentive to produce..
A democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not..
I would have also added- "We all pay too much, the problem is how it's spent"
Ruken, great point. I have no problem paying my share, but the way the tax tables are created, they penalize people for doing well. For example, the child tax credit should be available at a higher income level. In the northeast, $110,000 is not affluent and to lose the credit is to lose money that could be put back into the economy. The amount of medical expenses one needs to be able to deduct is bizarre.....at that point you would be homeless!
If we try to do better, we are punished. I am not talking about being wealthy, but comfortable. Having some disposable income that would only help the economy. But instead, when you hit the different income levels, you have to find inventive ways to create more deductions or pay a large sum.
If there were a flat rate and the government was not so mismanaged, I would have no problem. But the fact that one has to spend so much time worrying about taxes, being creative in their finances and still being squeezed if you are in the middle class is just plain wasteful. It is why I do not respect the system. It is a necessary evil.
Thank you mister obama. Your constant rhetoric of "if the wealthy would only pay a little more" or "we are only asking the wealthy to pay their fair share" seems to have paid off. To bad you won't define what the words "fair" or "little bit" mean or tell the populace what % of the overall income taxes collected by income group really are.
Not to worry mister obama, many of us are more than willing to show IRS data that says you deceive to get votes.
And in other news, ABOUT 47% OF TAX FILERS PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX, AND SOME GET EITC (NEGATIVE TAX).
Fair Share??? Hardly. The majority wants SOMEONE ELSE to pay all the taxes, and that's what the Democrats count on. They are not interested in "fair", only votes.
Don't feed us the line that some people can, and some people can't afford to pay federal income taxes. Everyone should pay something - otherwise they have absolutely no stake in what the Feds do.
40 pct of our population is under age 21 or over age 65. Only 60 pct of our population is working age - between ages 21 and 65.
So the 'rich' want to take lollipops and walkers to make taxes fair?
Doctor Larry, if this country is going to get back on track, then Emperor Norquist has to come to reality and GET RID OF THE GODFORSAKEN TAX PLEDGE EVERY REPUBLICAN HAS TAKEN!!! the rich/Job Creators/1% must be taxed way heavier than they are right now, and have meaningful tax cuts given to the middle class and poor. But that will never happen. Those socialist liberal bastards.
(That's satire at the end)
Actually, the poll questions ARE very poorly written. I would bet that if they added "how our tax money is spent", the majority would have voted for that option. With that said, I find it amusing that those that pay hardly any taxes want the rich to pay more to take care of them.
The point most of you are missing is that the current tax rate is about the lowest it has been in a century. If you raise the marginal tax rate back to where it was during the early GW Bush years, the budget was more likely to be balanced and the necessary services were more likely to be paid for. The tax break he gave to the wealthy had absolutely zero impact on job creation.
I constantly read on Newsvine about how bad raising taxes on the upper class would be. To this I say "nonsense". The amount of people this will effect directly is less than 5% of the population. Why do you people continue to vote for something that is against your best interest.
On another note - most people out there don't understand that taxes are what you pay on net income. This is the amount you have left over AFTER you have hired some new employees to help you generate more wealth. This is the amount you have to spend - not invest in a business. When you invest in a business, this money is put in BEFORE taxes.
@Bob-429579
Nonsense huh? And what exactly do you base this opinion on? Anything other than the typical liberal rhetoric?
The top 5 percent account for 39.5% of consumer spending-http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/08/05/us-economy-is-increasingly-tied-to-the-rich/. And consumer spending is 70% of GDP which means those top 5% account for roughly a third of the economy.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to actually look at some facts before you start throwing out the word nonsense since you seem to be the one making the nonsensical statement.
@backcountry: It's still nonsense. Increasing the marginal tax rate by 3% on the wealthiest segment of society will have virtually zero impact on consumer spending. If you count yourself as one of the 1%, good for you. It won't change your spending habits in the very least. If you are not one of the 1%, why are you so adamant about proffering a tax rebate to the wealthy at your expense?
This has nothing to do with being a liberal or a conservative. The bottom line is that our tax rates are historically low and should move to back where they were during times of prosperity. If this means that the upper 1% need to shoulder their fair share of the burden then so be it.
You guys on the far right side of the aisle sure seem to love America - it's just that you don't seem to love Americans.
In other words, damn the statistics and facts let's just go with whatever assumptions fit your perspective.
FWIW- I'm a libertarian not "far right" and only fiscally conservative. You guys on the far left side of the isle seem to love America - it's just that you positively HATE any American who is successful and earns more money than you do. See, I can make polarizing dumb-@ssed comments also.
Bencas - Why should I subsidize your child care OR your medical care? Or why should you subsidize mine? That disposable income you want (from a tax credit) would then have to be taken from someone else, reducing their disposable income. Lame arguments.
Polls on raising taxes on the top 1% is like polling 99 wolves and 1 sheep what they want for dinner.
Gloryhound You and I seem to understand that. Why can't the others!? The masses want to raise taxes on "the wealthy" ie someone else!!
Glory here we go again.
First off it is the 99 sheep and the one wolf with the help of the elected officals the wolf help get elected through the super pacs he help created. Then the wolf (the rich) laysoff people becuase his bounus is not enough unless he reaches a certian profit margin. The the rich complain the unemployed want an extenstion on their benifits when there are little to no living wage jobs.....
Or wait do you want those that can barely afford food and shelter to pay in taxes so they have even less????
where is that supposely chrtistian spirit? Most churches are really big on helping people out.....
TES,
Those that don't understand, never will. Everyone wants something paid for by someone else. What happens when all those that are paying for everyone else gets fed up and leaves. Most countries would be more than willing to allow a wealthy person move to their country and invest, just not the US anymore. The masses here just want to feed off the wealthy like a parasite that adds no real value.
Glory
The power company you work gets federal and state funds, talk about asking other people to pay for things.
The church you attend, gets state and federal benifits again talk about asking for others to help pay
Those snow storms that closed the roads and the feds had to help???? Everyone had to pay....
Those down power lines? the fed paid for those too. the budget overages by your local stater goverement due to the storms feds did that too, which means the masses paid for your state issues.
Name one country that would accept those rich, Europe taxes more, Russia has a history of arresting people, forgieners can not buy seats in china, Twain is under military threat. Japan likes forgien money but does not allow many people to move in. South america, drug war still going on
India is about the only place but the safety is not ensured there either.
Your facts like always are grabbled by your idolegoy and your hate of any goverment not run by a christian theocracy.........
After all men can marry as many women as they want, kids should be kicked out after the 5th grade if they do not pass your test and the commies in china have the best funding for the school system........
The Masses here just want to feed off the walthy like a parasite that adds no real value
What a total unchristian like thought and what a total lack of undestanding of the capitlsit system. Off course those "parasites" spend money so they make the sales and profits for the rich possibly, they pay for the riches paychecks as CEOs and shreholders, They even pay for your job, without these "parasites" spending money the economy would collapse with in a month or so.
I am glad to your unchristian like behavior conts to shine through
Matthew 11:5 Jesus says "the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them
TES:
Your problem is that people understand too well. The fact is that people see the very wealthy taking away the general public's ability to feed itself (by taking those huge tax breaks, eliminating jobs here and setting them up in places like China or Indonesia, where they can have slave labor.) They got rich (most of them) off of the efforts of the general populace. Now they want to starve that populace until the people "agree" to become serfs just to have a chance to eat.
Excellent handle Publius. You have it completely right too. We compete globally and send our jobs to other countries to ensure that we have the lowest cost goods and support our high level of consumerism.
If you want to support our economy, do so locally as much as possible. Maybe a bicycle made in the US may cost 2x as much as from Taiwan, but not only do you get a superior product, you also support a superior work force.
If you want to support our nation, think for yourself and dont just believe what the politicians, the media and corporate America shoves down our throats by way of the 24 hour news cycle, the internet, and marketing campaigns.
Seems that people always want somebody else to pay an even more "fair" share. "Fair" could mean "same amount." We're supposed to be treated equal under the law, right? Why punish some for being able to get more out of the same system?
All men are created equal, some more equal than others. ;)
Roads, fire, police, schools, entitlements, military, etc., etc. I don't think the rich use those services more than the poor, yet they pay more in taxes to support them. That doesn't seem "fair" to me.
I bought a tire yesterday (pick any other item). I wasn't charged for that tire based on my income.
Say my neighbor to the right pays twice what I do in taxes and my neighbor to the left pays half of what I do. It's reasonably safe to say we use all the government services equally.
I wouldn't think one neighbor should pay more and another pay less for the same thing. Getting money needed to run the government based on how much a person makes or spends doesn't make sense to me.
@Somewhere: The social cost of prosperity is borne by all Americans. What I mean is that the tire you bought yesterday had to be produced somewhere. That production required water, sewer, roads, electricity and a whole host of other publicly traded and consumed goods to be delivered to the private tire store that sold it to you. Your old tire now needs to be transported along those same public roads, using the same resources, and disposed of on a public works project. The idea that rich don't use these services any more than the poor do is misguided. The rich use significantly more in the way of public services than the poor do. Here in Florida there is a lengthy list of tax breaks that are given to corporations as an incentive to move jobs down here. Keep in mind the fact that we do not have a state income tax and no way to really recoup much of those tax breaks other than through the prospect of higher property taxes. These tax "breaks" have to be paid for to someone by someone. They are paid to our newest citizenry, the corporation, by our oldest citizenry - the people.
Bob.. if it brings the jobs isn't it worth a little higher tax on your property? Jobs bring prosperity.
Lynndanne:
Actually, it's not worth it. It's basicly paying big corporations to move jobs around and doesn't increase the actual number of jobs. Soon you wind up in a bidding war between the cities/states that only benefits the corporations.
@lyndanne: The bottom line here is that it is not working. The tax breaks being offered by our Governor are not creating any new jobs. The jobs it does bring in are coming from somewhere else. We are effectively just robbing Peter to pay Paul. Our job gain is your job loss. Nothing NEW is being created here. In the end, this is a lose - lose proposition.
The "quality" of that service is also an issue. For example, I don't mind paying for road repair and replacement, but when I pay for it to be done TWICE because the contractors do it wrong the first time and the state won't hold them accountable because they just get more federal funds to have it redone, I get a bit upset.
You nailed it! The road repair that started in 2008 is still being done! How does it take 3-4 years to repair a single highway? Just like you said, they are not held accountable, there is no incentive to do the job correctly and timely. Afterall, they have a constant cash flow that will not stop as long as we want to be 'free' and not in jail. I have a problem with that!
Here's a bottom line:
Taxation is bad because the people being taxed have no practical say in how and for what it gets spent, so it is inherently unfair in that regard, that their money is being forcibly taken from them and used in ways which may or may not be what they consider to be in their best interests or the best interests of others.
Charity is insufficient because, first of all, people aren't charitable enough by their own free will to run a government with it (particularly a gargantuan nanny state like the US), and second of all, because there is no way to build a budget funded by charitable contributions, but charity is fair in that people get to donate their money how they see fit.
A radical proposal (far too democratic a proposal to be accepted in the current political climate) would be to, yes, tax the people, but on the tax forms let the tax payers decide, at least to some extent, what things they want their particular taxes to pay for. Still creates budgeting problems, potentially, but the end result would be that if the American people don't want a program, it will die for lack of funding. As I say, far too radically direct democratic (and just in case some read this as democrat (party) when I say democratic, I'm referring to government types, not political parties.)
Seems that people always want somebody else to pay an even more "fair" share. "Fair" could mean "same amount."
OK, I can go with that. Everyone should pay 5% per year of their total net worth - no deductions. That would be fair.
Or do you mean that everyone should pay $10,000 instead? Children included?
"could mean...." Rich people dont get a higher percentage vote. :) Just being provocative. Personally I'm with you on the "same percentage." And not children. They're a "social investment" and fine with that. But we should do a better job investing in them; read Education-- measured by results not by dollars spent.
Tax on net worth is the most evil tax ever. Rewards those that spend every dollar and saves nothing. Of course when they get old they will just cry its not fair the guy I have been taking money from all these years still has more than me.
Won't ever work, farmers are some of the highest net worth people around but most live very modestly. Most do not even make 5% return when you include the value of their land. They would be better off selling the farm and burying the money in a hole.
Then those with the means will conceal their net worth in tax shelters off shore while those without the means have to pay. Face it, there is no way to tax fairly.
@PeanutGalleryTheater: On average we spend about $10,000 per student per year on their education. Here in San Diego it is actually $13,000 per student. So if you have 3 kids in school, they're getting $30,000 in education per year courtesy of the taxpayer. That is actually over double (corrected for inflation) than we spent in 1970. So clearly, the results speak for themselves. We aren't investing properly in our kids - we spend the money, but not where it should be spent.
Pragmatic, there is one way - a flat tax, with ALL deductions eliminated. Of course, then there is the problem of no incentive to invest in new jobs or businesses, other than one's own incentive or ingenuity, and maybe, just maybe, an unreal belief in one's own country, as a whole.
Of course, the best way is to get rid of EVERY one of the idiots we hired to run our nation, and are so self absorbed and disinterested in the people they are elected (HIRED) to SERVE.
Patriott "Everyone should pay 5% per year of their total net worth"??!! We are talking federal INCOME tax and this has nothing to do with net worth. Much of wealth has been taxed as earned and some will be taxed when you die! As noted above, a tax on net worth punishes those who save. You want to talk about an incentive to get in the wagon and ride with the rest. Soon there will be nobody left to pull the wagon. Then we better have a longa@@ hill or the system fails (about like Greece)!
Fair share...class warfare... all so much nonsense. It doesn't matter what we think is "fair" - that is all subjective. What matters is what works - growing the economy and growing incomes for everyone. The current tax rates, enacted a decade ago, are clearly NOT getting the job done.
FYI - increasing taxes would play no part in growing the economy - that would actually drag it down further.
No, the government collects way more tax than they should. They just overspend.
You can review history and find that the federal government (or any government that does not require balanced budgets) routinely spends much more than they take in. That's just a fact of life.
If the federal government spends $1.25 for every dollar they get (about what happens), raising taxes 25% will not fix the problem. That $1.25 that the government then gets will not match the $1.56 that the government will then be spending.
That's the way it has been, and continues to be, regardless of party.
I, for one, am not worried about "punishing" those who get their money through inheritance and just count it, thinking how fun it is that others are starving. However, I do not want to burden a farmer whose "worth" is only on paper and to which he has no real access.
People do better for themselves when they save. But they drive the economy when they spend. Since it is a public interest to boost the economy, I can see a tax system that encourages spending.
Most of the American public is math ignorant. Those with the top 3% of incomes, according to the IRS, pay more total individual federal income tax as a group than the entire bottom 97%. Not only does that suggest that the upper income folks are paying at least a "fair share", but perhaps it is the middle class that is pretty much getting off easy and paying far less than their fair share.
The middle class is where it tends to hurt the most.
It's the lower 45-50% that pay nothing that aren't paying their fair share. Make them pay 1%, anything. They just need to at the very least contribute to the social services that they are more likely to use.
Once a person stops paying ANYTHING, they're no longer interested in the govt spending their money wise. Everybody should pay SOMETHING so everybody is motivated to improve things rather than milk the system.
Can't wait for the liberal responses to Peter.
I can just see it now :
"the top 3% make the most money they should pay the most"
"the bottom 47% do pay taxes, state taxes and local taxes and sales tax" - which should not even be discussed considering were talking federal taxes but hey the libs love to use the talking point
"make the rich pay thier fair share!!@!@!!@"
Pretty much summed up all the lib responses
No, most greedy people are math ignorant because it appears they view "fair" in linear terms. Do you understand the effects of compounding (dollars)? Based on your comments, you clearly don't. Have you actually done your due diligence and understand *why* 50% of Americans currently pay no fed income tax? Btw, most of them pay other taxes like fed excises taxes or payroll taxes which the latter is obviously revenue used to fund those social services. In fact, the bottom 25% pays a much larger share of their income towards payroll taxes than the top 1% (if you continue to want to look at this problem from a linear perspective). Many of that 50% are also elderly, disabled, students, EITC recipients or benefited from temporary tax credits via ARRA. Stop reiterating the garbage that Fox News is spouting and focus on the facts for once in your lives. Do your homework!! Almost everyone's aggregate effective tax rate is at or very near all-time lows (especially the top 5%). Disclosure: My income sits right on the edge of the top 5%.
I'm with you, trilakerfan.
Just look at payroll taxes.
A person making $106,800 pays (nominally) %12.4 of their income in payroll taxes.
A person making $1,086,000 pays %1.24 of their income in payroll taxes.
A person making $10,860,000 pays %.124 of their income in payroll taxes.
I think that the rich people already get a fair break in their federal taxes just from FICA alone.
Oh, and my FICA tax holiday begins in September. A millionaire's FICA holiday begins in January.
Stan as usual you don't state facts or don't know them one. a person making 106,800 only pays 6.2 payroll taxes employer pay the other 6.2.
I do know that. The 12.4% includes the 6.2% the employer pays. Just the same as a self-employed person must pay the entire 12.4%. Why should that not be included? It is a fact that FICA is 12.4% of an employees pay. To the employer, it is just an added cost of employing someone.
Personally, I would have the employer pay that to the employee instead and have the employee pay the entire 12.4% to the government like self-employed people do. Why should half of the tax be "hidden" from the employee? Why should the employer even be involved?
Brendan, you forgot one: "They should pay more because even if they would be taxed at 50% of their income they would still have more money after taxes than me and that's not fair, not fair, not fair, not fair, WAH!"
In other words, the only way it would be fair is if we would pick a number, say $50,000 per year (because MSNBC seems to like that number so much) and EVERYBODY gets to keep that much after taxes, no matter how much they make.
Stan sure they stop paying social security at a point.... BUT look at the benifit that is where it REALLY REALLY gets unfair.
The amount you get has a maximum also. Someone who pays the maximum social security tax all their life get the maximum benfit. The person who works the minimum also gets a check. In their lifetime the poor person will likely get more than they payed in the rich person who payed the maximum will likely get only about half of what they paid. ... Then again when social security was invented it was designed that MOST people would not get what they paid in since life expectancy was lower.
Remember, statistically rich people tend to live longer than poor people. And John, rich people pay far less as a percentage than middle class or poor do. It is capped at $106,800.
Mr. Steady,
I've heard no one, but you, say that. Let's not make stuff up.
I think that, in the interest of full and fair recognition of the taxes paid per employee, the 6.2% of FICA that the employees pay should be recognized as taxes paid by the individual. To the employer it is part of the expense of having that employee - so it counts against them when considering sending their job to China. And if you're self-employed, you have to pay the full amount. The 6.2% that the employer paid is simply a slimy trick from years ago to hide a large tax increase on the working class.
You are correct, GCV.
But, the employer portion of FICA should be given to the employee as a one-time pay raise. The employee should then pay the entire 12.4% of FICA. This would be a net zero change for the employee.
Then, we could eliminate the FICA cap without affecting businesses adversely.
I've heard many people on the Vine say "Yeah , you want to raise taxes on others, but you don't want to pay more yourself! Take it from someone else!"
So, I'm telling you. Eliminate the FICA cap. My FICA tax holiday that begins in September would go away, raising taxes on me. The millionaire's tax holiday, that begins in January goes away also.
So, FICA would be a flat rate tax on everyone. This is what everyone says is fair, true?
Let the flaming begin.
Payroll taxes pay for SS and Medicare benefits that people receive when they retire. Comparing them to Income Tax is apples to oranges.
And the money paid into the SS "trust" is replaced with Federal IOU's.
The point is who is paying more for the Federal Gov't.
It ain't the rich.
Stan Income subject to SS tax is capped for a reason. As noted above, benefits are indexed to contributions and there is a cap on benefits, therefore the cap on taxes!! SS was never designed as a vehicle for wealth transfer. I know that does't fit your beliefs but that's the way it is!!! You get the same benefit per dollar paid in as the wealthy. What you want is more!! Too bad! So sad!! You want to uncap wages subject to SS tax? It is possible that a self employed person making 1M/yr would pay $124000/yr in SS taxes. You talk about a windfall for the others!!
Peter17 - interesting on how obama doesn't want to discuss IRS data. He has become quite adept at ignoring numbers and replacing them with "affordable", "fair share", "balanced", "just a little more", etc.
I am thinking that the middle class are more likely being taxed enough, but those that have no income tax liabilty due to earned tax credits, allowable deductions, etc should be required to pay a minimum. That should bring the bottom 50% up from only now paying just a little over 2% of income taxes.
I wonder when obama is going to fess up to the populace that allowing his (bush) tax cuts on only the wealthy to expire in 2013 will not fix the economy. After all, it only amounts to $800 billion over ten years. However, allowing the cuts to expire accross the board will amount to about $3.5 TRILLION over 10 years.
I guess telling the 98% that he was raising their taxes as well, would cost him the election.
Ok, TES.
So a "fair" flat tax is not what you are really after, then. So what are you after?
I've heard people like you say "Yeah, but you don't want your taxes raised!" But, as I've said, this would raise my taxes and I'm for it. But it would increase taxes for the rich as well.
I've heard people like you say "Taxes should be at a flat rate so everyone pays the same!" And this would be a flat tax and everyone would pay the same. But it would increase taxes on the rich as well.
So, what do you want? Fair taxes or protection for the rich?
Frankly, now you really have me confused. Let's not mince words here now. What do you people really want?
I know exactly why they pay no federal income tax (and some get EITC).
Democrats have rigged the tax code to allow the ~50% to pay no FIT and keep re-electing them. I don't think you understand that.
Stan - since you are so adept at pointing out those differences, maybe you would go ahead and point out the differences in how much each of those people receive in benefits, e.g., Social Security when they retire.
In case you don't know, the richer ones will not get more than the first, and will probably draw a smaller benefit, because their payments will be means tested.
Based on the rest of your comment, you are counting on that. Let's use some numbers to take a look at what you are really saying. Let's say you have someone making $5,000,000 paying $20,000 in taxes (that's less than 1/2 of 1%) and someone making $20,000 paying $5,000 (that's 25%.) Yes, that first person is paying more total taxes. But the burden is actually greater for the second.
Now, I don't know what the actual taxes are for the millionaires. But I do know when someone is using a misleading statistic.
Dr. Larry,
Let me just ask you then, in regards to taxes sent to a government. Any government.
Does everyone get $1 in benefits for each $1 sent in as taxes? No.
Should a person be levied a tax if, and only if, they receive that same amount in benefits? Not possible.
This is a diversionary argument.
@Pvblivs
I would assume you do since you just did; your examples are quite literally ludicrous. The AP debunked this "rich pay a smaller percentage" BS MONTHS ago. The average millionaire pays 29% of their income in Federal taxes (these same millionaires pay a higher state tax rate in many places also) the average middle class household pays just 15%. So not only do the rich pay most of the Federal taxes overall they even pay a greater percentage of their income.
Some of you are allowing yourselves to be pulled along by the puppet strings. PLEASE check some actual facts for yourself instead of just following along like a good little lemming.
Backcountry:
Nope, try again. I only provided an example to show that the "total taxes paid" was a midleading statistic. If you wish to argue that the correct statistic "percentage of discretionary income paid" also has the millionaires paying more, I will not stop you.
I don't mind paying my share of taxes, but the wealthy and corporations don't pay enough and neither do the lower income people. Often they get even more than they pay into the system back in refunds! On top of that, the government goes and wastes my money on deals for their private contractor buddies, unjustified wars, benefits and services for illegal aliens and ridiculously high salaries for appointees that do nothing and other administrators.
Agreed with Corps and 1%. However I think loopholes are to blame, not the tax rates.
In fact, if we lower the corporate tax rate to be in line with the rest of the world and close loopholes, we get a ton more income and the corporations are more willing to spend money here at home.
We shouldnt be sending so much to the govt that lobbyists have something worth lobbying for. If there's no excess, there's nothing to lobby for.
Saying corporations don't pay enough is stupid. It's a tax argument for the ignorant. Guess what happens when corporations "pay" more in taxes? YOU pay more for products, YOU get a pay cut, or YOU don't get a job from that corporation. So who's paying for a tax increase on corporations??
YOU.
Here is an example. I've said this before, and I'll keep saying it until everyone is aware of it.
General Electric (GE) in 2010 made $14.2 billion in profit. They paid $0 in federal income taxes. They received $3.5 billion in tax credits from the IRS.
Did GE use their corporate welfare to do their part as a "job creator"? No. in the last two years, GE has eliminated almost 20,000 jobs in the US.
As an example, consider a family making an income of $50,000 net, paying an effective tax rate of %20, paid $10,000 in federal income taxes.
So, it took 350,000 of those families just to pay for GE's corporate welfare credits. That is 350,000 families that had their tax money disappear into GE's pockets and getting nothing in return from their government.
This was also done by Verizon, DuPont, Boeing, Wells Fargo, FedEx and a whole host of other super-rich mega-corporations.
This is called a "negative tax rate". Google it, if you don't believe it. I know, it's hard to believe this actually happens.
This should not be allowed to happen. It is wrong. I know that our elected corporate shills in Congress set this up for them. They were paid enough to get it done.
This must stop. But the government won't stop it. The corporations are paying them to keep the gravy train rolling.
This is your government giving your money to the mega-rich that don't need it. And you get nothing from your government. No roads, infrastructure, regulations against arsenic in your water, schools for your children, etc.
Meanwhile, the "authorities" are going to extreme measures to quash the Occupy movement. At the behest, of course, of their government handlers, and their corporate masters. It would seem that their protestations are striking a nerve with the corporate elite and they don't like it.
This is not a partisan issue. It's not Obama's fault. Nor the Democrats, Republicans or the Tea Party. They are all to blame. We are also to blame, because we allow them to do it to us. This is an issue that affects all of us. It increases the deficits that the right complains about. It reduces the revenue base that the left complains about. It is a true injustice we all should complain about.
It is in the interests of the 99% (whether you think you are the 99% or not), to support the cause of Occupy. Government accountability and ethics. Corporate responsibility. The end of corporate plutocracy.
Occupy wants fairness and equality. Not to take all of the rich people's money. Not a handout. Just fairness to the hard working American people. To stop the ongoing class warfare against the middle class.
Est officium populi.
leonhl you can not get more back then put in, our tax code does not allow it. you can only get back as much as you put in depending on how much your deductions are. if someone is getting back more then they are putting in they are fudging the numbers and doing fraud.
Yes, you can get back more than you put in. Refundable credits such as the child credit and earned income credit pay YOU if the credit amount is greater than your tax liability.
A non-refundable credit can take your tax liability down to zero and then it stops, even if you were eligible for a larger credit amount. A refundable credit generates a check. Many low income people make money each year from the EITC and child credits.
Eric.
Like I said, just Google "negative tax rates". You'll be quite enlightened.
Eric You don't understand "refundable tax credits"!! This allows refunds to many people who have no tax liability.
TES,
And mega-rich corporations too. Let's not ignore that.
Yeah. And do you know who Obama's "Jobs Czar" is? Jeffrey Immelt, GE's CEO. Brilliant, huh?
Why don't you just assume that people making no money pay all the federal income tax.
A "family" making $50K will NOT pay 20% and what ever rate they pay would be greatly reduced by all the deductions and credits available.
Blah, blah, blah. You listen to too much liberal blather. Most of those people out there "protesting" do not want fairness and equality. They want other people's money. They want redistribution of wealth.
Est Avari.
Oh really? You mean by letting them, in most cases, to continue breaking the law for weeks and more??? If you set up a tent on my private property, you aren't going to get to sit down or even think about it. Set up tent cities in areas that already had laws forbidding that? Warn then act and arrest if necessary. Allow criminal activity within your illegal confines and then try to hide it? Jail time.
Dr. Larry,
Your arguments are all partisan based. They blind you to what is really going on in this country.
These political parties are attempting to divide you while their rich friends (Immelt, Koch, et. al.) steal all of the money. That's their job. Keep you fighting amongst yourselves so you don't see the crime.
I don't think I can help you understand.
Oh, and Dr. Larry,
Did you miss the part about $50,000 net? That includes deductions.
But I guess that point is minor, compared to the 350,000 families that paid for GE's tax welfare with their tax money and got $0 in benefits for it.
How about I am just tired of my taxes going to pay for some politician or for shequisha and her 10 kids, or bubba to sit around in his trailer. The rich may not pay enough in taxes, who cares. I am def not the 1%, i am solid lower middle class. Just deal with it.
you're no "centrist"...there's another word for that diatribe. Most of this nation's poor are white. Deal with it.
AP - let's stick to the issue. Class warfare is ongoing in this entire mess. Different politicians are doing everything in THEIR power to generate as much distrust among the general populace as they can, to attain their own aims. And that is regardless of political affiliation
Stan had it right, and I think he and I have differing basic political views, but in this case, I have to agree with him. Our problem is a dysfunctional, (now,) political machine, that whether we realize it now, or it comes to us later, is bringing this great nation to its knees.
Again, MSNBC, is clueless. Many forms of taxes such as the Income Tax is Unconstitutional. Of course, this was not an option to select from
Uh....I thought there was an income tax amendment on the Constitution...?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
I especially like how the rate was 2% when it passed then jumped to 80% (ish) the next year. I hope we've gotten smarter since then.
Oh you can choose to pay no taxes - but you can also go to jail for breaking the law (yes, it really is a law).
Kurt:
You may consider income tax to be unconscionable. But the Constitution specificly allows for it.
Kurt - let's abolish all income taxes.. When were done.. we can cut defense spending, abolish schools (you know, those things of higher learning that you may have went too), get rid of all our roads, and lastly no more drinking water.
Complexity of the tax system enables the lawyered-up rich to avoid paying.
I get so tired of hearing "my" party (I'm a registerted Dem) saying "the wealthy don't pay enough"...how about the family I know that does not pay a single dollar in taxes, not one, but they file a return every year and get back $6000.00!!! THAT is a problem.
yea, they need more withholding on their w4.
There is no W4! He gets a 1099 for a fraction of the work he does thru the year and claims somewhere around $19K for income. So he "owes" some small amount and then after all the credits are said and done, he gets a big fat check never having paid a freakin' dime. I pay all year, my husband pays all year, we pay again at the end (unless we tweak our withholdings) and it just gets old. I'm not asking for a check, I pay my fair share whether I like it or not but damn, if you don't pay a dime, I just can't be happy for you getting a big fat check in May when I'm grumbling about the check I just sent the IRS in April.
I know a dude just like that - 'owns' his own business sealing asphalt parking lots and driveways. Half the time, he is paid in cash. Most of the other jobs are less than $600 - so he doesn't even get a 1099. With the EIC, he gets 'back' from the govt. anywhere from $4K to $6K every spring - and he only works from Feb to Nov (ish).
your credits cannont excede what you pay in. you cant get back more then you pay in. our tax code does not allow it so sayeth the accountant.
Eric,
The tax code does allow you to get back more than you paid in. Please look up "refundable credits".
So sayeth the tax accountant.
I hope you aren't "the accountant"!
Look up Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
Yes, you can get more on your tax return than you paid in taxes. It is the path Americans chose over the years when they decided every other kind of welfare was intolerable.
In the 1980s and 1990s, Americans didn't want poor people to be able to get government benefits without working, arguing that it made lazy people intentionally avoid having a job. They started taking the programs away, peaking in the 1990s with Welfare Reform.
At the same time, Americans didn't think employers should be forced to pay workers a minimum amount, even if would be the least required to feed, house and clothe a person working 40 hours a week. The United States is set with a very low minimum wage that is far below a living wage.
There was quite a contradiction there; on one hand, everyone must work to get by, and on the other hand, working is no longer guaranteed to get you by.
So the politicians created a welfare system that is tied to work.
Though the Right continues to attack programs like disability benefits and food stamps - programs that are designed mainly to avert widespread starvation and homelessness, NOT to maintain a livable income for beneficiaries - American "welfare" is now a system that mainly benefits the working middle class.
If you are still poor but work, you get government help in the form of things like the Earned Income Tax Credit and other kinds of tax credits. Also, Social Security is tied to employment. In many states, even food stamps are tied to having a job. This is what prevents the lower end of the Middle Class from cascading into poverty.
The Earned Income Tax Credit works by paying low-earners more in their tax return than they paid in taxes. It's like a little extra paycheck from the government, yes, and you must have a job to get it.
It's the path Americans chose. It is the most "conservative" path possible short of turning the poorest fifth of our neighborhoods into famished third-world countries and probably dealing with riots and civil unrest far more often.
Is it fair that wage earners generally pay a higher marginal income tax rate than the 15% tax rate on dividends and capital gains? Do you suppose wealthy investors would stop investing if they had to pay a higher tax rate on their income? And don't give me that crap about job creation! That is a fallacy perpetuated by rich politicians of both political parties. I am talking about regular investing in the stock market. If a stock sale is not an IPO, then it is not providing any new money to the issuing corporation; therefore, it is not creating any new jobs. Investing is just another form of gambling. Gambling gains are taxed as ordinary income, as should dividends and capital gains.
The "wealthy" aren't the only people who invest. Anybody who has any sort of retirement account invests. That includes alot of non-wealthy folks.
So for one, short-term traders who constantly move stuff around do get taxed at their normal income rate. You have to hold a stock for 6 months to be in cap gain rate.
Secondly, it's at 15% because you've already been taxed on it once.
Lastly, stocks still do provide new money for the corporation. Many frequently buyback and issue new shares. Do you think Coca-Cola issued 2.3 billion shares in its IPO?
Anybody who has a retirement account invests. True, but when you withdraw money from a qualified plan or a regular IRA (not a Roth), the distribution gets taxed at ordinary income tax rates, not at the 15% capital gains rate. Another inequity in the tax law, don't you think?
You have to hold a capital asset for one year for the gains on its sale to be taxed at 15%, not six months.
Another fallacy is that the capital gains rate is 15% because "you've already been taxed on it once". I don't know where that comes from, but I often see it repeated. It makes no sense whatsoever to me. As far as I'm concerned, any income is fair game to the income tax. But if you want to differentiate the tax rates based on the type of income, then I think that workers' wages should be taxed at a lower rate than investors' earnings.
It is definitely pretty dumb that income earned through doing nothing is taxed at a lower rate than income earned through actually working. This is why many CEO's take $1 salaries and get the rest in stocks and other capital gains.
There should be another option. Do you feel your elected officals spend your tax dollars wisely. Is it a solid investment or are they just out for their own personal gain. I bet 99% would pick that one.
You nailed it. Govt is a bad investment and almost by definition, the rich can spot a bad investment therefore they send lobbyists to get them out of having to pay into it. This is where deductions come from.
Of course there should be another few questions, but then the poll wouldn't provide the desired results for the biased point that the author is trying to make. You never see the actual questions only a biased result. Almost every time I've taken a survey, the answer I wanted wasn't one of the choices. Polls are BS especially when they want to provide the conclusion. Show me the questions, show me the raw results and I'll do the interpretation.
In this particular discussion, REALIST has reached the correct conclusion. ALL surveys are biased one way or another to attain the surveyors goal.
The United States got along really well without any Federal taxes for quite a few years . Then the tax was a voluntary one for just a few people . Then it was for just a short period of time . The real problems in the U.S. began when a government decided that it really was better at helping everyone while taking money from it's citizens in order to do the helping . This of course was at gunpoint , that is what a citizen will face if unwilling to be shaken down for the money . Well sir if you don't like it leave it , right ? That is not really the point either , the point is that it is difficult to trust what a person or a government is going to do with your money if they take it from you against your will without even as much as a thank you very much , sucker .
if taxes were a good thing, they wouldnt need to be mandatory.
Interesting concept. So we "voluntarily" agree in a democracy to help each other? Re-read the comments here. There are plenty of people who think they only should pay for the part of the highway they drive on. I could only imagine how we'd educate the next generation. Guess many never made it through 5th grade "greater good" material.
The Federal Income Tax was instituted to supplement the taxes lost to the Volstead Act (aka Prohibition). so much tax money was collected from the sale of booze that when Prohibition was enacted, the Federal Govt. almost went broke. The "dry" politicians pitched it that it would be better to have a nation of tax paying citizens than an nation of drunkards. Prohibition was repealed but the Feds kept collecting taxes. Big surprise there...give them an inch, they'll take a mile.
The lower 49% of income earners either pay no taxes or get refunds in excess of what they pay in. This needs to be fixed. Those that say, "they cant afford it", I call b.s. Those taxes are taken out of most paychecks. The lower 49% are more likely to take advantage of government assistance. If they lose $10 of their refund, maybe they won't look at it as FREE.
Government waste and fraud need to be priority one. No one is looking at welfare fraud, medicare fraud, multiple medicare billings, false SSDI claims. Come on folks, we all know that a percentage of people on goverment assistance spend more time "working the system" then actually working.
I don't mind paying my share of taxes, roads need to be built, people need help, our government needs workers to take care of all the things they 'need to' but what is my fair share?, when Im sitting here working for minimum wage paying in at 15% while all these people with loads of money pay in less than half that, something just seems wrong with that picture, I don't see anything fair about it at all, how do they expect people with what they call poor mens wages to be able to keep this nation a float and still be able to buy things in order to keep their selves a float as well.
Because of our plant closing which went overseas I had to go on unemployment (which btw was owed by Warren Buffett) When my unemployment had almost run out I finally did find a job at minimum wage, I was happy to find it and lucky, though actually my unemployment had been more than what this job paid, I did get a refund but not more, they did get to keep some, no kids at home to claim but I had them take the maximum out allowed so I would make sure I got a little bit back at tax time. (Then they got more unemployment extensions but I was still glad to finally have a Job)
I do remember one year my step daughter who had a child and hadn't worked all year long, she got wick and food stamps and come tax time she ended up getting around $2000 back from income tax, I was furious, she at first didn't understand why I was mad, so I said so I'm having to work my butt off a little over an hour a day for 52 weeks to pay you, so why don't they just have me by-pass them and give you the money directly. She said she understood then why I was upset, but also said well if their going to give it to me I won't turn it down.
I don't mind helping people who are down and out threw no fault of their own. And I know there are some who drag it out and don't try to find work, especially if they are drawing more than what they are finding in jobs out there, but there are also a lot out there constantly looking for work in them situations even if it means cutting their pay from unemployment "I Know this for sure"
What I am tired of seeing happen is them using my tax dollars to, beautify the building they work in, who cares if there's no paintings on the walls or flowers in the court yards. Your there to work not worry about what the walls and grounds look like, I mean yes they should be tended to and well kept, but why do we need all this fancy stuff in and around these buildings, and they need to pay more attention to how much they are paying for things be it for a toilet seat or for the contract work to get something built, they need to go back to anything used for the government needs to be made in the USA instead of making our American Soldiers wear foreign made clothing. They need to support their own citizens workforce.
I have seen people work the system to get welfare, food stamps, and disability but have seen honest people who really needed it to get turned down for help because there car was worth to much and was used against them even though they owed more than what it was worth. Problem was they just wasn't dishonest enough to work around it.
I watched shows where addicts were getting disability payments for being drug addicts, the one dude even said I use my disability payment to buy more drugs to make more money, I am like excuse me they have got to be joking, something is really wrong with that picture, that really makes me want to pay my taxes "NOT"
Here are some interesting stats from the IRS for 2008 (AGI - Adjusted Gross Income which includes all investment income and dividends).
2008 AGI: ...........Bottom 50%...25%-50%...10%-25%...5%-10%...Top 5%....Top 1%
Avg Tax Rate..........2.59%.........6.75%..........9.29%......12.44%.......20.70%.....23.27%
Share of Taxes.......2.70%........10.96%........16.40%......11.22%......58.72%.....38.02%
Min. AGI for Group...................$33.0K..........$67.3K.....$114.0K....$159.6K....$343.9K
Just how does the top 1% paying 38% of all individual federal income tax equate to that group paying less than their "fair share" when the bottome 75% paid only 14% of the total?? That means that just that 1% paid a total that was 2 1/2 times as much as the total for that bottom 75% which includes most of the middle class.
You need to understand the effects of compounding dollars and how it hugely impacts the wealth of the top 1%. I was always laugh when people raise this issue because what they're pointing out is how bad inequality is in the US. It's 2.5 times the bottom 75% because their income and wealth (as it relates to capital gains) is equally out of proportion with the rest of the US. IOW, their share of taxes is that high because their share of income and wealth is that high. What's important to understand: You can increase the top rate 2 rates back to pre-Bush tax cuts and raise about ~$700B in tax revenue and it would have zero impact on the cost of living for those people. I know for a fact that you could increase my tax rate back to the pre-Bush era and I wouldn't blink an eye. It would have zero impact on my style of living. I would spend just as much tomorrow as I did last year. Again, this demonstrates the advantage the rich have with the effects of compounding dollars. People who fail to understand this fact are not doing their due diligence in trying to understand how to solve this problem.
Best summary of the truth with nothing but data from our own federal Gov't. Love it ... nicely said!
Trilakerfan, what I do understand is that altruistic a-holes such as yourself, should shut your piehole and write a bigger check if you think you're undertaxed.
Ah, yes believenothing...we should all endeavour to be like you...our own islands of insanity
I was intrigued by an earlier post that tonuge in cheek suggested that if you pay a higher percentage, maybe your vote should count proportionally more. A progessive income tax code is at best obscene.
This comment is rather ridiculous when you are comparing people that pay NOTHING to people that pay a very large percentage of FIT. Dividing by zero, are we?
Your comments about "compounding" don't apply for income. Anyone can invest and take advantage of compounding, regardless of dollar amount. And don't believe for a second that many "rich" people are paying extremely low effective rates. They are not. People hear of one or two extreme cases and they incorrectly extrapolate to the group. Sometimes the extreme cases you hear about are a year of low/no FIT following a year of a large overpayment.
And do you not see the huge disparity in the bottom line of how much people actually pay into FIT?? People say they want "fair", but then you say you want those that pay the most to pay more. In addition, the more you go up the income ladder, the less you get/take in federal government services and benefits.
Increasing tax rates will not necessarily increase tax revenue. Those that can, seek to minimize their tax burden. Raising their rates will cause them to re-align their income structure to again minimize overall tax. Your own claim that higher taxes would change nothing for you either (1) proves what I said above, or (2) proves you are not telling the truth.
The only thing that could work is to go back to a very simple tax code with 1-3 rates, no deductions, no credits, no exclusions. Of course that won't happen because the politicians know that would make a lot of people mad (particularly the ones that pay little to nothing) and get them kicked out of office.
Cool Peter, but all that figuring doesn't mean a damn thing when what really pisses folks off is the fact that after taxes the wealthy still have more left over. That's what some folks can't handle, lol. Like; "Who the hell do they think they are, having more left over? Just because they were smart, skilled enough to do it?" That's what bugs some about "Fair." It's not fair that some are smart and skilled enough to have more. Fair is when we take it away and redistribute it.
Well, Mellow, I don't have a problem with the fact that the rich have more. My father always used to say (one of the few things I agreed with) "I don't care how much the wealthy make as long as the poor can still make a living." The problem is that Wall Street has taken its massive tax breaks and used them to eliminate jobs here in the U.S. and drive wages for the remaining jobs to a point where people can't afford food and rent.
I pay my taxes all year long - and when the end of the year comes, they give it all back to me (most of it anyway) because I have 4 kids, a mortgage, and as a couple my wife and I make less than $80K. My vote is for a flat tax rate (whether it is8%, 10%, 15%, not sure I care) that everyone pays - and do away with all the exemptions/deductions.
Does that make my taxes go up? Maybe, but I'm OK with that, because I feel that is the right solution.
Income taxes were designed as a progressive tax. And it should remain so.
The idea is that the richer you get, the more (by percentage) you should pay.
And, yes, the ones with the lowest income may pay none at all.
This was to foster upward mobility in our society. The poorer keep more of their money with the chance, over time, of climbing the ladder of success and paying more in taxes. This has worked well for this country for quite a long time.
The richer pay more of the bill. They receive the benefits of living in a prosperous society. They have (at least, had) good infrastructure, police and fire protection for their valuable homes and businesses, a vibrant market for their goods and services.
To institute a lower flat rate tax would be a large tax break for the rich, a large tax increase for the middle class and an unbearable burden on the poor.
You are making too much sense. The left will never go along with it.
I really wish that posters would stop with the left hates this or the right hates that or Obama this or Boehner that.
This is not a partisan problem. It is all our problem. Work together. Don't let the political parties divide you.
You are all Americans. You are all being swindled.
Stan, I am in complete agreement and thanks for saying what needs to be said.
In a word - NO!
Why should anyone pay a higher percentage than anyone else?? Fair?? Most certainly not.
Upward mobility?? Really? Is that why we have more people on food stamps today than ever before? Is that why we have more people sucking at the government teat than ever before??
This has NOT worked and is NOT fair.
We know from experience that the vast majority of people don't really appreciate or protect things that are given to them (no sense of ownership) - but will have a much greater sense of ownership for things they have a stake in.
Bo-Bert had a much better plan via a flat tax. We have too many that don't pull their weight and live off the work of others. That has only gotten worse as the government increases this gap daily.
because we already have an income gap comparable to third world Iran, with a flat tax we'd collapse.
the wealthy. I do hope you're not talking about the unemployed, as they only count people seeking work, and welfare programs only accept people looking for work. jobs aren't available. I also hope you're not talking about those making low wages, until you try your hand at things like fast food service.
not much owned if you're poor. The bank or a landlord "owns" things. Live in an apartment and want to take it upon yourself to plant a garden? It's not your choice.
Bo Bert, please help me understand why everyone should pay the same in a flat tax when some folks can take advantage of the system. Lets use your family as an example, 4 kids probably in public school at an average cost of $10,000 plus to educate per year is $40k each year, times 13 years of education is a total of $520,000 to educate just your kids that you had on a family income averaging currently $80k per year. Now even if you did pay 25% of the total costs to educate your kids each year you would have to be sending $10,000 just to your school district alone via property taxes, this is highly unlikely as you would have to be in a property valued over $600,000 or so. So if your not paying much of the costs to educate your kids, who do you think does, thats right other folks and corporations. The Fed gov also pays lots of money into the local schools, even still your fed taxes, state taxes and local taxes along with every other tax you could think of is no where enough to even cover 20% of the costs your family generates. Its about shared sacrifices for the good of others, thats what public education is but public education is not free. The burden to pay the costs because others are not responsible does not make it right just because its available. If you Bo-Bert are not aware your part of the problem in this country than I hope I just opened your eyes up. Im not about paying nothing into education or taxes, I just do not want to pay more into the system then the folks who are using the system and not paying anywhere near the burdens they are placing on to the system. Im for others to step to the plate and take responsiblitity for your own actions, you had the kids, you should be paying more to educate them. Maybe your family should have only had 1 or 2 on your income and that way you would not be overburdening others with your choices, did you not think of the others who would have to pick up your slack just because you wanted more kids? Why should others pay more in taxes or the same in taxes as you when you clearly are taking advantage of it all.
Dr. Larry,
YES. The Federal Income Tax was designed as a progressive tax. And, when first instituted, only the wealthy paid FIT.
As the years progressed, the wealthy used their influence to shift that burden onto the burgeoning middle class and away from themselves.
By the time Social Security was instituted, the wealthy would have none of that. They again used their influence to insure that SS taxes were instituted as a regressive tax (flat rate) capped so that they would not have to pay into it to the extent that poorer people do. Their reasoning that "The poor should pay for the poor. Not the wealthy."
So, the ones who benefit the most from this society should pay the least for those benefits (by percentage)? Seems greedy to me.
I offer that everybody with any reportable income should pay some nominal, minimum amount, if only so they feel like they have a stake in the application and outcome of taxation. This system where almost 50% of workers pay zero taxes, or even receive tax credits against taxes they did not pay, is crazy! I pay my taxes, and I legally apply the tax code to minimize those taxes, because my understanding is that that is what I'm supposed to do. The deductions are there specifically to encourage behaviors, such as investing in a home, which the government sees as valuable to the economy. I also get to avoid paying taxes on money I earn but never see, such as charitable contributions, which do many good things for people, rather than that money being wasted in the Federal machine. So, do you want to increase my taxes in order to fund further waste, or how about ecouraging others to do more good works? I know this isn't very cogent, but I'm really hot about too many aspects related to this complicated issue.
Stop saying that these people pay pay no taxes. It's NOT true. They pay fed excise taxes, payroll taxes, state and local taxes. Do your homework!! Stop spouting this garbage.
Pardon me! I imply only that they do not pay INCOME taxes. However, the Federal Income Tax provides by far the largest fraction of the (non-deficit) Federal Budget, so I believe it still matters. And I stand by the position that even a tiny income tax paid by earners in the $18K-$30K bracket would imbue them with a sense of participation and interest they won't otherwise have.
Dave: you keep working on that blood out of a turnip thing...
Everyone can pay something. Everyone SHOULD pay something.
Dave makes relevant and accurate points and you two can only attack. Grow up.
Do YOUR homework.
The average Tea Party nut thinks that they can survive a total collasp of the economy which is why they are arming themselves at an alarming rate. Don't be fooled by the patriotic rhetoric they would just as soon see the country fold before they give one single inch.
I don't think Tea Party people believe they can survive a total collapse of the economy. This probably will happen if the US does not get spending under control and the US drowns in the toilet in debt. The Democrats tax the rich scheme will give us squat and no where close to what we need to save us.
First off, get your facts straight. Democrats want to increase taxes AND reduce spending. That's how you address the problem. Btw, please enlighten us how we can address this issue by focusing solely on reducing our spending? Can you cite what the increase in discretionary spending was under Obama? What % of our deficit over the last 2 years was the sole result of stimulus programs? How much was due to a decrease in tax revenue?
Increase taxes on the unemployed? Reduce spending? Oh yeah Obamacare pays for itself. Solyndra will pay back in spades. Oh wait there is always the 1% to raise taxes on. It wouldn't put a dent in the debt. Tax them enough, and they will all go offshore. Idealist, foolish rhetoric. Tin foil hat type stuff.
cee...It appears that your recipe to counteract a rattlesnake bite is to inject more rattlesnake venom. Sorry...that never has worked! Neither does solving the debt problem by taxing the productive sector more than it is already.
No one in America deserves to cruise for nothing, no matter how "poor" they are. Everyone has "skin in the game when it comes to Constitutional mandates like defense. Everybody has an obligation to pay for the legitimate operations of government. Those operations do NOT include Homeland Security (a military obligation) Department of Education (a State responsibility) Department of Health and Human Services (we have city health departments, County health departments, State Health Departments...why does the Federal Government have to get in on the act, too?? Why, with the FBI, the Federal Marshall's Service, the Secret Service, the DEA, the BATFE and God knows how many other "security" services, does each Cabinet department still need their very own "Security" service as well?
The only ones with no "skin" in the game is the Federal Government. The only "skin" they can offer is OURS!
With a ridiculous set-up like this, EVERYONE needs to have "skin in the game"...I don't care how goddamed "poor" you are! Got a car? You PAY! Got a flat-screen TV? You PAY!
As some of my old friends used to say back in the 60's, "cash, grass or ass...NOBODY rides for free!"
fbi
Occupy is the template for the revolution, check out change and revolution and you'll find slogans and discontented dupes in the streets for a controlling elite. May God (or sane freedom loving Patriots save this country). My opinion is the "Tea Party" is, despite progressive smears, the sensible, common sense reaction to the trend of government to intrude on and regulate all aspect of our lives. Taxes and tax policy on the federal level have become divorced from the needs for revenue and more intended to level society into two classes very much in line with world history: Aristocracy and Peasants.
trilakerfan -
You do some homework and research the federal deficit numbers over the past few years. The annual deficit the past three years is 3 times the highest value under Bush ( both $ and %GDP) and each single year is almost the total amount for Bush in 8 years.
Controlling Elite?!? And who is funding the Tea Party and far right super PAC's pray tell? The Occupy movement has more in common with the original tea party, which was about representation, not taxes, than this far right, brown shirt movement...
Trilakerfan, taxing the upper bracket more will only give us squat anyway. If Democrats are actually serious about taxing our way out, Obama should be squawking about raising all brackets through the roof as most of Bush tax cuts went to lower brackets. I am not saying I am against more taxes, just that Democrats stuff is all politics.
Truth about federal deficits:
~$1.2T of the 2009 deficit belongs to Bush because that was the deficit when he left office. You can't blame Obama. In Bush's defense, a 5.5% decrease in GDP in the 4th quarter of '08 accounts for much of that $1.2T (lower tax revenue).
Discretionary spending under Obama is negligible. His deficits are due to:
1) A serious decrease in tax revenue
2) Stimulus package
Clearly I've done my homework. Deficits are often the result of two things, not one thing. An increase in spending AND a decrease in revenue.
No, most Bush tax cuts didn't go to lower brackets. The top 5% experiences a tax break at ALL levels and therefore will experience the largest dollar benefit even if we raise the top 2 brackets only. Our tax system isn't an elevator. Either way, most democrats, including myself, actually want ALL brackets back to pre-Bush levels but these facts remains:
1) We'll raise a significant amount of revenue by just raising the top 2 brackets in the near term. The top 5% is already experiencing near-all-time lows in effective tax rates.
2) Lower and middle-class incomes (normalized) have declined and upper-class incomes have increased on average 10% over the last decade.
I would like to see everyone at least pay a nominal amount and have at least some skin in the game so that they understand government can;t pull money from the sky as many seem to believe now.
Some of these folks don't have any skin.
I do understand things are very tough for some. But I am afraid that having half of voters that have no concern about the national debt will do the US in in no time.
Please, stop this insanity. Most of that 50% pays other fed taxes (excise and payroll). They have skin in the game (what very little skin they have already). People need to spend more time researching and understanding this problem and less time complaining about it. The great American way: Freedom of speech with absence of due diligence. It really irks me...
Don: if you live and try to feed yourself or others on a poverty wage, you've got 'skin in the game'. You don't need to be hung up by your ankles to make someone else feel better..
Insanity? No, insanity is having 50% pay no federal income tax. They are running the asylum and it's getting worse.
So sorry you are "irked" by free speech. And your assumption about due diligence is not only wrong, it exposes your arrogance.
don your right, at least dont give anyone more money than they put in, like they do with the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit etc., unemployment, welfare , foodstamps and yes even social security-many fake a back injury or collect way more than they put into it, once you use up what you put in you should be cut off, and if you never worked you dont get any period, should of kept care of your spouse so they didnt die off, employers should pay no social security, all needs to be ppayed by the employee and should be privatised. make it happen vote tea party were takin america back!!
I realize that some folks have little money. That's why I said "at least a nominal amount". It is a serious problem that many folks believe the US government can pull money from the sky and we don't need to concern ourselves about deficit spending. It will do in our country shortly.
Google "misconceptions about who pays taxes."
I'm irked because you view a simple fact that 50% of Americans don't pay fed income tax and the sole factor in determining what's fair vs unfair. In this case, the devil's in the details and you're lack of desire to understand the truth demonstrates much greater arrogance.
If it's getting worse then you can only blame the GOP who's forcing the continuation of the Bush tax cuts. Fine, have it your way. I'm more than happy to roll them all back to pre-Bush levels today.
All we're asking is for the rich, which includes myself, to chip in immediately while GDP growth returns to average or above average levels and then we can all chip in. We can absolutely afford to do so without a shred of doubt. If you refuse then you're a selfish SOB in my book who wants the freedom that this govt provides without paying for it.
Trilakerfan, you want all the rich, including yourself, to chip in immediately and if not then they are all selfish SOB's. Ok, I'm a selfish SOB in your book, and, I'm not rich but, I am selfish. I want to keep what I have. I have a average Social Security benefit that I earned by working and that I paid into. It's mine, and I want to keep it. There's something about being selfish that isn't addressed. What is the opposite of selfish? Selfless. Yes, I want the freedom that our government provides, it's my right because I paid taxes to earn that right. Thing is, I didn't pay taxes to earn the right to have people demand that I pay more, more for the same right to freedom that they have but don't want to pay for. Rather, they want others to pay for them. Well, anyway, we have certainly established one point, nobody wants to pay more taxes and if more taxes are needed then it's for others to pay them, not us, rich or poor.
Sounds very much like the flat-tax is gaining real ground here. If, and I mean if, everyone participates and the old "progressive" system is eliminated we may have a chance at a fairer system. Just remember, poor people do not have tax lawyers to get them out of paying. The real flaw in the tax system is government. Why exactly do people need to pay federal taxes and then have the federal government send the money back to the states it just came from? Answer: federal control of what the states do.
we are over taxed, end all these so called middle class low class income tax breaks of obama and the dems which are a give away to those at the bottom who hire no one and actually lose many jobs, we cant afford the entitlements anymore, privatise ssi and make it a voulenteer program, if you choose to never retire why should you be forced to pay all that social security tax to reward a bunch of old lazy people to not work-end medicare, we cant afford to buy hip and knee replacements heart by-passes etc for old people who most likely will die within a few years anyhow-its all a scam to make doctors and hospitals rich-end it and end it now!! make it happen vote tea party were takin america back!!!
Cool. As it is now the SS retirement age is 65. If I choose to work until I'm 75 shouldn't I get back all that I paid in between ages 65 to 75? Sounds fair, but, it goes against the intent of Social Security, to keep old people from starving to death, dying under the bridge. It was meant to be a means to survive, keeping the elderly out of the poor houses funded with tax dollars. As for paying a SS tax until retirement, or, paying when a person is only 25, that's called the "Contract between the generations." When I worked a big portion of my SS tax went to pay people then retired. People working now and paying a SS tax are paying to support me now. I retired in 2003 and I'll probably use up the amount I paid in when I was working. Well, ok, many don't like that arrangement, didn't agree to that contract. Too bad, they're American citizens so the contract is binding, like it or not. Anyway, the system works and folks aren't having their sensibilities challenged as they walk down the street stepping over the bodies of old people.