You know better, because your own article says otherwise. But you would rather present yourself as a victim who has to pay taxes, scapegoating a sizeable fraction of the population by claiming they do not pay.
Nearly half of U.S. households escape federal income tax
- Thread starter onthebottom
- Start date
First, be very sure when you say that. We discovered here—ask landscaper—that some such special levies are general revenue. In Canada's case that'd be Employment Insurance 'premiums'.
But now we're at your real beef: Income Tax is 'special' because it's government's main paycheque and having almost half the people not contributing is a bad thing.
Assuming they're not cheats there's an easy way to fix that: Raise taxes, either by jacking rates, or by eliminating exemptions. In fact, how else could this be 'fixed'?
Is that what you're proposing?
I bet he is proposing a flat tax. His statistic is bogus and over-inflated by people who do not pay taxes mostly because they're retired.
That said there are plainly SOME people who are of working age and don't pay income tax because they earn too little. It's nowhere near 50%, but it's also nowhere near zero.
On the other hand he doesn't seem overly upset about those who are very wealthy and, by dint of creative accounting, shelter their income entirely. I wonder if it bothers him that IKEA is set up as a charity, one set up to promote interior design (featuring IKEA products of course), which pays licensing fees to the founder for use of the IKEA trade name, remitted in a tax free jurisdiction. It successfully avoids almost all taxes worldwide through this scheme, whereas any normal person would see it as a for profit company.
Again, cheats aside, if people aren't paying taxes it's because the tax-makers set it up that way. Two sorts of decisions come to mind w/ incom tax: Eventually as you go down the income scale, it become's counter-intuitive to tax the poor, with their tiny incomes. Certain amounts of income devoted to necessary and laudable purposes should escape tax: Business expenses, and charitable/medical expenses being the biggest. Somewhere between the two falls what we Canucks call the Basic Personal Exemption that shelters a minimal amount that was intended for, food and shelter, the unavoidable necessities of life.
And even the various Flat Taxes I've heard of have versions of the same.
Of course all these have been elaborated and revised, but the basic principle is the same: Make a decision what's in Taxable Income and what's out, then tax it. 47% of Americans don't make tose decisions. Something in the order of 600 well-paid, job-satisfied legislators looking at fat lobbying contracts and directorships when they can no longer get elected do that.
But whether you need income to pay income tax, and whether you and your tax lawyers defined yours away, or you didn't have any to begin with, or the legislator's decided to ignore yours, the real problem is: Not enough people with enough incomes. Want everyone to pay? Make sure they have the means.
And even the various Flat Taxes I've heard of have versions of the same.
Of course all these have been elaborated and revised, but the basic principle is the same: Make a decision what's in Taxable Income and what's out, then tax it. 47% of Americans don't make tose decisions. Something in the order of 600 well-paid, job-satisfied legislators looking at fat lobbying contracts and directorships when they can no longer get elected do that.
But whether you need income to pay income tax, and whether you and your tax lawyers defined yours away, or you didn't have any to begin with, or the legislator's decided to ignore yours, the real problem is: Not enough people with enough incomes. Want everyone to pay? Make sure they have the means.
Beyond that-- There's a big service gap in the States when compared to other developed western democracies. Taxation without representation is one thing, taxation without services is another, and both are 'bad'.
The recent blather on this subject also has to be looked at though the prism of America's financial situation. A couple of years down the road America will have to try to fix their budget, and the issue is structural at this point. The logical target their is their military, but Obama doubled down on Afghanistan, so even getting that spending down to inflation adjusted Clinton numbers will be hard. (Let alone rolling back America's massive global military apparatus, as would be sensible). Trying to really cut elsewhere would be equally hard, because there's just not that much low hanging fruit (regardless of the blather. The Conservatives here are stuck in a less extreme version of the same spot.). That means tax increases. Right now, you can see various groups positioning themselves on the question of who should be made to pay...
You're repeating yourself. And it still amounts to having nothing to say about your own topic.
They're your taxes, not ours. Whining here on our side of the border instead of fixing stuff on your own side may just be a an indicator of why your system's busted in the first place.
You're like the neighbour who's washer's broken so he borrows yours, then wanders off, leaving you to move his gotchies into the dryer for him. 'Cause he'll complain if you don't.
They're your taxes, not ours. Whining here on our side of the border instead of fixing stuff on your own side may just be a an indicator of why your system's busted in the first place.
You're like the neighbour who's washer's broken so he borrows yours, then wanders off, leaving you to move his gotchies into the dryer for him. 'Cause he'll complain if you don't.
Last edited:
“The US has approximately 150 million workers of whom 47% pay no tax. If projected personal tax revenues of the US government account for around 45% of total revenues and we assume that this group is also responsible for 45% of the current debt ceiling of $14.3 trillion, then this leaves each TAX PAYING taxpayer with a debt of over $80,000. If off balance sheet items are included then the figure comes closer to $500,000 per TAX PAYING taxpayer. Borrowing and money printing can only mask the situation for a limited period.” Peter Souleles
What is the relevance of dividing only among TAX PAYING taxpayers. Why do you assume that people who do not now pay tax never will or that peole who now pay tax always will. This is a silly statistic and a silly argument.
Walt Disney and Francis ford Coppola were both either at or near bankruptcy and therefore probably did not pay tax. I think their fortunes eventually recovered.
Some, who do not p[ay tax now, will so in the future, and some who do pay tax now, will not in the future. It is a reasonable
assumption that the percentage of people paying taxes will be fairly constant.
On what do you base your assumption. Wouldn't percentages be at least somewhat dependent on rates of unemployment and employment as well as the housing market where most peoples wealth lies and the stock market and rates of bankruptcy just to name a few factors?
