Not only will I not pay taxes I will probably get a EITC refund this year. That is all.
How sad for you.
Not exactly something I’d care to publicly disclose. Of course, I wouldn’t disclose if I were in the top 1% either.
Well the reason I mention it is to point out that there are perfectly normal reasons for such things to occur. I’m not exactly a leach living off the government teat. I was a student for the first six months of 2011, and then looking for a job for the next 5. I started work in december, so I got exactly one paycheck in 2011.
The other point is how little money one has to make in order to avoid paying tax. I made about $5k on that one paycheck. And that is my total earned income for the year. If you made that little you too could be getting an EITC. The conservative talking points were to demonize those who don’t pay taxes, but I think the point is that those who don’t pay taxes are earning nearly nothing. Or at least I did this year.
I find it more shocking that 48% don’t earn enough to pay taxes rather than that they don’t pay enough.
I’m not the 1% by a good stretch but I cannot see how I’d live if I were the 50% either. We used to be flat broke and I’m not sure how we did it, not sure if I have lost those skills or if my standards have just changed so radically.
These two pages hav a lot of good data, I especially find the bottom chart on the second interesting. It clearly illustrates how income is being concentrated in the top 20%.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0692.pdf
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0694.pdf
If we’re going to fund government through taxation, then it should be completely independent of income. The government’s total spending should be divided by the number of people living in the country, and then divided equally. Your share is identical to my share.
If we’re going to fund government through taxation, then it should be completely independent of income. The government’s total spending should be divided by the number of people living in the country, and then divided equally. Your share is identical to my share.
Why?
would you like to rephrase this . . . my daughter earned about $700 last year, by your logic, she and all other income earners would pay $700 in total tax to support all levels of government.
She can not pay anymore than $700 - so no one else can either.
Because that is what would be fair. Well, I suppose an even more fair way would be to convert fully to a “fee for service” model, but then those earning more might end up paying even less than that student who earned only one $5k paycheck.
would you like to rephrase this . . . my daughter earned about $700 last year, by your logic, she and all other income earners would pay $700 in total tax to support all levels of government.
She can not pay anymore than $700 - so no one else can either.
Why should her share be less than your neighbor’s share? Does not she receive the same benefit from government as your neighbor? Is it your neighbor’s fault that your daughter isn’t more productive?
However, if she’s a minor, then I’m quite sure you should be responsible for her share until such time as she’s an adult and can take responsibility for her own share.
Because that is what would be fair. Well, I suppose an even more fair way would be to convert fully to a “fee for service” model, but then those earning more might end up paying even less than that student who earned only one $5k paycheck.
All you’ve done is restate what you said originally. How is it more fair to take “x” dollars than “x” or progressive " percent?
The wealthy do not own a greater share of the government. Each person is an equal partner. The government is mine just as much as it is yours, so our responsibility to fund its spending is equal. Unless of course you’re willing to entertain the notion of “fee for service” because that is the most fair.
his point is that if I buy an airline ticket or theater ticket - I pay the same ‘per chair’ everyone else does - - - we don’t pay for tickets according to our ability to pay or how wide our asses are.
Perhaps what people pay in should be correlated with what they take out?
Rather than taxing income, shift the emphasis to taxing use?
What I find amazing is how many people seem to be satisfied with living the lifestyle that is related to receiving government benefits or paying minimal taxes. I couldn’t do that. I wanted stuff. I wanted to go places. Perhaps, I am too “materialistic.” Maye things have changed and such a lifestyle it much better than it used to be. I made my mind up pretty early that living a minimalist lifestyle was not gonna get me what I wanted out of life.
The wealthy do not own a greater share of the government. Each person is an equal partner. The government is mine just as much as it is yours, so our responsibility to fund its spending is equal. Unless of course you’re willing to entertain the notion of “fee for service” because that is the most fair.
In both a cynical political way, and a practical way, that is wrong. The number one function of the government is protecting property rights. Those with the most have the most to gain. Welfare, social security, medicaid…it’s all peanuts compared to the benefit the wealthy have from being able to remain wealthy without fear of anyone taking their property.
“if I buy an airline ticket or theater ticket - I pay the same ‘per chair’ everyone else does”
That’s not true. First class tickets, business, are all priced differently than economy. Or a private jet. Or front row seats at a concert vs seats in the rafters.
The wealthy do not own a greater share of the government. Each person is an equal partner. The government is mine just as much as it is yours, so our responsibility to fund its spending is equal. Unless of course you’re willing to entertain the notion of “fee for service” because that is the most fair.
So by this logic, government funding should be 117 million times the lowest household income in the country. So nothing?
Let’s assume you don’t mean nothing (though from some of your other posts you may actually mean nothing, but I’m going to assume we need some form of government to keep the terrorists away). We know that 7.3% make less than $10,000 (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0693.pdf) so it seems we cannot charge anyone more than that. Do we take all of the income of the bottom? So all taxes of all levels of government (since I have to assume you don’t mean just the federal government) in the US totals $1.17 trillion/year?
I’m glad I don’t live in Somalia (aka the land of Hubblesmith).
I would love to hear Hubble’s definition of “citizen,” and “community.” Just for kicks.
I hope he’s not a Ron Paul supporter.
Well, I suppose an even more fair way would be to convert fully to a “fee for service” model, but then those earning more might end up paying even less than that student who earned only one $5k paycheck.
This would be “Fair” but I doubt those earning more would end up paying less.
Considering that the military is basically an “Insurance policy” to have your property and way of life protected the “Fee” or “Premium” for military protection would be calculated the same way that your house insurance premium is, by replacement cost.
So let’s say that right now we are paying 700B with a GDP of 15T. We are paying .046$ per dollar created for military protection.
The bill for a guy who has an income of 1B a year would be 46M while the guy that only made 10K would have to pay 460$.
I would go even further to say that the “Premium” should be based calculated on the combination of wealth and income. So let’s say we have a GDP of 15T and total net worth of 15T (I have no idea what this number actually is) then the cost per dollar would be .023$ per dollar.
Let’s then say the guy making 1B also has a net worth of 10B his bill now becomes 253M. The guy making 10K has a net worth of -5K. His bill now becomes 115$.
Now the guy making 10K may owe a bunch more via paying for educational costs, roads etc. But those are going to vary considerably less than the military insurance costs.
~Matt
All you’ve done is restate what you said originally. How is it more fair to take “x” dollars than “x” or progressive " percent?
You do not think that paying for what you use is “More fair” than simply taking “X” percent of ones income because “That’s what we think is fair”?
~Matt