http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm
Finally, somebody reported on what I've been saying from time to time around here. I meet so many people with low to moderate income that scream that they are being "taxed to death." Typically though, these households get most or all of that money back.
It's pretty funny listening to net moochers of the system go "sackcloth and ashes" through the streets bemoaning their "disappearing freedom."
Originally posted by telerionBut it's not funny when they have to meet government-prescribed conditions to get those rebates, is it?
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm
Finally, somebody reported on what I've been saying from time to time around here. I meet so many people with low to moderate income that scream that they are being "taxed to death." Typically though, these households get most or all of that money back.
It's pretty funny listening t ...[text shortened]... tem go "sackcloth and ashes" through the streets bemoaning their "disappearing freedom."
Do you not believe that government in the US is expanding over the long-term, and not just during recessions?
I am for the right of even the poorest people to support freedom and libertarianism... and less government interference.
Originally posted by eljefejesusIf you have read anything I've written here over the last month, you know that I suspect that the size of government will rise, and I'm concerned that we need to get our fiscal house in order over the next twenty years. That said I think most of you get your news from two-bit internet sources that exaggerate and distort the issue (whether in favor or against the current administration). It's nice when a mainstream report packages the data in a simple way so that I can highlight it. There are people here that read the studies and go back to the data, but they are very few.
But it's not funny when they have to meet government-prescribed conditions to get those rebates, is it?
Do you not believe that government in the US is expanding over the long-term, and not just during recessions?
I am for the right of even the poorest people to support freedom and libertarianism... and less government interference.
Anyway, I have no sympathy or patience for people who get net tax payments from the government, yet still complain about their tax burden (or demand more tax burden on high income households). Particularly since most of them just want to complain but are too stupid to put forward an intelligent, informed criticism.
Originally posted by telerionCalmly, telerion, calmly, as more is expected of you. As I mentioned once before when I agree with you during a post in which you were possibly by your own suggestion inebriated, what are some specific examples that support your post just now?
If you have read anything I've written here over the last month, you know that I suspect that the size of government will rise, and I'm concerned that we need to get our fiscal house in order over the next twenty years. That said I think most of you get your news from two-bit internet sources that exaggerate and distort the issue (whether in favor or again ...[text shortened]... m just want to complain but are too stupid to put forward an intelligent, informed criticism.
from the article: http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm
'An increasing number of households end up owing nothing in major federal taxes, but the situation may not be sustainable over the long run
...
As you move up the income scale the percentages drop.
Nearly 22% of those making between $50,000 and $75,000 end up with no federal income tax liability or negative liability as do 9% of households with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000.
Of course, income taxes don't tell the whole story. Workers are also subject to payroll taxes, which support Social Security and Medicare.
When considering federal income taxes in combination with payroll taxes, the percent of households with a net liability of zero or less is estimated to be 24% this year, according to the Tax Policy Center's estimates.
...
Experts say that to pay for all the things on the country's growing tab, the money can't just come from a shrunken pool of taxpayers.
"Over the long run, you'll have to have a broader base," Zodrow said. '
....
The answer: slow the growth of spending, which has been far outpacing economic growth regardless of the period in the business cycle.
Originally posted by eljefejesusI disagree in part. Part of the answer is to slow the average growth of spending over time, but I don't think you should make this approach invariant to the business cycle.
from the article: http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm
'An increasing number of households end up owing nothing in major federal taxes, but the situation may not be sustainable over the long run
...
As you move up the income scale the percentages drop.
Nearly 22% of those making between $50,000 and $75,000 end up wit ...[text shortened]... has been far outpacing economic growth regardless of the period in the business cycle.
Automatic stabilizers will tend to lead to budget shortfalls during recessions and surpluses (or smaller deficits) during expansions. In order to slow the growth of spending even in recessions you'd have to reduce social insurance programs even more heavily during downturns.
My thinking on it is pretty straightforward. Reduce spending. Institute PAYGO for new spending. Increase taxes and expand the tax base.
Do I really think the government to do this? No not really. At least not until they absolutely have to. I think the responsibility for that lies primarily with the American voter.
Originally posted by telerionI agree with much of this, especially the need to cut spending more during growth, and the part to consider the business cycle.
I disagree in part. Part of the answer is to slow the average growth of spending over time, but I don't think you should make this approach invariant to the business cycle.
Automatic stabilizers will tend to lead to budget shortfalls during recessions and surpluses (or smaller deficits) during expansions. In order to slow the growth of spending even in ...[text shortened]... solutely have to. I think the responsibility for that lies primarily with the American voter.
I think that a sellable idea to the American voter is a "rainy day fund" but it would take a lot of people to be very prudent or a very strong politician to do something good and selfless for the country... not sure which is more likely...
Originally posted by shavixmirHey, when it comes to bombin' babies abroad, the Empire will always find the means. Wanna war? Neo-cons to the rescue. Wanna bail out billionaire bankers? At last -- bipartisan cooperation! Want to give ordinary working folk some decent health care? Republicans in unison: "NO, that'll bankrupt America!"
How on earth are you's gonna keep financing all those wars, if nobody's paying taxes???