I mean data re the middle class bearing the brunt. As I posted earlier, those earning "middle class" incomes earn abt 1/4 of all income in the U.S., but pay only abt 13% of all income taxes. No dispute over low income earners - the bottom 50% earn 14% of all income and pay 4% of all taxes - not much on either end. Nor will I dispute that at least some wealthy (recognizing that wealth and income do not necessarily equate) may pay little income tax. But since the 1984 tax "reform", income tax burdens have shifted such that the poor pay half as much of the federal tax burden in 2001 as they did in 1984, the rich pay about 40% percent more of total taxes, and those in the middle paid about a third less. More specifically, since 1977, the middle 20% of income earners, or middle quintile (i.e. 40% of all taxpayers make more than this 20% and 40% make less) have seen their share of the tax burden fall from 10% of total taxes paid to about 7%, The top 5% have gone from paying 38% to over 53% in the same time period. That does not translate either to a greater tax burden on the middle class, or the rich not paying their "fair share".
Millions of Americans Don't Pay Federal Taxes
- Thread starter FRIZ
- Start date
- Status
w4rma:
I am pretty sure he meant the supporting data for the statement that the middle-class pays the lion's share of taxes. There isn't any data to support that.
Edwin Locke
Larry Kudlow
[Edit: treeprof and 13A beat me to it. More up to date data too, good link 13A. Shouldn't have spoken for them anyway
]13A
Member
Oops. I meant 53.3%. Top 5% of filers paid 53.3% of taxes in 2001. Latest year IRS released data. I don't think the top 5% of filers are middle class. Do you?
MeekandMild
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 1,877
Fishnfever, my heart goes out to you. Your story sounds a lot like that of too many folks I know. I won't bore you with my roots here, but you sound like a lot of people in my neighborhood.
What I quibble with is the folks who start their kids off not raising them right then get a crazy check for the kid's "Conduct Disorder". (Getting the crazy check is pretty easy if you mind f*ck the kid enough.) That is about $550 per kid per month. Multiply that by 4 or 6 kids and you get into some considerable money.
Mama (there is no Daddy) gets her own crazy check. The only thing wrong with her is that she watches TV all day and does a line of coke every now and then, but when she gets upset she goes to the hospital threatening to kill herself so after a couple of hospital visits she is "depressed". So she hires a lawyer to get her $30,000 back disability settlement.
Sure, you're p.o.'d, but don't be p.o.'d at the people who resent paying the lion's share of taxes, be p.o.'d at the ones who are sucking the marrow from your bones, faking disability making it harder for people like you to make it.
What I quibble with is the folks who start their kids off not raising them right then get a crazy check for the kid's "Conduct Disorder". (Getting the crazy check is pretty easy if you mind f*ck the kid enough.) That is about $550 per kid per month. Multiply that by 4 or 6 kids and you get into some considerable money.
Mama (there is no Daddy) gets her own crazy check. The only thing wrong with her is that she watches TV all day and does a line of coke every now and then, but when she gets upset she goes to the hospital threatening to kill herself so after a couple of hospital visits she is "depressed". So she hires a lawyer to get her $30,000 back disability settlement.
Sure, you're p.o.'d, but don't be p.o.'d at the people who resent paying the lion's share of taxes, be p.o.'d at the ones who are sucking the marrow from your bones, faking disability making it harder for people like you to make it.
13A
Member
Mr Clark:
Thanks for the site. Very eye opening.
"The tax code enforces altruism through coercion. Earning money through voluntary trade is replaced by getting money by force in order to achieve the altruistic goal the government desires. But when the property of some people is seized and given to others, it is an injustice. "
and
"Most Americans would be shocked to learn that altruism is the moral code that underlies Marxism (and thus Communism). Marx's credo was: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." Man has no right to exist for himself in this view; he is a servant of the state or society, to be disposed of as they see fit.
No, we have not gone all the way down that road yet, though the progressive income tax has been a step in that direction.
Altruism is the opposite of Americanism. Americanism means you have the inalienable right "to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," which includes property rights. It means that your life and property belong to you, not to the state or to society. It means that the government's proper job is to protect, not to violate, rights. Acting in one's own self-interest (while respecting the rights of others) is fully moral--it is the fundamental requirement of a successful and happy life. It means that you are not an object of sacrifice but a sovereign being. It means that your property belongs to you. It means that every individual, whether rich or poor, has the same rights. Self-reliance, not self-sacrifice, is the American ideal. On Tax Day support tax cuts by promoting the idea of a truly just society: where each man keeps what he earns and has no claim upon the life and property of others."
Exactly.
Thanks for the site. Very eye opening.
"The tax code enforces altruism through coercion. Earning money through voluntary trade is replaced by getting money by force in order to achieve the altruistic goal the government desires. But when the property of some people is seized and given to others, it is an injustice. "
and
"Most Americans would be shocked to learn that altruism is the moral code that underlies Marxism (and thus Communism). Marx's credo was: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." Man has no right to exist for himself in this view; he is a servant of the state or society, to be disposed of as they see fit.
No, we have not gone all the way down that road yet, though the progressive income tax has been a step in that direction.
Altruism is the opposite of Americanism. Americanism means you have the inalienable right "to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," which includes property rights. It means that your life and property belong to you, not to the state or to society. It means that the government's proper job is to protect, not to violate, rights. Acting in one's own self-interest (while respecting the rights of others) is fully moral--it is the fundamental requirement of a successful and happy life. It means that you are not an object of sacrifice but a sovereign being. It means that your property belongs to you. It means that every individual, whether rich or poor, has the same rights. Self-reliance, not self-sacrifice, is the American ideal. On Tax Day support tax cuts by promoting the idea of a truly just society: where each man keeps what he earns and has no claim upon the life and property of others."
Exactly.
w4rma
member
"Altruism is the opposite of Americanism."
I could not disagree more. Egoism is NOT Americanism, maybe it's what you'd like America to stand for, but it's not what most Americans want our nation to stand for, imho.
altruism
NOUN: Kindly, charitable interest in others: beneficence, benevolence, benignancy, benignity, charitableness, charity, goodwill, grace, kindheartedness, kindliness, kindness, philanthropy. See ATTITUDE, KIND.
Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition. 1995.
egoist, egotist (nn.)
Egoist is much the less frequently used term. Its technical sense is “someone who believes in egoism (which argues that self-interest is a proper end for all human action; egoism is an antonym of altruism).†But egoist has also come to be a synonym for egotist, “a person who talks only of self and is full of selfishness and conceit.†Egotist and the noun egotism meaning “excessive attention to and interest in self,†are always pejorative; egoist and egoism, at least in their ethical senses, need not be. …
The Columbia Guide to Standard American English
I could not disagree more. Egoism is NOT Americanism, maybe it's what you'd like America to stand for, but it's not what most Americans want our nation to stand for, imho.
altruism
NOUN: Kindly, charitable interest in others: beneficence, benevolence, benignancy, benignity, charitableness, charity, goodwill, grace, kindheartedness, kindliness, kindness, philanthropy. See ATTITUDE, KIND.
Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition. 1995.
egoist, egotist (nn.)
Egoist is much the less frequently used term. Its technical sense is “someone who believes in egoism (which argues that self-interest is a proper end for all human action; egoism is an antonym of altruism).†But egoist has also come to be a synonym for egotist, “a person who talks only of self and is full of selfishness and conceit.†Egotist and the noun egotism meaning “excessive attention to and interest in self,†are always pejorative; egoist and egoism, at least in their ethical senses, need not be. …
The Columbia Guide to Standard American English
For every one making sacrifices there is someone accepting them. Can you guess which side those who advocate altruism plan on being? Forced generosity at gun point is not generosity.
It is quite clear what that means and it has nothing to do with the modern usage of the word egotist. Egoist and egotist are not the same thing. You are making it sound as if they are. They are not.
This means that how people use it in modern language and what it actually means are two different things.
w4rma
member
Altruism is the opposite of "self-interest is a proper end for all human action".
That is the definition used when egoism is used as the antonym/opposite of altruism.
Its technical sense is “someone who believes in egoism (which argues that self-interest is a proper end for all human action; egoism is an antonym of altruism).â€
Monkeyleg
Member.
w4mra, thank you for the distinctions between egotism, egoism, altruism, and for counting angels on countless heads of pins.
The House of Monkeyleg hasn't been doing all that well the last two years, so your altruism would be most welcome. I could use help with mortgage payments, food, and utilities. A Springfield M1A and an HK MP5 would be nice additions.
If you and I were to meet somehow, and get to know each other, and you showed your altruistic side to me, there's no doubt that I'd be over at your house trying to repay you my debt.
When you are anonymous, though, it's so much easier to blame someone else. If I took your altruistic contributions along with those of other nameless, faceless taxpayers, then it could become easier for me to complain about the disparity.
With you as the anonymous giver, I can look at you and shout, "Look at that guy, W4RMA, over there! He has more stuff than I do!" Of course, I won't be satisfied until I have as much stuff as you do.
Three or so years ago, the Washington Post ran a series of stories about the plight of welfare recipients. One photo showed a welfare mom's child playing in the box that came with her new 36" wide-screen TV. The implication was that the child had no toys.
Well, as a kid, a cardboard box was the best toy to have fun with. I still have boxes, but I certainly don't have a 36" TV. In fact, our main TV is a 21" stalwart old Quasar from 1984.
In the end, though, you're just using words. Much as the notion strikes me as unconstitutional, I feel that we need an absolute floor for those who cannot provide for themselves. Depending upon the decade, or even the century, what that Floor might constitute would differ. In my grandmother's era, a wood-burning stove would have been welcome. It would seem today that a color TV is requisite.
So, where to establish the floor? And what to do about those who actually work but can't afford to buy the items that we establish as being a "floor?"
The House of Monkeyleg hasn't been doing all that well the last two years, so your altruism would be most welcome. I could use help with mortgage payments, food, and utilities. A Springfield M1A and an HK MP5 would be nice additions.
If you and I were to meet somehow, and get to know each other, and you showed your altruistic side to me, there's no doubt that I'd be over at your house trying to repay you my debt.
When you are anonymous, though, it's so much easier to blame someone else. If I took your altruistic contributions along with those of other nameless, faceless taxpayers, then it could become easier for me to complain about the disparity.
With you as the anonymous giver, I can look at you and shout, "Look at that guy, W4RMA, over there! He has more stuff than I do!" Of course, I won't be satisfied until I have as much stuff as you do.
Three or so years ago, the Washington Post ran a series of stories about the plight of welfare recipients. One photo showed a welfare mom's child playing in the box that came with her new 36" wide-screen TV. The implication was that the child had no toys.
Well, as a kid, a cardboard box was the best toy to have fun with. I still have boxes, but I certainly don't have a 36" TV. In fact, our main TV is a 21" stalwart old Quasar from 1984.
In the end, though, you're just using words. Much as the notion strikes me as unconstitutional, I feel that we need an absolute floor for those who cannot provide for themselves. Depending upon the decade, or even the century, what that Floor might constitute would differ. In my grandmother's era, a wood-burning stove would have been welcome. It would seem today that a color TV is requisite.
So, where to establish the floor? And what to do about those who actually work but can't afford to buy the items that we establish as being a "floor?"
You are misunderstanding the term self-interest. It doesn't mean want Karl Marx wants you to think it means. It doesn't mean that those "greedy bourgeois capitalists" can enslave the proletariat. It means "Man — every man — is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.†It doesn't mean he shouldn't be kind or generous or benevolent. It means that no one has a right to put a gun to his head and force him to be those things. Like I said, generosity forced at gun point is not generosity. I didn't add, because I didn't think it was necessary, (but apparently it is) that it is, in fact, theft. People who advocate altruism really advocate the idea that it is alright for some men to use other men as cattle. Those who would be used as cattle, understandably, disagree.
w4rma
member
Karl Marx? I never mentioned Karl Marx. The sources I listed were The Columbia Guide to Standard American English and Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition. 1995. Take your disagreements to them, if you don't like their definitions of words.
Don't blame me that Faux News didn't list a source in their article for the information they site. It appears that they want you to watch some report for more details:
Click here to watch a report by Fox News Channel's Major Garrett.
I apologize that I don't have a government study by Bush for you to read. But, Faux must have gotten their information from somewhere. Why don't you ask them, treeprof?
Sorry, w4rma, but the Fox story never mentioned the middle class bearing the lion's share - you brought that up on your own:
I want to know where you got your information (data, not opinion) on the middle class bearing the lion's share.
I want to know where you got your information (data, not opinion) on the middle class bearing the lion's share.
w4rma
member
…
Who are the zero tax filers? They are the ones who have enough deductions and credits to erase their federal liability. That means after taking all legal credits and deductions, they will receive back every penny of federal income taxes withheld.
In addition to these 44 million zero-tax filers there are another 14 million whose incomes are so low, $20,000 or less, they are off the tax roles entirely. Add to that the dependents, children, family members and those who aren't taxed at all — it equals 122 million Americans who live completely outside the federal tax system.
…
Notice the two groups who pay zero taxes are on the opposite ends of the economic spectrum. Who is left to pay the taxes without the ultra-rich and the ultra-poor? Primarily the middle-class. Logic: Process of elimination.
I try to be consistant in my disdain for Rupert Murdoch's propaganda outlets. But in this particular case, Murdoch's article is right on target.
13A
Member
w4rma:
Please point out to me where in the article it mentions the income level of those who owed no income because of their deductions. I did not see that in the article.
Could it be they are people who make barely enough money to actually OWE some fed income tax before deductions but owe NONE after deductions?
If these people actually ARE high income earners, how do you think they escaped the Alternative Minimum Tax?
Please point out to me where in the article it mentions the income level of those who owed no income because of their deductions. I did not see that in the article.
Could it be they are people who make barely enough money to actually OWE some fed income tax before deductions but owe NONE after deductions?
If these people actually ARE high income earners, how do you think they escaped the Alternative Minimum Tax?
atek3
Member
Well if you define ultra poor to mean the lower fifty percent, and ultra rich to mean top 1%, then "middle income" means anyone earning above 28k and less than 292k. They pay 62.2% of the income, so I guess technically the middle income do bear the brunt of the income tax. However, I would call "middle income" the middle third of income earners, and they most certainly DO NOT pay the majority of the federal income tax.
The picture changes dramatically when you include all taxes however. Then it "deprogressivizes" to the point where everyone roughly pays an equal share of their income. Sorry I don´t have the stats to back it up, but it is reasonable if you think about it. Income tax soaks rich people. Payroll and sales tax sock low income people. Property tax is a big middle class hoser.
atek3
The picture changes dramatically when you include all taxes however. Then it "deprogressivizes" to the point where everyone roughly pays an equal share of their income. Sorry I don´t have the stats to back it up, but it is reasonable if you think about it. Income tax soaks rich people. Payroll and sales tax sock low income people. Property tax is a big middle class hoser.
atek3
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
w4rma, in all fairness, you really misread the article. the 14 million are below the filing requirement for income taxes, period. The 44 million herd are the group that payed income taxes through withholding but received every penny back due to relatively low income and new deductions.
There is no discussion of the middle-class bearing the burden. I submit that there are 58 million workers (44 + 14; out of 120 million) that pay no income tax. Somebody with income to the north of these folks are paying the income tax. The bulk is payed by the wealthy as stated above. Median income earners still only pay a minor share of the total taxes.
Master Blaster
Member
Lies Damn Lies and Statistics.
There is something called the alternative minimum tax.
your deductions dont matter, and the folks who file but pay no taxes?
A few of them are wealthy individuals who have figured out a way around taxes, Most are folks who run small businesses, who have actually lost money.!!!!!! I know a couple of them, I dont envy them.
There is something called the alternative minimum tax.
your deductions dont matter, and the folks who file but pay no taxes?
A few of them are wealthy individuals who have figured out a way around taxes, Most are folks who run small businesses, who have actually lost money.!!!!!! I know a couple of them, I dont envy them.
Tamara
Senior Member
w4rma,
It doesn't state that. It doesn't even imply it. You have to read some pretty strong preconcieved notions into the sentence to even derive that meaning from it.
13A,
The concept of "corporate taxes" should be seen by more people as the transparent fraud that it is. Corporations CANNOT pay taxes. They are unable to. The only source for tax money is you and I.
Stop and ponder this: If the government charges General Motors one million bucks, where does GM get the cash to give to the government?
That's right; by saying "the government should tax businesses" all you're really saying is "I want to be taxed twice by the government! Once directly, and once in terms of higher prices for goods and services."
Calling for "corporate taxes" is just begging to be fleeced twice.
It doesn't state that. It doesn't even imply it. You have to read some pretty strong preconcieved notions into the sentence to even derive that meaning from it.
13A,
The concept of "corporate taxes" should be seen by more people as the transparent fraud that it is. Corporations CANNOT pay taxes. They are unable to. The only source for tax money is you and I.
Stop and ponder this: If the government charges General Motors one million bucks, where does GM get the cash to give to the government?
That's right; by saying "the government should tax businesses" all you're really saying is "I want to be taxed twice by the government! Once directly, and once in terms of higher prices for goods and services."
Calling for "corporate taxes" is just begging to be fleeced twice.
w4rma
member
…
Who are the zero tax filers? They are the ones who have enough deductions and credits to erase their federal liability. That means after taking all legal credits and deductions, they will receive back every penny of federal income taxes withheld.
In addition to these 44 million zero-tax filers there are …
Again.
Tamara
Senior Member
w4rma,
I'm looking in my dictionary and thesaurus, and "deductions" is nowhere listed as a synonym for "ultra-rich".
Try again.
Your opponents provided statistics (easy to do, since they seem to have the facts on their side.)
I'm looking in my dictionary and thesaurus, and "deductions" is nowhere listed as a synonym for "ultra-rich".
Try again.
Your opponents provided statistics (easy to do, since they seem to have the facts on their side.)
atek3
Member
But Tamara, the big bad evil companies don´t earn that money. They take it by stealing the surplus value of their laborers. So every "tax" dollar removed from the profits of companies is really just being put back into the hands society, and out of the hands of dirty capitalists. At least thats what Das Kapital said...hold on, let me check for sure.
atek3
- Status