43% Pay NO Federal Income Tax - ARE YOU KIDDING ME??

[babygrl1234 6]

But if you paid no taxes? Or are you referring to prior years' taxes?

I think she means if they deducted $1000 from your pay for the year but you get a $500 refund check. That $500 you have already paid but are being returned for overpayment.

[MacMadame 81]

Exactly. You can't be refunded more than you put in.

[BethFromVA 5]

I think she means if they deducted $1000 from your pay for the year but you get a $500 refund check. That $500 you have already paid but are being returned for overpayment.

Oh, if that's the case, no issue. Then monies have been paid in.

[BJean 16]

Huh? How else would you get a refund check? The gov doesn't send 'refund' checks if it isn't a refund from funds already paid.

And if somebody is getting a refund check, I imagine that most of them have definitely paid some taxes. I believe that it would be very rare for anyone to get a refund of the entire amount that they had paid in throughout the year.

I am more concerned with those people who don't "believe" in paying taxes and just flat refuse to file and pay what they owe.

[BethFromVA 5]

Thank you, Jack, you answered before I had to.

BJean, if you think this doesn't happen, then yes, maybe you should be required to take a test before voting. :wink2:

[BJean 16]

Jack of course there is fraud. There are dishonest people everywhere. Tax cheats are perpetrating a crime against the rest of us tax payers who do not cheat.

Why would you call monies they get through dishonest means, a refund?

You and Beth have labeled me uninformed and shockingly obtuse so why don't you just enlighten me instead of expecting me to google something - you know I can't read.

[plain 12]

It works with income tax too. It wouldn't be fair if Bill Gates and I paid the same tax. It's not really even fair if we pay the same percentage. Because 10% of his income is nothing to him, but to me it's a big portion of my disposable income.

But....how is that any difference from what you pay in income taxes anyway? If you normally pay 10% to the government, and Bill pays 10% to the government, then the only "unfair" part of that is that you think he should pay more.

[jenajjthr 0]

My husband and I pay taxes every paycheck. We have even upped our dependant number to have less money taken out. But at tax time, once we deduct all of our allowances, we itemize, we still end up "owing" no taxes and get a refund for what we did pay in.

Now my sister who makes very little money, pays little taxes during the year, and gets more money back than what she paid in due to the earned income credit. I hate this loophole that she can use, but she's not cheating to get it...it's legal! Why in the world should someone get more than what they paid in? But until that loophole is closed, she and millions like her will continue to get more than they paid.

And although it might not be "fair" for some people to pay more than others....it's already happening. Why not a flat tax based on income levels? 0% for the people who make less than a certain amount and then graduated up to a max level. Like I said it's already happening now, it's just a lot more complicated to do so.

43% may pay no taxes, but the top 5% pay over half the taxes and the top 50% pay over 96% taxes. The top wage earners pay most of the taxes now, so it would hardly be any different going to a flat tax system.

[plain 12]

I think a flat tax would be perfect.......although I'm not an economist. It might be bad for small business, or big business, or group XYZ. I think that something needs to be done with the overly-complicated tax code, though.

[BethFromVA 5]

My husband and I pay taxes every paycheck. We have even upped our dependant number to have less money taken out. But at tax time, once we deduct all of our allowances, we itemize, we still end up "owing" no taxes and get a refund for what we did pay in.

Now my sister who makes very little money, pays little taxes during the year, and gets more money back than what she paid in due to the earned income credit. I hate this loophole that she can use, but she's not cheating to get it...it's legal! Why in the world should someone get more than what they paid in? But until that loophole is closed, she and millions like her will continue to get more than they paid.

It's not a loophole. It's a plan intended to transfer wealth from one group to another.

[BethFromVA 5]

I think a flat tax would be perfect.......although I'm not an economist. It might be bad for small business, or big business, or group XYZ. I think that something needs to be done with the overly-complicated tax code, though.

Either a flat or a usage tax. Both have their benefits.

[TerriDoodle 6]

The Fair Tax (Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation) is a national sales tax which would replace income, social security and medicare taxes. It has the advantage of capturing revenue from every single person who purchases goods -- even illegal aliens, "tax evaders" and tourists. Generally the wealthier people spend more money so they would pay more and vice versa....a self regulating system, so to speak. There are many, many benefits and i encourage you to take a closer look.

[BJean 16]

Actually Teridoodle, in Florida many years ago, they decided to raise sales taxes rather than real estate taxes. At a time when many cities/counties had a lower (around 6%) sales tax and higher real estate taxes, places in Florida had 8% sales tax with lower real estate tax assessments. Homeowners loved it. It worked pretty well too, especially in high tourist areas that did an enormous retail business selling to non-residents.

[MacMadame 81]

And if somebody is getting a refund check, I imagine that most of them have definitely paid some taxes.

Not necessarily.

But....how is that any difference from what you pay in income taxes anyway? If you normally pay 10% to the government, and Bill pays 10% to the government, then the only "unfair" part of that is that you think he should pay more.

It's unfair because 10% hurts "me" more. Let's do some math.

Say I make 40,000 and live in an area where basic necessities for my family are 30,000 a year on average. That means I have 10,000 in disposable income. If there were a flat tax of 10% on income, then I'd pay 5,000 in taxes. Which would give me 5,000 in disposable income. For my family of four. For a year.

Now we have someone who makes 200,000 and lives in the same area. So their disposable income is 170,000. Their tax is 20,000. So they have 150,000 left over.

See how the flat tax doesn't make a dent in their disposable income but renders my family not able to not be able to do anything besides scrape by? And how it that good for the country to have a bunch of people who can't even afford to save for a rainy day. One emergency will wipe out my entire disposable income for possibly years to come.

Or how about someone who makes 30,000. Their tax is 3,000 so now they have less money than it takes to live on. That's not sustainable. Can bankruptcy and welfare be far behind? What possible purpose does it serve society to set up a system like that?

At least with sales tax, what people pay is proportionate to what they have to spend.

If you want to have a flat tax, you have to do it on disposable income to be remotely fair IMO. That way the family of four living on $40,000 is only being taxed on $10,000 and has a chance to get ahead.

But I still think the graduated system is better and I say that as someone who has spent most of the past 10 years in a high tax bracket, those two years of no income not withstanding.

[BJean 16]

McMad, obviously I do not understand the earned income tax credit. Don't you have to have paid into the system to receive money back or are you saying that some people receive money from the IRS without ever having paid in any money?