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

[plain 12]

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.

But my point is that for your above family, 40K / yr would put them in the 15% tax bracket anyway. So no matter what their cost of living is, or if we're using a flat or graduated tax as a model, they still owe that 15%. If the flat tax for the above family was 10%, they'd actually be saving money over the current system.

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.

I would put forth that the area that person is living in is simply "too wealthy" for their income. That's why I don't live in a super swanky area of Dallas (ok....that's actually not the reason, but you get my point?)

[pattygreen 5]

in this country, anyone can do and be anything thing they choose. If making 40,000 isn't enough for you, go back to school, take on an extra job, sell on Ebay to supplement, start a home business on the side, take just 1 extra class a semester if thats all you can afford, take out a school loan, and the ideas can go on and on. That's the great thing about America. Noone is telling you that you can't better your situation. Free enterprise is a wonderful thing. That's what allowed those who are making 250,000. the ability to do so. But, just because they make more, just because they bettered themselves with their own initiative, worked harder, sacrificed and went to school, doesn't mean they should pay more than anyone else to live here. Their 'extra' income is just that. Theirs. To do with as they feel fit. Most (not all) people who make more than they need to live on usually give alot of it away to charity causes of their choice. (their choice, being the key words here) Let the people decide what to do with their 'extra' funds, not the government.

I feel that if the gov. would cut out all of the trillions in spending on crap, we wouldn't have the need to worry about where this money is going to come from. Any household knows not to spend more than you bring in is the answer. Why can't the gov. see that? Debt is bad. Some feel good about saying, "What are you complaining about, 95% of you won't even get a tax increase," but they don't understand that everything from electricity to gasoline and oil and food, etc. wiil rise instead, and there's your 'tax' being passed on to you from all other businesses. This money to repay these stimulus plans have to come from somewhere.

[TerriDoodle 6]

in this country, anyone can do and be anything thing they choose. If making 40,000 isn't enough for you, go back to school, take on an extra job, sell on Ebay to supplement, start a home business on the side, take just 1 extra class a semester if thats all you can afford, take out a school loan, and the ideas can go on and on. That's the great thing about America. Noone is telling you that you can't better your situation. Free enterprise is a wonderful thing. That's what allowed those who are making 250,000. the ability to do so. But, just because they make more, just because they bettered themselves with their own initiative, worked harder, sacrificed and went to school, doesn't mean they should pay more than anyone else to live here. Their 'extra' income is just that. Theirs. To do with as they feel fit.

Yep! And if you gave employers some tax relief, then maybe...just maybe...the minimum wage would see some improvement!

[jenajjthr 0]

in this country, anyone can do and be anything thing they choose. If making 40,000 isn't enough for you, go back to school, take on an extra job, sell on Ebay to supplement, start a home business on the side, take just 1 extra class a semester if thats all you can afford, take out a school loan, and the ideas can go on and on. That's the great thing about America. Noone is telling you that you can't better your situation. Free enterprise is a wonderful thing. That's what allowed those who are making 250,000. the ability to do so. But, just because they make more, just because they bettered themselves with their own initiative, worked harder, sacrificed and went to school, doesn't mean they should pay more than anyone else to live here. Their 'extra' income is just that. Theirs. To do with as they feel fit. Most (not all) people who make more than they need to live on usually give alot of it away to charity causes of their choice. (their choice, being the key words here) Let the people decide what to do with their 'extra' funds, not the government.

I feel that if the gov. would cut out all of the trillions in spending on crap, we wouldn't have the need to worry about where this money is going to come from. Any household knows not to spend more than you bring in is the answer. Why can't the gov. see that? Debt is bad. Some feel good about saying, "What are you complaining about, 95% of you won't even get a tax increase," but they don't understand that everything from electricity to gasoline and oil and food, etc. wiil rise instead, and there's your 'tax' being passed on to you from all other businesses. This money to repay these stimulus plans have to come from somewhere.

Although I agree with you in point, I have to disagree that everyone in this country can do what you say to go on and earn 100k or more a year. Not everybody can have the jobs that pay big bucks, there just isn't enough of them. Yeah I can go to school and become, say a lawyer, but have you looked at what it takes to be a high paying lawyer? It's not a job everybody can do, along with being a Dr., CEO, and so on. The majority of jobs are middle to lower income jobs.

It's easy to say "Go back to school, sell on Ebay, etc." Reality just doesn't work that way. There is a reason there are more workers than bosses in any job.

I do like the suggestion of a federal state tax and no income tax. Taxed on what you spend sounds perfect. I can then choose not to spend as much, or make better spending judgements.

[BethFromVA 5]

The problem that I've seen in MANY cases is people simply living outside their means. It's one of the biggest problems this nation has -- the "need" to have more than one can afford.

I agree with Plain: If a family can't live on what is being made, move to an area that is more affordable.

[BethFromVA 5]

I do like the suggestion of a federal state tax and no income tax. Taxed on what you spend sounds perfect. I can then choose not to spend as much, or make better spending judgements.

Exactly.

However, if people don't "spend enough," you know Uncle Sham will find ways to get more money out of us.

[BJean 16]

Where've you been for the past 8+ years? Employers and corporations got some tax relief, in fact more than lower wage earners. Your theories on less tax for corporations and employers as being beneficial to their employees, have been disproven. It just hasn't worked that way, unfortunately. Greedy people at the top have kept that from happening and now this country is in one hellofa mess. What's happened to your short term memory?

And yeah, lots of very wealthy folks love to donate - they benefit from it by using it for tax write offs. Yay them. If they donate anonymously and don't take tax deductions for it, THEN I'm impressed. Or if they do hands-on charity work, that's impressive.

[MacMadame 81]

I would put forth that the area that person is living in is simply "too wealthy" for their income. That's why I don't live in a super swanky area of Dallas (ok....that's actually not the reason, but you get my point?)

But if everyone who can't make 100k a year moved away from an area, who would serve us our coffee at Starbucks?

[BethFromVA 5]

BJean, are you a welfare recipient or simply a class bigot?

[plain 12]

But if everyone who can't make 100k a year moved away from an area, who would serve us our coffee at Starbucks?

A good example of capitalism! If Starbucks needs more workers, they raise wages (so maybe the workers don't have to leave the area)......they will also probably raise prices to offset the profit losses from the wages....when the prices get too high, consumers will balk from spending money there......new company with sleeker business model takes over to serve coffee-based beverages....repeat as necessary.

[BethFromVA 5]

There's no Christmas parade without Santa Claus.

Hehehe, I like this!

[MacMadame 81]

A good example of capitalism! If Starbucks needs more workers, they raise wages (so maybe the workers don't have to leave the area)......they will also probably raise prices to offset the profit losses from the wages....when the prices get too high, consumers will balk from spending money there......new company with sleeker business model takes over to serve coffee-based beverages....repeat as necessary.

No, what happens is that everything gets so expensive that people making 6 figures can't live in the area either. Or everyone moves to a "cheap" place to live and then that place suddenly isn't so cheap any more and it's certain less attractive in other ways (traffic and pollution increases, harder to get your kid into a good school, etc.)

The local economy is an ecosystem. It needs all it's parts to function. This includes unskilled labor. It is not in our best interests to tax unskilled labor to the point they can't function on their salaries because that only increases the welfare rolls. There is something kind of sick about a system where your quality of life is better on welfare than working. In order to guard against that, we need minimum wage laws, and lower/no taxes for the lowest paid workers.

[BethFromVA 5]

There is something kind of sick about a system where your quality of life is better on welfare than working.

I absolutely agree with you on this!

[plain 12]

There is something kind of sick about a system where your quality of life is better on welfare than working. In order to guard against that, we need minimum wage laws, and lower/no taxes for the lowest paid workers.

I agree too! I actually have no problem against very low / no taxes for the poorest among us, as long as they're working (when applicable).

[BJean 16]

And see there, plain has a great sense of humor too!