Let's increase the taxes on the poor.

Shadow Dragon

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
4,773
Reaction score
261
Location
In the land of dragons
Cantor: We also know that over 45 percent of the people in this country don't pay income taxes at all, and we have to question whether that's fair. And should we broaden the base in a way that we can lower rates for everybody that pays taxes.

****

What would it take to force these lucky duckies to pay positive income taxes? It would mean instantly higher taxes for 70 million Americans. It would mean raising taxes on some of the poorest households by up to $4,000 a year, according to the Tax Policy Center.

A lot of what Eric Cantor is saying I agree with. Cantor says we need to fund the necessary operations of the federal government. I agree. He says that most people who aren't rich want to be richer. I agree. He says that the poor need help to climb that ladder of wealth. I agree. But his solutions are totally upside-down. If we need to fund the necessary operations of government, why go after where the money isn't?

If people naturally want to be richer, why would slightly higher tax rates on income over $330,000 change their mind? If the poor need hand-ups, why make them poorer?
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...on-the-poor-youve-got-to-discuss-that/256373/

Why tax the rich when you have those lazy, no income tax paying poor people to tax instead. :sarcasm
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
Note that, as is customary with today's Republican political establishment, Cantor only wants to discuss Federal Income Tax rates. No mention of the other, often highly-regressive state and local taxes that impinge more heavily on lower-income people, commonly to the point that they effectively offset or even overwhelm any FedTax breaks low-income people might have.

The infamous bankrobber Willie Sutton was once asked why he robbed banks. His answer: "Because that's where the money is."

If Eric Cantor were Willie Sutton, reincarnated, he'd apparently rob homeless shelters.

caw
 

Death Wizard

Tumhe na koci puujetha
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
5,145
Reaction score
1,011
Location
South Carolina
Website
www.deathwizardchronicles.blogspot.com
Note that, as is customary with today's Republican political establishment, Cantor only wants to discuss Federal Income Tax rates. No mention of the other, often highly-regressive state and local taxes that impinge more heavily on lower-income people, commonly to the point that they effectively offset or even overwhelm any FedTax breaks low-income people might have.

The infamous bankrobber Willie Sutton was once asked why he robbed banks. His answer: "Because that's where the money is."

If Eric Cantor were Willie Sutton, reincarnated, he'd apparently rob homeless shelters.

caw

Agreed.
 

MaryMumsy

the original blond bombshell
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
3,396
Reaction score
829
Location
Scottsdale, Arizona
And some, if not many, of those poor who pay no federal income tax are also receiving a check by way of the 'earned income credit'. Do not even get me started on the people who get it, who probably shouldn't.

MM
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...on-the-poor-youve-got-to-discuss-that/256373/

Why tax the rich when you have those lazy, no income tax paying poor people to tax instead. :sarcasm

Note that, as is customary with today's Republican political establishment, Cantor only wants to discuss Federal Income Tax rates. No mention of the other, often highly-regressive state and local taxes that impinge more heavily on lower-income people, commonly to the point that they effectively offset or even overwhelm any FedTax breaks low-income people might have.

The infamous bankrobber Willie Sutton was once asked why he robbed banks. His answer: "Because that's where the money is."

If Eric Cantor were Willie Sutton, reincarnated, he'd apparently rob homeless shelters.

caw

Nonetheless, the truth is that the percentage of the population actually paying income taxes is decreasing. Shifting to state taxes is a red herring. And don't forget, many Republicans went along with the Payroll Tax Holidays, as incredibly stupid as such a thing was.

I thought the current denizen of the White House said something about everyone having some "skin in the game."

But I realize that emotional rhetoric about the poor trumps common sense and any thoughts of fiscal responsibility.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
But I realize that emotional rhetoric about the poor trumps common sense and any thoughts of fiscal responsibility.
Except, fiscal responsibility only becomes an issue when speaking of the less fortunate.

When it comes to such things as eliminating tax subsidies for the oil companies, for example, the rhetoric switches quickly.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
Except, fiscal responsibility only becomes an issue when speaking of the less fortunate.

When it comes to such things as eliminating tax subsidies for the oil companies, for example, the rhetoric switches quickly.

Not from me. I don't think oil companies should receive subsidies, at all. Or tax breaks. Neither should other industries.
 

dclary

Unabashed Mercenary
Poetry Book Collaborator
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
13,050
Reaction score
3,524
Age
55
Website
www.trumpstump2016.com
I think the minimum income tax payable by any person should be 0, and our poorest citizens should be allowed an income tax of 0. At the same time, the highest income tax rate can be easily 50% for the richest americans -- as long as you're taxing their income, not their accumulated wealth.

However right now, there are millions of Americans whose tax rate is negative. I do not agree with, and would never agree with an income tax code that allows people to literally receive a refund that is greater in value than the amount they put in.

Call me a curmudgeonly rich republican. I think if you're going to get cash on tax day, it should not be more than you deposited in the first place.

I would curb the following tax credits:

Don't put a max-limit on social security taxation.

Taper the per-child tax credit. Full credit for first child, 75% for second, 50% for third, and 25% for fourth. In this way, you discourage welfare-earning baby-making factories like the duggars and octo-mom from funding their lifestyles with wave after wave of rugrat.

Place a bottom ceiling on tax credits for all corporations. If a corporation declares income exceeding expenses (i.e. a profit), then let it have tax breaks down to 10%. Every profit-making corporation in the nation should be responsible for at least a 10% income tax.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
Suddenly you sound like a pinko commie liberal, declarey. Especially this:

Don't put a max-limit on social security taxation.

That'll get you run right out of any righteous right-thinking conservative groups anywhere. Grover Norquist probably has a contract out on you for saying such a thing.

Given the growing (and accelerating) gap between higher-income Americans and middle- to lower-income Americans, which has been festering like a tumor for three decades now, how any sane person can propose increasing taxes on the lower-income sector while proselytizing with a straight face for decreased taxes on the upper-income sector, just makes my teeth hurt.

(Damn, that was a horrible run-on sentence, wasn't it?).

caw
 

muravyets

Old revolutionary
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
7,212
Reaction score
974
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Website
www.facebook.com
As soon as Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, and that lot get the taxes on the highest 1% of earners, both human and corporate, up to a rate close to what the middle class pays -- and I mean actually paid taxes, no more of this loophole free-for-all -- then they can talk to me about what a cushy ride the poor are getting.

Until then, they can blow that crap out their asses.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
I think the minimum income tax payable by any person should be 0, and our poorest citizens should be allowed an income tax of 0. At the same time, the highest income tax rate can be easily 50% for the richest americans -- as long as you're taxing their income, not their accumulated wealth.

However right now, there are millions of Americans whose tax rate is negative. I do not agree with, and would never agree with an income tax code that allows people to literally receive a refund that is greater in value than the amount they put in.

Call me a curmudgeonly rich republican. I think if you're going to get cash on tax day, it should not be more than you deposited in the first place.

I would curb the following tax credits:

Don't put a max-limit on social security taxation.

Taper the per-child tax credit. Full credit for first child, 75% for second, 50% for third, and 25% for fourth. In this way, you discourage welfare-earning baby-making factories like the duggars and octo-mom from funding their lifestyles with wave after wave of rugrat.

Place a bottom ceiling on tax credits for all corporations. If a corporation declares income exceeding expenses (i.e. a profit), then let it have tax breaks down to 10%. Every profit-making corporation in the nation should be responsible for at least a 10% income tax.


Mostly sound. Two objections.

1. The child tax credit doesn't recoup much at all in the way of the costs of rearing children. anyone who thinks that children generate a net gain in income even if you total up all the government aid you can get for this is not paying attention.
Try this site
http://www.babycenter.com/cost-of-raising-child-calculator


2. Why should a business only pay income taxes if they make a profit? People have to pay taxes on income regardless of whether they made or lost money in the year.
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,876
Reaction score
5,191
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
But of course you raise taxes on the poor. The rich can fight back.

Nonetheless, the truth is that the percentage of the population actually paying income taxes is decreasing.

All that indicates is that more people are becoming too poor to owe taxes. It is a measure of the poverty and distress in this nation, not a reason to be jealous of the poor.

If you wish to complain about people who don't pay taxes, aim it at the wealthy who wriggle out of them, not the poor who can't afford them.
 

Gregg

Life is good
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,725
Reaction score
247
Age
77
Location
In my house on the river
Note that, as is customary with today's Republican political establishment, Cantor only wants to discuss Federal Income Tax rates. No mention of the other, often highly-regressive state and local taxes that impinge more heavily on lower-income people, commonly to the point that they effectively offset or even overwhelm any FedTax breaks low-income people might have.

The infamous bankrobber Willie Sutton was once asked why he robbed banks. His answer: "Because that's where the money is."

If Eric Cantor were Willie Sutton, reincarnated, he'd apparently rob homeless shelters.





caw

Well, don't forget the Separation of State and The Feds. States rights and all that. Congress has little to say about state income, sales, gas, liquor, property taxes, recycling and licensing fees, et al, .....most of which I agree are regressive. You'll have to fight that battle at the local level.

Perhaps a federal tax code that is a lot less than 75,000 pages long would help.

As for Willie Sutton? I'd say President Obama is closer to him than Cantor.......tax the rich beause that's where the money is.
 

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
20,322
Reaction score
3,513
Location
Transcending Canines
Oh, that's easy, just withhold federal highway funds from each state until it makes its tax laws less regressive.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
All that indicates is that more people are becoming too poor to owe taxes.
Not true. There are many reasons why the percentage has increased. And in my opinion there are many quite valid reasons to not be paying any income tax.

Still, the great majority of working Americans should pay income taxes, as the we should all be equal before the law. In my opinion.
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,876
Reaction score
5,191
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
While I think your tax ideas are interesting and merit consideration, I must take issue with this part:

Taper the per-child tax credit. Full credit for first child, 75% for second, 50% for third, and 25% for fourth. In this way, you discourage welfare-earning baby-making factories like the duggars and octo-mom from funding their lifestyles with wave after wave of rugrat.

I fear this shows a lack of familiarity with the realities of the burdens and financial costs of childbearing.

Although the story of the greedy welfare mom popping out children to devour more welfare money has been popular for at least thirty years, the reality-TV stars you name are hardly typical of the desperately poor mothers who require government assistance. The reality of real mothers' lives on welfare is nothing like the Hollywood melodrama of families who, after all, have major media and advertiser support. Real welfare mothers' lives are a lot more lonely.

In her very interesting 1999 paper, "Women and Children on Welfare: Fact Versus Stereotypical Perceptions," Alice Bettancourt of Health and Human Services demolishes a lot of the tired old myths.

Berrick specifically addresses the two myths that women on welfare have many children and that they continue to have children so they can get additional money every month (Pg. 15). Cammisa also addresses the same myth. Both authors rebut this myth with statistics saying that the average woman on welfare in fact only has two children. (Berrick, Pg. 15 & Cammisa, Pg. 16) In fact, Berrick notes that only one child is found in the families of forty-two percent of recipients.

The second issue regarding women on welfare who continue to have more children to increases their welfare check is also a misconception among the public. Both Berrick and Cammisa argue that a welfare recipient's check may increase due to having another child but only on average by approximately $70.00 per month (Berrick, Pg.15 & Cammisa, Pg.16). Seventy dollars per month is hardly enough money to support a child and supports the notion that in fact many women on welfare find it harder to raise their children and to escape poverty and the welfare system if they have additional children. Berrick states:

one study found that women on welfare were more conscientious about using contraceptives while on welfare, that they were less likely to want an additional pregnancy, and that they were less likely to become pregnant while on welfare. Other studies have found that women on welfare become less interested in having additional children when they realize how great the financial strain of child rearing is. In sum there is very little financial incentive to bear further children while on AFDC"

Welfare payments and child care credits are far smaller and more meager than the outlay of money necessary to raise a child. No sensible person would go through the dangers and terrors and responsibilities of pregnancy and child rearing for an extra $70 a month and an annual tax credit of "up to" $2000. Those sums cannot possibly pay for the upkeep and care of a child.

By the way, please consider very carefully the language you are using to describe pregnancy and childbirth.
 

Manuel Royal

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
4,484
Reaction score
437
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
Website
donnetowntoday.blogspot.com
Not true. There are many reasons why the percentage has increased. And in my opinion there are many quite valid reasons to not be paying any income tax.

Still, the great majority of working Americans should pay income taxes, as the we should all be equal before the law. In my opinion.
What other reasons, besides income?

The great majority of working Americans pay taxes. If they're so poor that they pay no federal income tax (and that's pretty poor; I'm one of them) they still pay FICA taxes (Social Security and Medicare). My income last year was way below the poverty line, but I still ended up sending a check to the IRS because the bulk of my income was as a contractor, where I got paid gross with no deductions, and I had to pay self-employment tax to make up the FICA.

MaryMumsy said:
And some, if not many, of those poor who pay no federal income tax are also receiving a check by way of the 'earned income credit'. Do not even get me started on the people who get it, who probably shouldn't.
The Earned Income Tax Credit; no quotes needed. I took advantage of that this year. Please, tell me more. You brought it up; consider yourself started.
 

cmi0616

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
141
Location
In the aeroplane over the sea
The reason we don't tax those people is because their paying taxes would actually hurt the economy. The revenue raised from those taxes wouldn't be enough to matter, and those taxed would have even less to spend then they do now. It would just be bad economics to tax these people all around.

But, more importantly, federal tax rates are not the issue. Not of the 99%, not of the 1%. The issue, if we're ever really going to make a dent towards fixing this mess, is government spending. We need to downsize this massive bureaucracy. We need to stop spending on foreign aid like it's going out of style. We need to get clean in terms of our addiction to oil and fossil fuels. Even if Obama had his way and the Buffett Rule was passed (and it was a version of the Buffet Rule that actually taxed the top 1%, not the version that got voted down by the house a couple weeks ago), it wouldn't even cover a quarter of our national deficit. That's not a political statement, that's an economic statement. I consider myself very liberal, but there's just no way around this issue. We need to stop spending like we're a rich nation, federally speaking. We're literally trillions of dollars in debt.
 

AncientEagle

Old kid, no need to be gentle.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,090
Reaction score
513
Location
Southern U.S.
The reason we don't tax those people is because their paying taxes would actually hurt the economy. The revenue raised from those taxes wouldn't be enough to matter, and those taxed would have even less to spend then they do now. It would just be bad economics to tax these people all around.

But, more importantly, federal tax rates are not the issue. Not of the 99%, not of the 1%. The issue, if we're ever really going to make a dent towards fixing this mess, is government spending. We need to downsize this massive bureaucracy. We need to stop spending on foreign aid like it's going out of style. We need to get clean in terms of our addiction to oil and fossil fuels. Even if Obama had his way and the Buffett Rule was passed (and it was a version of the Buffet Rule that actually taxed the top 1%, not the version that got voted down by the house a couple weeks ago), it wouldn't even cover a quarter of our national deficit. That's not a political statement, that's an economic statement. I consider myself very liberal, but there's just no way around this issue. We need to stop spending like we're a rich nation, federally speaking. We're literally trillions of dollars in debt.

For the last 40 years, the amount we spend on foreign aid has hovered around 1% of the budget, up a little and down a little from year to year. There are a lot bigger targets than that.
 

muravyets

Old revolutionary
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
7,212
Reaction score
974
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Website
www.facebook.com
Well, don't forget the Separation of State and The Feds. States rights and all that. Congress has little to say about state income, sales, gas, liquor, property taxes, recycling and licensing fees, et al, .....most of which I agree are regressive. You'll have to fight that battle at the local level.

Perhaps a federal tax code that is a lot less than 75,000 pages long would help.

As for Willie Sutton? I'd say President Obama is closer to him than Cantor.......tax the rich beause that's where the money is.
Only if you believe tax is theft, which is an ideological view that has no relation to reality.

Besides, what moron would tax the poor, who have no money?

Oh, that's right -- Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan. Those morons.
 
Last edited:

MaryMumsy

the original blond bombshell
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
3,396
Reaction score
829
Location
Scottsdale, Arizona
What other reasons, besides income?

The great majority of working Americans pay taxes. If they're so poor that they pay no federal income tax (and that's pretty poor; I'm one of them) they still pay FICA taxes (Social Security and Medicare). My income last year was way below the poverty line, but I still ended up sending a check to the IRS because the bulk of my income was as a contractor, where I got paid gross with no deductions, and I had to pay self-employment tax to make up the FICA.

The Earned Income Tax Credit; no quotes needed. I took advantage of that this year. Please, tell me more. You brought it up; consider yourself started.

I'm truly sorry to hear you qualified for in EITC. I always hope people will make more money than that.

Almost verbatim conversation between me and a client earlier this year:

client: why is my refund less than last year
me: because your profit from your business was higher, and you got less EITC
client: oh, no, that can't be. I need that bigger check to pay for ______
me: well, the numbers you gave me, and signed the form that they were correct, show a higher profit.
client: I'll need to change those. I really need that bigger check.
me: do you have records to show less income or larger deductions
client: well, no. but I know they must be different, because I need that bigger check.

after more back and forth the client left with the forms as prepared.

Since the business involved is a cash business and no 1099s are received there is no way for me to determine what is correct. However, the client drives a two year old Mercedes and I drive a ten year old Buick.

MM
 

muravyets

Old revolutionary
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
7,212
Reaction score
974
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Website
www.facebook.com
The reason we don't tax those people is because their paying taxes would actually hurt the economy. The revenue raised from those taxes wouldn't be enough to matter, and those taxed would have even less to spend then they do now. It would just be bad economics to tax these people all around.

But, more importantly, federal tax rates are not the issue. Not of the 99%, not of the 1%. The issue, if we're ever really going to make a dent towards fixing this mess, is government spending.
I agree entirely with your first paragraph, but I'm not certain of the next, as follows:

We need to downsize this massive bureaucracy.
I'm not so sure that's possible with the size of our nation. The federal government has to serve over 300 million people and manage a territory that covers half a continent. They've dealt with the territory a long time, but the population keeps growing and growing. A big ship needs a big crew. It's a matter of having enough staff to do the work.

I agree that the bureaucracy can be streamlined tremendously. There are lots of extraneous and redundant layers of agencies and departments. But many people think reducing complexity and bulk of government means reducing the size of it via staff reduction and funding cuts. I don't agree with that. The job is too big. It needs to be done more efficiently, but I don't see how it can be made much smaller.

We need to stop spending on foreign aid like it's going out of style.
As was pointed out, foreign aid accounts for only a tiny fraction of spending. Complaints about foreign aid are a common talking point of the small-government right and libertarian factions, but in fact, not only is such spending trivial compared to other areas of government, but it is one that delivers benefits in terms of national security and the global economy, so cutting it would be counterproductive.

Here's an interesting article from FactCheck.org taking a look at US federal spending: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/

According to this article, the three biggest areas of spending, aside from "everything else" -- and I don't really see how you make a dent in that one; I mean, the government needs paper clips, you know -- are defense, Social Security and Medicare.

Now rightwingers love to yell that we must do away with Social Security and Medicare, but I ask them, what are we going to do with all these old people? We do get more of them every day, you know. I don't see how Social Security and Medicare can be reduced much at least until the Baby Boomers are all dead.

So that leaves defense spending - military and national security. Most of us here will agree that we don't need to be spending a full 20.1% percent of our GDP on pointless wars and unconstitutionally invasive "security." But you know who wouldn't agree with that? The military industrial complex who make trillions on that shit every year and who own so many elected officials. That's a nice big problem we have to fix before we can accomplish anything worthwhile.

So what's the solution then? To cut government spending we do need because it's too difficult to cut spending we don't need? Where and what to cut does make a big difference.

We need to get clean in terms of our addiction to oil and fossil fuels.
I also agree completely with this, but we run into the same problem as with cutting defense spending. Also, there's the principle of "you have to spend money to make money." R&D is still needed to develop the new energy tech to replace oil and gas over a period of years. Who can be made more motivated to spend that money to get us out of the costly fossil fuels hole and onto a less expensive sustainable/renewable road than the not-for-profit government?

Even if Obama had his way and the Buffett Rule was passed (and it was a version of the Buffet Rule that actually taxed the top 1%, not the version that got voted down by the house a couple weeks ago), it wouldn't even cover a quarter of our national deficit. That's not a political statement, that's an economic statement. I consider myself very liberal, but there's just no way around this issue. We need to stop spending like we're a rich nation, federally speaking. We're literally trillions of dollars in debt.
The UK is following that road, and they just slipped into a double-dip recession. Greece followed that road, too, and look at them. Look at Spain, Ireland, and several other European nations. Government debt is not like personal debt, and when we are in trouble is not the time to stop spending.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
Still, the great majority of working Americans should pay income taxes, as the we should all be equal before the law.

Great. So what about the non-working Americans. You know, people like Mitt Romney, who get most of their income from investments, capital gains, and the like.

Oh, wait . . . big dumb silly me. That's different.

caw
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Great. So what about the non-working Americans. You know, people like Mitt Romney, who get most of their income from investments, capital gains, and the like.

Oh, wait . . . big dumb silly me. That's different.

caw

Seriously, bb, don't be stupid. They need to be able to freely exercise their money however they like, so they can invest in stuff, and drive our economy, and stuff, and if they didn't do that, we'd, like, collapse or die or something, because their money is so important it, like, drives everything, and, uh, investment, and stuff.

Taxing their money would be just plain un-American and commie and stuff like that. They need that money to invest it in stuff and keep our economy afloat and that kind of thing. They don't waste it on silly stuff like food and necessities like the poor. They have more important things to spend it on.