Chart of the Day: These Are The 47 Percent

mikepegg44

whygohome wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

no one thought that 47% of the country who don't pay taxes were rich. I don't understand the importance of the breakdown I guess. The fact is 47% don't pay income taxes. Their breakdown doesn't matter. They are brought up when people talk about how half the country supports raising taxes on those richer than they are. I don't know too many people that think they should pay more...

Can someone explain why it isn't okay to talk about the 47%?

The point is that these people--the 47%--aren't the lowlife, stoner on the couch, tax-evading losers that the Right wants them to be or paints them to be. The 47% who "don't pay taxes" either pay in the form of payroll and sales tax OR don't have any god damn money.
Over the past 3 decades, middle class and lower class wages are stagnant; the rich have never had it better. And, many in the top tax brackets are making their money in positions that do not offer nay type of service to society or they are making it on the backs of the middle-class and the working class. Remember 2007-2009? Remember mortgage-back securities? remember credit default swaps?

That still doesn't explain why it isn't okay to talk about them.

I have never portrayed them as low-life, tax evading losers, nor do I get that out of most people when it is cited. It is put there by others who then portray them as the downtrodden refuse that this cruel society fucked over. I usually see the 47% talked about in response to polls that say the majority of Americans want taxes raised on the wealthy.

The rest of what you are saying doesn't apply to the argument.

Go Beavers

mikepegg44 wrote:

whygohome wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

no one thought that 47% of the country who don't pay taxes were rich. I don't understand the importance of the breakdown I guess. The fact is 47% don't pay income taxes. Their breakdown doesn't matter. They are brought up when people talk about how half the country supports raising taxes on those richer than they are. I don't know too many people that think they should pay more...

Can someone explain why it isn't okay to talk about the 47%?

The point is that these people--the 47%--aren't the lowlife, stoner on the couch, tax-evading losers that the Right wants them to be or paints them to be. The 47% who "don't pay taxes" either pay in the form of payroll and sales tax OR don't have any god damn money.
Over the past 3 decades, middle class and lower class wages are stagnant; the rich have never had it better. And, many in the top tax brackets are making their money in positions that do not offer nay type of service to society or they are making it on the backs of the middle-class and the working class. Remember 2007-2009? Remember mortgage-back securities? remember credit default swaps?

That still doesn't explain why it isn't okay to talk about them.

I have never portrayed them as low-life, tax evading losers, nor do I get that out of most people when it is cited. It is put there by others who then portray them as the downtrodden refuse that this cruel society fucked over. I usually see the 47% talked about in response to polls that say the majority of Americans want taxes raised on the wealthy.

The rest of what you are saying doesn't apply to the argument.

I usually see it in discussions where the topic of raising taxes/eliminating certain tax cuts comes up, and the 47% is brought up to suggest that these 47% aren't paying their fair share of taxes. Too me it's a diversion and the person is basically saying "what do you mean this 1% should pay more in taxes, look at this 47% that isn't paying anything". It's often implied that they're lazy leaches, getting something they didn't pay for, and you can see it in AMT.

unsung

Jason P wrote:

And I want the 535 members of Congress to learn how to BALANCE A FUCKING BUDGET!

8-)

There is at least one that does. In fact he returns what's left of his allowed office budget to the Treasury each year.

unsung

All of you are missing the point, NO PERSON should be paying federal income taxes.

whygohome

mikepegg44 wrote:

whygohome wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

no one thought that 47% of the country who don't pay taxes were rich. I don't understand the importance of the breakdown I guess. The fact is 47% don't pay income taxes. Their breakdown doesn't matter. They are brought up when people talk about how half the country supports raising taxes on those richer than they are. I don't know too many people that think they should pay more...

Can someone explain why it isn't okay to talk about the 47%?

The point is that these people--the 47%--aren't the lowlife, stoner on the couch, tax-evading losers that the Right wants them to be or paints them to be. The 47% who "don't pay taxes" either pay in the form of payroll and sales tax OR don't have any god damn money.
Over the past 3 decades, middle class and lower class wages are stagnant; the rich have never had it better. And, many in the top tax brackets are making their money in positions that do not offer nay type of service to society or they are making it on the backs of the middle-class and the working class. Remember 2007-2009? Remember mortgage-back securities? remember credit default swaps?

That still doesn't explain why it isn't okay to talk about them.

I have never portrayed them as low-life, tax evading losers, nor do I get that out of most people when it is cited. It is put there by others who then portray them as the downtrodden refuse that this cruel society fucked over. I usually see the 47% talked about in response to polls that say the majority of Americans want taxes raised on the wealthy.

The rest of what you are saying doesn't apply to the argument.

I wasn't arguing with you, I was simply building upon what you stated.
I think it isn't okay to talk about them, because a truthful discussion of the 47% would present American with a clear picture of the inequality in this country. It also isn't okay to talk about the 47% because certain the mainstream media and the U.S. government want to use this figure to refute the call for a more for tax system. The current system has its clear beneficiaries, and the last thing they want is the truth to lead reform.

whygohome

unsung wrote:

All of you are missing the point, NO PERSON should be paying federal income taxes.

Then how would we fund our imperialistic ("God" approved) destiny?!?!?!
Answer me that!!

gimmesometruth27

no federal income tax??

i suppose road funds and infrastructure and disaster relief and medicare and social security money would just grow on trees, or even better, we can just pull it out of our collective backsides...

mikepegg44

whygohome wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

whygohome wrote:

The point is that these people--the 47%--aren't the lowlife, stoner on the couch, tax-evading losers that the Right wants them to be or paints them to be. The 47% who "don't pay taxes" either pay in the form of payroll and sales tax OR don't have any god damn money.
Over the past 3 decades, middle class and lower class wages are stagnant; the rich have never had it better. And, many in the top tax brackets are making their money in positions that do not offer nay type of service to society or they are making it on the backs of the middle-class and the working class. Remember 2007-2009? Remember mortgage-back securities? remember credit default swaps?

That still doesn't explain why it isn't okay to talk about them.

I have never portrayed them as low-life, tax evading losers, nor do I get that out of most people when it is cited. It is put there by others who then portray them as the downtrodden refuse that this cruel society fucked over. I usually see the 47% talked about in response to polls that say the majority of Americans want taxes raised on the wealthy.

The rest of what you are saying doesn't apply to the argument.

I wasn't arguing with you, I was simply building upon what you stated.
I think it isn't okay to talk about them, because a truthful discussion of the 47% would present American with a clear picture of the inequality in this country. It also isn't okay to talk about the 47% because certain the mainstream media and the U.S. government want to use this figure to refute the call for a more for tax system. The current system has its clear beneficiaries, and the last thing they want is the truth to lead reform.

fair enough, I think this system does have clear beneficiaries...which is why I want people, all people to not pay a one dime more to the government...the government has and always will pick winners. Solyndra(spelling?) is a prime example. I am not even getting into the crony capitalism aspect, but they took 500 million dollars and put it into a business that by all accounts would fail. They tried to pick a winner, and supported the company further when it was shown to be a loser. That is the stuff I hate. Businesses should be left alone to rise and fall...the government takes our tax payer dollars and gives them to businesses, friends, and foreign entities in order to pick winners or promote their own selfish agendas...why anyone wants to give them more is beyond me.

And you and Go Beavers may be right, some may point to the 47% and think they are lowlifes or whatever, it is probably the same neocons I generally ignore All I know is, half the country not paying taxes and then talking about others paying their fair share seems strange to me. Could the top 1% afford to pay more, absolutely, but why would you want anyone to pay more into this system?

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

no federal income tax??

we can just pull it out of our collective backsides...

seems a lot like what they do now

no matter what they take in they always seem to spend more, don't think a situation where we do not pay income taxes would be any different..

unsung

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

no federal income tax??

i suppose road funds and infrastructure and disaster relief and medicare and social security money would just grow on trees, or even better, we can just pull it out of our collective backsides...

State income tax, the states should fix the roads.

Go Beavers

unsung wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

no federal income tax??

i suppose road funds and infrastructure and disaster relief and medicare and social security money would just grow on trees, or even better, we can just pull it out of our collective backsides...

State income tax, the states should fix the roads.

And the states that can't afford it can just suck it? They're called INTERstate highways. The country as a whole needs goods to flow 3000 miles efficiently for the economy to function.

I understand sticking to beliefs, but sometimes Ron Paul supporters seem to want to do it despite the obvious negatives that would happen if the policy is carried out.

Cosmo

unsung wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

no federal income tax??

i suppose road funds and infrastructure and disaster relief and medicare and social security money would just grow on trees, or even better, we can just pull it out of our collective backsides...

State income tax, the states should fix the roads.

...
Doesn't the Federal Government take care of the Interstate system? What happens if Arizona decides to let I-10 go to pot? That's okay? And what about the Federal Aviation Administration? I think there should be one administration covering my cross country flight, instead of the 12 individual states, differing administrations controlling the air space. What about the Army? Or should all states have militias? Why not let the south seceed?
You know, we are a Union. Which means that the Federal Taxes I pay, goes to FEMA... that helps people in Iowa after a flood. I don't mind... because I consider Iowans as my countrymen.

VINNY GOOMBA

Go Beavers wrote:

unsung wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

no federal income tax??

i suppose road funds and infrastructure and disaster relief and medicare and social security money would just grow on trees, or even better, we can just pull it out of our collective backsides...

State income tax, the states should fix the roads.

And the states that can't afford it can just suck it? They're called INTERstate highways. The country as a whole needs goods to flow 3000 miles efficiently for the economy to function.

I understand sticking to beliefs, but sometimes Ron Paul supporters seem to want to do it despite the obvious negatives that would happen if the policy is carried out.

I see interstate highways being paid for by the gas tax and tolls, as those are true user fees-- not the income tax. Medicare and Social Security should be opt-in programs, not mandatory, and paid for by the people who want to be a part of these programs. Disaster relief should be paid for out of national defense budgets and should be administered by the National Guard, who should be sitting on their asses most of the time instead of being deployed all around the globe in dozens of countries where our presence is not needed. If this doesn't pay for everything after some seriously needed cuts are made, a flat tax or national sales tax should replace the income tax entirely.

Johnny Abruzzo

unsung wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

no federal income tax??

i suppose road funds and infrastructure and disaster relief and medicare and social security money would just grow on trees, or even better, we can just pull it out of our collective backsides...

State income tax, the states should fix the roads.

Why are states any better at fixing roads that the fed? State governments tend to be lousy as well. Maybe states should've just built their own highways that don't connect with those from other states. (kind of how I-95 works between PA & NJ, actually )

Some say the Confederacy was partially done in by its own stance on states rights. Just thought I'd mention it.

know1

47% of the population not paying income taxes is just too high. I don't care what their individual situations are and I'm not blaming them for not paying. The system is screwed up when so many can get away with not paying any income tax. Furthermore, it's unbelievable that people want the higher end of the scale to pay even more when almost half aren't paying ANY.

Cosmo

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I see interstate highways being paid for by the gas tax and tolls, as those are true user fees-- not the income tax. Medicare and Social Security should be opt-in programs, not mandatory, and paid for by the people who want to be a part of these programs. Disaster relief should be paid for out of national defense budgets and should be administered by the National Guard, who should be sitting on their asses most of the time instead of being deployed all around the globe in dozens of countries where our presence is not needed. If this doesn't pay for everything after some seriously needed cuts are made, a flat tax or national sales tax should replace the income tax entirely.

...
Great points, Vinny.
I'm for a flat tax... no deductions for home mortgages, medical expenses, business expenses, farm subsidies, etc... flat rate on what you earn.
I'm for Gasoline Taxes and Toll Roads to pay for roads... all roads. If part of an Interstate in Montana needs repair, funds from all of the Interstate gasoline taxes and tolls should pay for it, not just the good people of Montana.
We would still need a coordinated National Defense command. And we should focus out military on Defense... not Imperialism.
The thing with the Medicare/Social Security... where the individual needs to be held responsible. If a person opts out of National Healthcare and retirement supplement... then, gets cancer... should that be it, Game Over? I mean, they could use the money they didn't spend in Premiums to pay for treatment. But, really... are we ready to let our own people suffer and die... and still call ourselves a Society?

whygohome

know1 wrote:

47% of the population not paying income taxes is just too high. I don't care what their individual situations are and I'm not blaming them for not paying. The system is screwed up when so many can get away with not paying any income tax. Furthermore, it's unbelievable that people want the higher end of the scale to pay even more when almost half aren't paying ANY.

The 47% don't make any money! How is that not clear?

Cosmo

know1 wrote:

Furthermore, it's unbelievable that people want the higher end of the scale to pay even more when almost half aren't paying ANY.

...
You know... some of the people in the 47% who don't pay taxes ARE in the higher end of the scale. They can write off business expenses, file as corporations and afford off-shore tax shelters that you and I cannot afford. Some of the multi-billionaires pay less that the family of 4 getting by on $20,000.00 a year.
But, I guess... as Jesus says, "Fuck the poor... all Hail the Rich for they createth thy jobs!!!"

mikepegg44

Cosmo wrote:

know1 wrote:

Furthermore, it's unbelievable that people want the higher end of the scale to pay even more when almost half aren't paying ANY.

...
You know... some of the people in the 47% who don't pay taxes ARE in the higher end of the scale. They can write off business expenses, file as corporations and afford off-shore tax shelters that you and I cannot afford. Some of the multi-billionaires pay less that the family of 4 getting by on $20,000.00 a year.
But, I guess... as Jesus says, "Fuck the poor... all Hail the Rich for they createth thy jobs!!!"

not being a smart ass, but do you have any examples of multi-billionaires paying less than a family of four?

Your example, true or not, is just another reason that the tax code needs to be simplified and changed. Another reason why the feds should get no more money from anyone until they get their house in order

Monster Rain

That's simply not true. Do you know what kind of math magic it would take to get a 7-figure income down to a taxable income of under $20,000 (which is what it would take for that person to pay less than a family of 4 making $20,000)? Since there are hard dollar limits on what you can deduct from investments, 401K, etc. the person in the top 1% would need to be the most generous person in history and donate an incredible amount of his/her income for the year to charities. In fact, I would bet that a family of 4 (2 parents, 2 kids) probably gets a 100% refund on any income tax withheld and may even be eligible for credits that result in the refund exceeding the withholdings. It's not possible for someone making 7-figures to pay no federal income tax. The ones who try wind up in prison (see Snipes, Wesley).

I wonder what tax rate people calling for higher taxes on the wealthy would consider the wealthy's "fair share" and what they consider their own "fair share." I also wonder how increased taxes would lead to more jobs or better income for "the 99%."

Cosmo wrote:

know1 wrote:

Furthermore, it's unbelievable that people want the higher end of the scale to pay even more when almost half aren't paying ANY.

...
You know... some of the people in the 47% who don't pay taxes ARE in the higher end of the scale. They can write off business expenses, file as corporations and afford off-shore tax shelters that you and I cannot afford. Some of the multi-billionaires pay less that the family of 4 getting by on $20,000.00 a year.
But, I guess... as Jesus says, "Fuck the poor... all Hail the Rich for they createth thy jobs!!!"