Hillary Clinton's short-term capital tax plan.

[Aimless]

Hey guys I've been meaning to ask, how much do you have to earn to have to pay federal income tax?

[Lewkowski]

Hey guys I've been meaning to ask, how much do you have to earn to have to pay federal income tax?

Depends if you are married, have kids, eligible for hundreds of other tax credits and breaks. Standard deduction (income not taxed) for someone single is only $6200 but you've got people who make $30K not paying any income taxes.

[Aimless]

But they do pay state payroll taxes at least, right? And they don't get free gas and the like, right? And they have to occasionally feed and clothe their kids I hope? I mean, they are properly shaken down every month, right?

[LittleFuzzy]

More and less aren't ambiguous terms.

Not particularly no. But they do rely on context for their meaning and you flatly ignored that context in favor of a meaningless objection which demonstrated you were refusing to heed the conventions of the English language. In other words, you were acting like GGT.

Its a polite fiction to think that the rich aren't paying taxes when in fact the federal government is very much funded by the rich. The top 10% of income earners paid for more than half the income taxes.

Except the top 10% includes more than just the rich. The distribution of wealth and income is just that lopsided in the US.

You can skew it with smoke screens and "tax rates" and other crap but the bottom line is the poor in this country don't support the government. They are net moochers. So when someone says "the middle class pays more" I call bull shit because even if they pay a higher tax rate they DO NOT PAY MORE.

It's true that the poor very little in income tax (though it's worth noting that federal income tax is just a portion of the total tax burden and the poor pay substantially more in other types of taxation than they do for the federal income tax). But the middle class does pay more, both in aggregate terms and in proportional terms. Or are you now trying to conflate the middle class and the poor?

[LittleFuzzy]

But they do pay state payroll taxes at least, right? And they don't get free gas and the like, right? And they have to occasionally feed and clothe their kids I hope? I mean, they are properly shaken down every month, right?

Yeah, their total tax burden is still typically somewhere between 15-20%, even though they rarely pay a noticeable amount in federal income tax.

[Lewkowski]

But they do pay state payroll taxes at least, right? And they don't get free gas and the like, right? And they have to occasionally feed and clothe their kids I hope? I mean, they are properly shaken down every month, right?

They pay payroll taxes however that tax is less of a tax and more of a loan. They get it paid back in terms of SS/Medicare benefits.

And we are talking about tax burden why are you bringing up non-government purchases? Though I do find it ironic that you jump to kids right away - if you can't support yourself why should you be having kids?

[Being]

... - if you can't support yourself why should you be having kids?

Having kids is not always a forethought. And now you want to sterilize the poor. You are amazing.

[Aimless]

They pay payroll taxes however that tax is less of a tax and more of a loan. They get it paid back in terms of SS/Medicare benefits.

And we are talking about tax burden why are you bringing up non-government purchases? Though I do find it ironic that you jump to kids right away - if you can't support yourself why should you be having kids?

Here I thought middle-class kids were good for your nation but maybe I was wrong and you'd like to become Italy or something

[Lewkowski]

Having kids is not always a forethought. And now you want to sterilize the poor. You are amazing.

It would be voluntary if they want government handouts...

IE no one would be forced to be sterilized.

[Lewkowski]

Here I thought middle-class kids were good for your nation but maybe I was wrong and you'd like to become Italy or something

Middle class can typically support kids. Even without governmental assistance.

[Aimless]

Middle class can typically support kids. Even without governmental assistance.

Sure they can, and I'm sure it's hella fun to do so, but the point is that maybe the govt and your nation has something to gain from making sure parents can spend money on their children.

[Lewkowski]

Sure they can, and I'm sure it's hella fun to do so, but the point is that maybe the govt and your nation has something to gain from making sure parents can spend money on their children.

I wonder if anyone's done a study about kids raised by the lowest rung of the economic ladder and kids raised by those adopted to them. I wonder which group has better outcomes. Just saying.

[Aimless]

I wonder if anyone's done a study about kids raised by the lowest rung of the economic ladder and kids raised by those adopted to them. I wonder which group has better outcomes. Just saying.

Just saying what? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, nor can I figure out why you switch back and forth between "poor", "middle class", "lowest rung" etc. What are you even talking about man?

[Being]

It would be voluntary if they want government handouts...

IE no one would be forced to be sterilized.

So you want to starve them into "voluntary" sterilization. I guess the ones who refuse just die then. Great. Whatever happened to loaves and fishes?

[Lewkowski]

So you want to starve them into "voluntary" sterilization. I guess the ones who refuse just die then. Great. Whatever happened to loaves and fishes?

I'm not suggesting we outlaw private charities. Or family. Or friends. Or the church. Government isn't the only place people can turn to. If your family is struggling though don't you owe it to your existing children and your future kids to right your financial ship before you make a bad situation worse?

[Lewkowski]

Just saying what? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, nor can I figure out why you switch back and forth between "poor", "middle class", "lowest rung" etc. What are you even talking about man?

Some are talking about middle class, some are talking about poor. I'm replying to both in separate posts.

[Aimless]

I'm pretty sure I asked two questions

[Being]

I'm not suggesting we outlaw private charities. Or family. Or friends. Or the church. Government isn't the only place people can turn to. If your family is struggling though don't you owe it to your existing children and your future kids to right your financial ship before you make a bad situation worse?

Now you get to use real numbers. How much money is available from charities compared to government? Churches...if they had that much money they would be the government. How many poor people have families and friends able to support them? You just want poor people to not be poor even if it means their death.

[GGT]

The poor don't pay as much in taxes because they can't afford to...but they still pay their "fair share" in taxes. It's built into their costs of public transportation and sales taxes and school costs that are non-neogotiable.

What no one's talking about is the relationship between consumption and public taxation, and how to build a civil society that's based on equal access to opportunities in every state.....without using a Wall Street monetized version that pits groups against each other. For profit.

[Lewkowski]

Now you get to use real numbers. How much money is available from charities compared to government? Churches...if they had that much money they would be the government. How many poor people have families and friends able to support them? You just want poor people to not be poor even if it means their death.

$350 Billion dollars in private charity and that is with a huge government run program which many people use as an excuse not to give. "My taxes are already paying to help the poor why should I put in more?"

In addition that 350 billion dollars doesn't count for the private giving that isn't reported. (5 bucks to the guy at the corner, a fast food meal to someone hungry ect). Or the stuff that family gives each other when they fall on hard times. It doesn't count the volunteer hours (which is worth money) at soup kitchens, food pantries, outreach programs ect.

[Aimless]

$350 Billion dollars in private charity and that is with a huge government run program which many people use as an excuse not to give. "My taxes are already paying to help the poor why should I put in more?"

In addition that 350 billion dollars doesn't count for the private giving that isn't reported. (5 bucks to the guy at the corner, a fast food meal to someone hungry ect). Or the stuff that family gives each other when they fall on hard times. It doesn't count the volunteer hours (which is worth money) at soup kitchens, food pantries, outreach programs ect.

And what does that number mean when put into context?

[Veldan Rath]

350 B of charity compared to a total 4 T ain't peanuts.

[Aimless]

Well for starters those 350B given to charity mean that you lose a certain amount in tax revenue.

Now, you might think, "Sweet! The less money our government can mismanage, the better!"

But what's to say the charities are using it more effectively?

You're right, 350B is a lot of money, but obv you need to look not only at the sum but also at where it's going. Over a third of that 350B goes to religious organisations. Granted many of them do a lot of good work, but, even if you were to believe that they are extremely effective and only do necessary and effective charity work, that money may be inappropriately distributed because there is a very large number, they often work at the local level only and they don't all get their money from one large pool. Rather, people donate to the ones they know and care about.

With this approach, you also run risks similar to when you subsidise good things, like paying a lot of money overall but too little to actually make a difference in any particular case. So, instead of having a small number of successes you buy a large number of failures and near-misses. You may also end up buying goods and services that aren't really necessary at a given time and place. Of course, this isn't a big problem if the major reason for giving to charity is to feel good about giving to charity while also reducing your tax liability a little.

I have no doubt the govt. wastes a lot of the money it could otherwise use for important things like social services, helthcare, education etc. but it's wrong to assume that a large number of small unprofessional uncoordinated poorly supervised and heterogenously distributed organisations will do very much better. They each have their problems, even when you disregard things like theft or other forms of fraud.

Lewk mentioned that this 350B number is notable also because he believes people don't donate because they think they pay enough through their taxes. The number however comes from a source that estimates that around 95% of American households give to charity in some fashion. I believe that number may be a bit of an overestimation, but it does challenge the popular conservative notion about taxes making people less generous.

Anyway, maybe you should consider a change of tactics and just try to fund your police forces, schools, healthcare system, etc properly instead of relying on lottery-sales, asset forfeiture, speeding ticket and arrest quotas and uninformed do-gooders.

[Enoch the Red]

Lewk mentioned that this 350B number is notable also because he believes people don't donate because they think they pay enough through their taxes. The number however comes from a source that estimates that around 95% of American households give to charity in some fashion. I believe that number may be a bit of an overestimation, but it does challenge the popular conservative notion about taxes making people less generous.

That logic only holds true if you view the decision to donate money to charity as a binary one. What you seem to be ignoring is that people who have more disposable income might be willing to donate a larger percentage of that income to charity.

[Flixy]

Also keep in mind that Lewk was talking about the poor, and a significant portion of charities are not about that (or have their activities not even in the USA). Charity can be anything from food banks to promoting beliefs*, medical research funds, or animal/environmental organizations. While (generally) laudable, I think it's a bad idea to depend on such organizations or use it as an excuse to abolish forms of social security. Not just out of principle, but charities depend on donations, which depends on popularity, economy, etc. In economic downturns, when there are more poor people who would need assistance, you probably also have fewer donations since people simply have less to spend. Plus the division of money is based on popularity rather than actual needs, and Lewk can see what is problematic about that when he just looks at his own thread about people getting worked up about a single lion. At least government assistence is (supposed to be) consistent and less affected by hypes and PR value of the group they are helping.

* And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think those charities would include the ones pushing for anti-gay legislation in Uganda, and even Westboro church (I think the latter don't get many if any donations, but they are tax exempt which makes them a charity I think?)

[Enoch the Red]

Also keep in mind that Lewk was talking about the poor, and a significant portion of charities are not about that (or have their activities not even in the USA). Charity can be anything from food banks to promoting beliefs*, medical research funds, or animal/environmental organizations. While (generally) laudable, I think it's a bad idea to depend on such organizations or use it as an excuse to abolish forms of social security. Not just out of principle, but charities depend on donations, which depends on popularity, economy, etc. In economic downturns, when there are more poor people who would need assistance, you probably also have fewer donations since people simply have less to spend. Plus the division of money is based on popularity rather than actual needs, and Lewk can see what is problematic about that when he just looks at his own thread about people getting worked up about a single lion. At least government assistence is (supposed to be) consistent and less affected by hypes and PR value of the group they are helping.

* And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think those charities would include the ones pushing for anti-gay legislation in Uganda, and even Westboro church (I think the latter don't get many if any donations, but they are tax exempt which makes them a charity I think?)

Many of those arguments apply to government spending. In economic downturns, almost by definition a government supported by taxation is receiving less revenue. Government spending - at least in the US - is determined by our Congress, the members of which are popularly elected. As you can imagine, the elected leaders who control the purse strings aren't exactly immune from populist pressure. It's the very reason there are periodic outcries about welfare queens, and demand for entitlement reform.

[GGT]

Except the top 10% includes more than just the rich. The distribution of wealth and income is just that lopsided in the US.

And The Great Recession showed just how lopsided. Most of the income recovery and wealth growth went to people with 'investment portfolios' (including 401Ks and public pensions) due to monetary policy. But millions more got burned when their home mortgages went into foreclosure (including prime loans) due to fiscal policy.

Middle class can typically support kids. Even without governmental assistance.

The 'middle class' has been shrinking for decades. It's hardly a surprise --- since wages/salaries have stagnated at 1960's levels of purchasing power, while COL for housing/education/healthcare/infrastructure have risen.

Even if the military is the ONLY legitimate federal agency you'd want to fund...that would still mean "the rich" should pay more in taxes. It's not like their kids are desperate enough to enlist, in order to pay for college, or can't get a cushy position state-side.

Many of those arguments apply to government spending. In economic downturns, almost by definition a government supported by taxation is receiving less revenue. Government spending - at least in the US - is determined by our Congress, the members of which are popularly elected. As you can imagine, the elected leaders who control the purse strings aren't exactly immune from populist pressure. It's the very reason there are periodic outcries about welfare queens, and demand for entitlement reform.

Those are the same reasons Congress has such a horrible reputation. They're not really elected by "populist pressure" so much as they're installed by lobbyists or Super Pacs with tons of money, who control the political process. Or maybe it's a wealthy news network picking the GOP debate field by "popular polls".

[agamemnus]

The less you earn, the higher portion of your income you spend. Someone earning $20k is going to spend $20k (at least). Assuming a 20% sales tax, they're going to spend $4k on that tax (i.e. 20% of their income). Someone earning $1m is going to spend perhaps 30% of their income. Taxes at 20%, they're going to spend $60k on that tax, which is actually 6% of their income.

Even if you put exemptions on the items poor people buy, you're going to end up with millionaires still paying significantly lower taxes than people making middle class wages.

I just can't agree with that line of thinking. Remember also that low taxes or outright payments are a form of subsidy for employers. If they didn't exist, employers (at least in local markets) would not offer such marginal jobs, since it would be financially untenable. (And perhaps they shouldn't, and it is detrimental for society to have them.) Further, consider also how much efficiency you gain by significantly cutting back the IRS and the entire tax consulting industry.

By the way, Huckabee said he was for a flat tax during the debate. Might have to vote for him.

[Loki]

There seems to be a trend of thinking one can disagree with facts. It's a fact that a consumptiom tax and a flat tax benefits the rich at the expense of the middle class. It's basic math.

[Veldan Rath]

I really suggest you research the Fair Tax. A monthly pre-bate on the national sales tax to cover basic needs alleviates that concern.