Income Tax and Reform

VolAgent

Guru
5000 Post Club
15,041
I know it has been said before, but here are some numbers on the issue. If almost half the population doesn't pay income tax, and 40% actually profit from income tax, is it any surprise they support a reform plan that will result in massive tax increases? If you don't feel the pain of taxation, why would you oppose something that will raise taxes for others?

Almost Half of All Households Don't Pay Federal Taxes | Taxes | Money/Investing | Mainstreet

Having people who don't contribute anything, deciding how much the other people who do contribute will pay in, is the cause of most of our current problems,
 
I'm actually torn on this issue as I look into it further. We could indeed tax those 48% who currently don't pay anything (except the indigent) but ok, so the gov't collects more tax dollars. What is the gov't currently doing with our tax dollars? That's another discussion.

I'll theorize that the more cash households have the more they spend. Is this "48%" group socking it away? Not when the national savings rate is running around 1%.

If they were indeed just sticking what they would have paid in taxes in their savings account that would hurt the economy. Instead they buy more sh*t - and buying sh*t is, in the end, what keeps everyone employed.

So yes, we could end tax credits and find ways to tax them however when you squeeze in one area another area has to give. Less money in the household = less spending which hurts both large and small businesses.

Raise your hand if you'd be excited if because the gov't forced this group to pay taxes they called to cancel their life/health policies?

I welcome opposing arguments.
 
Last edited:
John: Good points but here is the counterpoint....only about 3 in 10 people or families (maybe) in this income bracket buy life and health insurance anyway...The other 7 in 10 would rather buy the S@#t than the insurance. Case in point: Was recently working with a family of three in their late 20s...Couldn't even get them to buy a short term health plan for all three for about $150 per month, BUT they just went out and bought a brand new car for the family. They buy the stuff and go without the insurance. Are they insuring their new car, probably - but their life and health, no. I guess that is somebody else's responsibility now (the taxpayer). With this mentality so very pervasive in our society, its sickening. Why didnt they buy a used car and ditch the data plans on their family cell phones and use the money for health insurance (at a minimum)? Answer: Their priorities are screwed up and the rest of the responsible people will pay for their decisions.
 
Agree but which is better for the economy:

A) Tom has $400 a month in disposable income and goes out to eat 3 times a month

B) Tom gives that $400 to the federal government

The government is going to take a portion of Tom's hard-earned $400 and give it to Bill. Bill's on SSD as a heroine addict and needs his daily dose of methadone - plus Bill need a six pack every day and his cigs.

Another cut of Tom's $400 goes to Tina. Tina got pregnant at 16 and dropped out of high school. 3 kids later she needs a lot of help from the gov't. Plus, Tina can't live without her premium movie package from Comcast.
 
TRUE - Let Tom keep his money and spend it the way he wishes, somebody is going to benefit from him blowing it. Maybe not his insurance agent, but somebody else! Al3 wants to force Tom to support Bill.
 
Honestly, I don't know if there is a great solution to the problem. But I do know that politicians should pay attention to exactly who they are listening to. Telling us that America wants this, or America wants that, when it results in new taxes and the only people speaking are those that don't pay taxes is a problem. You should discount the opinion of anyone who doesn't have a stake in the game.

And I would say you are both right, raising taxes on this group means they will buy fewer consumer goods. But HealthGuy is right, about the only life and health these people are buying is employer sponsored.

I do think it is imperative that we stop passing programs that further subsidize the American population. Money that is paid in taxes is money that could have been spent or invested. You can make an economy grow either through savings or spending, we just have choosen the spending route. If we were savers instead, we would be the ones owning all the foreign debt and letting that income create a higher standard of living.
 
I don't want to pay taxes next year. Instead I want to take a wad of cash, go to any Baltimore inner city liquor store and just pay for everyone's t-bird and smokes. Let's cut out the middle man.
 
I don't want to pay taxes next year. Instead I want to take a wad of cash, go to any Baltimore inner city liquor store and just pay for everyone's t-bird and smokes. Let's cut out the middle man.

I'd say that for the most part, your money was just as efficiently spent as it is currently. There are only a few things the government does well, and even that is a subjective opinion.
:twitchy::no:
 
There are very few people who should get any long term gov't assistance. The disabled comes to mind.

Aside from that I'm not actually that cold hearted. If someone needs help, get them help. I'm a fan of free job training, day care, transportation, ect...anything to help someone get on their feet.

But that's temporary. There are people who simply don't want to work. Fine, we can create "barrack-like" structures - like a pseudo jail and keep them in there. No cable, no cell phone, no nothing. Food and clothing and move on.
 
Back
Top