Are you part of the 53% ???

[Guest Lester Weevils]

No one has stated that the 47% pay no taxes, but they pay zero federal income tax. That's not debatable. Yet they use the services provided by those tax dollars, often at a greater percentage than those who actually pay for those services.

You can dance around the statistics all day, but you can't change the fact that nearly half of this country pays ZERO federal income tax.

Hi Crimsonaudio

Perhaps it depends on the purpose of quoting the numbers to begin with? You also can't dance around the fact that top earners pay very little of that 40 percent social security revenue. Both facts seem equally "relevant" to our budget situation. Rich and Upper-Middles pay most of one tax and Upper-Middles down to Poor pay most of the other tax, and both taxes generate about the same revenue. The Upper-Middles are "lucky" enough to get hit about equally by both taxes.

So one might infer a class warfare agenda when one fact is quoted daily by some commentators while the other fact is entirely ignored by those same commentators. Alternately, perhaps the commentators are actually so ignorant that they are only aware of one of the facts?

The problem is the progressive tax system, in the first place - punishing the successful instead of rewarding them for their efforts.

I don't disagree. The tax system needs flattening. Back to the topic of various folks "unreasonable expectations" I don't see a politically feasible way to flatten it by cutting anybody's tax. If you see a way to do that I'm curious of the details.

That is what I meant about the "one-way ratchet" effect of prior tax cuts. Some po folks and middle class people may have not noticed the tax going down, but they sure as heck will notice the tax going back up, which will be very hazardous to politician's job security. Any revenue-neutral tax reform that raises po folks tax will unavoidably cut somebody else's tax, and there would be hell to pay if politicians actually had the nerve to do that.

The only politically palatable way I can see to flatten the tax is raise everybody's tax. That would be incredibly unpopular, but at least it would be "possibly survivable" by whoever is in power. For instance, it didn't kill off Clinton.

Another dishonest sneaky way to flatten the tax is to keep the Social Security income cap and raise the SS tax rate. That would make po folks pay more tax in a slightly-less-noticeable way. Self employed po folks would notice it the most. That is what Reagan did and it seems he mostly got away with it, but it was rather painfully obvious to me the next year after I added my slightly-diminshed income tax bill to my greatly-increased self-employment social security tax bill.

Raising it thataway, however, would not cure the bitterness of people in the 53% who are mad that they are paying ALMOST ALL of LESS THAN HALF. After an SS tax hike they would still be paying ALMOST ALL of LESS THAN HALF regardless of the extra billions collected from po folks.

It's not the government's place to take from me to prop up someone else - that's certainly not charity (see my sigfile).

I don't disagree but there are so many angles-- If we had a flat tax but we still have state university systems-- People like many here including myself who worked their way thru school, paid the tuition but the tuition doesn't come near to paying for the university. So people who pay their own way are subsidized by people who are not able to go to college or who do not want to go to college. With a flat tax, the ditch digger who can't go to college is subsidizing the feller who is smart enough to go.

Lots of stuff would have to change to purge all the "propping up" out of our system.

[Will Carry]

I am a blue collar worker and have worked hard all my life. I sent my kids to college and have saved money for retirement. I drive old pick up trucks and live a very frugal lifestyle. I voted for McCain and I will vote Republican next election.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Will Carry

[DMark]

I Am One Of The 53%.

Every April 15 they take 28% of what is mine and give it to the 47%.

Edited November 15, 2011 by DMark
My Tax Rate went up. :-(

[JG55]

I Am One Of The 53%.

Every April 15 they take 25% of what is mine and give it to the 47%.

[Guest TankerHC]

I receive Gov. benefits and Im still in the 53%. Age 10-Paper Route. Age 15-17 worked at Jack-in-the-Box while going to High School. Age 18, joined the Army as a Tanker, spent the next 23 years busting my b_lls as a Tanker. While serving at Fort Hood, opened my first Computer Business. Ran it when I was there, employees ran it when I wasnt. Sold it. Retired from the Army and went to work as a Broadband Engineer for Comcast, moved up to Technical Operations Manager and left when OIF broke out to become a Coalition Forces Instructor in Kuwait and Iraq. Came back, went to work as General Manager for a company named Copart. Fully retired at age 48. Yea, I get Gov benefits, Military Retirement (Taxable) and Combat Related Special Compensation. I've worked my whole life, hard. Im retired but still pay taxes on 50% of my income every year because of the amount I take in from all sources. Yes, I am one of the 53%

[gregintenn]

I started working for a neighbor pollenating tobacco when I was 8 years old, and have never been unemployed since. My wife of 16 years and myself started with virtually nothing, and have worked hard to accumulate pretty much everything we wanted. We have no special gifts, nor did we receive any kind of government assistance to get to where we wanted to be. I cannot understand why other people are unable to do the same.

[USMCJG]

I cannot understand why other people are unable to do the same.

Because it takes effort.

I wish I could be one of the 47%, I must admit that the idea of getting something for nothing is appealing, but being brought up to have dignity, pride, and a good work ethic prevents me from being able to do so.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Because it takes effort.

I wish I could be one of the 47%, I must admit that the idea of getting something for nothing is appealing, but being brought up to have dignity, pride, and a good work ethic prevents me from being able to do so.

So nobody who makes below $50,000 per year, has dignity, pride, or a good work ethic? The only requirement to be in the 53 percent is to make at least $50,000 per year (and not cheat on the taxes you owe). The only requirement to be in the 47 percent is to make less than about $50,000 per year.

And they accuse democrats of class warfare!

[Oh Shoot]

So nobody who makes below $50,000 per year, has dignity, pride, or a good work ethic? The only requirement to be in the 53 percent is to make at least $50,000 per year (and not cheat on the taxes you owe). The only requirement to be in the 47 percent is to make less than about $50,000 per year.

And they accuse democrats of class warfare!

I must be missing your point. I pay income tax on significantly less than 50K/year.

- OS

[USMCJG]

I must be missing your point. I pay income tax on significantly less than 50K/year.

- OS

Right you are. Edited October 20, 2011 by USMCJG

[USMCJG]

So nobody who makes below $50,000 per year, has dignity, pride, or a good work ethic? The only requirement to be in the 53 percent is to make at least $50,000 per year (and not cheat on the taxes you owe). The only requirement to be in the 47 percent is to make less than about $50,000 per year.

And they accuse democrats of class warfare!

I don't know where you are getting your information, but it is very seriously flawed.

[mav]

So nobody who makes below $50,000 per year, has dignity, pride, or a good work ethic? The only requirement to be in the 53 percent is to make at least $50,000 per year (and not cheat on the taxes you owe). The only requirement to be in the 47 percent is to make less than about $50,000 per year.

And they accuse democrats of class warfare!

While USMCJG can speak for himself, I don't think he was inferring that those within the 47% do not have dignity, pride, or a good work ethic. I would say that many within that 47% are quite the opposite. They way I would understand it is there are those within the 47% who protest to the government to take even more from those that currently make up the 53%. They need to pay their fair share (whatever that is). I find this appalling.

At what percentage of those paying federal income tax versus those who do not does the John Galt moment come when people say, "F*** it. It just isn't worth it."?

[strickj]

I must be missing your point. I pay income tax on significantly less than 50K/year.

- OS

The "99%" isn't about being lazy or not paying taxes. It's about the super wealthy, CEOs and Wall St, etc. (the 1%) receiving raises, bonuses and bailouts while laying off workers in the process.

That said, I have no idea what Lester is referring to with the 50k comment.

As for my early working years, I started working at ~12 putting up wallpaper and borders in my aunt's apartments. It put me to work anytime someone moved or needed an updated look in their apartment. Also shared a cleaning job with Mom at this time.

Got my first "real" job at 16 working full time. At 18, I had a 50+hr a week job followed shortly by a 45+hr a week job with a part time job (4hrs a day for 5-6 days a week) on the side.

Skip ahead to my wreck on '05; I've been unable to find any employment. And it's not from a lack of trying. I have a strong work ethic, ASE certified, and motivated.

these past six years I've just been trying to do my own thing to make money.

So I guess that puts my into both the 53% and the 99%.

I've always worked hard, payed my taxes and been responsible... for sometimes little monies. But it pisses me off that the greedy "big-heads" are firing workers to keep dollars in their over-stuffed pockets.

[USMCJG]

While USMCJG can speak for himself, I don't think he was inferring that those within the 47% do not have dignity, pride, or a good work ethic. I would say that many within that 47% are quite the opposite. They way I would understand it is there are those within the 47% who protest to the government to take even more from those that currently make up the 53%. They need to pay their fair share (whatever that is). I find this appalling.

At what percentage of those paying federal income tax versus those who do not does the John Galt moment come when people say, "F*** it. It just isn't worth it."?

Once it hits 51%, what's the point. And you are right, I wasn't saying that anyone who is in the 47% has no dignity or work ethic. I was in the 47% growing up(single, low income mother, deceased father, living off of my father's social security after the union stole every dime my father had paid in- but that's another story) and briefly as an adult, I worked my way up to the 53% as fast as I could though. But the fact of the matter is that if you pay nothing in federal taxes, you are literally getting something for nothing. If you get right down to it, the top 10% of earners pay roughly 90% of federal taxes, so many of us are getting more out than we are putting in. My comments were directed at the chronic sponges like those in the

who choose to be a drain on society and think they are entitled to something they never earned.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I must be missing your point. I pay income tax on significantly less than 50K/year.

- OS

Hi OS

Well, some claims involve whether one pays more tax than one receives in benefits. But I think this IRS doc is a common reference for the allegation that almost half of the people pay no income tax (though they may pay other taxes).

www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in01etr.xls

Line 55 shows the lowest adjusted gross income floor for the 50th percentile as $33,048 for the last year tabulated, 2008.

Line 199 shows that the top 50 percent of earners paid 97.3 percent of all income taxes.

So in 2008, all people who made less than $33,048, the lower half of taxpayers, only paid a total 2.7 percent of income tax.

Even if a few bucks of income tax seems like a lot to a po feller, it is statistically insignificant in the grand scheme of thangs.

The same chart shows that the top 25 percent of taxpayers (cutoff AGI floor of $67,280) pay 86.34% of the taxes. Therefore the lowest 75% only pay about 13.66% of the income tax.

I quoted the $50,000 number out of memory because some other IRS metrics show median income (50th percentile) to be around $55,000. It may be that both numbers are "about the same thing" taken from different lines of the 1040 tax return forms.

[USMCJG]

The "99%" isn't about being lazy or not paying taxes. It's about the super wealthy, CEOs and Wall St, etc. (the 1%) receiving raises, bonuses and bailouts while laying off workers in the process.

That said, I have no idea what Lester is referring to with the 50k comment.

As for my early working years, I started working at ~12 putting up wallpaper and borders in my aunt's apartments. It put me to work anytime someone moved or needed an updated look in their apartment. Also shared a cleaning job with Mom at this time.

Got my first "real" job at 16 working full time. At 18, I had a 50+hr a week job followed shortly by a 45+hr a week job with a part time job (4hrs a day for 5-6 days a week) on the side.

Skip ahead to my wreck on '05; I've been unable to find any employment. And it's not from a lack of trying. I have a strong work ethic, ASE certified, and motivated.

these past six years I've just been trying to do my own thing to make money.

So I guess that puts my into both the 53% and the 99%.

I've always worked hard, payed my taxes and been responsible... for sometimes little monies. But it pisses me off that the greedy "big-heads" are firing workers to keep dollars in their over-stuffed pockets.

While I agree with most of what you say, the "greedy big heads" are for whom nearly everyone ultimately works. The reality of the world is that if I take money from someone, be it by taxes or other means, they will have to account for that somehow. If I raise taxes on an employer by, for example, $1,000,000/year, that employer is going to have to account for that, largely with layoffs- thereby exacerbating the unemployment and underemployment problems while at the same time actually increasing the need to generate additional tax revenue. So in a bizarre self-perpetuating cycle, raising taxes can actually increase the need to raise taxes.

I don't know anyone, rich or poor, who works to lose money. Of course the alternative to this system is a few benevolent individuals who control all of the money and all of the means to earn money. That system is far less trustworthy, and far easier to manipulate, than the current system- which worked much better before the government became increasingly involved in it.

As far as the people protesting wall street about the bailouts, etc., they are in the wrong place. The "fat cats" took free money that the government gave them. They need to be in DC where the real problems lie. As an aside, I find it confusing and amusing that the OWS people seem to be comprised primarily of anarchists and communists, hand in hand. So basically, people who believe in no government whatsoever have allied themselves who people who believe in total government.

[Oh Shoot]

./...

I quoted the $50,000 number out of memory because some other IRS metrics show median income (50th percentile) to be around $55,000. It may be that both numbers are "about the same thing" taken from different lines of the 1040 tax return forms.

Whatever all that really means.

My taxable income wound up being only 10.1K last year, but paid 1.08K in fed income tax and $300+ in TN income tax, so you sure don't have to be living very high on the hog to be in the 53%.

Which is all the more amazing to me that we even HAVE a 47% who manage to live.

- OS

[strickj]

While I agree with most of what you say, the "greedy big heads" are for whom nearly everyone ultimately works. The reality of the world is that if I take money from someone, be it by taxes or other means, they will have to account for that somehow. If I raise taxes on an employer by, for example, $1,000,000/year, that employer is going to have to account for that, largely with layoffs- thereby exacerbating the unemployment and underemployment problems while at the same time actually increasing the need to generate additional tax revenue. So in a bizarre self-perpetuating cycle, raising taxes can actually increase the need to raise taxes.

I don't know anyone, rich or poor, who works to lose money. Of course the alternative to this system is a few benevolent individuals who control all of the money and all of the means to earn money. That system is far less trustworthy, and far easier to manipulate, than the current system- which worked much better before the government became increasingly involved in it.

As far as the people protesting wall street about the bailouts, etc., they are in the wrong place. The "fat cats" took free money that the government gave them. They need to be in DC where the real problems lie. As an aside, I find it confusing and amusing that the OWS people seem to be comprised primarily of anarchists and communists, hand in hand. So basically, people who believe in no government whatsoever have allied themselves who people who believe in total government.

I'm not talking about taxes here.

In the '60s and '70s, the ratio between "big-heads" and common workers was in the 20s (CEOs made %20 more). That ratio is now near 300%. (Now, before I go further, let me say that I'm not saying that "big-heads" are not deserving of their pay nor am I saying that capitalism doesn't work, etc...)

If this trend continues, we are going to see a much larger problem then we currently have. I'm not part of the class warfare crowd (as I have dreams of being rich ) but this should be pretty easy for everyone to see. Class-warfare crowd or not.

Just wait until those "99%'ers" learn that the Fed Reserve has given out 16 trillion in bailouts to big business, banks and CEOs worldwide while the common workers were being laid off.

We are at a time where unemployment is at a high and people are getting laid off en masse daily. While the "big-heads" continue receiving their fat checks, raises, bonuses and bailouts. I think they could take part of the brute in salary, reduce the imbalance gap and save a lot of jobs in the process. This will not fix our economy, in and of itself, but it will go a long way in helping, as well as 'boost moral' in our economy.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Whatever all that really means.

My taxable income wound up being only 10.1K last year, but paid 1.08K in fed income tax and $300+ in TN income tax, so you sure don't have to be living very high on the hog to be in the 53%.

Which is all the more amazing to me that we even HAVE a 47% who manage to live.

- OS

Hi OS. Yeah tell Romney or Bill O'Reilly or Hannity that you only made 10 K but paid income tax and they will know you are a liar.

Really, that IRS doc I mentioned www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in01etr.xls and some related docs are the source of the 53 percent propaganda, and the source of the "poor pay no taxes" allegations.

Those IRS docs are interesting to study. They have a lot of data but it is arranged in such a way that you usually can't quite find exactly what you really wanted to know.

I have no doubt that the data is reasonably accurate, but suspect that the data doesn't sustain some of the conclusions people make.

[Guest TankerHC]

The majority of the so called poor pay no taxes. If you pay taxes during the year then get it all back in January, you have paid no taxes. With the "EARNED" income credit, those same poor can get back nearly 6 times what they paid in. That money comes out of real taxpayers pockets. Nothing more than another way to redistribute the wealth of the real earners.

[BigK]

Hi OS. Yeah tell Romney or Bill O'Reilly or Hannity that you only made 10 K but paid income tax and they will know you are a liar.

Not sure if you caught the bit were OS said his "taxable" income was around $10K, not his total income.

On a different note, it sucks when anyone gets laid off from their job, but that's life. Afterall, is a corporation supposed to maximize shareholder returns or pay wages to workers it doesn't need? Depending on whether you are a shareholder or an employee, you might have a different opinion of what "fair" is. Laid off employees means times are leaner, gov't is squeezing more tightly, consumers are demanding you compete with Chinese prices, or any number of other things.

Without splitting hairs here, CEOs are NOT the owners of a company. They are hired by the shareholders, who actually own the company. Their job is to increase the company's stock price, so the owners make as much money as possible. These owners are often willing to offer their CEOs insane amounts of money to get this done (including huge bonuses). That's their business, not our business, not the government's business, and certainly not the business of a bunch of whining protesters, who'll never be happy with anything.

Sometimes the CEO has to lay off 1000 workers to make a company profitable. Sometimes he can't do business without every single person he has, so he has to negotiate lower prices for supplies, relocate to a place where it costs less to do business, or raise consumer prices. Regardless of which, he has a contract to fulfill and so does the company. Unless he did something illegal to make the stock prices go up, he earned his bonus.

The bail-out money was a bad idea to begin with, but still, it's just another income stream to the company. It was a loan, not a gift. Loans are debt and debt gets leveraged to make a profit and paid back based on terms. If we don't like how the bail out LOANS were spent, blame the gov't, in fact...throw all the bums out. They shouldn't be loaning out our money any way! Let the businesses that can't succeed fold.