Suppose the income tax law was changed so that each and every person paid a minimum of $1 income tax. Then that 47% would drop to 0%. But there would be no impact at all on the fiscal budget. It would probably end up losing money due to added paperwork and payment processing.
So, the 47% isn't the problem (it also forgets that those 47% pay substantial payroll taxes as this 47% number excludes those payroll taxes even though payroll taxes are equal to income tax in average size). The problem is over-spending and under-taxing.
When you say Payroll taxes, I PRESUME you mean FICA based taxes such as Social Security and Medicaid - correct? Regardless, they don't contribute to the problem which is the federal deficit.
OP is stupid - especially for posting here no doubt - but do you honestly think the 47% issue isn't an issue? Keep in mind, that is not only 47% that do not contribute any income taxes - but the bottom majority are actually a net negative amount, meaning they receive more back from the government. This 47% number is only growing as we lean further and further on the upper middle class and the dwindling middle class.
Does that sound sustainable to you?
When you say Payroll taxes, I PRESUME you mean FICA based taxes such as Social Security and Medicaid - correct? Regardless, they don't contribute to the problem which is the federal deficit.
OP is stupid - especially for posting here no doubt - but do you honestly think the 47% issue isn't an issue? Keep in mind, that is not only 47% that do not contribute any income taxes - but the bottom majority are actually a net negative amount, meaning they receive more back from the government. This 47% number is only growing as we lean further and further on the upper middle class and the dwindling middle class.
Does that sound sustainable to you?
Not really expecting anything to change . . but subsidies and tax credits need to be substantially reduced! Federal spending is estimated to top $4 Trillion in fiscal 2017! The 47% need to contribute to reduce deficit estimates.
More sustainable than trying to get blood from stones. What are you going to do to poor people who can't or won't pay more income tax?
Close, payroll taxes are social security and mediCARE (not mediCAID).When you say Payroll taxes, I PRESUME you mean FICA based taxes such as Social Security and Medicaid - correct? Regardless, they don't contribute to the problem which is the federal deficit.
OP is stupid - especially for posting here no doubt - but do you honestly think the 47% issue isn't an issue? Keep in mind, that is not only 47% that do not contribute any income taxes - but the bottom majority are actually a net negative amount, meaning they receive more back from the government. This 47% number is only growing as we lean further and further on the upper middle class and the dwindling middle class.
Does that sound sustainable to you?
Does name calling and insulting add anything to this conversation?OP...
When you say Payroll taxes, I PRESUME you mean FICA based taxes such as Social Security and Medicaid - correct? Regardless, they don't contribute to the problem which is the federal deficit.
OP is stupid - especially for posting here no doubt - but do you honestly think the 47% issue isn't an issue? Keep in mind, that is not only 47% that do not contribute any income taxes - but the bottom majority are actually a net negative amount, meaning they receive more back from the government. This 47% number is only growing as we lean further and further on the upper middle class and the dwindling middle class.
Does that sound sustainable to you?
The maximum Earned Income Tax credit is $6,318 if you have (A) three children, (B) a job, and (C) earn $14040 per year. Would you accept cutting that in half under one condition? Suppose that condition is that SEP IRA contribution deductions are cut in half. SEP IRA contributions lower taxes by up to $21,384 per person if you are wealthy enough to qualify.Not really expecting anything to change . . but subsidies and tax credits need to be substantially reduced! Federal spending is estimated to top $4 Trillion in fiscal 2017! The 47% need to contribute to reduce deficit estimates.
Close, payroll taxes are social security and mediCARE (not mediCAID).
I just showed with a simple thought experiment that dropping the 47% number to 0% would have a negligible effect on the true problem of debts and deficits. Thus solving the 47% issue doesn't necessarily help.
Another way of doing that thought experiment would to be fully merge income tax, social security tax, and medicare all into one form and call them all income tax (heck for the self-employed it is already combined). Everyone would pay the exact same amount, the 47% number would plunge, and yet the bigger problem isn't solved. The deficit and debt would still be bad.
We need to fix over-spending and under-taxing. Doing that will lower the 47% number. That number is a symptom, not a cause. You are correct that our current path is not sustainable. But fixing symptoms doesn't make it sustainable.
When you say Payroll taxes, I PRESUME you mean FICA based taxes such as Social Security and Medicaid - correct? Regardless, they don't contribute to the problem which is the federal deficit.
OP is stupid - especially for posting here no doubt - but do you honestly think the 47% issue isn't an issue? Keep in mind, that is not only 47% that do not contribute any income taxes - but the bottom majority are actually a net negative amount, meaning they receive more back from the government. This 47% number is only growing as we lean further and further on the upper middle class and the dwindling middle class.
Does that sound sustainable to you?
Yes, Medicare, I know the difference and just mixed the two.
you didn't experiment that dropping the 47% to 0% would have negligible effects - because you forgot to factor in the concept that the majority of the 47% are net negatives. In order to pay $1 in taxes, you must first give up the amount that you benefited from our tax system. Nice try though.
Social security and medicare go to defined pools. They don't affect the deficit in any way, shape, or form. So no, you can't factor those in just like you can't factor in State income taxes or state sales tax.
Does name calling and insulting add anything to this conversation?
Dirty secret for you: social security and medicare funds are indistinguishable from general fund money in a practical sense.
Also I have no idea why you think we can't factor in state income taxes, sales taxes, or anything else. If you actually do what you suggest and bring the poor up to some positive amount of federal taxes contributed that likely means they would be paying a GREATER share of their income in taxes than the middle class and rich. Does that sound like a good idea?
Lets do the same. Separate defense tax, agriculture tax, science tax, etc into separate defined pools. Then we don't have to factor anything into the budget! Good job, s0me0nesmind1, problem solved. Or, you can realize that they are not actually in separate defined pools and you can't just ignore the problems away.Yes, Medicare, I know the difference and just mixed the two.
you didn't experiment that dropping the 47% to 0% would have negligible effects - because you forgot to factor in the concept that the majority of the 47% are net negatives. In order to pay $1 in taxes, you must first give up the amount that you benefited from our tax system. Nice try though.
Social security and medicare go to defined pools. They don't affect the deficit in any way, shape, or form. So no, you can't factor those in just like you can't factor in State income taxes or state sales tax.
When you say Payroll taxes, I PRESUME you mean FICA based taxes such as Social Security and Medicaid - correct? Regardless, they don't contribute to the problem which is the federal deficit.
OP is stupid - especially for posting here no doubt - but do you honestly think the 47% issue isn't an issue? Keep in mind, that is not only 47% that do not contribute any income taxes - but the bottom majority are actually a net negative amount, meaning they receive more back from the government. This 47% number is only growing as we lean further and further on the upper middle class and the dwindling middle class.
Does that sound sustainable to you?
Of the net-negative, I do not now. Of the individual programs, that data is usually public. For example with SNAP (food stamps) it is (https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/Characteristics2013.pdf):but what do we do with the 7.9% losers?
What % of those are white?
but what do we do with the 7.9% losers?
What % of those are white?