What do you think the effect of raising taxes on the poor would be?

[HumblePie]

The theory is that the government taxes income over and above the amount needed to survive (ie: food/clothing/shelter). The person with 5 kids needs more food for his family to survive. I honestly can't believe I have to explain this.

No, you don't have to explain it. I understand it perfectly. I think using the TAX CODE is the wrong form of implementation for this. I know the "theory" behind it and think it's wrong. I'm entitled to that opinion. Let me state it again, I do not believe it is the prerogative of the government, through use of the taxation system, to give differential treatment of any sort based on lifestyle choices made by the citizenry. None what so ever. It is all arbitrary in how it is done in the first place. So it is much easier in my opinion to tax everyone equally without deduction of any sort. Then use other programs, if needed, to provide back what may be needed for citizens to survive as you put it.

 

[Joepublic2]

FTFY.

Honestly, the poor consume more services than the rich. The poor pay nothing for said services. From a social standpoint, yes this idea is bad. From an economical standpoint, its a fair idea. Having more people pay their way is only fair. People who use the service should have to pay for said service and not be able to live off other people's money.

More BS as noted before the poor pay tons of taxes, just not in the form of income tax.

 

[PeshakJang]

Yea, those "bribes" are really working.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Voter_Turnout_by_Income,_2008_US_Presidential_Election.png

Did you have a point you were trying to make? If so, don't rely in inference, just make the point.

 

[PeshakJang]

More BS as noted before the poor pay tons of taxes, just not in the form of income tax.

And yet they pay no taxes towards the federal spending that is the topic of conversation.

Does this point seriously need to be made every time the conversation arises?

 

[Joepublic2]

And yet they pay no taxes towards the federal spending that is the topic of conversation.

Does this point seriously need to be made every time the conversation arises?

Yes, because that money is going somewhere and it helps to reduce the states need for federal spending in the first place, thus having the same effect.

 

[Attic]

I like the tax bracket posted with the 0-20k taxed at 1% and progressively moving up from there.
I think any income above a million should hit the 50% level though.

But we are still correcting the wrong issue IMO with those brackets. A majority of poeple need to earn more first, tax code is a problem, but middle class/lower class earnings is as bad if not worse than the tax code.

My solution would be to give an employed individual a $500-$1,000 credit that is reedemable once every 12 month period. To achieve the credit he/she needs to have changed jobs during the prior year. An employeer can keep desirable employees by matching the credit with a suitable raise or other incentive for the employee to consider.

This would incentivise an individual to seek other and likely higher paying employment, and/or seek skills for other employment oppurtunities. This would also incentivise employers to offer employees competitive raises. The goal would be to agitate the workforce in a manner that increases skills, productivty and employee pay. If my plan doesn't achieve it something else should, just don't pay for the idea (liberal) pay for the result (conservative).

The intent would be to provide wealth building oppurtunities to a majority of americans and motivate employee movement to find the best possible and highest paying position, this is a benefit for all. This type of solution is in stark contrast to paying those who underachive, which is what our system does now.

Find a result driven program to incentivise individuals to seek the best oppurtunity for themselves which benefits themseleves, their employer, and the tax coffers. Also don't have federal $$$ pay the employers, pay the damn individual. If you offer the individual a 1k hiring bonus then he will do what is needed to find a job and he will prove himself to the right employer. The 1k bonus given to employers for hiring individuals had it backwards IMO, it put the leverage on the wrong side of the issue.

 

[Anarchist420]

Like I said, the least poisonous centralized tax is a head tax, because it has to be so low that everyone can afford it and because it would reduce government revenues substantially.

Good replies from everyone though Keep them coming.

 

[Naeeldar]

The theory is that the government taxes income over and above the amount needed to survive (ie: food/clothing/shelter). The person with 5 kids needs more food for his family to survive. I honestly can't believe I have to explain this.

Some of us think that people making $40-50k a year should not have 5 kids... I cleared $88k at 27 last year and I think I could possibly support one child and even that would be pushing it.

It sounds harsh and it is only my opinion. This is just a variety of topics I could address but it boggles my mind that people are bringing 3 children or more into this world and only clearing 40-50k a year in the household.

 

[xBiffx]

More BS as noted before the poor pay tons of taxes, just not in the form of income tax.

And what tax do you think we use to pay for a vast majority of services? Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

[pcgeek11]

Yes, because that money is going somewhere and it helps to reduce the states need for federal spending in the first place, thus having the same effect.

What taxes do they pay that everyone else doesn't? Oh that would be none wouldn't it. The end result is they use much more services and pay much less overall taxes. That would in fact make them parasitic.

Here is a real life example of what I am saying. I know a couple with two kids each by a different dad. Both are capable of working, both have had several jobs, but they always find a reason to quit, out of 12 months of 2011 together they worked maybe 3 months. When they filed their taxes they received a 7,500 dollar federal refund and another 1,500 from the state. WTF is that? They get welfare, food stamps, medicaid, rent assistance, utility assistance and a gift of 9,000 dollars. That is the fucking problem. Guess what we found out a week ago she is pregnant again by another man. Then we find that after all that assistance they were behind on their rent 10 months, they have had their water and electricity shut off for months at a time due to nonpayment.

This is what the democrats breed.

 

[Joepublic2]

What taxes do they pay that everyone else doesn't? Oh that would be none wouldn't it. The end result is they use much more services and pay much less overall taxes. That would in fact make them parasitic.

Its not that they pay taxes other people don't; it's that tons of state and local taxes are relatively regressive.

www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf

So as you can see even the poorest still have an effective total taxation rate of 16%, vs. 30% for the richest. Also worth noting is that these numbers are reported income, not actuall income (wealthy people have creative accounting options to hide income that other people don't have access to).

Very wealthy individuals use a disproportionate amount of services as well because their wealth creation engines place a heavy load on infrastructure (power, water, transportation). They also take disproportional advantage of a strong centralized state with a monopoly on violence to protect those wealth generation mechanisms, and they benefit IMMENSELY from having an educated workforce.

Here is a real life example of what I am saying. I know a couple with two kids each by a different dad. Both are capable of working, both have had several jobs, but they always find a reason to quit, out of 12 months of 2011 together they worked maybe 3 months. When they filed their taxes they received a 7,500 dollar federal refund and another 1,500 from the state. WTF is that? They get welfare, food stamps, medicaid, rent assistance, utility assistance and a gift of 9,000 dollars. That is the fucking problem. Guess what we found out a week ago she is pregnant again by another man. Then we find that after all that assistance they were behind on their rent 10 months, they have had their water and electricity shut off for months at a time due to nonpayment.

This is what the democrats breed.

I don't think anybody should have negative income tax like in your example, that's crap I agree. And examples like that do piss me off; I bust my hump to make good money. But we're talking about taxes on working people, not welfare leeches (not that I like them any more than you do) which is a different subject. And the last republican administration has been doing the exact same thing wrt throwing around tax money:

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-02-13/...mic-stimulus-act-stimulus-bill?_s=PM:POLITICS

The package will pay $600 to most individual taxpayers and $1,200 to married taxpayers filing joint returns, so long as they are below income caps of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for couples. There is also a $300 per child tax credit.

 

[Darwin333]

"You cannot squeeze blood from a turnip..."

Raising taxes on the poor is not only a good way to get them to pick up their pitchforks, its bad economic policy. Poor people spend everything they get, thus cycling that money back through the economy. It would put a big damper on economic activity.

Hasn't the left argued that when the .gov spends $1 they get more than $1 in economic impact?

As far as the poor and taxes, I would be happy for a one line bill to be passed:

"Your tax return can not exceed the amount of taxes paid"

It is insane how big of a check a lot of poor people get from Uncle Sam at tax time. Hell, if you included that check (the portion which is above what they paid in) in their income they wouldn't be considered to be in poverty anymore.

 

[pcgeek11]

Its not that they pay taxes other people don't; it's that tons of state and local taxes are relatively regressive.

www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf

So as you can see even the poorest still have an effective total taxation rate of 16%, vs. 30% for the richest. Also worth noting is that these numbers are reported income, not actuall income (wealthy people have creative accounting options to hide income that other people don't have access to).

Very wealthy individuals use a disproportionate amount of services as well because their wealth creation engines place a heavy load on infrastructure (power, water, transportation). They also take disproportional advantage of a strong centralized state with a monopoly on violence to protect those wealth generation mechanisms, and they benefit IMMENSELY from having an educated workforce.



I don't think anybody should have negative income tax like in your example, that's crap I agree. And examples like that do piss me off; I bust my hump to make good money. But we're talking about taxes on working people, not welfare leeches (not that I like them any more than you do) which is a different subject. And the last republican administration has been doing the exact same thing wrt throwing around tax money:

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-02-13/...mic-stimulus-act-stimulus-bill?_s=PM:POLITICS

IMO there are more that fall under the leech program.

 

[piasabird]

We should not pay people for making bad choices. I tried to explain to people how more wealthy people build and buy larger houses and use more than their fair share of the public electric utilities, so they should have to pay more. However, this is not always true. Some nice houses are built more green than older run down houses. We might be better off forcing some older houses with no insulation to be torn down. Newer structures might be more useful and actually save poor people money if they are more energy efficient. In some countries it is the government that is building the apartments. However, at least people have places to live.

 

[SagaLore]

$1 - $20,000 of total income: taxed at 1%
$20,001 - $50,000: 5%
$50,001 - $100,000: 10%
$100,001 - $250,000: 15%
$250,001 - $500,000: 20%
$500,001 - $1,000,000: 25%
$1,000,001 - $2,000,000: 30%
$2,000,001+: 35%

$20,000 x (1 - .01) = $19,800
$20,001 x (1 - .05) = $19,001

$250,000 x (1 - .15) = $212,500
$250,001 x (1 - .20) = $200,001

You're penalizing anybody trying to progress their income.

 

[child of wonder]

$20,000 x (1 - .01) = $19,800
$20,001 x (1 - .05) = $19,001

$250,000 x (1 - .15) = $212,500
$250,001 x (1 - .20) = $200,001

You're penalizing anybody trying to progress their income.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Wow no one pointed out the sillyness of a 30b budget?

Really?

You think the price of civilization is only 30b?

lol

 

[Siddhartha]

"What do you think the effect of raising taxes on the poor would be?"
It will allow the justification of lowering the taxes on the wealthiest. Also it will show who are the groups who benefit from Republican policies.

 

[pcgeek11]

For all the one making points against taxing the lower 49% that don't pay any income tax. Why shouldn't they pay any tax? I have yet to see a good reason. Everybody should pay something, even if it is a dollar. No one should be able to get a refund that is more than they paid into income tax, that is why we have all these social programs.

 

[Genx87]

Is it really required that the federal tax system be perfectly fair though? First and foremost, the purpose of the tax system is to collect money the government needs to operate. Making this as fair as possible seems reasonable, but I honestly don't understand this preoccupation with raising taxes on poor people. It certainly wouldn't raise very much extra money (because the people we're talking about don't HAVE all that much money) and it would put an extra financial burden on people who have a hard enough time as it is.

I made a point a long time ago about this that I think bears repeating. All outrage aside, nobody is staying poor because the tax breaks are so great. And nobody in the world getting by on $30k per year thinks they're getting a better deal than some stockbroker making $500k. Yeah, the latter pays a higher percentage in taxes, while the former might even be net negative on taxes. Still, I'd rather have 70% of $500k than 110% of $30k.

I dont think somebody who is making 30K\year is capable of making 500K. But I do think they are capable of making 40K a year. The question becomes for them in this scenario is it worth it to work more for 10K and forgo some or all of the rebates? There was a thread about this about a year ago that showed the poor arent as stupid or lazy as we think. They are just working within the system that is created. They dont have an incentive to work harder or longer. If they are making 40K a year and recieve 6000 from the govt with an effective income of 46,000. Why would they go get a harder job that pays 50,000? They probably lose some of that 6,000 rebate and for the effort make a few dollars more.

The article in the thread last year outlined a scenario where the working poor wasnt working full time and recieved rebates. If they worked full time they could make another 6000 a year but lost the rebates and they would only net 4K a year more for a sizeable increase in hours worked. I think the article showed under this scenario they would be working for 2 dollars an hour. It just didnt make sense from a financial point of view.

 

[momeNt]

Wow no one pointed out the sillyness of a 30b budget?

Really?

You think the price of civilization is only 30b?

lol

Are we just rabid animals without a large government? Civilization requires a system of governance that consumes 20-50% of its citizens production?

Interesting view.

 

[child of wonder]

I dont think somebody who is making 30K\year is capable of making 500K.

I wouldn't say that. 10 years ago I was making less than $20k when my first child was born. Went back to school and now I'm over six figures since graduating with an Associate's degree 6 years ago.

My cousin is a staunch Republican/fiscal conservative who believes the government shouldn't offer ANY form of welfare or assistance to anyone. I disagree. Thanks to the WIA program I got assistance to go back to school and now pay FAR more taxes than I did before.

The government should provide assistance to help people better themselves but, as many have pointed out, it should not simply "oh you got 4 babies and work part time? Here's an extra $9,000 every April. Enjoy!"

 

[Ninjahedge]

OP: Taxing the poor is just stupid. Plain outright stupidity.

Taxing the bottom 50% at 100% would (arbitrarily) only raise cash equivalent to a few percentage points of the top 1%.

Things should not be "given out" for free, but we also have to realize that doing things like denying immunization and medical care (at least on the basic level) just makes for a very large disease base and eventual loss in productivity of our base level workforce. As harsh as it sounds, a good farmer does not let his stock get sick.

As for our tax laws, we do need to strip them back down to basics. But we also need to look at any programs that have worked to increase productivity and efficiency. As mentioned, encouraging education makes for people who get better jobs, earn more, and can be taxed more. But our whole system is still screwed up in many ways.

People have been mentioning deductions for children, but as you earn more, these deductions actually become liabilities (as our accountant told us). Also, things such as ROTH 401K accounts are rendered useless when you earn too much as you are no longer allowed to contribute. As if $5K/yr is something that would pose too much of an unfair advantage once you earn more than $x/yr? Bah!

And marriage! Since when does the woman earn 60% of the guy? Why are married tax brackets and other standards lagging 30-40 years beyond reality? Single, level "Y" is $100K, but Married level "Y" is $160K?

WTF?

And then you have Capital Gains tax. While there is a risk in investment, a study needs to be made to see what that risk actually is to balance the risk against encouragement for private investment.

Balance the risk with a deduction, say 10%, on earnings and you get 0% on some casual day trader that made $10K in one year, but 25% (as opposed to 15%) on The Man that made $4B.

But in our quest to simplify the tax code, the first that usually gets hit are the programs that need it the most. Charitable deductions removed? Well guess what happens at the Church, or other organizations. Habitat for Humanity? A program that works MUCH better than Welfare (free) housing bites the dust.

The code needs to be reduced, but taking a tax code that is as tall as a man to a single internet post/thread is inviting disaster. What we talk about here is a base to start with. Hopefully enough of you know that a simple solution only works with a simple problem.

 

[dank69]

What taxes do they pay that everyone else doesn't? Oh that would be none wouldn't it. The end result is they use much more services and pay much less overall taxes. That would in fact make them parasitic.

...

That's the general idea for any civilized society. The strong susidize the weak to improve society around them. It's better to do this then let them to starve, leaving them to robbing and even murdering for money to feed their kids.

You can label it parasitic, it is a valid label, but also a pessmistic and uncivilized one. One that shows not only an uncaring attitude for society around you but also an outright disdain for the poor.

In the end, eliminating these types of handouts will not have any significant impact on your taxes. So why bother railing against the poor? Why not direct your energy into pushing ideas that can make an actual impact?

 

[Nemesis 1]

Bigger welfare checks and food stamps for all. Its not really right to give taxes to a select group of people. If 1 person gets food stamps all should get food stamps including the top 1%. This is America after all were all americans are afforded the same rights as all other groups.