51% of americans don't pay taxes - debunked?

51% americans don't pay taxes debunked?

From this article, which seems very decently presented, I gather there is a very small difference between the actual percentage of income going to taxes across the top 80%. However the top 20-40% have ALL of the ASSETS, and the bottom 60% have all the debt, so even this would be hard to consider fair.

Originally posted by no time



51% americans don't pay taxes debunked?

From this article, which seems very decently presented, I gather there is a very small difference between the actual percentage of income going to taxes across the top 80%. However the top 20-40% have ALL of the ASSETS, and the bottom 60% have all the debt, so even this would be hard to consider fair.

Of course, the 51% statistic refers to income taxes. The bottom 51% of earners do not pay any income taxes. They do pay sales taxes, gasoline taxes, etc.

From your article:

Just to clear this up in case there's any misunderstanding, it's approximately true that 51% of Americans pay no federal income tax. However, conservatives routinely abbreviate this by claiming that 51% of Americans pay no taxes. This is the zombie lie. Conservatives get very upset when you call them on it, but that never makes them stop.

I don't want to be a zombie. :-)

Don't forget, however, that many of those 51% (not sure what the percentage is, because I haven't looked it up and in fact don't know if it is available) benefit from the Earned Income Tax Credit, which means they get money back that they didn't pay in (basically redistributed money from someone who did pay income taxes.)

I wonder how different the graph would look if we took the amount they received for EITC and subtracted the amount of taxes (non-income taxes) that they paid...I'd bet there are many who DO actually pay 0 (net). I wonder what that number is?

This goes to show that the math and statistics (and taxes) are complex and hard to figure out.

Don't you think we are being taxed to death????

Not sure how people having more or less assets relates to fairness.

In reality, I work 60-70 hour weeks usually. Would it be fair to me if someone working half those hours were paid the same, had the same assets, etc.

reply to post by boncho


Of course it would be "fair". It would be determined on what that person did and even if he did exactly the same thing and negotiated a better deal it would be "fair".

"I would like to electrocute everyone who uses the word "fair" in connection with income tax policies."
William F. Buckley, Jr.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl



I definitely think everyone is taxed too much, but that is a need for the government when they deflate the value of the dollar, everything they do costs more. While at the same time, wages are FLAT-LINED in the United States for the bottom half of income earners, while earnings for the top 20% are growing exponentially. I definitely think that if someone is going to be taxed more, it should be the people with incomes that are growing faster than inflation. As that kind of tells you where the system is screwing up. these people who are getting rich today aren't the work real hard 80 hours a week, have a break-through get rich sort. They are the sit in a cubicle buy/sell sort. Stereo-type may not be completely accurate but it is how I feel.

So short answer - yes we all pay too many taxes.

BUT: states need more money, they need the ability to tax for infrastructure and the like. The federal government is making it hard for states to do the things they need to do for their own people. Federal Income tax should be abolished along with the federal reserve, as most things they are doing today are actually the states individual responsibilities. That was the idea of a republic. Small central government, and regional governments that were easily kept in check by the people. You don't like what they are doing in Missouri, you move to Illinois. then all of a sudden Missouri has been checked and balanced. When the feds have all the power, individuals are losing their ability to have any input on the process. $=power. Rather than good ideas = success.

Originally posted by boncho
Not sure how people having more or less assets relates to fairness.

In reality, I work 60-70 hour weeks usually. Would it be fair to me if someone working half those hours were paid the same, had the same assets, etc.

the bottom 50-60% of earners in America have 0 net assets. debt does not equal assets.

Depends, did anything you do contribute to society at all?

And yes, you should make more than the guy working 40 hours a week. But should the guy working 40 hours a week not be able to live on his income?

here you go for your reading

www.usdebtclock.org...

finance.yahoo.com...

www.usatoday.com...

www.cbsnews.com...

money.cnn.com...

blogs.forbes.com...


so looking at the first link at the bottom you will see small business asset and corporate assets and household assets
household assets being $58 trillion dollars beat out small business and corporate

little further to the right you will see assets per citizen at $250,000 now that is the average some more some less hence the term average.


half this country does not pay taxes is well the truth and we are not talking about any other taxes here for the simple fact the governement is spending it cant pay for and all anyone has to do is ask why?

50 million on welfate not creating any wealth
25 million unemployed not creating any welath
60-75 million getting out of paying federal taxes.

up to the reader what they want to beleive in

something very big is wrong in this country that much we will all agree on however the cause are very arguementative

They don't pay taxes because they don't have any money, How can people be so petty and so self interested that they are actually jealous of people who haven't got squat.

I work for a salary I pay 20 something percent in taxes -- the rich that we are talking about make money by moving money -- they are taxed on the profits from that movement called capital gains at the rate of 15% before that happens though their profits are dropped through as many loopholes as possible and as many tax avoidance and deferrals as they can. eroding even that 15%. Just what is fair by about that.

I know this because many of my friends are wealthy and this is what they talk about.

I say it time and time again. We should convert to the Fair Tax. That way everyone pays federal taxes. 23% national sales tax on everything except essentials like food and utilities. There will be no income tax taken out of your check. Can't get no more fair than that. Those that say since the rich make so much more they should pay more. Why? Some pay more in taxes in a year then we will make in our lifetime. They are taxed at almost twice the rate we are. You know how mad I get when I work my @ss off one week hoping to make a good paycheck only to find my take home pay is less then my regular take home? I just worked myself into the bottom end of a higher tax bracket that week. Lets do away with all that and how about people pay taxes as they can afford it.

reply to post by wardk28


Taxing what we BUY not what we earn makes a lot of sense. Buy more, pay more. Taxing earnings is strange and probably unconstitutional. In most cases what the individual earns is not a profit. He or she has traded labor for a wage that is worth much less than what he or she has produced with that labor (otherwise the corporation would fire their #). The corporation that employs the individual has already paid taxes on the profit made, right? Correct me if I'm wrong. This is not really my field.

Thx for the links. these are for you.

Also note in 2004 the bottom 25% of all households had 0 assets. After 2008 it is now expected that the bottom 50-60% of households have no net worth. As all of this net worth came from the real estate market for this income group.




reply to post by neo96

Wealth Inequality and Class In 2004, the wealthiest 25% of US households owned 87% ($43.6 trillion) of the country’s wealth, while the bottom quartile held no net wealth at all.[3] The middle 50% of the country held 13% or $6.5 trillion of the total household net wealth.[3] The previous data are taken from analysis of the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) which over samples wealthy households. This over sampling more accurately represents the true wealth distribution [since most of the wealth is concentrated at the top]. This data shows that the top 25% of American society holds on average a net wealth of $1,556,801 which is 33 times more than those of the lower middle class, or the 25th-50th percentile.[3] In addition to unequal wealth distribution, it can be difficult for individuals in the lower income distributions to gain economic mobility which inhibits their ability to accumulate wealth.[6] In 2006, children in the lowest 20% of the income distribution only had a 17% chance of making it to the upper 40% of the income distribution.[6] In 2004, children in the lowest 20% of the wealth distribution had only a 7% chance to make it to the top wealth distribution.[6] In other words, wealthy parents tend to produce wealthy children, and poor parents tend to produce poor children. The Panel Study of Income Dynamics shows how stratification is becoming worse and worse since 1984. The lowest percentile has become worse, and the highest percentile has become wealthier. The fifth percentile has dropped further into negative net worth, while the 90th percentile has gained over four hundred points within the last twenty one years.[7] However, compared to most countries, upward wealth mobility in the U.S. remains quite high. For instance, the U.S. Income Mobility Study conducted by the Treasury Department found the following - The Treasury study examined a huge sample of 96,700 income tax returns from 1996 and 2005 for Americans over the age of 25. The study tracks what happened to these tax filers over this 10-year period. One of the notable, and reassuring, findings is that nearly 58% of filers who were in the poorest income group in 1996 had moved into a higher income category by 2005. Nearly 25% jumped into the middle or upper-middle income groups, and 5.3% made it all the way to the highest quintile. Of those in the second lowest income quintile, nearly 50% moved into the middle quintile or higher, and only 17% moved down. This is a stunning show of upward mobility, meaning that more than half of all lower-income Americans in 1996 had moved up the income scale in only 10 years. The income of those in the top 1% fell by 25.8%, on average, and the top 10% by 2.8%. [8]

WIKI....yeah I know.


Also, to make a point. Averages are propaganda, as they include the super rich. Please read thoroughly this link and pay really close attention to the HUGE difference between MEDIAN and MEAN numbers. The MEDIAN numbers give you a very clear indication of what percentage of Americans are in these different areas, whereas the averages falsly lead everyone to believe we are making more money and have more buying power than ever before. Which is true, for the top 20%. People proficient at clicking buy/sell are making a fortune.

LINKY

Star and Flag don't need to read posts
'The only two things guaranteed in life are death and taxes'
I think some good old boys from history have stressed this fact,
and it has been deleted from history.
We all have heard all week that Obama wants more
Taxes and has guaranteed
The Death of America if we do not pay more Taxes.
You guys can look it up I think it was Ben Franky
that dared lighting to kill him,
as it was the only means of getting out paying taxes.

reply to post by no time


all i can say is that first link that $58 trillion in household assets that means people and there is noway people can accumulate that amount of wealth unless the system favored them.

reply to post by neo96


Yeah its a big number, even bigger when you consider that it only represents those who have net assets, which would be only the top 40% of income earners. Looks like there is plenty of wealth to make sure that people are paid properly for their work so that their incomes can keep up with inflation?

Averages = propaganda. Comparing Median to Average is the only way to get a real sense of the current inequality in America.

If the top 10% of people are bringing home 300 million a year, that makes the "average" income for everyone look pretty good?

If you have 1000 apples and I have 10 the average amount of apples we both have is 505. Is 505 a good representation of either one of us? No. And this is why average = propaganda.

reply to post by neo96

something very big is wrong in this country that much we will all agree on however the cause are very arguementative

Actually I was hoping we could all agree that the problem is the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Fiat currency and the fact that the US dollar has lost 96% of its value thanks to the Feds "Printing press"

Remember 97% of the USA money supply is now in the form of bank loans so the bankers are creaming a minimum of 5% off the GNP of this country. The federal government takes as taxes between 16% and 20% of the GNP and the state and local governments another 16% to 20%

On top of that 1% of the population now controls over 90% of the wealth. (It use to be 20% controlled 80% - the Pareto Principle)

In the United States today, the richest one percent of all Americans have a greater net worth than the bottom 90 percent combined.....

Between the ultra wealthy and taxes that does not leave very much wealth for the rest of us.



This is the nitty gritty of how we are SCAMMED:

New money does not appear magically in equal percentages in all people's bank accounts or under their mattresses. Money spreads unevenly, and this process has varying effects on individuals, depending on whether they receive early or late access to the new money.

This was one of Mises's original contributions to monetary theory, one that is ignored by all other schools of economic analysis.... Mises argued that the losses of the late-coming losers are the source of income for the early arrival winners....
...This indicates a fundamental aspect of Mises's monetary theory that is rarely mentioned: the expansion or contraction of money is a zero-sum game.... The economic benefits obtained by the early users of new money, even gold, are made at the expense of those who gain access to it after it has altered the array of prices.... www.lewrockwell.com...

if you have any doubts at all about the CRIMINAL INTENT of those who conspired on Jekyll Island to put a fiat money system in place in the USA. Here are the words of Nelson W. Aldrich, the organizer behind the Federal Reserve Act just before it was passed:

Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none is so effectual as that which deludes them with paper money. It is the most perfect expedient ever invented for fertilizing the rich man’s fields by the sweat of the poor man’s brow. Ordinary tyranny, oppression, excessive taxation, these bear lightly on the happiness of the community compared with fraudulent currencies and the robberies committed by depreciated paper. [inflation cv] Our own history has recorded enough, and more than enough, of the demoralizing tendency, the injustice and intolerable oppression on the virtuous and well disposed, of a degraded paper currency, authorized by law, or in any way countenanced by Government. ~Nelson W. Aldrich, United States Senator, at a New York City dinner speech on October 15, 1913 IV Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science #1, at 38 (Columbia University, New York (1914)). [He was quoting Andrew Jackson. cv] www.linuxtoday.com...

reply to post by no time


Could you also show us a graph of
Civilians killed in Foreign Countries
with American tax dollars during the same period?

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
reply to post by no time

 

Could you also show us a graph of
Civilians killed in Foreign Countries
with American tax dollars during the same period?

Wow, I wish someone would do that research. I am sure it would be a very disgusting portrait of our current foreign policy.


EDIT:
Neo. thank you for your replies. I appreciate your views.

reply to post by crimvelvet

Actually I was hoping we could all agree that the problem is the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Fiat currency and the fact that the US dollar has lost 96% of its value thanks to the Feds "Printing press"

i hate the federal reserve and that 1913 dollar has the purchasing power of over $20 of todays dollars and that entity controls the entire financial system of this country and even banking and wall street.

while most people hate wall street and banks they are nothing compared to the sheer corruption of the fed they set the rates for credit and loans it has too much power and the fed should have never been allowed to even be created.

right now while most ameircans think they have alot and some think they dont have enough the potential is nothing of what it use to be and can be.

On top of that 1% of the population now controls over 90% of the wealth. (It use to be 20% controlled 80% - the Pareto Principle)

part of is the last part of that equation another part is people suck with money and make bad decisions alot do some dont and far too many people are just happy getting that government check.

back in the day i could have thrown a 100k in a money market and made 6% a month off it and things were cheaper back then could have live descent.

cant do that now and thats because of government and the federal reserve.

t

reply to post by crimvelvet


Thanks Crimvelvet. I also believe that the federal reserve should be scrapped for regional banking systems regulated by states. So if one state screws up we can all move to another while they fix their screw up. This is why localized, regional economies will always trump Large central governments and global economies. Large scale problems regionalized makes sense to me. Not to say that i won't change my mind, but it just seems that localized economies have a pretty good track record.

GOOD BOOK

51% of Americans don't pay taxes - debunked?

That is correct.

29% of wage earners paying 97% of the income taxes.

I get the feeling you were hoping to debunk it in the other direction. If you include sales tax or hidden taxes then everyone of course pays tax.

This applies ONLY to overt federal tax on earnings:
50% of WAGE EARNERS pay less than 3% of the taxes. The Employment-Population Ratio was 58.2% in Jun 2011.

You are looking at 29% of wage earners paying 97% of the income taxes.


The Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate was 64.1% in Jun 2011

The labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons. ( includes those 16 years and over who work) The labor force participation rate is the labor force as a percent of the civilian non-institutional population. [Not in prison etc.]


Not in the labor force: Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching.

This was 83,941,000 in 2010. In 2010 1,173,000 listed Discouragement over job prospects up from 778,000 in 2009.

The Employment-Population Ratio was 58.2% in Jun 2011

Information from Bureau of Labor Statistics and Tax Policy Center (Democrats)