A lot of working Americans receive refunds that exceed what they paid in due to refundable credits. In my practice, I have seen literally thousands of tax returns. You'd be surprised how many people pay nothing.
Do those people pay sales tax? Property tax? My point is that all Americans are taxpayers, I don't believe that tax credits invalidate that point. To be fair, were it up to me, I would eliminate the ability to receive more than one paid at the same time that I changed capital gains and dividend tax rates. If we are all to pitch in and eliminate the deficit, we should all feel some of the pain.
There is no federal sales tax. There is no federal property tax. (Yet) These are both state and/or municipality taxes. They are irrelevant when discussing what the National Govt does or doesn't do and whether people are "paying their share" to fix the Federal Deficit (much less the Federal Debt).
No, they aren't irrelevant at all. A previous poster opined that only people who pay federal income taxes should be allowed to vote. Given that every single person in America (even illegal immigrants) pay taxes, it seems to me that such an opinion is just plain stupid. Added to the fact that every single person who works a steady job pays payroll taxes, which are federal, this opinion is beyond stupid, absolutely asinine, and would appear to be the result of listening to too many pundits. As I stated before, I would be fully in favor of rescinding refunds that exceed the amount of actual federal income tax withheld at the same time as I made capital gains and dividends subject to the exact same tax rates that working people pay. All of us should share the pain as we fix the problems created by Reagan and Bush.
I understand your point, but then why not simply speak of payroll taxes. Why bring up sales and property taxes which have nothing to do with the federal govt? And since we are discussing it, I would also like to submit that it is my belief that 95% of americans are unaware of the "hidden" impact of payroll taxes (not income tax) on their salaries. Perhaps if they did, they would be less apt to continually vote for politicians who keep finding new ways to tax and spend. Don't forget Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Clinton and most importantly Obama.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>How could we have gotten it so, so wrong? <a href="http://t.co/Ilq3L9Matw" title="http://twitter.com/keder/status/481262072596942848/photo/1">pic.twitter.com/Ilq3L9Matw</a></p>— Kevin Eder (@keder) <a href="https://twitter.com/keder/status/481262072596942848" data-datetime="2014-06-24T02:26:34+00:00">June 24, 2014</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The poster opined that only people who pay taxes should be able to vote. I brought up all of the taxes that poster ignored when making the asinine observation that people who don't pay federal income tax should be disenfranchised. Those are taxes that every single person in America pays, so by the "pay taxes=right to vote" opinion, even illegal immigrants should have a voice. You mean Republicans? They don't "tax and spend," they borrow and spend, which is worse. Don't forget that Johnson, Nixon, and Carter hardly raised the debt at all. Clinton balanced the budget at the end of his term, and Obama has presided over the smallest increase in federal spending in modern history. Or maybe you didn't know any of that because you trust "news" sources that are lying to you.
In that particular election, the best choice was Johnson/Grey, but Obama was far and away a better candidate than Romney.
What I find funny about claims that taxes are so restrictive to individual wealth is the fact that it's all just supposition. There is no example or system that shows low taxes (and less services) would produce a better life for anyone. We exist in this tax structure and any changes would be relative. Things like not wanting to pay for studying on how to preserve the bee population that might look like a frivolous expense could produce higher food prices that make the investment more than worth it. In a world where the government just protected the borders and delivered the mail, everything everyday might have to be paid for, with a profit component and unforeseen complications. Libertarians are utopian dreamers.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. If you truly believe this, you have been listening to too many pundits.
What good has he done? Obamacare? AKA, we're going to force you to buy one of the same ****ty policies you could have bought before the law, except now we're going to force you to pick one or tax you if you don't. Gee, thanks. There is a very long lists of gaffes, one of the worst POTUS ever.
What bad has he done? started any wars of choice? crashed any markets? denied any groups rights or voting rights? vetoed any positive legislation? We are currently in a pretty good place just managing the everyday world catastrophes. Call me when something really out of the ordinary happens because I've lived through Viet Nam, the market crash of '87, stagflation, the Cuban Missile crisis, the Cold War, Bush v. Gore, Watergate, Lewinski/Vince Foster, the Dotcom crash, 9/11, The Civil Rights Movement, ther assasination of JFK, RFK and MLK ... these are the salad days
The opposite is true as well. Tax rate is not very correlated with growth. I think whether it 0% or 100% it probably doesn't matter.
Yet millions more people now have health coverage. Don't wingnuts ever get sick of being wrong about everything? The percentage of U.S. adults lacking insurance coverage in the first two months of the second quarter of 2014 is down from 17.1% in the fourth quarter of 2013 and from the 15.6% average in the first quarter of 2014. The current 13.4% average for the second quarter of 2014 is the lowest level recorded since Gallup began tracking this measure in 2008. http://www.gallup.com/poll/170882/un...ds-steady.aspx
When Obama took office, we were losing 750,000 jobs per month. The stock market had taken one of the biggest hits in history, and unemployment was worse than it had been since the 1970s. In addition, we have made great strides with regards to the rights of homosexuals, have stopped the practice of torture, accelerated compensation for people affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and reversed the stupid Bush anti-stem cell policy. And that is just a VERY abbreviated list... http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ma...mas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php?page=all You're welcome. These days, the insurance industry can't discriminate against you for preexisting conditions, can't cap lifetime coverage, and have to pay out at least 80% of premiums to cover healthcare or rebate the underpayments to the consumers. Bullsh!t. While I agree that there have been plenty of mistakes, as there are with any administration, claiming that Obama is "one of the worst" is ignoring history (or listening to pundits, I think I can tell which you suffer from). I don't believe that Obama is good enough to be in the top third of presidents nor bad enough to be in the bottom third. However, that is merely based on history, facts, and evidence. I realize that in your mind, these things pale in comparison the the opinions of talking heads, but that is your failing, not mine.
