I think Hillary just got a lot easier to beat...

[The Tourist]

Juan, I'm sorry, but fully 50% of this country (yes, Americans) pay no tax.

Yes, you have to file. Yes, some is withheld. However if you do not make the minimum amount required to be taxed, your money is returned.

With deducts for children, business losses, your home, etc., you might be above that amount and still pay no tax.

Personally, I believe I was 27 years of age before I made enough money to not receive a full refund.

Contrary to popular belief, the upper 1% of wage earners provide most of the real wealth this country actually runs on.

If I remember correctly, about 18% of my yearly income can be subject to taxation. If I were in the upper echelon of tax payers, almost 40% of my wages would be subject to those same taxes.

And you wonder why the wealthy pay so much for tax advisers.

Anyone with a 'soak the rich' mentality has no idea how this country actually works--and who pays for it.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Yes, you have to file. Yes, some is withheld. However if you do not make the minimum amount required to be taxed, your money is returned.

I've done my taxes. For years. I'm well aware of all of this.

Juan, I'm sorry, but fully 50% of this country (yes, Americans) pay no tax.

Counting households, or individuals? Including retirees? Just curious how you're getting to this number. Also, if you could provide some kind of support for this assertion, I'd have an easier time swallowing it..."because The Tourist said it" isn't exactly compelling. I mean, you have to be getting this number from somewhere, right?

Because both the link I gave, as well as both the ones divemedic provided (one of which I re-linked), seem to suggest that positive effective federal income tax rates start in the second quintile, and that by the time one hits the third quintile you can expect to have a positive rate (though it will be pretty low).

Personally, I believe I was 27 years of age before I made enough money to not receive a full refund.

Rounding a bit (this doesn't need to be anywhere near exact to prove the point), only about 14% of the US is between 20 and 29 (18 to 27 should be roughly the same). Assuming the workforce runs from age 20 to age 60 (give or take), you're looking at like 25% of the "workforce" (with 55% of the US being between 20 and 60). (source)

Workforce being in quotes because obviously not all people between 20 and 60 are employed or actively seeking work; and I'm not just talking about the unemployed, but also members of single-income households who don't work. Then again, I'm not sure whether households whose members are over 27 are more or less likely to be single-income...because if they're more likely, that would skew the percentage of the workforce under 27 up a bit...though probably still not enough to matter.

Besides which, it's anecdotal anyway. I found myself with a positive federal income tax rate before I was 27. Whose anecdotal evidence wins? Especially since the tax brackets have presumable changed since you were 27, no? Of course, none of this matters because I'm sure you have something to back up your assertion.

Contrary to popular belief, the upper 1% of wage earners provide most of the real wealth this country actually runs on.

This is contrary to popular belief? I thought it was quite common to realize that the top 1% of wage earners make most of the money, hold most of the wealth, and pay most of the taxes. You say this like it's a revelation. Maybe most Americans don't know this (I doubt it), but I certainly did. Even assuming I didn't know this before this thread, do you think I could have gotten neck-deep in these numbers (regarding income quintiles and what not) to show that you're wrong (rather than simply relying on common sense, which agrees) and not picked up on it before now?


So yeah, if you're going to keep making this assertion then I'm going to want to know who you're including (for instance, retirees) and regardless of who you're including I'm going to want to see actual sources. Otherwise just admit you were wrong and drop it.

To summarize: source, please.

 

[The Tourist]

To summarize: source, please.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html

And this is only one of the many breakdowns I've seen.

The issue here is really 'wealth.' And that's the problem I repeatedly faced as a credit manager for distressed companies. You could be grinding paper, and simply be doing nothing.

For example, I once worked for a company that measured a salesman's value by an equation of numbers. This 'number' was everything, and the sales staff was constantly checking their 'performance.'

I was always looking at the ineligibles list. You can imagine the dirty look I got a meeting when I stated that the best salesman wasn't actually selling our commodity, he was giving it away. Shoving it off the dock into a truck for no real remuneration isn't selling anything.

And so it is with taxes. If a 'tax' is considered 'paid,' it must be a transfer of wealth--real wealth. In other words, I might be in the 40% income bracket, but pay only 3% of that actual number.

And, as I have stated, 50% of America do not pay taxes. Oh, they rifle through paperwork, they suffer through withholding and audits, filing, deductions, etc. However, at the day's end, they submit no wealth to the government.

In fact, I have not seen the actual figures for my own situation yet. While it might not encompass a full year, I am receiving Social Security.

The actual fact here is that I will certainly reclaim all of the wealth that I transfered to the government. This is why people are concerned about "social security not being there for them when they need it."

Even if some wealth is paid by those 50% of the population, simply by completing their lives, it will be returned.

If I am an average American citizen, I will most likely receive more wealth in return than I have ever paid.

 

[JuanCarlos]

So we've moved the goalposts?

Your original post:

The problem with that idea (although I like it in principle) is that most Americans do not pay taxes. And I'm not referring to people who get a refund.

Most Americans are so far under the minimum amount for filing that they pay nothing.

But now it's:

Even if some wealth is paid by those 50% of the population, simply by completing their lives, it will be returned.

Understandable, considering your own post once again seems to contradict the former...

Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

...while obviously supporting the latter. If the bottom 50% actually includes people at a positive income tax rate, it seems unreasonable to assert that "most" people don't meet the minimum for filing (and thus pay no income tax). So just admit you were wrong to be begin with and be done with it. Another fallacy vanquished (no, this is not the first time I've heard it).

 

[snaptafar]

I'm sure this will be a "discount the messenger" moment but those should read and consider the complete article before commenting. This plan seems more than reasonable to me and keeps govt from completely taking over another aspect of our lives.

complete article here: http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010620

A market-based system can give us freedom, innovation and health security.

Government can help poorer and older Americans get quality health care without sacrificing what everyone wants--the ability to choose their own doctor and health coverage that meets their family's particular needs. What reforms will do that?

• Level the tax playing field.
• Tax-free savings for health costs.
• Portability.
• Arming consumers through more competition.
• Pool risk, lower costs.
• Greater transparency.
• Stop junk lawsuits.
• Build on the progress already made by putting patients in charge and letting competition work.

 

[JuanCarlos]

• Level the tax playing field.
• Tax-free savings for health costs.
• Portability.
• Arming consumers through more competition.
• Pool risk, lower costs.
• Greater transparency.
• Stop junk lawsuits.
• Build on the progress already made by putting patients in charge and letting competition work.

The three bolded ones I'm particularly fond of (read the linked article for more detail). But really the whole thing sounded like a good start to me.

Also I think the idea of finding a way to encourage actual healthier lifestyles (thus lowering medical expenses overall) isn't a horrible idea either. For instance, my wife actually receives a small semi-yearly bonus for (to simplify a bit) maintaining a certain BMI or showing progress towards reaching that BMI.

 

[snaptafar]

I'd like to add one item to the list above.

Quit giving it away.

Too many get health care at no cost which drives up the cost of the paying customers. And those who get it for free tend to abuse the system and visit doctors when they probably won't have if they had to pay for it.

And before someone goes in to a rant about those who can’t afford it, for way too many (not all) this is simply an issue of priorities. To many, the priority for a new car, a big screen TV, the latest gadgets, fancy clothes, beer/cigarettes, partying, etc comes before health care. It’s easy to have that attitude when you know the govt will pick up the tab on the health care.

 

[FirstFreedom]

Predictably, as a candidate for federal office as member of EITHER major party, she is wanting to meddle in business that the federal government has no business meddling in. Insurance is regulated by the STATES under the constitution and the 10th amendment. She's quite disingenuous when she likens this to mandatory car insurance, which is mandated at different levels by the 50 STATES, according to the norms and values of the residents of that state. Once again, she wants to take power from the states to aggrandize the power of the federal govt, and her own, unconstitutionally.

 

[The Tourist]

So we've moved the goalposts?

I didn't mean to.

My underlying statement still stands. For all of the complaining the average person does, very few pay taxes.

Along with this surprising revelation, even if you have shifted some level of wealth to the government, you will receive all of it (and more) back over your lifetime.

Further, there's more than a semantic juggling act in play for the phrases "a 15% percent tax" and the phrase "15% taxable." In other words, 15% of your wages might be scrutinized for possible taxation, but with deductions and demographics, you might not pay the entire amount.

If someone was to get onto their white horse and sound the alarm it should be over property taxes. It's an arbitrary tax, based largely on the sliding scale of what the government thinks your home is worth, and the ever changing budetary demands of the local schools.

In other words, "pay this because I need it."

I have no agenda here. For most of my life I've paid very little, if anything, on taxes. I'm now getting it all back in spades.

In very real terms, true wealth begins to be shifted as you begin to make more than $200,000 dollars.

 

[rich642z]

I Think Hillary just got a lot easier to beat...

Speaking of getting health insurance,I cant get any because,I am disabled by type 1 diabetes,heart failure,kidney failure,[I did have a transplant this year though]. I am on this medicare and medicaid crap. It works,But for how long. I would like to go back to work,But,Doc says NO MORE WORKING PERIOD!!!!!!! Social Security Disability isnt enough to cover bills and so forth,I keep on getting overdraft statements each month. Rich642z,Omaha,Ne.

 

[The Tourist]

Rich642z, I am very sorry for your predicament, and I will pray for your condition. I hope that you are not in pain.

And while this sounds callous at face value, you cannot pass laws or govern a country by singular anecdotal responses.

For you personally, I would keep searching for programs. For example, there is a woman I know at the gym who suffers from asthma. She used the same inhalor and nebulizer I do. When her job changed, her benefits changed and now she can barely afford the same level of coverage.

I got on the computer one night to search out drug companies that offer products to people in her circumstance. Many companies do.

For example, several years ago, I was sick and could not work. While my wife and I are covered by her insurance, the co-pays for some meds were breaking us in the short haul.

I openly discussed this problem with my psychiatrist, and we found a solution.

Now, I no longer need that service, and it's a short term fix, I grant you. But solutions exist. Benefits are out there. There are even programs that assist with paying your utilities, like gas and electricity.

These are the real reasons that such programs exist. You have legitimate needs. I urge you to seek out people and programs that help.

I wish you good luck and hope for the future.

 

[TargetTerror]

My wonderful state of Massachusetts has just enacted essentially this scheme If you don't have health insurance, the FINE you!!?? If I'm too poor to have health insurance, how does fining me make the situation any better?

 

[MosinM38]

2 Things that would help lessen the "Non-insurance holders" problem.,

#1. Refuse Illegal ALiens. That is don't treat them or hold every red cent they get and then deport them.

#2. No offence... But unless the person is a extremely poor person they could afford health insurance.. I mean I know some people cant.... But if they can't it shouldn't be the governments problem.

I admit... Health Insurance is expensive. BUT... I know some people that make good incomes and still dont have it. Possibly have a "Minimum income" needed before the Government helps out? Because I do know some people who just really can't afford it and are deent people.

 

[Manedwolf]

My wonderful state of Massachusetts has just enacted essentially this scheme If you don't have health insurance, the FINE you!!?? If I'm too poor to have health insurance, how does fining me make the situation any better?

Well, you're in a state that won't allow women to carry pepper spray without a special license that takes a while to approve, as if rapists care about licenses...and Boston ones have to go into the Roxbury freefire zone (think Watts) to pick it up. You expected logic?

 

[Fremmer]

Target, if you are too poor to afford it, doesn't the State help you out with the cost?

 

[jephthai]

And before someone goes in to a rant about those who can’t afford it, for way too many (not all) this is simply an issue of priorities. To many, the priority for a new car, a big screen TV, the latest gadgets, fancy clothes, beer/cigarettes, partying, etc comes before health care. It’s easy to have that attitude when you know the govt will pick up the tab on the health care.

Ain't it the truth? For churches with limited funds for supporting physical needs in a community, things have gotten tougher. Seems to me that giving goes down whenever taxes go up (guess it's people tithing on net instead of gross ).

Anyway, a lot of churches (and other local charity organizations) are very careful to make sure that charitable supplements go to the right place. Just like you say -- big screen TV? Cable? Cellphone? Then someone else will get our needy fund money.

I remember helping a girlfriend figure out options for health care when she lost her parents' coverage (age limit) one time... "Reasonable" health care premiums probably come out to about a cell phone, cable and financed furniture.

I guess the moral concern to me is that others are held financially responsible for someone's financial mistakes.

-Jephthai-

 

[swman]

I'd say Hillary made a big mistake that could cost her votes. How is one to afford health insurance when their out of a job? I guess they'd have to apply to the Government for temporary health insurance, get a certificate saying they are now covered, go get a job, then drop the Government coverage and pick up the employers' health plan, if he has one? If her health plan gets too convoluted, like her previous one, it could make Obama's look good.

 

[FirstFreedom]

Remember back when she was 1st lady and Billy gave her authority to present her socialized health care plan? The doctors figured out they they were going to be taken over by the new system and forced to work long hours for little pay, and they lobbied and advertised until they hazed her into submission and the whole idea was a complete flop. I don't think the docs are just suddenly gonna lay over again. Although I may be wrong; maybe this different way of presenting it; making insurance mandatory; will not harm the docs financially like truly socialized healthcare would, and so this time they may like the idea. I dunno; I'll have to study up on this issue.

 

[apr1775]

Just picture Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul being the candidates in the general election. It would be a career lawer who wants to micro-manage everyones healthcare versus a career medical doctor who advocates free markets.

 

[The Tourist]

insurance mandatory; will not harm the docs financially like truly socialized healthcare

Mandatory insurance is socialized medicine, it's just a sneaky way to attain it.

If insurance covers everyone then a doctor is required to treat everyone. Anyone who walks through the door.

On face value, that sounds fair. But in my business I turn down clients. I do so for many reasons. I can even turn down clients for my own misguided reasons.

Let's say a catholic doctor does not want to treat women who use birth control or the ARF-U486 pills. Will he be required under these new parameters to treat them?

Medical service is like any other commodity. Buy what you need. If you cannot afford it, either apply for programs as a singular incident, or get a better job.

That's what my wife and I did, using both scenarios.