Should We Take Care of the Poor?

That claim is false and absurd. The fact that it is repeated so often, and is repeated even after having been proved false multiple times, indicates that those who repeat it are trying to misinform.

 

The last numbers I have from IRS and Tax Foundation for 2012 show the top 1% of earners paying 38% of the income taxes, the top 5% paying 59%, and the bottom 50% paying 3%.

 

Correct the top 1% only pay about 44% of federal incomes taxes and tbe bottom 50% pay virtually no income taxes As has been proven over and over.

 

Absolutely not. This is America, I'm all right jack, screw the rest, especially if they are brown skinned

 

38 v's 50? Not too far off. I love my rich father "I love paying taxes, it means I made even more this year"

 

Murica!

 

No it doesn't. It shows the top 1% of RECIPIENTS. Most of what they receive is not earned -- at least, not by them.
So you are not even talking about the real top 1%, the top 1% in wealth. You are talking about the top 1% of income recipients, many of whom are quite ordinary working people who just happen to have a high income one year because they scored a big commission, or a sold a small business or piece of real estate for a capital gain.

So you are trying to change the subject from the rich to those who happen to have a high income one year.

Strike One.

I.e., much closer to 1/3 than 1/2.

Strike Two.

So not "the taxes," but only the FEDERAL INCOME taxes, which are DESIGNED to be paid mostly by the top income recipients, not the wealthy.

So your claim was false that it was the top 1%, false that they pay close to 50%, and false that they pay that much of "the taxes," and not just federal income tax, which is less than half of all taxes.

That's Strike Three, slugger. You're out.

Maybe because they are the victims of the system, not its beneficiaries...?

 

Of INCOME RECIPIENTS, not of the wealthy.

Of FEDERAL INCOME taxes -- i.e., the one tax that is DESIGNED to be paid by those with high incomes, and not by those who don't.

Because INCOME tax is a tax specifically on INCOME and they don't HAVE much INCOME.

See how that works?

So, if you have a tax on alcohol, the top 1% of alcohol drinkers pay more than the teetotallers.

See how that works?

And the gas tax is mostly paid by the folks who buy a lot of gas.

See how that works?

And the property tax is mostly paid by the top 1% of property owners, because THEY OWN MOST OF THE PROPERTY.

See how that works?

What has been proved over and over again is that the claim that "the rich pay most of the taxes" is classic disinformation.

 

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” -- Benjamin Franklin

I fully agree with the philosophical view of poverty by Mr. Franklin..

 

Well DUH we tax income at the federal level not wealth.

Yes what we are talking about.

No it's designed for everyone earning an income as it is the MAJOR way the citizens pay to fund the government but due to politics and vote buying the lower income groups have voted themselves into paying very little if any income tax and in fact the bottom 25% MAKE money off the tax system

So the fact remains the top 1% pays about 44% the top 25% pay almost 90% and the bottom 50% paying virtually nothing. And yet the leftwing and Democrat proclaim they are not paying their fair share on income taxes.

OH spare me stupid analogies.

It's paid for by an excise tax, do you know what is an excise tax?

We don't tax property on the federal level.

No it hasn't unless you are using alternate facts and nothing you posted refutes the fact.

 

So you agree that the fact that those with high incomes pay the bulk of the federal income taxes does not mean "the rich pay most of the taxes" because those with high incomes are not the rich, income taxes are not all the taxes, and the federal government is not the only government taxing people. So you agree with me that the claim is false. Good. You're learning.

Nope. Wrong. Penrod's claim was, "the top 1% pay almost half the taxes," and similar false claims are made routinely to make it seem the rich are paying more than their share of the taxes, when in fact they are paying far less than their share. That is why Decepticons always shift the topic to income tax.

Flat wrong. It is designed ONLY to tax those making more than a poverty-level income, and to tax those making the highest incomes at the highest rates.

Only the federal government. Penrod's claim was about "the taxes," not just federal income tax.

No, that's false. It is recognized by rational people that people with low incomes are paying more than their share of other taxes, and so should not be paying income tax for the very simple reason that paying income tax on top of all the other taxes they pay would force them into poverty, requiring government spending to rescue them.

They make money off the INCOME tax system, but that money is mostly taken back by other taxes.

Nope. Flat false. The top 1% of INCOME RECIPIENTS (not the rich) pays about 44% of the FEDERAL INCOME taxes.

No, that is still false, as already proved. They pay many taxes, just not federal income tax.

I don't claim to know what the left and Democrats think, and I don't defend income taxes. But the FACT is that the rich DO NOT pay most of the taxes.

That prove your claims are irrational.

Yes, and I know who pays it. Google "tax incidence" and start reading.

So you agree Penrod's claim that the top 1% pay almost half the taxes was false. Good.

Wrong again. I have refuted it repeatedly, including refuting your false claims, above.

 

This is about federal taxation and in particular the federal income tax system from which we fund the functions of the federal government and in particular to this thread the wealth transfers and rates of the various income groups not the totally seperate 51 State and DC tax systems and thousands of local tax systems to which you are attempt to conflate.

When you can focus let me know.

 

Oh? The OP said no such thing.

I.e., you want to delete the facts about all the taxes people pay, except the one tax that is designed to be progressive (i.e., to recover most of its revenue from those who have the largest taxable bases); and you want to pretend that those with high incomes are the rich. I get it. The facts about taxation prove you wrong, so you want to cherry pick the one tax where you can almost -- but not quite -- make an argument.

No, only about half. You refuse to talk about any other federal tax, even though the only tax you are willing to know any facts about only funds half the federal government. I get it: you can't defend your claims about taxes, so you pretend there is no tax but the one tax where you can (almost) defend your claims.

Oops, you made a mistake there: WEALTH transfers, but based in INCOME groups. Now why did you do that, do you suppose?

As if we don't both know very well why.

Why are you trying to pretend those systems are not tax systems? Why are you trying to pretend the federal income tax is the only form of taxation?

When you can find a willingness to know facts about more tax systems than just the one that almost supports your claims, let me know.

 

The OP is discussing federal programs. Taxation discussion came in about federal tax rates. If you want tk discuss a particular state then you will have to discuss a particular one.

The fact remains that the top earners, the over 25% of earners alread pay almost 90% of income taxes, the taxes that fund welfare spending, while the lower 50% pay virtually nothing. How much more are you wanting to slant that?

 

And eliminating reasonable, helpful, much needed assistance for them seems to be the right/conserv idea of doing what is "best".

That's not a sentence. What about it?

 

That is what happens when you allow wages to fall so low that a large percentage of the population not only doesn't qualify for an income tax, but they even qualify for public assistance.

The real issue here is that the right tries very hard to make it appear as though somebody in government (always a Democrat) has passed reforms to let these people off the hook for taxes, but that is entirely untrue. The Republican resistance and obstruction of good programs to create jobs is the real problem.

 

You have a very old, dated view then. How about bringing it up to date with current data?

 

It's what happens when set rates and tax credits including refundable ones so that half the country pays virtually no income tax to the federal government.

It's the Republican policies that produced more jobs, rising incomes and higher tax revenues as everyone was working and paying taxes. It's the Democrats and their policies especially the last 10 years that created the non-working/low pay workforce.

- - - Updated - - -

ROFL of really and what is the modern up to day view of dealing with the poor? Put as many as you can on government subsistence?

 

They'll have their food stamps, don't worry. The goal though is to provide the poor with good middle class jobs, allowing them to move up the social ladder. What did Obama do for them in this respect? We both know the answer, absolutely nothing. The left's policy is to keep them where they are, in ghettos, on food stamps and voting democratic in exchange for token handouts, while shipping good american jobs overseas and flooding the country with illegals who drive down the wages.

 

I guess thats because CNBC says so

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-taxes.htmlhttp://

 

We are one people, we cannot let some of us starve or die from exposure. We need to ask those who can do more, to do more and be charitable. But we are one people, we should all be contributing. This country is hurting, because too many of us are doing too little. We need to ask people who are doing less, to do more and be useful.




​

 

Sure, simply go to work.

 

How about we ask the able bodied who can work to go to work and contribute before we ask the 24% who do to contribute more?

WHAT? Are you asserting this country is NOT charitable and those at the top are contributing most of that charity anyway on top of the welfare system they have to pay for?

So how about a surtax on everyone? 2% of gross income?

How about stopping the ever increasing welfare and tell people you got two years to get a job and get off welfare if you are an able bodied person then we have a full congressional investigation along with the DOJ of welfare fraud and abuse? Instead of applying more bandaids let's cure the problem.​

 

If you have a cure, I'm listening. Investigating welfare fraud is a reasonable thing to add to the process, but it won't stop some people from failing to contribute what is needed.

And that number isn't 24%. Less than 1 in 20 families put more into our shared government than they receive in benefit. Most of this country is enjoying a lifestyle beyond their means. If you want to see the numbers, just divide what the fed spends by our population, then look up how many families pay per head that or more in federal taxes. It's a depressing exercise.

If you read my words though, you would have seen I did say we should ask people to do more. But giving them a 2 year deadline presents the same problem Obama had with a line in the sand. What do you do when someone crosses it?



​

 

We do what was done before, welfare has been reformed in the past you know. Gingrich and Kaisch did it and people went back to work. And I do not subcribe to the theory that unless we can alleviate all of something we attempt to alleviate none of it.