According to a textbook maybe. In real life, it makes no sense to reward people for failing to thrive.
I am talking about real life. It is not a reward it is a means for these folks to better adapt and recover in their areas.
Where are you getting this false information? If you truly believe in this absolute nonsense, then you do not understand how tax brackets and simple arithmetic work. http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
Apparently, you forgot your sources. I will be happy to discuss further once I see and digest what you are relying upon...
So you have nothing Here is Obama http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/07/news/economy/obama_taxes/index.htm But here is the truth http://campaign2012.washingtonexami...l/fact-checkers-agree-obama-wrong-taxing-rich About the 47% http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/federal-taxes-households.cfm
From your sources, " For the most part, the wealthy pay a significantly higher percentage of their income in taxes than middle-income workers." I am having a hard time understanding your point.
Wealth redistribution. Those who make less pay no income tax. Obama and the democrats lie and continue to blame the rich. the problem is not income but out of control spending by the government
Thank you. I disagree. A "graduated" or "progressive" income tax scheme has been around since the inception of income tax in the US. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an inheritance tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year historymore than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.[/quote] History of the Income Tax in the United States http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html#ixzz1jZcxLe9F
The maximum he can claim from EITC is $464 if he has no children--this is the hard limit for EITC for people with no dependents. However, yes, some people with very low incomes can get more back from tax credits than they pay in taxes. It is a very narrow range of incomes, however. Some tax credits are refundable tax credits, meaning that you can get back more than you paid with them. EITC isn't the only refundable tax credit out there, it's just the one that some people (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about because extremely poor people don't pay enough in taxes to account for the value of the credit. That said, sure, yeah, the standard deduction would account for most of his income, meaning that he ought to be paying very little. Certainly less than what he withheld, if he withheld $743. I mean, $5800 of that $8679 was effectively tax-free because of the standard deduction. By rights he really only should have withheld less than $300. If you're getting money back from the government when you file your tax return, it means you overpaid and got screwed out of a year's interest by the government. Hardly some grand achievement. The government probably "earned" more money by the interest-free loan your friend gave them than they're paying him in EITC refunds.
Because his friend earned a trivial amount of taxable income last year. Remember; the standard deduction is $5800. He massively overpaid the government last year. That's why he's getting so much back. He paid way more than he should have. People on the very low end of the income scale have enough troubles without tacking taxes on.
History of the Income Tax in the United States http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html#ixzz1jZcxLe9F[/QUOTE] Like most liberals you are being deceptive. Income tax as we know it started in 1943 to pay for the war. Why do we still have it? How is it for 150 years it was not needed yet we need it now?
Like most liberals you are being deceptive. Income tax as we know it started in 1943 to pay for the war. Why do we still have it? How is it for 150 years it was not needed yet we need it now?[/QUOTE] Like most liberals? You do not know diddly squat about me. Again kindly provide a source for your statement of fact.
Like most liberals? You do not know diddly squat about me. Again kindly provide a source for your statement of fact.[/QUOTE] Read your source From your link
You attributed your statement to me in the above post. My bottom line is NO. I do not agree with your original statement. For the reasons stated in my original answer to you. A progressive system was introduced and thereafter adopted ion the US.
Noooooooooooo my statement was a reference to the rationale which makes the basis for the tax system. Therefore my statement was not a deception, but, your interpretation is a delusion...
No mine is fact. You are being deceptive by saying it started with Abraham Lincoln. It did not. A couple of times it was used temporarily to pay for wars. That is what was supposed to happen in 1943. Our current system started in 1943. Read your link