CNN: 45% don't owe U.S. income tax

[quantum]

[QUOTE=parafly;4004315]I also want to add that stagnant wages in middle class jobs are a big factor as well.

[IMG]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/chart_rise_of_super_rich.top.gif[/IMG]



[URL="http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm"]http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm[/URL][/QUOTE]



Maybe those bastids are just working harder...

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=parafly;4004315]I also want to add that stagnant wages in middle class jobs are a big factor as well.

[IMG]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/chart_rise_of_super_rich.top.gif[/IMG]



[URL="http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm"]http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm[/URL][/QUOTE]

Thats a cool chart.

Looking at it, it seems to indicate an increase on the low end from ~$15K to ~$65K or so. Hard to say for sure just lookign at it. But thats a 333% increase over the period of the chart.

The Top 5% appear to have moved from ~$100K to ~$400K, give or take. A 300% increase over the same period.

Or, in other terms, in 1917, the top 5% (based again off looking at the chart) made almost 6.7 times the total dollars of the low-line people. Now, they make ~6.2 times the total dollars of the low-end people.

It's interesting, on taxes, LiL was aggressive that percentages, not total dollars, is what counts. Now, it appears that total dollars is what counts, and percentages (which appear to favor, although not by much, the increase in the low line) are not as meaningful.

Antoher case of argue based on position? Make the numbers (and chart design) fit the argument? I'm all ears.

Also, can you give us one showing benefits/entitlements/handouts recieved by the same two groups over the same period?

[Winstonbiggs]

[QUOTE=Come Back to NY;4004329]better yet, society is quickly turning into the do's and the do nots....

those that do work 40/50/60 hours 6/7 days a week to take care of themselves and their families versus those that don't want to work or don't want to prioritize their budgets because its much easier to get free stuff from the gov't rather than pay for it themselves...free health care versus paying for your own insurance, continued unemployment benefits because they'll pay more then the job that's available, etc....[/QUOTE]

I don't buy into this argument very much. Most people would prefer to work make a decent wage and take care of themselves and their families. We have seen this country at virtually full employment within the last decade. I don't believe people aren't working or are underemployed because they prefer free stuff.

Obviously some people have been institutionalized into poverty and are essentially going to be processed by government their entire lives. The vast majority of the unemployed and under employed have been devastated by the drop in economic activity caused by severe overleveraging all over our economy and the bust that leverage created aidded and abetted by Government and Fed policy.

[Come Back to NY]

[QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4004350]A lot of generalizations here, which I'm not sure really address the issue.[/QUOTE]

they wouldn't address the issue if you believe in gov't entitlements...

[QUOTE]But on the last point, let's be fair. The 45% weren't paying any taxes well before Obama came into office, per the CBO data...[/QUOTE]

don't disagree- but why does obozo keep talking about "shared sacrfice" when he expects those who pay the most to pay even more??? and why do his cronies keep getting the breaks; albiet paying little to know taxes or receiving waivers from obamacare???

[Come Back to NY]

[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4004415]I don't buy into this argument very much. Most people would prefer to work make a decent wage and take care of themselves and their families. We have seen this country at virtually full employment within the last decade. I don't believe people aren't working or are underemployed because they prefer free stuff.

Obviously some people have been institutionalized into poverty and are essentially going to be processed by government their entire lives. The vast majority of the unemployed and under employed have been devastated by the drop in economic activity caused by severe overleveraging all over our economy and the bust that leverage created aidded and abetted by Government and Fed policy.[/QUOTE]

again- its the same people day after day waiting on street corners as day laborers willing to do any type of work in any kind of weather....why don't the generational welfare recipients do the same???

also- there have been numerous threads posted on this forum about people that have been on unemployment going on two years turning down job offerings because unemployment pays them more....

btw- the gov't numbers on unemployment or full employment are half the truth....ditto for inflation...

[Winstonbiggs]

[QUOTE=Come Back to NY;4004419]again- its the same people day after day waiting on street corners as day laborers willing to do any type of work in any kind of weather....why don't the generational welfare recipients do the same???

also- there have been numerous threads posted on this forum about people that have been on unemployment going on two years turning down job offerings because unemployment pays them more....

btw- the gov't numbers on unemployment or full employment are half the truth....ditto for inflation...[/QUOTE]

I don't know CB. I don't get the left with their class warefare and I don't get the right saying people are lazy good for nothings. We need pro-growth govenment policies because we need as much private economic activity as we can possible get to increase the wealth of this country. With wealth we get a first class military and a decent social safety net. Without it we are going down the drain.

[parafly]

[QUOTE=Warfish;4004398]Thats a cool chart.

Looking at it, it seems to indicate an increase on the low end from ~$15K to ~$65K or so. Hard to say for sure just lookign at it. But thats a 333% increase over the period of the chart.

The Top 5% appear to have moved from ~$100K to ~$400K, give or take. A 300% increase over the same period.

Or, in other terms, in 1917, the top 5% (based again off looking at the chart) made almost 6.7 times the total dollars of the low-line people. Now, they make ~6.2 times the total dollars of the low-end people.[/QUOTE]

It looks like the scale of the chart may be off a bit.

According to the text of the article, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,000 in 2008 compared to $33,400 in 1988 (adjusted for inflation). The richest 1% of Americans saw a 33% increase in income during this time span while the average American saw a slight decrease.

My point stands that income for the middle class has remained stagnant over the past couple of decades.

[Come Back to NY]

[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4004422]I don't know CB. I don't get the left with their class warefare and I don't get the right saying people are lazy good for nothings. We need pro-growth govenment policies because we need as much private economic activity as we can possible get to increase the wealth of this country. With wealth we get a first class military and a decent social safety net. Without it we are going down the drain.[/QUOTE]

i don't feel most people are lazy good for nothings- but there is a large group of entitlement minded folk who'd rather get $40 from the gov't for doing nothing rather than working for $100/day....remember the "obama's gonna pay my mortgage and gas bill" woman? think she's alone???

people are "entitled" a house, four kids and two cars- but others have to pay for it if they get in trouble or pay for their health insurance if they can't afford it....

[long island leprechaun]

[QUOTE=Warfish;4004398]Thats a cool chart.

Looking at it, it seems to indicate an increase on the low end from ~$15K to ~$65K or so. Hard to say for sure just lookign at it. But thats a 333% increase over the period of the chart.

The Top 5% appear to have moved from ~$100K to ~$400K, give or take. A 300% increase over the same period.

Or, in other terms, in 1917, the top 5% (based again off looking at the chart) made almost 6.7 times the total dollars of the low-line people. Now, they make ~6.2 times the total dollars of the low-end people.

It's interesting, on taxes, LiL was aggressive that percentages, not total dollars, is what counts. Now, it appears that total dollars is what counts, and percentages (which appear to favor, although not by much, the increase in the low line) are not as meaningful.

Antoher case of argue based on position? Make the numbers (and chart design) fit the argument? I'm all ears.

Also, can you give us one showing benefits/entitlements/handouts recieved by the same two groups over the same period?[/QUOTE]

As my old friend used to say: "There you go again."

I was responding to a specific point by Biggs about his percentage of federal tax. I wasn't making an argument about percentages vs. dollar amounts concerning anything. Unless you view everyone here but you to be one giant poster who is schizophrenic. :rolleyes:

Re your last question, which is once again supposedly to a point... what do you considder a benefit, an entitlement, or a handout? For example, do farm subsidies count? Or business loans that don't have to be paid back? Or tax write-offs? Or is this just the ones that serve your agenda? Just curious. Carry on....

[long island leprechaun]

[QUOTE=Warfish;4004398]Thats a cool chart.

Looking at it, it seems to indicate an increase on the low end from ~$15K to ~$65K or so. Hard to say for sure just lookign at it. But thats a 333% increase over the period of the chart.

The Top 5% appear to have moved from ~$100K to ~$400K, give or take. A 300% increase over the same period.

Or, in other terms, in 1917, the top 5% (based again off looking at the chart) made almost 6.7 times the total dollars of the low-line people. Now, they make ~6.2 times the total dollars of the low-end people.

It's interesting, on taxes, LiL was aggressive that percentages, not total dollars, is what counts. Now, it appears that total dollars is what counts, and percentages (which appear to favor, although not by much, the increase in the low line) are not as meaningful.

Antoher case of argue based on position? Make the numbers (and chart design) fit the argument? I'm all ears.

Also, can you give us one showing benefits/entitlements/handouts recieved by the same two groups over the same period?[/QUOTE]

Re the chart, unless I'm misreading, the blue line indicates "median" income, which means it incorporate the top 5% in its figures, not the low vs. high.

[long island leprechaun]

[QUOTE=Come Back to NY;4004432]i don't feel most people are lazy good for nothings- but there is a large group of entitlement minded folk who'd rather get $40 from the gov't for doing nothing rather than working for $100/day....remember the "obama's gonna pay my mortgage and gas bill" woman? think she's alone???

people are "entitled" a house, four kids and two cars- but others have to pay for it if they get in trouble or pay for their health insurance if they can't afford it....[/QUOTE]

You do have a point, when people make bad decisions to purchase above their means then want a bailout. Fair complaint. But I don't know that this is the reason for the increasing divide between rich and poor. Corporations have cut back on healthcare, pensions, and job security. People are working more and more in service industries that are contracted out and have no overhead or are structured to be part-time. Core manufacturing jobs are diminishing in the US. After all, the majority of the 45% are working people making relatively low wages, not on unemployment or welfare. Parafly's point about outsourcing is legitimate. We may disagree about the incentive for outsourcing, but its very real. I don't get the hostility toward the working people who simply don't make much money. How did that get to be immoral?

[Come Back to NY]

[QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4004498]You do have a point, when people make bad decisions to purchase above their means then want a bailout. Fair complaint. But I don't know that this is the reason for the increasing divide between rich and poor. Corporations have cut back on healthcare, pensions, and job security. People are working more and more in service industries that are contracted out and have no overhead or are structured to be part-time. Core manufacturing jobs are diminishing in the US. After all, the majority of the 45% are working people making relatively low wages, not on unemployment or welfare. Parafly's point about outsourcing is legitimate. We may disagree about the incentive for outsourcing, but its very real. I don't get the hostility toward the working people who simply don't make much money. How did that get to be immoral?[/QUOTE]

there are more gov't giveaways for people who make <X$$ and a point where people who make <X$$ pay no federal income tax....what's the motivation or benefit to make $200 or $2000 or $5000 more than "x$$"??

[long island leprechaun]

[QUOTE=Come Back to NY;4004500]there are more gov't giveaways for people who make <X$$ and a point where people who make <X$$ pay no federal income tax....what's the motivation or benefit to make $200 or $2000 or $5000 more than "x$$"??[/QUOTE]

I don't know if that's true, first of all. There are many versions of the give away, not just the conventional entitlements. But I can speak for where I work and tell you that the people who are at the low end of the wage scale are desperate to get increases and promotions. More money means more money. And it does matter to someone earning 35K if they can get that to 40K. I've actually never seen someone turn down an opportunity to get an increase in pay because of the tax benefit of being poorer. I'm not sure who you're picturing in your head when you say that sort of thing. It's just not anything related to the world I see, whether at my job or anybody else's I know.

[Come Back to NY]

[QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4004553]I don't know if that's true, first of all. There are many versions of the give away, not just the conventional entitlements. But I can speak for where I work and tell you that the people who are at the low end of the wage scale are desperate to get increases and promotions. More money means more money. And it does matter to someone earning 35K if they can get that to 40K. I've actually never seen someone turn down an opportunity to get an increase in pay because of the tax benefit of being poorer. I'm not sure who you're picturing in your head when you say that sort of thing. It's just not anything related to the world I see, whether at my job or anybody else's I know.[/QUOTE]

no one needs to picture anything- just look at the numbers in recent years which has always been mid to upper 40% does not pay federal income tax- pretty simple...

[long island leprechaun]

[QUOTE=Come Back to NY;4004576]no one needs to picture anything- just look at the numbers in recent years which has always been mid to upper 40% does not pay federal income tax- pretty simple...[/QUOTE]

Again, this is not really an accurate portrayal. What you mean to say is that 45% (or whatever) are able to deduct, take exemptions, and adjustments and end up getting the taxes they had withheld returned to them. I point that out because your gripe is really with the tax code, not with the person who is earning 35K and is getting back what the IRS is offering legally. That doesn't make them deadbeats or "entitlement addicts" or whatever. It makes them do what makes sense for their bottom line.

[Come Back to NY]

[QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4004621]Again, this is not really an accurate portrayal. What you mean to say is that 45% (or whatever) are able to deduct, take exemptions, and adjustments and end up getting the taxes they had withheld returned to them. I point that out because your gripe is really with the tax code, not with the person who is earning 35K and is getting back what the IRS is offering legally. That doesn't make them deadbeats or "entitlement addicts" or whatever. It makes them do what makes sense for their bottom line.[/QUOTE]

according to the article 68%/63.2mill make less than <$50K....

12.5%/4.3 mill make $100-$50K....

500K make $100K or more....

if you charge the top/largest group of non-payors a minimum of $2000 annual fed income tax that 126,400,000,000 revenue....

if you charge the second group minimum $4000 annual fed income tax that's 25,800,000,000

if you charge the third group minimum $5000 annual fed income tax that's 2, 500, 000, 000...

even at 50% of the tax rate the lower income earners, 68% who pay nothing, kick in almost 5x the amount of tax revenue...

again- what's the incentive to go from making $48K to $53K if there's a 56% likelihood you'll now be forced to start paying fed income tax???

[PlumberKhan]

[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4004415]I don't buy into this argument very much. Most people would prefer to work make a decent wage and take care of themselves and their families. We have seen this country at virtually full employment within the last decade. I don't believe people aren't working or are underemployed because they prefer free stuff. [/QUOTE]

Nope. Out of a country of 300,000,000, only 3 mil actually work hard.

The other 297,000,000 are lazy jerks.

[long island leprechaun]

[QUOTE=Come Back to NY;4004687]according to the article 68%/63.2mill make less than <$50K....

12.5%/4.3 mill make $100-$50K....

500K make $100K or more....

if you charge the top/largest group of non-payors a minimum of $2000 annual fed income tax that 126,400,000,000 revenue....

if you charge the second group minimum $4000 annual fed income tax that's 25,800,000,000

if you charge the third group minimum $5000 annual fed income tax that's 2, 500, 000, 000...

even at 50% of the tax rate the lower income earners, 68% who pay nothing, kick in almost 5x the amount of tax revenue...

again- what's the incentive to go from making $48K to $53K if there's a 56% likelihood you'll now be forced to start paying fed income tax???[/QUOTE]

This is pretty goofy logic, since it doesn't account for total effective federal taxes or add up properly. Social Security taxes alone account for 1/3 of federal revenues and are actually among the few items that are taxes that come back to the taxpayer directly at some point.

Re the last point, based on the CBO data which does track numbers of lowest quintile households that move from a lower to higher quintile, you're in factual error. Not to mention that the incentive for someone making 48K to move to 53K is pretty simple. Even if they're taxed at 15% on their marginal gain, they still bring home more money on the difference.

Secondly, tax payers in the lowest two quintiles have paid almost nothing since the early 90's. The lowest quintile has had a negative tax since 1987. The second quintile has been below 3% since 1990 and was mostly below 2% until 2002, when they were in negative tax territory. It is certainly not a "left wing" conspiracy, despite your wish for it to be so.

What you're not asking, and should, is why there are so many earners in the bottom two quintiles that are able to get a full return or credit on their income. Again, this goes to the tax code and its deductions, exemptions, and credits weighed against the financial status of this group. I think we can all agree that the cost of a number of critical household expenses has risen fairly dramatically over the past several years at the same time as the number one asset families hold -- their home -- has tanked. To mention a few: health insurance premiums rose 131% from 1999 to 2009 (the average cost for a family policy offered by employers in 2009 was $13,375); fuel oil costs - 34% annualized increase in the past year; gasoline - 27.5%; food in the home - nearly 4%, etc.

So the question is: which deductions, exemptions, and/or credits would you target for cuts or elimination? Dependent exemptions? Mortgage premiums? Standard deduction levels? Child Tax Credits? Dependent care credits? Adoption credits? Third-child credits? Coverdell accounts? Student Loan Interest deductions? Education expenses? Energy Tax Credit? Energy Star credit? Estate Taxes?....

[palmetto defender]

I believe mosy people in this country are paid what they are worth. Some are overpaid, of course. Larry Ellison of Oracle comes to mind.
It is not a matter of working hard or not being lazy. It is a matter of value. What are you worth to your employer? What can you deliever in terms of profit?
If a person thinks they are underpaid, good. Go somewhere else and get more. It's like free agency. If you haven't got the credentials it is no ones fault but your own. And perhaps your parents, if they didn't set the stage for you in terms of education and behavior early on. Your life at 35 is very much a function of what you did at 15.

[PlumberKhan]

[QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4005024]The lowest quintile has had a negative tax since 1987. It is certainly not a "left wing" conspiracy, despite your wish for it to be so.....[/QUOTE]

It's corporate welfare in disguise.

Think about it.