According to the Associated Press nearly half of US Households (47%) will owe nothing in Federal Income Tax for 2009. In addition, "...credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax."
These households are not required to pay for any of the programs that benefit all Americans: National Defense, Education, Infrastructure, etc. The bottom 40% of income tax filers actually make a profit from filing their taxes, while the top 10% of filers pay 73% of all taxes.
Is there anything wrong with this? Does it bother you that almost half of the United States doesn't contribute anything?
Austin Lee:
I find it very interesting that the Obama rhetoric is that the rich aren't paying their fair share. It is plain to see from the numbers above that the rich in our country actually pay the VAST majority of all taxes to begin with. (This is before Obama's planned increases at the end of 2010.) So, yes, it bothers me a great deal that almost 1/2 of the country doesn't have any skin in the game.
As a former tax accountant I am all too familiar with these numbers. And I am also appalled that the number of people that do not pay ANYTHING is growing every year. The sad fact is that we are rapidly approaching the 51% threshold of no return. It will be at this point that the majority of people in the United States pay nothing and receive everything.
Those of us that have managed to work hard, get an education, and make something of ourselves will have to pay for those that did not. This hardly seems fair, but the Liberals would be hard pressed to fight for the rights of those who actually worked hard.
I don't mind paying taxes, I think that there are some necessary government functions, however, I think that everyone should pay something and that is why I am a fan of the Fair Tax. (If you haven't read about it, I would encourage you to find some information.)
Everyone will be able to have their basic necessities tax free and then and only then will you be taxed on purchases that are above and beyond those limits. So, the person down the street that currently pays no taxes, but has a nicer car than you...he will have to pay taxes.
The mooching class in the country are realizing that as long as they keep electing Democrats into office they will continue to go through life receiving benefits without paying for them and that is not right.
David Loftus:
This doesn’t bother me at all. It’s an error to say such people don’t contribute anything, because (as the hot-linked news story states) they still pay excise taxes on gasoline, aviation, alcohol, and cigarettes, and their employers contribute payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. They pay state and local taxes on sales, income, and property; in my voting district, over the years we’ve approved temporary taxes (bond measures) for parks, libraries, and schools.
The lump sum of $50,000 in annual income may sound like a lot, but for a family of four in this day and age -- responsible for rent or a mortgage that may amount to at least 15-20 percent of that, car payments on one or more vehicles that add another 6 to 10 percent, food, gasoline, school fees for music and sports programs that were all covered by the schools when I was a kid, and so on -- it isn’t that much. What would have been a solidly middle-class income when I was growing up is more like lower middle-class or working-class salary today. I remember debating a solution to poverty one year in high school forensics; at that point, the federal poverty line was about $6,000 for a family of four. Today, it’s a little over $22,000. You know you’re not going to get very good housing for even twice that much, and suddenly, there you are, at $50,000 annual income. You’d have to make a little over $24 an hour to reach that annual wage, but those jobs aren’t yet that common, so most $50k households are probably two-earners, and that means extra costs for child care or teen transport, food, auto maintenance and insurance, etc.
What outrages me about this situation is the general perception, undoubtedly common among many of these very citizens who don’t pay any taxes, that the government and IRS are screwing them. They don’t acknowledge the value of the many credits described in the story, and they don’t seem to comprehend all that government does for them, unacknowledged and unseen. I have never begrudged the amount of taxes I pay, nor have I ever voted against any tax measure put before me in an election. I do, however, resent the fact that so much of my tax money has gone to kill foreign civilians and sacrifice American soldiers overseas, and to fatten domestic defense contractors, and I strongly dispute the notion that “National Defense” has benefited me, personally, one iota.
My wife has suggested that tax forms should include a section where we could check off which government programs we would like our particular income taxes to go to. It would be non-binding, just for the sake of information, but it might be extremely interesting to learn what citizens’ real priorities are.
Posts
The statistics here are incomplete. Mr. Lee says the rich pay the vast majority of all taxes, but is that truly the case? 35 percent or 60 percent or 73 percent of millions (in annual income), paid by a small number of people, doesn't necessarily outweigh 10 or 12 or 20 percent of thousands (in annual income) when that is paid by tens of millions of Americans.
ReplyDeleteFrom the perspective of the individual, 15 percent of an annual income of $50,000 takes a big chunk of your living needs, when rent or mortgage don't come with a sliding scale and you have to eat a certain amount every day; but 60 percent of $500,000 still leaves you with a lot of money to spend; how much do you need? How much can you consume, really?
And is the wealthy person paying an unfair share when the laws (or more pointedly, those who administer them) tend to break in his favor: tax shelters benefit his business activities, judges look more kindly on his misdeeds (from driving drunk to murder; note the percentage of people who commit homicide and don't receive the death penalty when they're well-to-do as opposed to the poor)?
I can't help thinking that people who complain about taxes, whether low income or high, simply have trouble living within their means. (I have zero credit card debt -- while the average American is carrying it in four and five digits -- and that ain't the government's fault.
I'm also amused how much people propagate the delusion "I earned what I got," let alone that every rich person earned everything he or she has, fair and square. A fair number of wealthy folks are wealthy by inheritance; somebody ELSE earned it, and not a few by working the system and screwing other people. Wealthy folks often benefit from corporate welfare (their companies have gotten tax breaks to build new facilities and move into new markets), their friends help them out (lending them money, which is called investments), and they have access to legislators and courts who can help bend the legal rules their way.
Anatole France once wrote: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." The same goes for access to power: any homeless person is as free (in theory) as a lobbyist or Vanderbilt to stroll into the White House or Congress and chat with the inhabitants about his needs. Must be their fault that they don't.