The Myth that the poor will starve if they pay taxes

Contrary to popular lefty propoganda, the poor (that work) doesn't starve if they pay taxes. In fact, if you work, you pay taxes all year round. Only after the year is over would the lower earners get a refund or even in most cases more than what they paid in all year long. This refund/welfare doesn't feed the poor for the year, this money has not been in their paychecks all year long and they still have been able to eat without it.

Why is it that the democrats are so against Paul Ryans plan to cut the loop-holes that will affect the rich and poor alike? His plan doesn't force the poor to pay more, it just stops the asinine loss of revenue that everyone has done without throughout the year.

 

You are kidding, right?

Why the hell would someone think it appropriate to raise taxes on the poor in an era in which the rich are taxed at a lower rate that at any other time in modern history?

Our tax collecting strategy should be like Dillinger's. Go where the money is.

Unless it's better for a poor person to forgo milk for their kids than for a rich man to miss a yacht payment.

 

You miss the whole part where the poor already pay taxes and eat off the money left in their paychecks. Even if you only make $12k a year, you will have about $1,200 withheld from your check thrughout the year. This is money they don't see till they file their taxes after Feb 1st and is not incorporated into their budget for the year. This is usually spent on "wants" and not the milk you think they will forgo.

I am not saying their taxes should be raised, but that the loopholes, deductions, and credits (tools of spreading the wealth) will NOT effect the poor's chances of eating off their own paychecks.

 

Yeah, I guess I miss the point. There is nothing stopping a low wage worker from declaring more dependents.

Fewer pay stub deductions. More food money.

 

True, till they file taxes and then they owe more, how is that going to effect their budget?

 

Or filing single-1, or married-1 in which case, less than 10% of your income...

In either case, you can't get blood from a turnip.

 

You spend WAY too much time trying to drum up ways to hurt the poor.

 

They still pay something. putting more dependants on your W-4 doesn't account for credits (tool of spreading the wealth) they may get when filing. And you know people don't always put big numbers for deductions, they want that fat refund each year.

 

How so? This is the actual way taxes work. Cutting the credits and loopholes will NOT hurt the poor, or keep them from getting mild each week. Especially since they already get food-stamps that covers these items.

 

I really do not see a problem with them losing the loopholes but you have to lose them for companies and the wealthy first.

 

First of all, your attempts to equate a tax return with welfare is completely bogus.

I don't know much about Ryan's tax plan, but I stand by my premise that you can't get blood from turnips, attempting to squeeze dimes out of the poor is not just futile, but stupid, especially when it's painfully obvious that the wealth in this nations is highly aggregated towards the top of the income scale.

 

Totally agree. Hence why I support the Paul Ryan plan.

 

Depends on the level of taxes.

 

Really? What would you call getting money you didn't earn? People who make less than X amount over the age of 25 or have kids get this little thing called "earned income credit". Don't let the name fool you, just because you have a kid, doesn't mean you earned anything. This one little credit usually accounts for most of those that get more than they paid back.

Not trying to get out more money, just not spreading the wealth through credits to people that make low incomes. They go all year round without this money, why shouldn't they have some skin in the game? The Ryan plan would give a deduction of $9,750 to people's net income for each person in their house hold they support. A familiy of four with an income of $40,000 would deduct $39,000 from thier net income and would have to contribute only $100 (10% of $1,000 AGI) to the government. Compared to what happens now, this family would normally get back MORE than what they paid in because of EIC. Is that $100 that they didn't have all year round going to make them starve the next year? Is that $100 not worth the food stamps and aid they can recieve that aren't being talked about? Why should they get even MORE money from the government cause they choose to have children when 49% of the rest of America has to pay for thier choices?

 

True, and they should stay at 10% for all those under $100,000. For my previous example, no matter what they mark on their W-4, they will only be paying $8.34 a month ($100 divided by 12) each month in taxes.

 

I agree $8.34 a month won't cause someone to starve.

 

Yes, really. I'm not trying to argue that it isn't redistribution, only that it isn't welfare.

The EIC, has indisputably been the largest poverty reducing program in American history, what you fail to understand is that these dollars, because their redistributed not only aid in the alleviation of poverty and as a result reductions in crime and actual welfare receipts, their also more likely to be spent on consumer goods thereby stimulating demanding and spurring on growth. The net effect being, for all those involved including contributors, a positive ROI, despite what your dogma mandates.

I'm all for eliminating tax loopholes and a simplification of the tax system, but to me that also requires a revolutionary change to the benefits system in this country as well. I feel that any tax program that doesn't incorporate a benefits system into it is likely to be a failure.

Everyone in the country is vested and everyone pays taxes. Please don't bore me with the tired old meme of the poor not paying any taxes, it's bunk.

 

??? What happened in your absence, Anik?

There was a time that I would be making the above argument and you would be berating me for it.

That out of the way. One also has to consider the marginal propensity to consumer of each income quintile. Given that large companies are holding onto cash as there is a lack of consumer demand it would make far more sense to tax the wealthy rather than the poor. Taxing the poor just reduces demand even further. You can't run an economy on the spending of the wealthy.

 

Eh, a dash of education and a splash of critical thinking. For this particular case I'm just really sick of the frequently debunked myth that the poor pay no taxes, and the narrow mindedness required to not grasp that everyone having money to spend on goods and services ends up being a net positive for the economy. It certainly stimulates it more than greenbacks sitting in a bank drawing interest.

And also the marginal utility of each dollar earned. Tax systems should always take this into consideration. Not only are the poorest amongst us the most likely to spend (thereby creating a multiplier effect) but they also value each dollar of income more than any additional dollar added/removed from the highest income brackets.

I don't think I'm too far from where I was when you left, like then I still think the best route is implementing a negative income tax, and eliminating our current tax and benefits system.

 

What sort of impirical data are you basing this on?

 

How does $2,000 get people out of poverty? This is a fallacy that you are trying to perpetuate to keep the redistribution of wealth alive. If they want more money from their jobs, they should have gotten a better education or get another job.

Wow, you have any proof of this? getting something you didn't earn doesn't alleviate poverty, it only perpetuates spending without care.

And why should the rich pay for the poor to get new TVs, or cars, or other big ticket items?

Any proof of this? And if this is the case, then the left has zero ground to stand on to tell the rich to pay more or "pay their fair share".

Agreed, the poor don't need all these benefits that allow them to think they can work part time and still enjoy other peoples money. Any tax system that has more than 50% of the citizens working NOT paying anything in income taxes is a complete failure.

Since we are talking about the income taxes, NO, not everyone pays taxes. The crap about everyone pays sales tax is nonsense cause that is a choice. And the poor shouldn't be paying property taxes if they can't afford income taxes.

 

Years of working on other peoples taxes. Seeing the $100k/year+ incomes and the $12k/year incomes. They all pay taxes and don't suffer from having the money taken out till the end of the year.

 

Rubbish, first off there is a minimum level of consumption that is required merely to survive and maintain good health, nevermind getting to and from work, education expenses, clothes etc. etc.. Secondly the level of hidden taxes is enormous and so the tax system is barely progressive despite the fact that the bottom 46% don't pay income taxes.



Of course this merely leads to the question as to why income distribution is so skewed, if the median income is ~$27,000 and yet the average salary is ~$70,000. This may influence income tax payers.

Furthermore the statistic of 49% is misleading. 22% of that 46% (10.12%) don't pay income tax because they are receiving social security benefits which are exempt from tax. About half don't pay it due to low incomes combined with standard deduction and personal exemptions (~23%) leaving about 13% left. That 13% generally consists of people receiving child credit.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Donald-Marron/2011/0728/Why-do-half-of-Americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001547-Why-No-Income-Tax.pdf


Of course this is before we even consider the fact that 9.1% are classified as unemployed, and when one takes into account that the unemployment rate does not include those who aren't actively seeking work this figure is in effect higher. Are you suggesting that the unemployed pay income tax?

All in all, please refrain from the bullcrap partisan stock response of "OMG 46% of people don't pay income tax!"

 

If you look at what I wrote, I specifically spelled out what level of income should pay taxes, and it especially was NOT the uneployed or those that are making a mesely income. With $9,750 worth of deductions per person you take care of, there is plenty on of people that still won't pay taxes, so your demogaugary can just halt right now.

And that is 46%-51% and growing. The main point is that even if someone got 100% of their taxes contributed at the end of the year, that is "fine" if they didn't earn that much. But when people are getting as much as 150% of what they paid in, there in lies the problem that needs to be fixed.

 

Is receiving more than one pays in, not the very definition of welfare?