So if you figure that "nearly half" of Americans don't pay taxes that's a rough figure of 150million right?

If the "bottom 50%" makes less then 33K a year then would it be fair to assume that the "average income" is maybe 10K?

If so, if you taxed them at a low rate of 10% then that's around 150billion dollars to add to the tax pie.  Not as much as the "top 50%" (around 1 trillion I think) but still almost the same amount as the revenue from corporate taxes (around 180billion).


Skin in the game.  That will finally make people start to pay attention I think.

Problem is, there should be a line at some point below which the workers income should not be taxed at all, and I suspect that many of that 45 % or so who pay no Fed income tax fall within that bracket. You shouldn't be taxed on income thats so low that you pretty much need every dollar of it just to stay alive...thats why we have an individual deduction after all...Where that line is is up for debate, but taxing people down in the 10Kgross income  range shouldn't happen, regardless of whether we think they should have"skin in the game".

Lets address things like the EITC that send rebates well beyond what the person actually paid in. Lets address the minimum alternative tax. Or the various deductions that make the tax code so intricate. .

If someone makes $10,000 a year, you are leaving them with $9,000 a year.  A group that traditionally is completely ignored in politics... So a million angry poor people are going to start rioting or something?  Thats when the 'kid gloves' come off and rounds go live. 10% isnt enough skin, lets get them with more skin in the game, lets do half.  

now the 10k guy makes 5k.  and the 100k guy makes 50k.  Guess who can still survive without government assistance?  The more you take from the lower class, but still want to make it illegal to sleep in parks and live in cardboard boxes, the more you will have to support them through the government.  Conservatives cant have it both ways

Yeah, sounds great in theory, but if you're a cop like the icon shows then you know from experience that most "poor" people buy shit they have no business buying and I have ZERO sympathy for them.  I can't tell you how many "poor people" I deal with that have nicer cars then I do, nicer stereo systems then me, and the lastest greatest smart phone.


No, tax them.  Having "skin in the game" will make them  wise up or fail.  I cannot be responsible for their irresponsible behavior.

If you're living above the poverty level, minimum federal income tax should be 2%.

Easy.

Hell, I'll even give some lee- way. If you make more than 25k a year.

If people make so little money that they don't pay taxes that make our government function then they shouldn't be able to vote either. Voting should be tied to taxes. I'd be willing to be that if the vast majority of those making less than the minimum that could no longer vote themselves money would get off their ass and raise their income.

So with that line of logic I suppose you want to tax the "rich" at 75% then?  Who said tax the poor at 50%.  

"Fair" is some utopian idea....like everyone deserves an 'easy' life.  Life is tough, get a helmet.

First post....fails.  

Sorry, I don't agree with disenfranchising someone because they don't make some arbitrary amount of income or pay taxes

I dont know how comfortable I would be releasing my tax records to voting officials so that the government can vet my privilege to vote.  Constitutional issues aside.

I'm fine with the poor not paying tax. We should cut the EITC to disincentivize having children though.

teach them in schools life lessons, how to save,spend,live withen means your means you can solve
half of Americas problems

There is a tax level that is required to sustain the insane levels of spending that is going on.  Right now, taxes can be low due to America taking on debt, but if we want to be self sustainable one day, and keep spending as much as we do, then taxes will have to go up.  75% tax on a guy making 100k will leave him with 25K to live off of.  75% tax on a guy making 10k will leave him with 2.5k.  

10k guy will be living in his car in front of your house, so be ready for that, unless you want to support section 8 housing.  

The alternative is a heavily progressive tax, merely because the cold financial fact is the richer guy can afford it.  

No income tax.  No corporate tax.  Everything except unprepared food is taxed at 15% federally.



Everyone has skin in the game.






 

And I will clarify that unprepared food means raw, un preparred food.  not this "my chef does everything but cook it so you can give me food stamps" shit the ghetto dwellers do to eat gourmet.
 

I can get on board with this.  Although, the Social Security pyramid scheme will suffer in the long run.  See also 'age dependency ratio.'

Add to that the first $250 dollars of rent and I'm on board.  Bare basics of survival covered, tax free.  Everything else?  Pay.

Everyone will both have skin in the game and be able to choose exactly how much is in the game.

This is the only way I'd be "fine" with this.  right now they are voting to take my money.



 

I'm surprised the government hasn't applied its logic equally in regards to taxation as a social tool.

Don't want cigarettes:  tax the shit out of them.

Don't want poverty:  incentivize it.

The answer seems clear; tax the SHIT out of the poor.  

With as much money as the government wastes raising taxes on anyone won't help shit.  If you think raising taxes will help with our debt all you're doing is validating government waste.

This.
I used to oppose a federal sales tax but I've come to realize it's the best way make people understand what the government is taking from them, they will see it every time they buy something.

The solution is government built highrise concrete barracks, bare concrete rooms with no door and a concrete slab to sleep on.  armed officer stationed on every floor.  temperature regulated to 55 degrees.  basic, meals (grains, potato, wholesale meat) available for free.  You can live there for free as long as you want, even if you make 120k a year, but if you want better, you have to move out.  

There should always be a minimal fallback to at least sustain existence.  section 8 in nice houses with lavish food stamp rights is not the answer, but its the best we can do, apparently.

I totally agree (although at 18%) but it will never happen.  It's SO fair that it takes away the power of special interest/lobbiest.

Let's feed them poo and pee

Then good luck at fixing the problem when at least 45% of the population has figured out that they can vote themselves free money.

10K guy with ZERO income tax rate will be living in front of your house in his car, as that would barely  pay for rent, let alone any other living expenses.....



Wanting something for nothing is a human condition that would not be limited to the 45% who don't pay federal tax.

Bingo.

 

I agree with some of what you say but there must be an income limit. If this were available to me when I was younger I would have gladly lived under those conditions and banked some major money to get a better start in life. I've lived in worse.

I have often said that of you want to reduce welfare, and eventually get rid of it, hand the whole thing over the IRS.  Disband the rest of the "hand out" apparatus.

Initially, the lowest income earners and no income earners get more money back than they pay in, but they have to file a return.  Also, the IRS, being the vicious bastards they are capable of being, sort out all of the fraudsters and cheats.  After a few years, welfare will be lowered simply by losing a greater number of cheats.

Next step, start reducing the "hand outs" until they eventually cease.

Meh.  That's my thought on the subject.

I've had plenty of years that when it was all said and done I paid no federal income taxes. That doesn't mean I paid no taxes, just that they weren't federal income taxes.
This year I will probably be on the positive side for fed income taxes, but compared to all the other taxes I've paid so far the actual dollar amount there is minimal. Fees, sales taxes, gas taxes, registration costs... It all adds up. Higher taxes and fees mean higher costs for things I buy, since the companies making, transporting and selling those items have to make a profit and also pay their employees, including taxes on that income. So even if we completely cut ALL my personal taxes, unless I sit on that money and do nothing I still paid taxes in some way shape or form.

That drug dealer pretending to be unemployed or barely employed when it comes to income taxes is also spending a bunch of cash on other stuff and paying taxes on it while the people and companies working to provide those goods are also paying taxes along the way to provide those items. Even though the dealer personally didn't pay any income taxes and is spending drug money that money DOES wind up taxed along the way. It was probably taxed along the way to him and is taxed along the way when he spends it.

So let's look at it another way. Someone makes 10k, they're somehow managing to not be on any government assistance (let's say they're helping their neighbors and stuff, making a little on the side and not reporting it, get some food from their church or a local charity...) They're JUST making it, you tax their income even a little bit and now they're done. They can't afford what little they already were buying. Now they stop reporting any income, work totally under the table and basically tell the government to kiss off. That's your BEST case scenario financially from the government perspective. At least they're not costing you money other than the little bit of taxes you might have gotten. They're still spending that 10k trying to scrape by, which does translate into taxes before and after. Option two is that they give up and become dependent on government assistance of one form or another. Probably many forms. Now they're costing you way more than 10k a year. Worse, your tax funded money being used to help them is going back into the economy and continuing to be taxed, making it even less efficient than if they'd earned that money themselves.

I'm sure the study has been done. In fact I imagine the IRS studies this constantly. I'd be curious to know just how much of a dollar spent on basics winds up being taxes. Full circle tracking. To make it easy we'll say that the person spending the money makes a widget that is taxed at normal sales taxes and is transported to a regional warehouse but still inside their state. Then the item is transported to a store and sold to that same person. The person is not self employed, they work for a mid sized company of a few hundred employees. So if you track the money from the taxes taken out on their pay check through the taxes and regulatory fees involved in production, transport and sale... then the taxes for the company if any on that slice of their sales... In the end, how much of each $ is going to taxes by the time it makes it back into the company. You have to take into account the state a company is in, but we can ignore things like 1% city taxes and such just to keep it easier. Any significant regulatory fees from a city would be included though, along with all taxes paid on materials used to produce that item.

ETA: I like the idea proposed by the post above mine. Make the neutral point something reasonable to survive on and have a small window in the middle of no money either way so there's no spot where making a little more money nets you no additional income after taxes. Do not make even the biggest payout big enough to survive on alone. If someone's not able to work or make any income it is either a SS Disability issue or not the government's problem. There are lots of charities out there, government is NOT your permanent safety net and family group. Aggressively go after the cheaters, to the point where it's costing more money than it saves short term. When caught, rather than putting them in jail simply cut them off from any and all refunds for the rest of their lives. They can get their tax rate to 0% but will never get another dime coming the other way directly. Putting them in jail just costs us money and is likely to result in other issues down the road. It's enough to simply cut them off from the trough.

There is something to be said for this.

Poverty tax: 50% That would provide a LOT of incentive to be successful.

Graduate the income tax in the  OTHER direction.

Ben Franklin was right.

The whole "50% of Americans don't pay taxes" argument is BS. Income tax finances about 30% of the federal budget. For the vast majority of Americans the payroll tax is a bigger chunk of their tax burden, and the payroll tax is brutally regressive. The only thing we really need to do at the bottom of the income curve is eliminate refundability of tax credits so the tax code isn't a defacto welfare program.

Taxation is a necessary evil, the tax code should concern itself with funding the essential services of the federal government while keeping the impact of the inherent infringements to a minimum, that means the tax structure needs to be somewhat progressive.

If you really think "fairness" is at issue why not just have government charge everyone a flat fee? You know why, the federal spending per household is higher than median household income. "Skin in the game" won't change a damn thing politically except drive voters away from those who advocate it.

ETA agree with the premise it's a better idea to facilitate people getting to the point where they can pay their own way. Taxing the poor just increases the demand for social welfare spending.

I think that should be available to people, but I am more liberal than most people on this site. The money you had to pay for rent when you were younger could have gone to a business or investment when you were at a stage of life where you could take more risks.  It is true, some people would take advantage of it.

In order to vote, you should:

- be a U.S. citizen and be able to prove it
- be 18 years old
- not be a felon
- have paid taxes in the last year

And everyone should have to pay taxes.  Everyone should have to pay 10% of their income in Federal income tax.  No exceptions of any kind and that would also apply to corporations.  When everyone has to pay, people will start paying attention to how the money is spent.

Sorry, I don't agree that there should be an arbitrary amount of income where you have to start paying taxes. EVERYONE should have to pay federal taxes, regardless of income. Personally, I'm a bigger fan of how it works in this state, where we don't have state taxes on income. But with the current system EVERYONE should have skin in the game if they want to haves the luxuries associated with living in this country



 

We'll have to disagree then. i believe that there is a baseline income below which there should be no income tax, because you need that amount of money simply to survive.

Works for me too.

Replace with incentives on the wealthy and educated to reproduce.

The biggest reason for exemptions and standard deductions is to ensure that the capital-owning classes have access to cheaper labor.



Or is it only the "rich" who pass their tax costs on to who ever purchases their goods and services?



 

Many people I know make money off the tax system. It would be a step in the right direction if they just got their withholding back at the end of the year and it was all even. Many people I know have a couple of grand withheld and then receive a "refund" for say $6,000 as an example due to EIC and child tax credits.

 

How would the poor pass on their tax costs to anyone?
I'm curious what you base your belief on as to why standard deductions exist.
Most people I believe see that every dollar you make should not be subject to being taxed and hence the standard deduction.
Too many dedeuctions or taxes being slapped on stuff is meant to encourage certain behaviors and discourage others...sin taxes, for instance



Yup, I touched on that earlier. I on't know many people who claim the EITC but I'm sure a ton of the people I deal with are getting it, if they pay taxes at all.....

The problem with this line is that you get to define what the line is of "poor" that doesn't pay taxes.

Right now it's apperantly 47% of the population.

Top 1%: paid 36.7% of all income tax collected; average tax rate 24.01%
Top 5%: paid 58.7% of all income tax collected; average tax rate 20.46%
Top 10% paid 70.5% of all income tax collected; average tax rate 18.05%
Top 25%: paid 87.3% of all income tax collected; average tax rate 14.68%
Top 50%: paid 97.7% of all income tax collected; average tax rate 12.50%
Bottom 50%: paid 2.3% of all income tax collected; average tax rate 1.85%

I see no problem with an across the board tax. Make a dollar, you are paying a million time less in taxes then the guy that made a million bucks. The guy that earned a million can't hide/shelter his taxes so that he pays a lower rate then the guy that made 50K.


Equality, how does that work?

Everyone who buys anything, lives anywhere, or has a car pays taxes.



Unless they are living in the woods hunting and gathering, I don't see how someone couldn't have a "skin in the game."



Sure, you can argue that their percentage isn't enough, but then you go down the slippery slope of "how much is enough".


 

I really disagree with this, even if it makes me sound like a heartless bastard.  I'm mostly OK with the graduated tax percentages but I believe everyone should have to contribute something, even if it's only a few percent.  Obviously I don't believe in the tax credit garbage.

Is it even possible to make 10K a year now working full time?

The problem is taxing the income itself.  Tax the products that get purchased (hello, Fair Tax).  The reason it won't ever pass is because it puts wayyyyy to much power into the hands of the people.  The Govt can't have the people taking power back....

Consumption tax is the way to go in a free market.

Everyone does have "skin" in the game. It's freedom and more and more are happy with voting it away in order get free government "skin", or to keep their own "skin" out of the game or put more of the other guy's "skin" in the game.

You don't seem to consider how much of our insane level of spending is due to entitlement programs.  If we get that under control and everyone has to contribute something, even if it's only a couple hundred bucks a year, our deficits will be cut drastically.

The minimum tax rate is 15% SS on any earned income.  After that The demographic getting hosed is $40,000 to $110,000(give or take depending on your filing status). The minimum income tax rate is 10%, but deductions can wipe out most of that for those making less than $35000 a year.