The're called "The Non-Taxpaying Class." The poor working folks that had their income tax burden lifted by Reagan. It seems that big tax cuts for wealthy Americans isn't enough, now the're complaining about the person who earns $12,ooo a year and ends up "paying a little less than 4 percent of income in taxes."

And worse yet, according to the article, various tax credits, mostly aimed at helping families raise children, further reduce the income tax burden on low-income folks to the point that "almost 13 percent of all workers have no tax liability and so are indifferent to income tax rates.

From the Wall Street Journal's editorial page: "Who are these lucky duckies?"

Is there no end to their greed?

MT

When it comes to taxes I think that everyone should have the same percentage come out of their check. You should not be taxed more or less depending on who you are and what class you are in. It should be a straight percentage. I.E.

If we had a 10% tax on every one someone who makes 200,000 a year would pay 20,000 for taxes, and someone who makes 20,000 would pay 2,000 dollars. Both people would have the same amount percentage wise taken away from them. I think that this would be the only fair way of doing things.

For the working poor paying taxes, no matter how small the amount , would cause a huge hardship which the rich would not endure, which is not fair.

MT

So, you believe that someone like the CEO of GE, for instance, should only have to pay the same amount in taxes as a McDonalds employee. What would be the results of that do you think?

Madtown, appealing to people who believe they should not have to pay more than a percentage of the income by pointing out the hardships of others falls on deaf ears. They believe they should be able to have 6 cars while some families can't even afford food.

The greed does not end by asking them to put themselves in someone elses place because I don't believe they know how.

I agree with David in part that a flat tax could work, but only for working people. It leaves out those who have never had to work and live off big fat trust funds. While I wish they would give their money voluntarily, some just won't.

Should the government force them to give it up and redistribute to the poor? I don't know if I can agree to that. I hate to see the government have that much control over people's property (yes, money is one's property).

I love the idea that a person who works hard gets to keep their own money. I'm not sure what to do about those who don't work hard and yet have lots of money. A "death tax" may be appropriate but not as that law is currently written (it effects too many family farmers and the percentage is too high).

I have trouble not asking the poor to pay anything. I RARELY agree to a free ride.

In theory it sounds fair. I am not an economy major. Should the number of dependents make any difference? Would our nation still be as vibrant if the few that hold the highest amount of the wealth were not made to contribute more? Is it unfair to ask them to? I don't know. I'm not in that bracket but I don't see them suffering. If it contributes to the economy and society why shouldn't they have to pay things like inheritance and leisure taxes? I don't know if they are unfair. But maybe without it we would not live in the richest country in the world.

I was going to post something really good, using some wonderful government statistics.

Unfortunately, I do not understand the report. But, here is the latest Congressional Budget Office report on tax revenue:

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=527&s...&sequence=0#pt3

Good luck.

There is one thing I'd like to add here, however. If companies didn't have to pay as much in taxes, don't you think they could afford to pay their employees a little better?

Mike

My family is not rich by any means so I am not biased towards the wealthy but I dont see why they should have to pay more out of their account just because they have more money than the rest of us. They should have to want to give their money not be forced to. And as far as the "lazy people with the trust funds" it is the same deal. They have the money it was given to them. If they want to hoard it that is their choice. Although I would like to see them hand their money out I dont think that it is right to force them to do so by taxing them more.

Jaime, I don't think anyone gets a free ride. The working poor do contribute by not being on welfare and they pay sales tax and payroll tax.
The upper class gives little and receives much. They control the government.

What is it....the top 5% control over 50% of the country's wealth so they should pay over 50%of the tax and stop hammering on the poor. Tax relief for the poor was Reagans only good deed.

They should contribute more to the financing of the Bush/Republican government and war....because they have the most to give and the most to lose.

Madtown

Madtown you make a valid point about the working poor paying sales tax, payroll tax and not being on welfare. I hadn't thought of it that way.

I also am getting a little worried because there is a second point on which we side together (at least in part ). I agree with you that the wealthy with corporate interests in potentially dangerous countries be forced to cough up a little more for the protection the U.S. military provides them and their corporate interests.

One thing that bothers me still is that you lump all rich into the same category. I see a HUGE difference between the working rich and the trust fund rich. (Here in Savannah it's called "nouveau riche" and "old money").

The working rich are responsible for employing thousands of people in this country. They are also responsible for paying half the unemployment insurance and match the social security earnings of all their employees. The working rich contribute much to the American people already. These people are not "Lucky Duckies" they worked hard to create a successful company.

The trust fund rich are a different story. I don't know what these people do with their money. I suppose we could call these people the "Lucky Duckies." Particularly those who have inherited a lot of money and chose not give anything back to the country that allowed the opportunity for their ancestors to make such fortunes.

Perhaps we could tax those with trust funds at a higher rate if they chose to have their money go to political action/lobbying groups. If they chose to send their money to non-profit institutions then they can be taxed at a lower rate. I don't know about this. I'm just throwing it out there because it sprang to mind.

Jaime: According to the Census Bureau, only one in twenty farms will ever be wealthy enough to pay the estate tax - and they are mostly large, corporate agri-businesses. Of the "family farms" within that 5%, most of them could also pass on the farm without paying the tax with a bit of planning. You might want to check out this article on the issue by the Director of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center (and a farmer himself).

His article concludes:

Jaime, Rich is rich. They hold the wealth, they should pay. God knows they wouldn't even miss it.

Where would the working rich be without the workers they employ? Why do you think Unions came about? The corporations will take advantage of workers whenever they can. They can't be trusted.

Don't think that those successful company owners don't pass on insurance & SS expenses to the public. And then they have the nerve to call the poor people at the bottom who don't pay taxes, Lucky Duckies. It's sick!

MT

I think some of us are using some terms interchangeably, which they should not be. Lets clear somethign up.

Percentage, and total taxes paid.

If the PERCENTAGE that everyone is taxed was the SAME, the right STILL pay more. They do not pay the same or less then poor people.

10% of 200,000 = 20,000
10% of 20,000 = 2000

Lets keep the percentage and actual money paid seperately eh? hehe

Anyhoo, its not the rich peoples fault that their rich, and they shouldn't be penelized because they are.

And for those who think this last tax cut was for the rich only, I would call up the IRS and complain, because everyone should have gotten a check. x amount for singles, y amount for married filing serparetly, and z amount for married filing jointly.

--cheers

Yeah, and those same figures work when across the board raises are handed out!

There is nothing fair about flat tax. The far rights position that equal percentage is fair is nuts. To take food money from the poor is not fair. No way can you make that fair.

To call those who are living on the edge of poverty Lucky Duckies is just remarkable.


MT

Whoa! I don't remember reading in the Constitution that wealthy people should be treated different than poor people.

It is a lose-lose situation-- if you want to tax the rich to give to the poor, you are not being fair to the rich, and if you want to tax the poor to give to the government, it is not fair to the poor.

So someone will always get screwed. There is no happy medium on this one.

Saying that a flat tax is "nuts", though, certainly seems a bit exaggerated. One is not considered "nuts" if they want to keep what they have earned.

And we certainly shouldn't be punished for being successful.

Mike

Maybe the issue is the right kind of flat tax. How about an across the board assets tax at a single rate, perhaps 2%. There would be no deductions, none, with one exception. Since we wouldn't want the IRS wasting resources tracking down every old undeclared pick up or guitar we would have say a $5000 deduction for everybody. Then you pay the flat rate, no deductions, no exceptions.

It would be a lot fairer than the flat income tax because you wouldn't have a lot of rich people working out special tax exemptions with their high priced accountants. You would also avoid all the time consuming finagling over what's a legitimate expense and what isn't. In fact it would virtually put the accountants out of business. People who didn't own their own homes and had few financial assets would pay virtually nothing even if they had moderate incomes. This would definitely be a boon to the working poor.

Not only the fairness but the simplicity really appeals to me. List your assets, deduct the $5000 or whatever and then pay a fixed percentage of the total. As I implied before, accountants would have to start training for new jobs.

There is in addition a principle here. The tax system should be used strictly for raising money, not promoting pc behavior. For instance if the government wishes to help families with children they should help directly, not use the tax system as an under the table benefit where some need it and some don't. Donations would be just that - donations, honorable giving without it being polluted by some tax advantage or the government coming up with tortured rationales as to why one gift is deductable and another isn't. Also it's sort of Orwellian to call a tax benefit a "break" and a cash benefit "welfare." There is no substantive difference. So my proposal would bring some integrity to the whole business of public policy and tax raising. Also no room for interest group pressure here.

When I think reform I think how can we make it fairer and simpler? The latter is terribly important because how can we evaluate public policy if we find ourselves continuously assaulted by unexplainable and paralyzing complexity? There ought to be some body that's dedicated to evaluating things like the tax system and government regulations in general and recommending changes to make them fair and simple and accessible to the public.

Great blanket statement. Never figures to back it up.
And where would the employees be without the employers?
Oh, don't you know all rich people should give back their money. Those Kennedy’s have all of that money and that compound out there. Goodness, they haven't been handing it down from the old guy who sold bootleg have they? Oh no!
I've finally gotten it. None of us should work hard and gain wealth because if we do we are suppose to redistribute it to the poor. So why work? We should just all be the same. I think that is called communism. But no, not here in America. Well, keep it up we will be.
We should not build up our savings so that we are sure we can take care of ourselves in old age (which takes a great deal if one is infirmed) because we might die first and then the kids would inherit. Oh no! We can't have that in The US. Never mind that the richest in the US are already paying most of the taxes. Not just the upper 1%. These figures have been posted several times on the threads in this forum. The liberals just choose to ignore them.
They don't post facts because they don't have reliable ones to post. At best they use polls which we all know are really reliable. Like ...the Democrats were going to win all of those seats in the last election. We ALL know polls can be spun any way you want. All you need to do is ask the right questions.

Good call MOUSE.

Communisim is where everyone is the same. Everyone makes the same amount of money, everyone has this everyone has that. blah blah blah.

But that isn't the way it should be. Some people are black, some are white. Some people are rich, and some are poor. Some people are big and tall, others are short and fat. It's just the way things are. No one ever said life is fair. You work hard, and do the best you can with what life throws hands you.

--cheers

Agreed!! If I work hard and manage to amass say, 1.5 million dollars in my 401k, I should not have to worry about it being taxed like crazy when I want to leave it to my family when I die. Why is that fair? Am I to be punished for working hard and saving and not expecting a handout from the gov't when I retire? I know that Social Security is going broke so I am not counting on one cent from it, I am taking care of myself. I just don't understand the notion of "the wealthy can pay more, Lord knows they won't even miss it." That to me sounds like either a quote from RobinHood or Karl Marx. This is America, and you get what you put into it. If you do nothing, you get nothing. Now simply dropping out of high school and only making minimum wage and then complaining about how someone who worked 2 jobs to put themselves through college is making over 100k a year is completely insane. If you want a society where no one really is in danger of falling on their face try moving to China. (Noone has a chance to excel either by the way.) And don't expect the government to steal from people who have money and give it to you. If you don't like your situation, do something to change it. I am not at all for wealthy not having to pay their fair share, but I am far from being wealthy, and my wife and I paid almost $20k in income taxes last year, and I think that is ridiculous.

First, I'd like to clarify one point about graduated income tax which is frequently ignored or misunderstood. Those with higher incomes are only taxed more on the excessive income. In other words, if the cut-off for the lowest tax bracket is $25,000 and those in that bracket are taxed at 15%, those making $200,000 are only taxed 15% on their first $25,000. If the cut-off for the next bracket is $50,000 and those in that bracket are taxed at 25%, someone making $50,000 is taxed at 15% on the first $25,000 and 25% only on the next $25,000. If the top bracket were taxed at 35% (for anyone, in this hypothetical, making over $50,000), such an income would only be taxed at 35% for anything over $50,000. If one makes $50,001, one is only taxed at 35% on $1. So, graduated income tax is much fairer than many would have us believe: everyone is taxed exactly the same amount for each level of income.

Now, why should these levels exist at all? Actually, for ethical reasons - or, at least, that was the rationale when a graduated tax was first proposed. Each working citizen contributes roughly the same amount of time to the economic system: forty hours per week. How do we determine the value of that contribution? Our time, the portion of our life which we devote to work, can be valued like any other commodity - according to the laws of supply and demand. But the market is dispassionate - it has no ethical sense - it would happily allow large portions of any given population to work for virtually nothing.

So, how do we balance the ethical and economic values of our more or less equal contributions? As the market itself would stand by and watch people starve, we are ethically forced to establish a minimum wage. The same is true for unemployment insurance, worker's compensation, welfare, benefits packages which include healthcare and retirement plans, etc. None of these are demanded by pure economics. In each case, we have said that we value our lives, our labor, and our time - that we are more than just a mere commodity.

Yet, when it comes to taxation, there are those who choose to see the issue in purely economic terms, ignoring ethical considerations. We all contribute roughly the same portion of our lives producing goods and services. Yet, despite our equal contributions, those goods and services are not equally distributed by the market. Most of us, the working poor especially, contribute far more than we receive in return. Those material commodities enjoyed by the wealthy - large homes, expensive cars, country clubs, private jets, cocaine habits - are all the product of people who are not wealthy. Their lifestyle is, in effect, funded by our contributions. There could be no billionaires without the working poor.

The market essentially taxes the workers just as as the government taxes the wealthy. By taxing the wealthy on their excessive income, the government is simply forcing them to refund a portion of our labor, our lives. Graduated income tax is an explicit tax on income which redresses an implicit tax on labor. It also helps balance the regressive taxes which we all pay equally, such as sales tax. Or, in any event, this was the argument which established a graduated income tax in the first place.

Further, the "flat tax" being advocated by the likes of Arlen Specter, Dick Armey, and Steven Forbes, is not a true flat tax. First, what is being proposed is a flat tax on earned income (like working peoples' wages), not unearned income (like capital gains, interest and dividends, inheritance, etc.). The bulk of Steven Forbes' income (from invested inheritance), for example, would be totally exempt. Each of these proposals is also, technically, progressive - just more radically so. Each proposes a primary exemption - i.e., a minimal income below which no tax would be paid at all. So there would be two graduations: zero and top rate. (How fair is that?) As the absolute poorest are thus exempt and there is no tax on unearned income, the burden is still placed on the middle class. I've seen statistics that indicate that for such a "flat tax" to make up the same tax revenue as the current tax system, that the rate would not be around the 17-20% advertized by most flat tax advocates, but closer to 45% of earned income.

While I agree that we are in sore need of tax reform, I'd suggest looking to closing the loopholes that those who can afford expensive accounting firms exploit to avoid paying the bulk of their taxes and look into making business and property taxes more progressive. Looking at the figures, though (and understanding how graduated taxes really work), a "flat tax" seems neither fair nor equitable - and most of us (unless we're making in excess of $200,000 annually) would be paying the same as or considerably more than we're currently paying under the graduated system. No, thank you.

Apparently rich people suffer when a democrat is in office. And now that a Republican is in office even middle class and lower are suffering. So, which is more fair?

Federal employees get a reduced salary increase blamed on the War on Terror, which is apparently sucking up too much of our money to allow us to pay middle class workers properly.

Tax cuts for the wealthy couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. The War on Terror hasn't led to any reversals of that.

You are assuming we all work 40 hours. Many of us, particularly executives and management work far, far more than 40 hours. Also, you say nothing of philathrophy. I disagree with most of your argument and find it more of the same written very well.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that each working citizen contributes roughly the same amount of time to work.

I am well aware of the fact that many of us put in far more than that. When I worked in television, I worked an average of sixty-four hours per week for eight years. Most of the people in my grade worked similar hours. Our managers, however, did not. In fact, I've worked for six major corporations and about a dozen smaller companies and I have yet to come across a single manager who put in more overtime than those working under him/her. The executives, in my experience, barely put in forty hours. I know many factory workers and service workers who frequently pull double shifts; I don't know of any of their supervisors doing the same. Your experience could be quite different from mine - you may work with CEOs who routinely put in eighty-hour weeks while none of their employees require overtime.

I still maintain that it evens out: rich, poor, and all those in between "contribute roughly the same amount of time to the economic system". I used forty hours as a hypothetical average, assuming that all the part-time workers in the country balance out those of us who routinely work sixty-hour weeks. I may be off by several minutes in either direction. It doesn't affect my argument.

Now, do you disagree with anything of substance in my posting?

I'd rather see a flat tax system than our current system.

Last year, Russia implemented a 13% flat tax. Their economy grew at 5%. Tax revenue was 28% higher than the previous year. If a former communist country can go flat tax, why can't the economic leader of the world do it?

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed032102.cfm

Flat tax doesn't seem fair? Taxing the rich doesn't seem fair either. Quit punishing those who have worked hard to earn what they have.

Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor is socialism at best. Yuck!

I wonder about that 45% figure Wertz came up with. I would bet it would be a lot less. After all, if we implemented the flat tax, we could slash the IRS (the gov't largest dept) and save billions and billions of dollars

--cheers

Rich people can also afford fancy accountants. I poorer person who is doing his or her own taxes probably can't take advantage of every tax break. Flax taxes also don't work. You can't say everyone pays 10% of his or her income. What is income? The poor person can't move to the Dutch Antilles or use many tax evasions that the rich can use. This creates a regressive tax system where the poor pay more. Do we want the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer?

eh? what is income? the money you make for performing a task: Your salary is a good example.

When I speak of a flat tax, I would also include zero tax deductions. No more fancy accounts to find loopholes and ways to pay lower taxes. This way, we can slash the IRS, save billions of dollars, and cause less headache for millions of Americans everywhere on April 15th x% is x%, period, no deductions.

--cheers

Read all about the "Lucky Duckies."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/03/opinion/03KRUG.html

Apart from my salary, what else do you consider income, DP? Capital gains? Interest on savings? Investment returns? Stock dividends? Inheritance? Many of our wealthiest citizens do not "perform tasks" - their money does. Is this included or excluded? If excluded, you're placing even more of a burden on low and middle income families.


The concept of deductions is based on determining what one's actual income is. For example, two guys work as carpenters. They do roughly the same amount of work and each earns $100,000 in a year. One guy is an employee. He works for a construction company that assigns him work and provides him with a truck and tools. The other guy is self-employed. He hires an assistant to find contracts and schedule appointments and pays him $27,500. He buys a truck for $25,000. He spends $7500 more on insurance and tools - and another $2500 on office supplies and overhead. Without deductions, these two men pay exactly the same tax - let's say 25%. One starts out with $100,000 and, after tax, has $75,000 to spend. The other, after covering his expenses, ends up with $37,500 - after tax, he's got $12,500 to spend. You find this fair? The issue should not be to eliminate all deductions, but to isolate legitimate ones and separate them from welfare for the rich.

Bush's FAIR tax cuts.



http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwb0402.pdf

First of all the part about the high interest rates is not fact.
Secondly, the chart only shows the % and $ of reduction. It undefined does not give the % and $ paid now. It is incomplete and really tells us nothing.

Wertz: I don't pretend to have all the answers. I never have. Whether or not I would include capital gains or interest doesn't really matter. It would be up to the gov't to decide that. They make the laws, I don't. I see that as a trivial point.

But to answer your question, Yes, I would personally include some or all of that, after careful study of course

You DO have a point when it comes to tax deductions for small business. The IRS deems that any money spent in the pursuit of profit, is tax deductable.

If this self-employeed person can deduct all those things from his earnings, then so can large multi billion dollar corporations. We shouldn't tax business' differently.

Keeping this in mind, I thought liberals were all for taxing the heck out of the rich and the large companies? This tax break joe blow self employeed is getting, will ALSO be given to these large money hoarding corporations. Right?

MT:

Yes yes yes, 60% of the tax cut given to the wealthiest 1%. But ya know what? The wealthiest 1% pay 60% of the taxes!

In a previous post, Wertz explained how the graduated tax system works. So...if we are taxed in a graduated mannor, then the tax REFUND should also be graduated. It makes sense.

And lets not forget the refund check you should have received. It was the same for everyone depending on your tax status (single or married) I don't really recall what the amount was, but lets say it was $500.

$500 is pocket change to a rich man. PPPFFFFTTTT what the heck is he going to do with that $500 that he couldn't do any time he wants? That money probably just went to his son as part of his weekly allowance

On the other hand, $500 could feed a family of 4 for a month. That was a lifesavor for some working poor people. It could have helped put food on the table or get them out of debt.

so.....WHO did the refund check benefit more?

--cheers

DP - I find I am in agreement with most of your previous post with the exception of the above-referenced quotation.

YOU are the government, Digital Patriot. I am the government. Wertz, Madtown and MOUSE are the government (see where I'm going with this?). We THE PEOPLE are the government.

I think one of the main reasons our tax system is such a beauracratic mess is because we have forgotten WE are the government. WE make the laws. We need to start demanding our representatives listen to us and remind them of who put them in the plush offices in the first place.

It was a $300 rebate, though I believe it was doubled for those filing joint returns. In any event, NO ONE benefited more from that rebate because it was a scam.

Bush touted the alleged rebate checks (at great expense) throughout the spring and early summer of 2000. But, if you looked closely at your 2001 tax forms, you'd find that you gave it back. The $300 was either deducted from your refund (if you'd already paid more tax than was due) or was factored into your total tax bill. If you have a copy of Form 1040 from 2001, I believe it was line 41. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away - but this Lord only advertiseth the giving.

The check was NOT taxed, and shoudl not have been included in your income under any circumstances.

I checked with two seperate tax consultants, and had my taxes done professionally. No one said I had to claim it.

I couldn't tell you about the refund, I paid up the wazoo last year

--cheers

I didn't get a refund. But it would take more than $300.00 for me to change my opinion on the performance of the Prez.

Wertz, the flaw in your argument is the value of time. Time is not a measure of worth. People of different skills are paid at different rates. Would you pay a heart surgeon the same hourly rate as a clerk in a store with a grade school or less education? The same is true of anyone who has spent years studying for a degree and working to achieve his goals. These people have invested time and money to earn their salaries which vary with their skills and diligence.
You obviously have had some unusual experiences where management is concerned. I am familiar with many people of this grade, and believe me in order to succeed they worked far more than forty hours. Unlike you, my husband worked for one company for his entire career. But we were in a position to observe many others, and in many different types of occupations. Most of these people do not become rich. Hopefully they will earn enough to retire, enjoy their golden years, and prepare for their future so as not to be dependent on their children or the government.
Also your sentence about CEOs who routinely put in eighty-hour weeks while none of their employees require overtime could not be further from the truth. Obviously you are not familiar with manufacturing, research, and some types of production. It sounds as though you were not content in any of your occupations. This is just part of my argument of the substance? of your post?

Jaime, I must say I do not understand your statement about difference between inherited wealth and "working rich". The "trust fund rich" as you call them have as much right to their money as you and I do. Why do they not? I thought this was supposed to be a free country. You are advocating redistribution of the wealth. What I hear you and MT saying is that what you really want is their money without earning it. They DO contribute to this country. Their money does not just sit in a bank. It wouldn’t last very long if it did. It is invested, helps drive the economy, and creates jobs. These people pay taxes.
Another thing that I might as well get off my chest is this talk about people with low incomes being treated unfairly. Most of them do not pay income taxes if their incomes are truly low. But they do reap the benefits of our free society, and the taxes the rest of us pay. They receive police protection, fire protection, roads, schools, libraries, garbage pick up at no cost. There are a zillion other things if one stops to think about it. I grant you that they pay sales taxes, but MT what in heck is a payroll tax? If you mean withholding they don’t pay any if they are truly poor. If you mean social security they will get their return. Payroll tax makes no sense.
The real focus should be on the fact that we are a free society, and even poor people are free to improve their situations. Education and hard work are there if they really want to apply themselves. They may not receive a degree in four years, they may only receive a GED or elementary school, but they can improve their situation. Tommy Thompson as done much to revamp welfare that is along these lines. Many states now have programs that pay the tuition for students who maintain something like a 2.5 grade point and have proper SAT scores. They are becoming available in more states each year.
MT
You say the the top 5% control over 50% of the country's wealth so they should pay over 50%of the tax and stop hammering on the poor. THEY DO!!! In fact they pay more than that. INAPPROPRIATE PERSONAL ATTACK REMOVED

What corporations are you speaking of? Most corporations were taxed at over 55% years back. I am sure it is higher now.
Wertz My line 41 from 2001 says ZERO. How much of this just plain junk do you think we will swallow?

Mouse

A great many of the low income people do not pay income taxes. That is true now, but the Compassionate Conservatives want to change that. They want these "Lucky Duckies" to pay. That is what this thread is suppose to be about.

As I have mentioned before, the very poor do contribute by working and not being on welfare. Since, for various reasons, they are not educated they are at the mercy of the educated who pay them so little they cannot afford to pay income taxes. I believe this is the fundamental problem.

They pay sales taxes and taxes for services and certain fees. They pay county, and state payroll taxes, depending on which state they reside in.

Corporations do not pay income taxes, they are just tax collectors for the government. Remember companies must pass all business costs along in one way or another to its customers so we all pay for "corporate" taxes. Just another sham to get more money from you and me.

I am aware that the top 5% pay over 50% of the taxes (around 54%) and well they should. But they still want to hammer the poor. They should leave their ivory towers and see how the working poor live, then they might have some compassion, but I doubt it.

The problem with people like you is that you are so afraid some poor person might get a break, like police and fire protection and even rubbish removal (Gosh, I laughed at that one). that they didn't pay for.

One more thing. You have mentioned several times that CEO's, business owners etc work hard and long and dillligently. Let me tell you that poor people also work hard and long and diligently.

MT

Corporations do pay income taxes. You are quite wrong.
Compassionate conservatives do not want to change anything about the poor paying taxes.
None of your arguments hold water. But I am sick of trying to reason with you because I don't think it is possible to do so. Most of my post was not meant for you.
I don't take drugs and I very much resent you saying in the message they took off that I do.

[quote=MOUSE,Dec 5 2002, 08:08 AM]MT[/QUOTE]
Corporations do pay income taxes. You are quite wrong.
Compassionate conservatives do not want to change anything about the poor paying taxes.
None of your arguments hold water. But I am sick of trying to reason with you because I don't think it is possible to do so. Most of my post was not meant for you.
I don't take drugs and I very much resent you saying in the message they took off that I do.[/quote]
And you are quite wrong.

Tuesday, November 26,2002....Washington Post

"Prepare yourself for the latest cause of the political right. You are about to hear a great deal about how working Americans at the bottom of the economy are not paying enough in taxes.

I am not making this up. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page always provides important clues about The Next New Thing among conservatives, and there it was last week assailing "The Non-Taxpaying Class."

The editorial writers are roiled by the fact that the richest Americans, those with incomes of more that $500,000 a year, account for 28 percent of total tax revenue and the top 5 percent 'coughed up more than half of total tax revenue.' The Journal contrasts these unfortunate souls with the thriving person who earns $12,000 a year and ends up 'paying a little less than 4 percent of income in taxes'."

I very much resent your INAPPROPRIATE PERSONAL ATTACK
MT

No MT, Corporations pay an income tax, just like a lot of us

http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article...2342A5861B5EACF

Check out that link. It's from nolo.com, a site specializing in explaining law in plain english. This article is on how Corps are taxed, and is writen by a lawyer.

Here is a quote from the first paragraph:

Corporations are taxed differently than other business structures: a corporation is the only type of business that must pay its own income taxes on profits. In contrast, partnerships, sole proprietorships and limited liability companies (LLCs) are not taxed on business profits; instead, the profits "pass through" the businesses to their owners, who report business income or losses on their personal tax returns.

--cheers

Corporations do not pay income taxes, they are just tax collectors for the government. Remember companies must pass all business costs along in one way or another to its customers so we all pay for "corporate" taxes. Just another sham to get more money from you and me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guess I stirred people up with the above. I was being sarcastic. Yes, corporations pay income tax. To them, taxes are just another business expense and remember companies must pass all business costs along to their customers, therefore we all pay for corporate taxes. All of which means

Corporations do not pay income taxes, they are just tax collectors for the government. Get it?

MT

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterw...w20021204.shtml

"A Subject area in economics, called The Incidence of Taxation, says that the party upon whom a tax is levied does not necessarily pay the tax. They might shift it onto some other party. That's precisely what corporations do. They are merely tax collectors.

MT

PS And who will the Lucky Duckies pass their taxes on to?

MT:

I read the artcle. I must say I'm suprised to see a link from a conservative news source coming from you

In any case. In the article, the author stated that if he charges $200, then he gets to take home $140 of it. However, if he charges $285, then he can take home $200.

But what he DOESN"T say, is that in the first way, he PAID $60 in taxes, in the second way, it was $85.

So, we can conclude that he paid MORE money in taxes because he charged the customer MORE money, and had a higher income. He still pays taxes no matter how much he charges. You can't pass taxes onto customers, because you aren't taxed until AFTER the customer pays.

********************

Secondly, if corporations really do what you say, then we should LOWER the corporation income tax, so that the corporations can pass that savings onto us....right? You have been an advocate of high taxes on rich people and large companies, so doesn't that mean that they will hike up the price of goods and services to compensate?

--cheers

I am an advocate of FAIR taxes for the rich and no taxes for the very poor.

The corporations pass on their taxes to others by charging more for their products and services. They probably estimate the tax and add it to the product cost.

If taxes were lowered for corporations the middle class would have to pay more so that is not an option.

I read conservative material but I seldom agree with it.

MT

Sorry, I did not mean that the alleged rebate was taxed - but I was partially in error. The $300 (or $500 or $600) was only deducted from tax refunds. If one owed additional tax, one was not penalized. However, those who were eligible for a refund had the amount of their "rebate check" deducted from their refund. For example, I was owed a refund on my 2001 taxes of $484. I received a check for $184. In other words, those checks were advance credits on one's 2001 tax refund - not a rebate from 2000. The line number on which the amount was entered varied depending on whether one was completing a Form 1040, 1040A, 1040EZ, or a TeleFile Tax Record.