Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago

Drug dealers, pimps, prostitutes, money launderers, etc., all don't pay income tax.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



They're supposed to, though. Read IRS Publication 1 or whichever one it is that comes with the yearly 1040. Drug dealers and prostitutes are supposed to pay taxes on their earnings. ;)

But that would be the beauty of a national sales-tax system, such as is explicitly provided for in the Constitution. The only way to evade it would be to make recourse to the black market. Somehow I doubt that even the most hardened criminals and tax evaders would see a reason to buy toothbrushes, toilet paper, and blueberry muffins on the black market just to avoid a few cents' tax. Who knows? Maybe they would. But at least we'd eliminate that vast swath of Americans who don't pay taxes purely by virtue of being below some arbitrary income level.

Accountants would fight such a system tooth and nail. A lot of their billable hours come from navigating their way through the absurd complexity of our deduction system.

Another thought on borrowing to pay for healthcare: I don't know about you, but I'd ridicule someone who took out a loan to make a charitable donation. No matter what the purpose, living beyond your means is dangerous. Yet that is exactly what our federal government is doing right now. How is it any different?
UserPostedImage
Porforis
15 years ago

Another thought on borrowing to pay for healthcare: I don't know about you, but I'd ridicule someone who took out a loan to make a charitable donation. No matter what the purpose, living beyond your means is dangerous. Yet that is exactly what our federal government is doing right now. How is it any different?

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



Oh man. If you want to go on the subject of "Why isn't the government held to the same or remotely close to the same standards as private citizens or companies", you could go on for years.
zombieslayer
15 years ago


Oh man. If you want to go on the subject of "Why isn't the government held to the same or remotely close to the same standards as private citizens or companies", you could go on for years.

"Porforis" wrote:



Heh. You could spend a lifetime on that book and not even be half done.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
15 years ago

Drug dealers, pimps, prostitutes, money launderers, etc., all don't pay income tax. In fact, you and I are paying for the services they receive. Nice to know, huh?

"zombieslayer" wrote:



I know those disreputable types are the easy ones to blame, but I think nonstop meant that percentage of Americans don't OWE federal income taxes.

Link 

47% will pay no federal income tax
An increasing number of households end up owing nothing in major federal taxes, but the situation may not be sustainable over the long run.

By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: October 3, 2009: 2:58 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Most people think they pay too much to Uncle Sam, but for some people it simply is not true.

In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.

The ranks of those whose major federal tax burdens net out at zero -- or less -- is on the rise. The center's original 2009 estimate was 38%. That was before enactment in February of the $787 billion economic recovery package, which included a host of new or expanded tax breaks.

The issue doesn't get a lot of attention even as lawmakers debate how to pay for policy initiatives like health reform, whether to extend the Bush tax cuts and how to reduce the deficit.

The vast majority of households making up to $30,000 fall into the category, as do nearly half of all households making between $30,000 and $40,000.

As you move up the income scale the percentages drop.

Nearly 22% of those making between $50,000 and $75,000 end up with no federal income tax liability or negative liability as do 9% of households with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000.

Of course, income taxes don't tell the whole story. Workers are also subject to payroll taxes, which support Social Security and Medicare.

When considering federal income taxes in combination with payroll taxes, the percent of households with a net liability of zero or less is estimated to be 24% this year, according to the Tax Policy Center's estimates.

A key reason why there is a zero-liability group at all is because the U.S. tax system is progressive. Those who bring in more money pay more than those lower down the income scale to support government functions such as national defense and social safety nets like Medicaid for those in need. That progressivity can be dialed up or down.

"Some think it's too progressive. Some don't think it's progressive enough," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center.

President Obama falls into the latter camp. He has proposed increasing the income tax burden on families making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000, while offering new measures to reduce the tax bite for most Americans making less.

One of Obama's proposals is to extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for everyone except high-income tax filers, which was the group that derived the most benefit from those cuts.

As a result, under Obama's budget, he would keep the ranks of the non-payers higher than they would otherwise be.
Why the tax-free matter

The question of who pays and who doesn't is not a trivial matter. But Washington policymakers are not dealing with it in an explicit way.

And that's a problem, given the country's fiscal outlook.

If asked to vote up or down on whether they are comfortable with such a large group of voters contributing no federal income tax or payroll tax revenue, the majority may well decide it is appropriate given the means of the households involved. Or they may decide that it's not.

Either way, that decision should inform the debate about the many costly policies and deficit-reduction strategies that lawmakers will be grappling with for years to come.

"As the number [of nonpayers] becomes larger, we have to question whether we'll make good decisions about how to allocate resources," economist George Zodrow, a professor at Rice University. "Most people don't understand how skewed the tax distribution is."

Experts say that to pay for all the things on the country's growing tab, the money can't just come from a shrunken pool of taxpayers.

"Over the long run, you'll have to have a broader base," Zodrow said.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
15 years ago
Why do we always revert back to point of taxation? Here's your assignment Nonstop, cause I don't have the time and frankly, I'm too lazy. Find out what the fiscal note on repealing the IRS individual income tax code is. Then figure out what percentagage of sales tax it would take not only to make it fiscally neutral, but to start to pay off the national debt and how long it would take to pay off that debt.

Then we could maybe start to seriously discuss this. Until then, I call BS that it is even possible to replace individual with sales tax. You might get your national sales tax, right along side your individual tax.
UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
15 years ago
That's what I'm scared of, Dakota. I think the first part of this discussion unfortunately is going to be ways to cut spending.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Porforis
15 years ago
I was pissed when I read that article the other day. Half of americans have no income tax obligations, but Joe Single making 20 grand a year owes 4 grand between state and federal. Guess I'd better get married and have kids.
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
15 years ago
When an individual dies with a negative net worth (debts greater than assets), who loses? Best answer: his creditors. They get less than they contracted for.

(Some will say "heirs" lose, too, but it's a different kind of loss. You can only be an heir after the other person is dead and has left assets greater than debts. An heir loses something hoped for, but a creditor loses something contracted for.)

Debt financing is not bad per se. Debt financing is bad when the person borrows more than can be paid back before he dies on terms agreeable to the creditor at time of borrowing.

The longer the creditor thinks you're going to live, the more they'll be willing to lend you.

For example, I *used* to argue that heavy borrowing for a college education made sense even if it meant the borrower had a negative net worth for several years after graduation. (I don't argue that anymore, but not because it makes the student a net borrower, only because I no longer believe that college educations give the value they used to.)

Which brings me to the case of governments who borrow great amounts. A government of a stable and productive country can maintain a bigger debt in percentage terms than an individual can for one simple reason: the country has a longer life span than the individual does.

My favorite example in class for the longest time was Britain circa 1815. Britain's government had run up an incredible debt. (I don't have the numbers at hand, but it was somewhere between 200 and 300% of annual GDP: in today's terms, that's like the USA federal government running accumulated deficits of between $30 and $40 trillion.)

And trust me, little as I like Obama, Chicago-style politics, and American politicians in general, they are pikers corruption-wise compared to the domestic "politics" of the English ruling class c. 1750-1815.

And on top of that domestic corruption, Britain had to deal with rebellion (us), Napoleon's imperial dreams (heckuva lot more expensive than Osama and Saddam combined), and the general drain that its empire put on its economy (some Brits got very rich from empire; the country as a whole paid through the nose to maintain that empire).

What saved Britain was the rising economic wealth that industrialization brought it. That and the fact that it was, despite all the political unrest and reform that the system underwent over the 19th century, a quite stable society and polity.

What saved Britain was not that the sun never set on the British empire (because it eventually did), but that Britain itself (its people AND its ability to maintain a stable governing structure of monarch/Parliament/local govt looked in the eyes of most of its creditors as it would live forever. (And in fact, still does.)

I don't like trillion dollar annual deficits. But it isn't because I think it's bad to borrow a trillion dollars. It's because I don't think the borrower -- the US government -- is credit-worthy to that extent.

The American economy, recession and all, can generate income of close to $14 trillion/year. If you have income of 14 trillion, you can stand to borrow a crapload.

America isn't bankrupt. Any more than Britain was bankrupt in 1815.

Only its government is bankrupt.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Formo
15 years ago

I was pissed when I read that article the other day. Half of americans have no income tax obligations, but Joe Single making 20 grand a year owes 4 grand between state and federal. Guess I'd better get married and have kids.

"Porforis" wrote:



I'm married and got screwed this year. Not only get married, but have kids.. And alot of them. So your overpopulating the nation, who cares. At least you get some tax breaks... :roll:
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Rockmolder
15 years ago

I was pissed when I read that article the other day. Half of americans have no income tax obligations, but Joe Single making 20 grand a year owes 4 grand between state and federal. Guess I'd better get married and have kids.

"Formo" wrote:



I'm married and got screwed this year. Not only get married, but have kids.. And alot of them. So your overpopulating the nation, who cares. At least you get some tax breaks... :roll:

"Porforis" wrote:



We should go China on these people.
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (41m) : Savion concussion ... not good.
packerfanoutwest (17h) : Aaron Rodgers’s first pass of first team period was picked off
Mucky Tundra (22h) : tbh I didn't hear of his passing
Zero2Cool (22h) : Cosby Show. Malcom Jamal Warner I think is real name
Mucky Tundra (23h) : I was thinking of Ozzy and Hulk
Mucky Tundra (23h) : Who's Theo?
Zero2Cool (23h) : How is Theo alliteration?
Mucky Tundra (23h) : Bad week for people whose names are alliterations
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Hulk Hogan gone too.
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Oh, it's toe injury
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Hope it's not serious. that would stink
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Sounds like an ankle not a knee for Fields
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Ya Flaccp on Browns
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Maybe Tyrod Taylor instead
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : He's on Browns, right?
dfosterf (24-Jul) : They would probably go with Flacco is my guess if Fields out
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Fleece 'em again!
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Malik Willis might be someone Jets come after
packerfanoutwest (24-Jul) : Packers introduce 1923-inspired classic uniform, leather-look helmet
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Both LB Quay Walker and Rookie DB Micah Robinson have passed their physicals
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Happy to see site feels more snappy snappy
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : No sir. I did not.
dfosterf (23-Jul) : You didn't get free childcare when you were at work?
wpr (23-Jul) : These guys make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Pay for their own childcare.
dfosterf (23-Jul) : 2nd issue. Number 1 issue was no gameday childcare. 1 of 3 teams not providing it
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Suppose if locker room is main issue, we sitting pretty
wpr (23-Jul) : I thought so Mucky. In those useless player polls GB always rates high overall. Locker is a part of it.
Mucky Tundra (23-Jul) : Wasn't the locker room just updated like 6 or 7 years ago?
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I have forum updated on different site. We'll see how this one goes before going to that
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Elgton Jenkins has a back injury, is expect to end contract dispute
wpr (23-Jul) : It's funny the PA complained about the locker room. It wasn't that long ago it was top shelf. Things change in a hurry.
wpr (23-Jul) : The site is much more better.
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : NFLPA report said Packers lockerroom needed upgrade. Whining bout where you change?
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I saw that and thought it was kind of lame.
dfosterf (23-Jul) : Packers new locker room is pretty awesome. Great for morale, imo
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Shuffled things on the web server. Hope it makes it faster.
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Other times, it's turtle ass
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Sometimes it's snappy, like now.
beast (23-Jul) : I feel like it's loading at the top of the next minute, or something like that.
beast (23-Jul) : Also the thanks/heart takes FOREVER to load, and posting in the shout box takes three times FOREVER!
beast (23-Jul) : Thanks for saying something, I thought it was slow, but assumed it was on my end
beast (23-Jul) : Thanks for saying something, I thought it was slow, but assumed it was on my end
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Yeah, I noticed that too. Is it slow for PackerPeople.com too?
wpr (23-Jul) : I don't know what you IT guys call it but the page loading is very slow for me today.
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : SSL might be settled now.
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Still working through SSL cert issues
wpr (23-Jul) : Glad to be back
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I think PH original finally working.
dfosterf (22-Jul) : Can tell you are having a fun day Kev
Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Yep, I had to manually move them. It'll fix itself after more posts.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

11h / Around The NFL / beast

22h / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

22h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

24-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

22-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

18-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.