Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

You go from defending your use of the term by trying to claim that "zero liability voter" is inherently qualified to federal income tax only, to claiming that unqualified zero liability voters exist anyway.

OK

I haven't changed anything. Those are your words. Anytime I use the term it has to do with who does not have to pay federal income tax. Everyone pays some tax, but not all pay federal income tax. There is no doubt they exist. The term is valid whether you want it to be valid or not.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Everyone pays some tax, but not all pay federal income tax.

THerefore there are no zero liability voters.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

THerefore there are no zero liability voters.

Still wrong. You must not have paid any Federal Income tax in a long time.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Still wrong. You must not have paid any Federal Income tax in a long time.

You do seem to make that assumption a lot.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Still wrong. You must not have paid any Federal Income tax in a long time.

EVERYONE pays FICA and guess what? Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund -- in other words, there's a pile of money being accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money -- payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust.

In the words of W. himself. So, everyone who pays into "social security" has an interest in what government programs we are ALL going to have to pay for now or next year. HM is right. There are no zero liability voters. The taxes we pay just have different names, but we pay them all the same. You act like people who don't pay Federal Income Tax have a complete free ride. Just continuing to repeat the same dogma doesn't make it anymore valid than it was the first time you started whining about the Federal Income Tax. Get over it.

There is no trust. A tax by any other name is still a tax.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

EVERYONE pays FICA and guess what? Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund -- in other words, there's a pile of money being accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money -- payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust.

In the words of W. himself. So, everyone who pays into "social security" has an interest in what government programs we are ALL going to have to pay for now or next year. HM is right. There are no zero liability voters. The taxes we pay just have different names, but we pay them all the same. You act like people who don't pay Federal Income Tax have a complete free ride. Just continuing to repeat the same dogma doesn't make it anymore valid than it was the first time you started whining about the Federal Income Tax. Get over it.

There is no trust. A tax by any other name is still a tax.

As long as nearly half the population has no responsibility to pay for the majority of programs in this country that are taken directly from Federal Income Tax we will have a class of voters known as zero liability voters. If you are not paying into the system and all you do is take from the system and rely on others to foot your bill, whatever your excuse, you have no dog in the hunt and no hesitation to continue to vote for others to pay your way as well as to place a greater burden on those who already pay the majority of all Federal Income Tax in order to further support those who pay little to nothing. So yea, Zero Liability Voters are real. It is easy for those who pay little to nothing to state that the rest who pay the majority are doing nothing but "whining" but it makes the facts no less real. As I stated numerous times everybody pays something, but not all pay an equal share of Federal Income Tax, and that is where the majority of the funds come from. Everyone who pays into Social Security only has an interest in what happens to Social Security. To say that, "everyone who pays into "social security" has an interest in what government programs we are ALL going to have to pay for now or next year.", is a completely disingenuous statement. That is one program and it should only be paying into that program, even though politicians have raped it blind. So you think that because you paid some small portion of your lifetime income you have a say in how all Federal Income Tax is taken from a minority of the population and redistributed to the rest of the population? Seriously?

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

As long as nearly half the population has no responsibility to pay for the majority of programs in this country that are taken directly from Federal Income Tax we will have a class of voters known as zero liability voters. If you are not paying into the system and all you do is take from the system and rely on others to foot your bill, whatever your excuse, you have no dog in the hunt and no hesitation to continue to vote for others to pay your way as well as to place a greater burden on those who already pay the majority of all Federal Income Tax in order to further support those who pay little to nothing. So yea, Zero Liability Voters are real. It is easy for those who pay little to nothing to state that the rest who pay the majority are doing nothing but "whining" but it makes the facts no less real. As I stated numerous times everybody pays something, but not all pay an equal share of Federal Income Tax, and that is where the majority of the funds come from. Everyone who pays into Social Security only has an interest in what happens to Social Security. To say that, "everyone who pays into "social security" has an interest in what government programs we are ALL going to have to pay for now or next year.", is a completely disingenuous statement. That is one program and it should only be paying into that program, even though politicians have raped it blind.

The ranks of those whose federal income tax burden nets out to zero -- or less -- have grown in recent years for two reasons.

The first is the times we currently live in

The downturn in the economy has hurt household incomes which means that fewer taxes are being collected now than there were a few years back before the financial institutions decided to rip off the American public for an obscene amount of ill gotten gains. Congress furthered reduced tax bills by stimulus legislation which offered Americans temporary tax breaks to lessen the economic pain.

The second reason is that the tax code is filled with hundreds of tax breaks to encourage economic activities the government favors. For example, the law offers credits to supplement the wages of low-income workers, help families pay for college and encourage them to buy homes and have children.

Temporary tax policies, such as the Bush-era tax cuts and the tax breaks passed under President Obama, have also increased the ranks of the non-payers.

But lower income Americans are not alone in receiving tax breaks. Statistics from the IRS show that the tax bite on the very highest income taxpayers has fallen as their incomes have risen. For example, in 2007, the top 400 individual tax returns had an average adjusted gross income of $345 million, up from $47 million in 1992. But their average tax rate was just 17%, down from 26% in 1992. So, by your reasoning this group should now have 9% less say on government spending than they did in 1992.

In 1980 the average tax rate for the upper 50% in income was 17.29%. In 2000 it was 16.43% or a drop of .89% over 20 years - while the percentage reduction for the top 1% in income went from 34.1% to 27.45% over the same time period - a drop of 4.65% which is about 5 times more than the entire upper 50%.

Going by your reasoning, the wealthiest 1% should be able to vote on only one in 5 government spending bills, since they have irresponsibly refused to pay their fair share of taxes.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

So you think that because you paid some small portion of your lifetime income you have a say in how all Federal Income Tax is taken from a minority of the population and redistributed to the rest of the population? Seriously?

Who? Me? First of all, you have no idea what percentage of my lifetime income I have paid into Federal Income Taxes. And more importantly, if you will recall the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, every US citizen has the EQUAL RIGHT to vote in Federal and State elections and petition the government for the redress of wrongs.

What you are suggesting is nothing less than the creation of a plutocracy where the wealthy will have even more control over the governance of the rest of us than they already do. So, you think that just because you are a fat cat that you get to disenfranchise me and millions of other Americans who happen to fall into the lower 47% of the national income bracket? Seriously?

[Spexxvet]

If those who are in a position to hire people and pay them well would do just that, they'd be taxpayers. Instead, the wealth keep their money clench inside them like it's a turd made of gold.

The wealthy can keep more, and pay more in taxes, or they can pay their employees more, it's their decision.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Who? Me? First of all, you have no idea what percentage of my lifetime income I have paid into Federal Income Taxes.

I didn't mean to imply such, I meant it more as a general statement about how much we all pay into the system, esp for the 47% that pay none. As for things like SS, which I think is a small part of our total. I support raising the ceiling amount that is currently taxed for SS and then preventing Congress from using it for anything BUT for what it was intended.

What you are suggesting is nothing less than the creation of a plutocracy where the wealthy will have even more control over the governance of the rest of us than they already do.

No, what I always supported is a flatter tax where everyone pays a percent of their income while we close most loopholes for deductions. Where is the evidence that the " wealthy will have even more control over the governance of the rest of us than they already do."

So, you think that just because you are a fat cat that you get to disenfranchise me and millions of other Americans who happen to fall into the lower 47% of the national income bracket? Seriously?

Who says I am a fat cat? I just happen to be in the group that always pays taxes. And is that not telling about the whole issue. People who pay taxes, according to you are "fat cats", and people who don't are "disenfranchised". All I have said all along is that for all people to feel invested they have to pay into the system to feel responsible for it. And IMHO everyone should pay something into the system to feel a part of it.

I mean no personal disrespect to you or your personal situation and I don't want to even know anything about it. I am speaking of the current broken system of Federal taxation and have not really changed my views in years. But of course all of this will be mute if they don't come to some consensus and raise the Debit Ceiling.