http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15.pdf
Please work out what a married person with a couple of kids pays in income tax at the minimum wage for a 40 hour week. Become an informed person.

---

We aren't discussing the IRS we are discussing the individuals choice of wording that makes 1/2 the country look like deadbeats when in reality the wording is such that the story amounts to a whole lot of nothing

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Suggest you actually read what you posted.
The 47% figure is income tax. That's right, no income tax taken out of the pay check.
There is a 24% figure who also don't pay social security or medicare, but those are not taxes, they are a mandatory pension plan and a mandatory medical plan.

From the opening post, first lines:

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

This does not say that 47% will not have it deducted from a single paycheck. It says, or strongly implies, that on April 15, they did not owe or received a refund.
If this is incorrect, rather than suggesting that I did not read, you would do better to quote some other line to point out my error, if it exists.

Try reading the next two paragraphs!

Here are the next two paragraphs:

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.

I still see things about refunds, and net (balance after 4/15), etc. ... .
I still do not see anything directly or indirectly stating that there are people that do not even have any federal income tax deducted from paycheck to paycheck.

And to Guy Navarro: ok, that was atwo line response.
Why do, at least some, people give you or others short responses?
Consider: I'm on vacation, and besides wanting an immense amount of rest, I have also set myself two projects to work on over the break: one mathematical and another musical.
Furthermore, if I am not knowledgeable about a topic, or unsure, I tend not to post or ask a question. If I do know quite a bit about something, I have certainly expounded on it a great deal.
My last reason can probably not be explained in a post, but I assure you, it has nothing to do with fear that my post would be moderated just because you and I have some differences in beliefs.
Does this satisfy you at all?

We aren't discussing the IRS we are discussing the individuals choice of wording that makes 1/2 the country look like deadbeats when in reality the wording is such that the story amounts to a whole lot of nothing

No, we are discussing your belief that 99% of the country makes way more than minimum wage. They don't. About 47% of the people in the US do not pay any income tax. Flat out zero. (If any income tax was taken on their check all of it comes back on their 1040.) That is what net zero means. Many of them get this welfare payment called "Earned Income Credit" which makes their income tax negative. I realize you simply can't believe this. It is true. Work out the numbers, please. Use the links in this thread and do some research on the average income and how that fits to the total population. IRS and Census have the information. Become informed, then you can join the debate.

---

Here are the next two paragraphs:

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

(Advance) Earned Income Tax Credit.

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.

I still see things about refunds, and net (balance after 4/15), etc. ... .

Net is the line on the form, "THIS IS YOUR TOTAL TAX"
Net is not the line "AMOUNT YOU OVERPAID" or "AMOUNT REFUNDED TO YOU"

Go read a dang tax form!

Or do the math on a minimum wage worker and find out that nearly half of the US populace does not pay any Federal Income Tax.

---

We aren't discussing the IRS we are discussing the individuals choice of wording that makes 1/2 the country look like deadbeats when in reality the wording is such that the story amounts to a whole lot of nothing

No, we are discussing your belief that 99% of the country makes way more than minimum wage. They don't. About 47% of the people in the US do not pay any income tax. Flat out zero. (If any income tax was taken on their check all of it comes back on their 1040.) That is what net zero means. Many of them get this welfare payment called "Earned Income Credit" which makes their income tax negative. I realize you simply can't believe this. It is true. Work out the numbers, please. Use the links in this thread and do some research on the average income and how that fits to the total population. IRS and Census have the information. Become informed, then you can join the debate.

Again this isnt about the tax code its about the Article written. Please attempt to follow along. I will point you to the original article. I do this because we, once again, are discussing the wording and the way the original article was presented. I'm making the point that according to this individuals words I owe no income tax. The individual has intentionally obfuscated facts in an attempt to make 1/2 the country look like dead beats.
I can also assure you I never mentioned anything about minimum wage in my last quoted statement. If I intended to say it, I would have. I don't intentionally misrepresent facts to suit my own needs as the write of the article clearly has.
I am also quite aware of the tax laws but again and for the 3rd or 4th time. Its not about the IRS its about the guy writing the article and the way he's misrepresented facts. I get that I pay income tax. Do you understand that according to his figures I don't. Did you read the no liability and negative liability lines. Seems like lawyer talk for tax returns and the poor receiving tax credits. Unlike fox news and the WSJ I'll let you decide

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15.pdf
Please work out what a married person with a couple of kids pays in income tax at the minimum wage for a 40 hour week. Become an informed person.

Regardless of the number of children, a married person will have a
maximum of $2.60 withheld for income tax per week from a 40 hours-per-week minimum wage job. And that is at claiming 0 allowances on the form W4..

If that is the sole income source for the family of four, the total tax liability at the end of the year is likely going to be zero. That means that all the withholdings ($135.20) will be refunded. However, when the EITC, the CTC, and the ACTC are added in, the refund shoots way up. It can add as much as another $7500.00 or so to the refund when these three credits are added.

So, a yearly wage of about $15,000 turns into $22,500 from these three credits. This is well more than enough to totally cover the SS/Medicare tax as well, so in this example this family of four is in the 24% (that Gary mentioned) that have a total federal tax liability of <= $0. I will leave verification of these last figures to the reader. If they are US citizens, they need to better understand how their own tax system works. If they are citizens of another country, they can (of course) be excused if desired.

That the 'rich' in the USA pay the bulk of the federal income tax already is beyond dispute. Figures from IRS.gov show this to be true. That the poorest people at the bottom income brackets either pay nothing for the year or even get back way MORE than what was withheld again is beyond dispute. What is disputable is the 47%/24% figures, but even there they are not far from being accurate. I wouldn't think that they are off by more than 5% in either direction.

But, the main point in the initial linked/quoted article from cnnmoney.com was that this is not sustainable. It is not, and here is why.

The people in the top income brackets pay most of the income tax. The people at the bottom do not pay any (and even get extra back as a transfer payment through the tax system). The poor have no skin in the game to hold down taxes and spending, since they do not suffer any as taxation goes up and benefit more as spending goes up. It is in the poor's best economic interests (over the short term) to continue the tax and spend march and their ever increasing numbers at the ballot box will help guarantee their success. Those that are considered as being 'poor' are an ever-increasing group. The dividing line keeps going up as those in the middle keep getting squeezed by an ever-increasing tax bill until they too become part of the 'poor'.

Soon, as an ever-increasing share of an ever-increasing burden gets placed on the rich, the rich will tire of it, and either go elsewhere (as they did from some Northeastern states that passed special 'millionaire's taxes', or (to borrow a concept from that controversial novelist Ayn Rand) go John Galt.

What can be done to stop it? Well, there is one way, but it will be painful over the short term. First, a flat tax. No deductions, exemptions, credits, or exclusions. Everyone pays the same percent of their income. Something like about 15% or so. This is enough to put everyone's skin in the game of holding down taxation. Second, drastically cut Govt. spending. Cut out anything/everything that is not absolutely necessary (as in not explicitly in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution). Require a balanced budget (a truely balanced budget, not one done with accounting tricks like Clinton's.. but true.. total expenditures < total revenues), excepting only times of actual declared (constitutionally, by congress) war. Another item that might help would be some strict term limits for all elected / appointed federal officials. One term in one office, then that is it. That would help the officials remain in touch with the citizens, and would also help to prevent them being 'owned' by corporate / special interests.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Again I will point you to the original article. I do this because we, once again, are discussing the wording and the way the original article was presented. I'm making the point that according to this individuals words I owe no income tax.

I don't see your name anywhere in that CNN article. Or are you leaking TMI? If there is a misplaced comma or some other grammar mistake, then point it out.

The individual has intentionally obfuscated facts in an attempt to make 1/2 the country look like dead beats.
I can also assure you I never mentioned anything about minimum wage in my last quoted statement. If I intended to say it, I would have. I don't intentionally misrepresent facts to suit my own needs as the write of the article clearly has.

So CNN and the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center have "intentionally misrepresent facts" I'll remember that next time you complain about FOX or the WSJ.

I am also quite aware of the tax laws but again and for the 3rd or 4th time. Its not about the IRS its about the guy writing the article and the way he's misrepresented facts. I get that I pay income tax. Do you understand that according to his figures I don't. Did you read the no liability and negative liability lines. Seems like lawyer talk for tax returns and the poor receiving tax credits. Unlike fox news and the WSJ I'll let you decide

Wait a second you just complained about FOX and the WSJ!

Or are you in such a tither because you thought the source was FOX and not CNN?

---

What is disputable is the 47%/24% figures, but even there they are not far from being accurate. I wouldn't think that they are off by more than 5% in either direction.

CNN states the numbers are from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, I assume they do know how to do the calculations. Not hard, but a bit time consuming.

---

Flat tax.

Fine, as long as it's a flat percentage of net worth, not a percentage of income.

---

@SETIEric@qoto.org (Mastodon)

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15.pdf
Please work out what a married person with a couple of kids pays in income tax at the minimum wage for a 40 hour week. Become an informed person.

Regardless of the number of children, a married person will have a
maximum of $2.60 withheld for income tax per week from a 40 hours-per-week minimum wage job. And that is at claiming 0 allowances on the form W4..

If that is the sole income source for the family of four, the total tax liability at the end of the year is likely going to be zero. That means that all the withholdings ($135.20) will be refunded. However, when the EITC, the CTC, and the ACTC are added in, the refund shoots way up. It can add as much as another $7500.00 or so to the refund when these three credits are added.

So, a yearly wage of about $15,000 turns into $22,500 from these three credits. This is well more than enough to totally cover the SS/Medicare tax as well, so in this example this family of four is in the 24% (that Gary mentioned) that have a total federal tax liability of <= $0. I will leave verification of these last figures to the reader. If they are US citizens, they need to better understand how their own tax system works. If they are citizens of another country, they can (of course) be excused if desired.

That the 'rich' in the USA pay the bulk of the federal income tax already is beyond dispute. Figures from IRS.gov show this to be true. That the poorest people at the bottom income brackets either pay nothing for the year or even get back way MORE than what was withheld again is beyond dispute. What is disputable is the 47%/24% figures, but even there they are not far from being accurate. I wouldn't think that they are off by more than 5% in either direction.

But, the main point in the initial linked/quoted article from cnnmoney.com was that this is not sustainable. It is not, and here is why.

The people in the top income brackets pay most of the income tax. The people at the bottom do not pay any (and even get extra back as a transfer payment through the tax system). The poor have no skin in the game to hold down taxes and spending, since they do not suffer any as taxation goes up and benefit more as spending goes up. It is in the poor's best economic interests (over the short term) to continue the tax and spend march and their ever increasing numbers at the ballot box will help guarantee their success. Those that are considered as being 'poor' are an ever-increasing group. The dividing line keeps going up as those in the middle keep getting squeezed by an ever-increasing tax bill until they too become part of the 'poor'.

Soon, as an ever-increasing share of an ever-increasing burden gets placed on the rich, the rich will tire of it, and either go elsewhere (as they did from some Northeastern states that passed special 'millionaire's taxes', or (to borrow a concept from that controversial novelist Ayn Rand) go John Galt.

What can be done to stop it? Well, there is one way, but it will be painful over the short term. First, a flat tax. No deductions, exemptions, credits, or exclusions. Everyone pays the same percent of their income. Something like about 15% or so. This is enough to put everyone's skin in the game of holding down taxation. Second, drastically cut Govt. spending. Cut out anything/everything that is not absolutely necessary (as in not explicitly in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution). Require a balanced budget (a truely balanced budget, not one done with accounting tricks like Clinton's.. but true.. total expenditures < total revenues), excepting only times of actual declared (constitutionally, by congress) war. Another item that might help would be some strict term limits for all elected / appointed federal officials. One term in one office, then that is it. That would help the officials remain in touch with the citizens, and would also help to prevent them being 'owned' by corporate / special interests.

So there are two views on the information in the article. One is that the article is wrong or misleading. The other is that most of the American population earns minimum wage.

Myself I'm inclined to believe the second one as that fits with other things I've seen elsewhere.

This is really sad for the American people and shows just how Capitilism lets down the majority of the people.

Life on minimum wage is not a good life, even with tax breaks.

To suggest that people already struggling should pay more is totally missing the point. The point is that most Americans are poor and something needs to change in the system as the country has enough wealth for everyone.

---

Reality Internet Personality

So there are two views on the information in the article. One is that the article is wrong or misleading. The other is that most of the American population earns minimum wage.

Myself I'm inclined to believe the second one as that fits with other things I've seen elsewhere.

This is really sad for the American people and shows just how Capitilism lets down the majority of the people.

Are you sure it is capitalism or could it be entitlement mentality?

Life on minimum wage is not a good life, even with tax breaks.

Damn straight and no one is disputing that fact.

To suggest that people already struggling should pay more is totally missing the point. The point is that most Americans are poor and something needs to change in the system as the country has enough wealth for everyone.

Yes. I seriously doubt few here would argue against some more higher brackets. Present top bracket kicks in at $373,650. How about a new 40% bracket at say $700,000 and a 50% one at $1,250,000? Maybe put a 99% less your state income tax bracket in at $2,500,000. But to do that we will need to bring back income tax averaging. After all a once in a lifetime event, like a Nobel Prize for finding ET, shouldn't bankrupt you of your entire windfall.

---

Flat tax.

Fine, as long as it's a flat percentage of net worth, not a percentage of income.

I believe that is called an ad valorem tax, not a flat tax.

---

So there are two views on the information in the article. One is that the article is wrong or misleading. The other is that most of the American population earns minimum wage.

Myself I'm inclined to believe the second one as that fits with other things I've seen elsewhere.

This is really sad for the American people and shows just how Capitilism lets down the majority of the people.

Are you sure it is capitalism or could it be entitlement mentality?

Life on minimum wage is not a good life, even with tax breaks.

Damn straight and no one is disputing that fact.

To suggest that people already struggling should pay more is totally missing the point. The point is that most Americans are poor and something needs to change in the system as the country has enough wealth for everyone.

Yes. I seriously doubt few here would argue against some more higher brackets. Present top bracket kicks in at $373,650. How about a new 40% bracket at say $700,000 and a 50% one at $1,250,000? Maybe put a 99% less your state income tax bracket in at $2,500,000. But to do that we will need to bring back income tax averaging. After all a once in a lifetime event shouldn't bankrupt you of your entire windfall.

I don't think it's entitlement mentality. After all we're talking about half of the American people. I know quite a few Americans and most of them are proud an independent. To say half of them have "entitlement mentality" an unfair judgement on a huge number of people. That is more people than voted in any single one president. A huge number of people who have been let down and are busy trying to support their families on very little.

What I see in this thread and others here on seti is a very negative judgement of the poor...yet most people clearly are poor!! Something just isn't right here.

You have the majority of the population fighting over a small percentage of the left over wealth and finger pointing at each other while you declare that the very rich who have taken everything from you and exploited you continue to be protected.

If the thread title is accurate and 47% of people earn so little that they don't pay taxes then 47% of people are being ripped off.

Demand better wages. Demand better working conditions and demand healthcare and let the people who live of your hard work give some of it back.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Another item that might help would be some strict term limits for all elected / appointed federal officials. One term in one office, then that is it. That would help the officials remain in touch with the citizens, and would also help to prevent them being 'owned' by corporate / special interests.

This, at the very least, I strongly agree with. Lest someone bemoan the fact that was just "one line," note:
1) It is agreement.
2) Majorkong explained it well. Thus, I do not need to expound upon it.

So there are two views on the information in the article. One is that the article is wrong or misleading. The other is that most of the American population earns minimum wage.

Myself I'm inclined to believe the second one as that fits with other things I've seen elsewhere.

This is really sad for the American people and shows just how Capitilism lets down the majority of the people.

Life on minimum wage is not a good life, even with tax breaks.

To suggest that people already struggling should pay more is totally missing the point. The point is that most Americans are poor and something needs to change in the system as the country has enough wealth for everyone.

There are more than these two possibilities. Like the truth, for instance. Its not just minimum-wage people that owe no Federal Income Tax(FIT). For a family of 4, just the standard deductions and personal exemptions push the 0-tax threshold up to $26,000. One minimum wage job is only about $15,000 per year. So, thats almost double the minimum wage job amount with absolutely no tax. Also, various of the 'big-three' tax credits can be taken and will apply to some degree up to at least $45,000 per year. I haven't taken the time yet to figure out where the cut off is for the no-tax level, but its going to be somewhat higher then the $26,000.00 / year level.

Under the current federal income tax system, if you have a family of 4, and both parent's total income is that of 2 minimum wage jobs (about $30,000 / year, total) and you still have a non-zero FIT for the year (you don't get a refund of all taxes withheld and then some), then you aren't doing it right and you need to find someone to prep. your taxes that knows how to maximize your refund.

Oh, and that family of 4 with the $30,000 / year income isn't officially 'poor'. Federal HHS poverty level for that family of 4 is $22,050.

Its a lot more than just the officially poor that pay no federal income tax, or even any federal taxes at all (after various tax credits get applied). It has nothing to do with 'deadbeats' or any such thing. It is just the way that the tax system is designed.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

The exchanges here seem so convoluted to me, I'm still not sure what you guys are trying to get at. The best I can figure to this point is that you're aurguing about the wording of the article.

-roughly 47% of households, or 71 million will not owe any federal income tax....

Seems pretty clear to me. But I see vague references to whether or not they actually don't pay anything, actually have the correct amount withheld, or actually have too much withheld.

Yes, Guy, this is precisely what I am asking about.
Do they pay no federal income tax, deducted out of their paychecks and then get the net balance of 0 (or even a refund) around 4/15, or is it a matter of they do not even have anything deducted from their paychecks?
Gary tells me it is the latter. I say that is not at all clear from the article.
I did bring up this thread to a friend who helps me with my grading. He did tell me he makes so little that he has had very very little withheld over this entire year. But it is not nothing. And while this pushes me closer to being able to believe Gary, I still do not see this made clear in the article.
Furthermore, you refer to personal experience. So, let's talk personal experience. Why did I have federal income tax removed from my paychecks as a teen and early adult when I was only working part time and earning less than a total of $10000 a year? Sounds to me like you (the general sense you) are telling me if I was working those jobs now, I would not have the federal income tax withheld ... ?

I don't think it's entitlement mentality. After all we're talking about half of the American people. I know quite a few Americans and most of them are proud an independent. To say half of them have "entitlement mentality" an unfair judgement on a huge number of people. That is more people than voted in any single one president. A huge number of people who have been let down and are busy trying to support their families on very little.

What I see in this thread and others here on seti is a very negative judgement of the poor...yet most people clearly are poor!! Something just isn't right here.

You have the majority of the population fighting over a small percentage of the left over wealth and finger pointing at each other while you declare that the very rich who have taken everything from you and exploited you continue to be protected.

If the thread title is accurate and 47% of people earn so little that they don't pay taxes then 47% of people are being ripped off.

Demand better wages. Demand better working conditions and demand healthcare and let the people who live of your hard work give some of it back.

This is the 'entitlement mentality'. QED

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.