It has nothing to do with 'deadbeats' or any such thing. It is just the way that the tax system is designed.

That is, however, essentially how this thread was opened. Replace "deadbeats" with "freeloaders."

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

No, I do not think so.
This may be a part of it.
But more of it, or all of it is, "give me that without me even having to work for it."

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

No, I do not think so.
This may be a part of it.
But more of it, or all of it is, "give me that without me even having to work for it."

Pardon the obscure web link, but ... .

Beware the Entitlement Mentality.

Are you erroneously thinking that the world owes you something? Are you looking to others to do something for you rather than focusing on what you can do for yourself?

By first working, and then working to obtain the things Es mentioned, I would, offhand, consider this as doing something for one's self. To twist an earlier quote, from this thread or another, it'd be like someone saying "Quit giving me these fish" (or "Quit grabbing the pole when a fish starts to bite") and adding "Just teach me to fish, will ya?!?"

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.

Not sure how you jumped to 47% of the USA?

The nation's official poverty rate in 2009 was 14.3 percent
[The] poverty threshold for a family of four in 2009 was $21,954

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb10-144.html
Neither of these numbers corresponds to anything in the US Tax Code.

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.

There is a difference between the VERY rich and the ordinary rich. The difference is about two zeros. Forbes Magazine publishes a list of the VERY rich. Ten Million dollars won't get you on that list, but it might be what the small business you built an want to pass on to your children is worth. If you don't allow that then a Mr. Buffet type comes in and low balls them for five million and pockets the rest, fires the staff, moves it offshore ...

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.

It is hard to demand that when a guy in Mumbai will do the same job for 25 cents an hour. That's what you are entitled to.

---

-Educator credit if you're a teacher

Unfortunately, this either does not apply to all that teach in the US (consider the different levels of education one can teach at) or even if it does, there are conditions to meet. One way or another, I have not been able to claim this credit.

Does this clear anything up?

I don't know about anyone else, but I knew credits were out there, and virtually all of them are ones I cannot apply for, except sometimes I have been able to use the one on student loans.
So, you've provided details I did not necessarily know, but conceptually it did not answer anything for me.

To reiterate, my main question right now is: either we've got 47% of the population with no federal income tax being withheld, period, or we've got 47% of the population that have, around 4/15, either a net balance of 0 or a refund.

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 ... ?

What is meant by paying no federal income tax has nothing to do with what is withheld. It depends on what is on your form 1040 (or 1040 variant such as 1040-ez). If your total tax line (line 37 on the 2010 form 1040A, for instance)is 0.00, you get all the withholdings refunded, and pay no income tax. This is the '47%' group.

Now, there are some credits that will give you a refund over and above what was withheld. In some cases as much as $7500 more. This is added to your refund and will offset the FICA/Medicare taxes you paid. This is the '24%' group.

Now, that said.. A married person making minimum wage for 40 hours a week
will only have $2.60 withheld for income tax per week, maximum, at 0 allowances on the W4. If they claimed allowances, they would have to make quite a bit more before income tax withholding kicked in. And that is full-time.

A part-time employee at minimum wage likely won't have any withheld unless they request it explicitly. Of course, you might wanna figure out your taxes well in advance, lest you get a nasty surprise come april 15th if it was not your sole source of income. A few years ago, while she was in college, my wife worked as a part-time grocery store bagger/cashier. Most checks she did not get anything withheld for income tax. Only checks that had anything withheld were the ones with Overtime, which was few and far between.

---

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.

-Educator credit if you're a teacher

Unfortunately, this either does not apply to all that teach in the US (consider the different levels of education one can teach at) or even if it does, there are conditions to meet. One way or another, I have not been able to claim this credit.

Does this clear anything up?

I don't know about anyone else, but I knew credits were out there, and virtually all of them are ones I cannot apply for, except sometimes I have been able to use the one on student loans.
So, you've provided details I did not necessarily know, but conceptually it did not answer anything for me.

To reiterate, my main question right now is: either we've got 47% of the population with no federal income tax being withheld, period, or we've got 47% of the population that have, around 4/15, either a net balance of 0 or a refund.

Sarge, it really isn't that hard to do the math on what is withheld from a paycheck. I provided the link to the publication from the IRS for employers to calculate it. Or try page two here on the W-4

All I say is over the years when I calculated payroll where I have worked I've seen a bunch with no income tax taken out. Yes, everyone pays FICA, but that is pension and medical. I've seen a $100,000+ salary with nothing taken out. I've seen just above minimum wage with nothing taken out.

So yes, it means 47% of Americans get everything in income tax they had taken out of their check refunded at the end of the year.

Ask at your local H&R Block office.

---

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

LOL. Asking to be paid a living wage for you labour counts and 'entitlement mentality'? Yet I bet you'd be the first to complain if anyway tried to infringe any of your constitutional 'rights' that you think you are 'entitled' to. So your sense of entitlement is right and others is wrong. That's what I call a true Republican.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Not sure how you jumped to 47% of the USA?
The nation's official poverty rate in 2009 was 14.3 percent
[The] poverty threshold for a family of four in 2009 was $21,954

I'd say you'd feel the pinch trying to raise a family of 4 on anything less than $40,000. If the wages have to be propped up with tax breaks then they aren't a living wage. This is just the government subsidising the rich so they can pay people less.

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb10-144.html
Neither of these numbers corresponds to anything in the US Tax Code.


There is a difference between the VERY rich and the ordinary rich. The difference is about two zeros. Forbes Magazine publishes a list of the VERY rich. Ten Million dollars won't get you on that list, but it might be what the small business you built an want to pass on to your children is worth. If you don't allow that then a Mr. Buffet type comes in and low balls them for five million and pockets the rest, fires the staff, moves it offshore ...

[quote]
It is hard to demand that when a guy in Mumbai will do the same job for 25 cents an hour. That's what you are entitled to.

Well the west got rich on plundering countries like India for 100s of years. Now it's a country with vast poverty and those workers can undercut you.

They are being exploited too, and this just goes to show you that Capitalism in it's true form is not a good system. You don't want the jobs to go to Mumbai, but that is Capitalism.

---

Reality Internet Personality

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

LOL. Asking to be paid a living wage for you labour counts and 'entitlement mentality'? Yet I bet you'd be the first to complain if anyway tried to infringe any of your constitutional 'rights' that you think you are 'entitled' to. So your sense of entitlement is right and others is wrong. That's what I call a true Republican.

Yes, thinking that somehow a worker is entitled to more than what the employer is willing to pay for the labor is an example of 'entitlement mentality'. As are 'working conditions' and 'healthcare'. You seem to think you are entitled to something here.

A worker agrees to work for an employer at a certain rate of pay, and under certain working conditions. Asking for more after the fact is 'entitlement mentality'. If the working arrangement you have is no longer acceptable, and the employer refuses to change them for what you consider the better, then quit and go find a job that better meets your expectations. The answer is not to whine about it until the govt. gives you stuff.

I am not entitled to anything that either I did not personally earn (wealth), my ancestors did not personally earn and leave to me to inherit (inherited wealth) or is not mine by virtue of being a human being (rights). The constitution does not create rights, it only guarantees them (primarily by limiting governmental powers).

So, no. I am not entitled to your (or anyone else's) wealth, and you or anyone else is not entitled to mine.

But, this is a thread whose subject includes US Tax Code. In this context, an 'entitlement' has a specific meaning. Namely, wealth transfers to people via various government social programs. An entitlement in this context is something that is not earned. As such, they are wrong and evil. A voluntary gift from one person to another is one thing. A forced 'gift' is something else entirely.

And why call me a Republican? (I presume you mean the US political party of that name). I am not a Republican, nor am I a Democrat. Both parties have rectal-cranial inversion and need to go away... the sooner the better. The only sense I can make of that statement is that you are trying to anger me. You need to do a better job at it, if that is your goal.

---

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.

I suppose that I should be Boiled in my own pudding As I have NO income and get only foodstamps because of little holes in our Tax System. I have no medical coverage and cannot expect to have any income until I am 62 because I Tried to do the Right thing by working after the Doctors told me I should Quit when I broke my back...But I Thought that by working as much as I could would keep pressure off of the system.
All it did was make it so I have to wait until Retirement Age before I can draw on what I Paid in...And I am Disabled.
Thank the Powers that be that we get My Wife's little disability check or we would have no income at all.
To Many Loopholes in the System as it stands. IMHO

---

I Desire Peace and Justice, Jim Scott (Mod-Ret.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjy8KWsPtDE

---

Pluto will always be a planet to me.

Seti Ambassador
Not to late to order an Anni Shirt

In fact, there are no links to Wiki in this thread, from me or anyone else.

Good lord. It's a full time job correcting errors here.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=62490&nowrap=true#1060103

"neocons defined"

Not sure how you jumped to 47% of the USA?
The nation's official poverty rate in 2009 was 14.3 percent
[The] poverty threshold for a family of four in 2009 was $21,954

I'd say you'd feel the pinch trying to raise a family of 4 on anything less than $40,000. If the wages have to be propped up with tax breaks then they aren't a living wage. This is just the government subsidising the rich so they can pay people less.

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb10-144.html
Neither of these numbers corresponds to anything in the US Tax Code.


There is a difference between the VERY rich and the ordinary rich. The difference is about two zeros. Forbes Magazine publishes a list of the VERY rich. Ten Million dollars won't get you on that list, but it might be what the small business you built an want to pass on to your children is worth. If you don't allow that then a Mr. Buffet type comes in and low balls them for five million and pockets the rest, fires the staff, moves it offshore ...

[quote]
It is hard to demand that when a guy in Mumbai will do the same job for 25 cents an hour. That's what you are entitled to.

Well the west got rich on plundering countries like India for 100s of years. Now it's a country with vast poverty and those workers can undercut you.

They are being exploited too, and this just goes to show you that Capitalism in it's true form is not a good system. You don't want the jobs to go to Mumbai, but that is Capitalism.

The West got rich...

Good grief. The leftist self hatred and guilt is strong in here.

I am not entitled to anything that either I did not personally earn (wealth), my ancestors did not personally earn and leave to me to inherit (inherited wealth) or is not mine by virtue of being a human being (rights). The constitution does not create rights, it only guarantees them (primarily by limiting governmental powers).

So, no. I am not entitled to your (or anyone else's) wealth, and you or anyone else is not entitled to mine.

Please provide the reasons why you are entitled to another's wealth (inherited wealth). Please also provide details of the human rights you are entitled to, are others also entitled to these rights?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

That is correct. I believe that nearly half of all households (and individuals) do not pay any income tax. They may have some withheld from their paychecks which will be refunded en toto for those who "zero out" on their returns. Making $40,000-50,000 with a wife, two kids a mortgage and property taxes will probably put you in the zero tax range. I know; I am there myself. Used to pay as much as $100,000 in tax just a few years ago. Neither situation is just, fair nor equitable in my estimation. Now i am riding free so to speak but before I was doing more than my fair share in my opinion.

Even a flat tax would have the $500,000 dollar guy paying 10 times the amount as the $50,000 a year person. Is this fair (maybe ?) equitable (no), just (you tell me)

High and confiscatory taxes are a disincentive to work or to start a business.

regards,

Daddio

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.

Not quite. I don't know of any ad velorem taxes that are based on net worth. More often they are based upon gross property values rather than net (i.e. subtracting any liabilities, which themselves are assets belonging to someone else).

---

@SETIEric@qoto.org (Mastodon)

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.

from the article only 24% have no actual liability or get a credit.
they admit this number freely. So where does the 47% come from? didn't the title say 47% paid no taxes? then why is this number nearly half that?

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.

Mislead much? the middle class and poor are paying a substantially higher burden with the Bush taxes cuts. per capita yes the poor pay less. as a group they pay a great deal more of their income just because of being poor.

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

This is the same number they privided before. So are the previous numbers the same as these. also don't forget that SSN amd medicare are not tax deductible so are pretty much irrelevant to this topic.

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.

I fit into this group. A good part of this is non shenanigans but federal tax rebates on upgrading home windows and buying hybrid cars. Both of which create a great big tax credit. This is not reported but I assume that is the likely reason for someone making $100,000 getting a "negative liability"

Perhaps instead of being aghast at how poor America is, we should look at the numbers provided and ask ourselves how they came up with these numbers. I think we are really reading to much into America being poor than we should

As far as tax credits for low income people goes. Perhaps paying them a bit more so that they don't qualify for tax credits is needed. thereby keeping so callled corporate taxes down

---

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

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.
...
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.

from the article only 24% have no actual liability or get a credit.
they admit this number freely. So where does the 47% come from? didn't the title say 47% paid no taxes? then why is this number nearly half that?

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm

First re-read the thread title. Second re-read the article headline. Ignore the title bar on your browser as it is shortened to fit.

Payroll tax = FICA = Social Security + Medicare, called payroll tax because the employer pays half.

FICA = Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

47% owe no Federal Income Tax
24% owe no Federal Income Tax and FICA

FICA is not Income Tax. Headline and this thread subject say Income Tax.

Until everyone agrees on what means what there is no debate, just cacophony.

---