Americans Want Government to Spend for Jobs, Send Bill to Rich

[The_Dude 1,142]

Yup, people just like me. And a flat tax would put more cash in my pocket than I have now.

I was thinking more of people who live hand to mouth and currently have no income tax liability at all. A "10% of everything" tax on them would be a tax hike.

OK, I understand what you mean.

Just for the record though, I do not feel that anyone making less than $100k a year should pay ANY tax at all...

Could you rephrase that? I don't follow.

I mean, if your W2 shows you grossed less than $100k for the year, you pay no Federal taxes. The state is a different matter...

I don't think this tax shift would hurt the top earners at all.

The top 50% tax filers make over 97% of the money.

The bottom 50% make 3%...

Citation on that statistic please. If true, I'd support that.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

I rounded the numbers a bit... actually 3.07%...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22652.html

Citation on that statistic please. If true, I'd support that.

[Craneman 2]

We have a $400,000,000 project in waiting.

Waiting on government, beuracratic, approval.

Has been stalled for over a year now, tree huggers and such.

Would create 2000 jobs tomorrow with just a letter of approval.

Not a cent of government money, total private sector, jobs that will stay and not evaporate when the government money stops.

High paying jobs, not fast food.

This project along with many others that have been being stalled but will be released first quarter next year creating many thousands of jobs.

The administration will claim these jobs as jobs created by the stimulus, the oposite is true, they are being stalled for political reasons.

This particular project has been in the works for 6 years, nothing at all to do with or bewnwefit from stimulus government cheese.

These are the types of jobs America needs, not government dig ditch fill ditch jobs.

[Dan J 277]

Yup, people just like me. And a flat tax would put more cash in my pocket than I have now.

I was thinking more of people who live hand to mouth and currently have no income tax liability at all. A "10% of everything" tax on them would be a tax hike.

OK, I understand what you mean.

Just for the record though, I do not feel that anyone making less than $100k a year should pay ANY tax at all...

Could you rephrase that? I don't follow.

I mean, if your W2 shows you grossed less than $100k for the year, you pay no Federal taxes. The state is a different matter...

I don't think this tax shift would hurt the top earners at all.

The top 50% tax filers make over 97% of the money.

The bottom 50% make 3%...

You would be looking at median, which is around $45,000 per year for a household. With two kids and filling jointly with on that amount of income, you do have effectively have a negative tax rate.

[Craneman 2]

Or possibly 2 adults 3 kids 2 dogs 8 horses 4 cows 3 pigs and 100 chickens?

Yup, people just like me. And a flat tax would put more cash in my pocket than I have now.

I was thinking more of people who live hand to mouth and currently have no income tax liability at all. A "10% of everything" tax on them would be a tax hike.

OK, I understand what you mean.

Just for the record though, I do not feel that anyone making less than $100k a year should pay ANY tax at all...

Could you rephrase that? I don't follow.

I mean, if your W2 shows you grossed less than $100k for the year, you pay no Federal taxes. The state is a different matter...

I don't think this tax shift would hurt the top earners at all.

The top 50% tax filers make over 97% of the money.

The bottom 50% make 3%...

You would be looking at median, which is around $45,000 per year for a household. With two kids and filling jointly with on that amount of income, you do have effectively have a negative tax rate.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

I won't make 45k this year and I would be filing a joint return.

I will be paying tax too.

How do you figure thats a negative tax??

I won't be getting any big fat refund check....

Yup, people just like me. And a flat tax would put more cash in my pocket than I have now.

I was thinking more of people who live hand to mouth and currently have no income tax liability at all. A "10% of everything" tax on them would be a tax hike.

OK, I understand what you mean.

Just for the record though, I do not feel that anyone making less than $100k a year should pay ANY tax at all...

Could you rephrase that? I don't follow.

I mean, if your W2 shows you grossed less than $100k for the year, you pay no Federal taxes. The state is a different matter...

I don't think this tax shift would hurt the top earners at all.

The top 50% tax filers make over 97% of the money.

The bottom 50% make 3%...

You would be looking at median, which is around $45,000 per year for a household. With two kids and filling jointly with on that amount of income, you do have effectively have a negative tax rate.

[Dan J 277]

I won't make 45k this year and I would be filing a joint return.

I will be paying tax too.

How do you figure thats a negative tax??

I won't be getting any big fat refund check....

Yup, people just like me. And a flat tax would put more cash in my pocket than I have now.

I was thinking more of people who live hand to mouth and currently have no income tax liability at all. A "10% of everything" tax on them would be a tax hike.

OK, I understand what you mean.

Just for the record though, I do not feel that anyone making less than $100k a year should pay ANY tax at all...

Could you rephrase that? I don't follow.

I mean, if your W2 shows you grossed less than $100k for the year, you pay no Federal taxes. The state is a different matter...

I don't think this tax shift would hurt the top earners at all.

The top 50% tax filers make over 97% of the money.

The bottom 50% make 3%...

You would be looking at median, which is around $45,000 per year for a household. With two kids and filling jointly with on that amount of income, you do have effectively have a negative tax rate.

With two kids, if you have no kids, you will probably be paying some tax, albeit not very much. At $45,000 a year for a married couple with no kids, the effective tax rate is about 5%.

[SMR 368]

I rounded the numbers a bit... actually 3.07%...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22652.html

Citation on that statistic please. If true, I'd support that.

You are reading those statistics wrong. The top 50% of earners only make 87% of the money. They pay 97% of the taxes.

The top 50% of earners starts at people making $30,881 annually. That includes you, if you are making $45k.

If you eliminate taxes for everyone making less than $103,912 annually (the bottom 90%), then tax revenue will be reduced to 70% of its present value. Those 10% who pay 70% of the taxes only make 46% of the money. While cutting government to 70% of its budget is fine with me, you would definitely have to make some cuts.

Why do you think that you should access to schools, roads, fire stations, police, military protection, and other services but shouldn't have to pay taxes. That doesn't seem fair to me.

[Craneman 2]

It is my right !!!!!

yada yada yada

I rounded the numbers a bit... actually 3.07%...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22652.html

Citation on that statistic please. If true, I'd support that.

You are reading those statistics wrong. The top 50% of earners only make 87% of the money. They pay 97% of the taxes.

The top 50% of earners starts at people making $30,881 annually. That includes you, if you are making $45k.

If you eliminate taxes for everyone making less than $103,912 annually (the bottom 90%), then tax revenue will be reduced to 70% of its present value. Those 10% who pay 70% of the taxes only make 46% of the money. While cutting government to 70% of its budget is fine with me, you would definitely have to make some cuts.

Why do you think that you should access to schools, roads, fire stations, police, military protection, and other services but shouldn't have to pay taxes. That doesn't seem fair to me.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

I could say its the same right that many use to collect wellfare checks year after year but that is not the point of this thread...

It is my right !!!!!

yada yada yada

Ok, my mistake...

Use the $30881 instead of $100k

That would help a lot of people.

I won't be making $45k this year...

I rounded the numbers a bit... actually 3.07%...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22652.html

Citation on that statistic please. If true, I'd support that.

You are reading those statistics wrong. The top 50% of earners only make 87% of the money. They pay 97% of the taxes.

The top 50% of earners starts at people making $30,881 annually. That includes you, if you are making $45k.

If you eliminate taxes for everyone making less than $103,912 annually (the bottom 90%), then tax revenue will be reduced to 70% of its present value. Those 10% who pay 70% of the taxes only make 46% of the money. While cutting government to 70% of its budget is fine with me, you would definitely have to make some cuts.

Why do you think that you should access to schools, roads, fire stations, police, military protection, and other services but shouldn't have to pay taxes. That doesn't seem fair to me.