Why isn't Al Sharpton in jail for tax evasion?

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

The percentage of Americans who have a tax liability hovers near 51%. Why don't the 49% have to pay? Because they don't make enough. The richer pay more in taxes, that's the way our system works.

According to the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan research center, a family of four earning $26,400 a year will pay no taxes because the $11,600 standard deduction plus four exemptions of $3,700 each will lower their taxable income to zero [source: Williams].

Forbes can help you out with some other statistics: http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/17/everything-about-this-drudge-headline-is-wrong/

[Teddy B 17,251]

What is not obvious to you is that all folks need to have some responsibility and stake in the game.

Most are becoming completely divorced from the consequences of a runaway, spend now, ask questions later government. If one of your "poor" persons was required to cough up even one dollar in taxes to help fund his Obamaphone, maybe he would object to these stupid programs that the rest of us (ie: the 50% who pay all the taxes) finance.

Why would you want to take a dollar from a poor person who got that dollar from the taxpayers to begin with? Why would you want to take money away from someone that is already receiving gov't help? The only thing that will accomplish is that they become poorer and need even more gov't help. And why would that person care if you took that dollar when they will just turn around and get another one from the gov't? What you suggest does not make sense. As Val has said, you can't get blood from a turnip.

If you really want the people receiving gov't assistance to have some skin in the game, then make it mandatory that they perform certain services in order to receive their assistance. They could clean the parks and roadways or help with the elderly and veterans affairs. There are a bunch of things that they could do to help improve things that really need improving and it would give them a sense of self worth at the same time.

The percentage of Americans who have a tax liability hovers near 51%. Why don't the 49% have to pay? Because they don't make enough. The richer pay more in taxes, that's the way our system works.

According to the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan research center, a family of four earning $26,400 a year will pay no taxes because the $11,600 standard deduction plus four exemptions of $3,700 each will lower their taxable income to zero [source: Williams].

Forbes can help you out with some other statistics: http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/17/everything-about-this-drudge-headline-is-wrong/

That family of four earning a whopping $26,400 has some nerve not paying any taxes! Squeeze those slackers! They're living high off the hog on our dime dammitt!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I saw that. How much tax should a family earning that much be expected to pay?

[Teddy B 17,251]

I saw that. How much tax should a family earning that much be expected to pay?

At least half, they're loaded!

[Teddy B 17,251]

I saw that. How much tax should a family earning that much be expected to pay?

I was just pondering how I could possibly live alone on $26,400 without any dependents. I don't know how I could do it. Without paying any taxes that would be $507 a week or roughly $2014 per month. Get a low budget 1 bedroom apt for $750 a month plus utilities, roughly $250 per month for a basic phone, electricity, heat and basic cable if I'm lucky, and I'm already at half of my monthly income. $100 a week on food and other staples (which is cutting it short) and that leaves me a whopping $600 left for transportation, clothing, medical (at least $50 per week for insurance) and any other things that may arise. There's no way I could afford a vehicle plus insurance on that. Yep, I'd be living large alright!

But we're expecting a family of four to do it while paying taxes and receiving no gov't help? Yeah makes perfect sense!

Edited April 8, 2015 by Teddy B

[decocker 7,198]

still talking about bleeding turnips huh?

is anyone taking into consideration that throughout the year most low income workers are paying income tax. it's not till the end of the year that the refunds go out. and as it's been brought up here before, for the most part, that money immediately goes right back into the economy. my best friend works all year and supports four kids for a little less than $26,400. income tax is withheld on her check all year. when she gets the pretty substantial refund at tax time guess where the money goes? she sets some aside for school supplies and clothes for the coming year (back into the economy), some aside for kid's christmas (back into the economy), some to fill the oil tank (again, right back into the economy) and uses the rest to pay any outstanding bills (usually medical). terrible!! and to think how easy it would be to stop working all together and just live off welfare.

[Teddy B 17,251]

still talking about bleeding turnips huh?

is anyone taking into consideration that throughout the year most low income workers are paying income tax. it's not till the end of the year that the refunds go out. and as it's been brought up here before, for the most part, that money immediately goes right back into the economy. my best friend works all year and supports four kids for a little less than $26,400. income tax is withheld on her check all year. when she gets the pretty substantial refund at tax time guess where the money goes? she sets some aside for school supplies and clothes for the coming year (back into the economy), some aside for kid's christmas (back into the economy), some to fill the oil tank (again, right back into the economy) and uses the rest to pay any outstanding bills (usually medical). terrible!! and to think how easy it would be to stop working all together and just live off welfare.

She puts money aside for the kid's Christmas? She's not paying enough, kids don't need Christmas.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

The percentage of Americans who have a tax liability hovers near 51%. Why don't the 49% have to pay? Because they don't make enough. The richer pay more in taxes, that's the way our system works.

According to the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan research center, a family of four earning $26,400 a year will pay no taxes because the $11,600 standard deduction plus four exemptions of $3,700 each will lower their taxable income to zero [source: Williams].

Forbes can help you out with some other statistics: http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/17/everything-about-this-drudge-headline-is-wrong/

Ok. So what group is he talking about that are not paying taxes? There are only 44 million blacks in the U.S., including kids and the elderly. There is still $115 million people left that are not paying taxes if he is claiming it is only 1 group that is not paying.

[decocker 7,198]

She puts money aside for the kid's Christmas? She's not paying enough, kids don't need Christmas.

ikr. poor kids don't deserve christmas. jesus doesn't want poor brats stealing his birthday thunder.

[Teddy B 17,251]

ikr. poor kids don't deserve christmas. jesus doesn't want poor brats stealing his birthday thunder.

When was the last time Jesus paid his fair share? Slacker!

[decocker 7,198]

When was the last time Jesus paid his fair share? Slacker!

ultimate liberal = ultimate slacker

[unsmiley 111]

Why would you want to take a dollar from a poor person who got that dollar from the taxpayers to begin with? Why would you want to take money away from someone that is already receiving gov't help? The only thing that will accomplish is that they become poorer and need even more gov't help. And why would that person care if you took that dollar when they will just turn around and get another one from the gov't? What you suggest does not make sense. As Val has said, you can't get blood from a turnip.

If you really want the people receiving gov't assistance to have some skin in the game, then make it mandatory that they perform certain services in order to receive their assistance. They could clean the parks and roadways or help with the elderly and veterans affairs. There are a bunch of things that they could do to help improve things that really need improving and it would give them a sense of self worth at the same time.

That family of four earning a whopping $26,400 has some nerve not paying any taxes! Squeeze those slackers! They're living high off the hog on our dime dammitt!

It makes plenty of sense. And you conveniently forget that many of the 50% not paying any income taxes are working. If you earn any income, you should pay taxes. Period.

That is why the flat tax, with no exclusions, is the only fair way to tax a population. Earn little, pay little. And under that fair scenario, those who have no income = no taxes.

[Teddy B 17,251]

It makes plenty of sense. And you conveniently forget that many of the 50% not paying any income taxes are working. If you earn any income, you should pay taxes. Period.

That is why the flat tax, with no exclusions, is the only fair way to tax a population. Earn little, pay little. And under that fair scenario, those who have no income = no taxes.

Please explain how taking money away from someone who already receives some form of gov't subsidy makes sense.

I agree that the flat tax is a fair way to go for people that earn a a high enough wage to qualify. If someone doesn't make enough money to live without gov't assistance then it serves no purpose to take more money away from them.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Teddy B

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

It makes plenty of sense. And you conveniently forget that many of the 50% not paying any income taxes are working. If you earn any income, you should pay taxes. Period.

That is why the flat tax, with no exclusions, is the only fair way to tax a population. Earn little, pay little. And under that fair scenario, those who have no income = no taxes.

So we should take money from people who do not make enough to support themselves in full or for whom taking taxes would alter the balance to make them unable to support themselves? Thus making it so that their tax obligation means that they must then borrow or take money from the government in order to survive?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Please explain how taking money away from someone who already receives some form of gov't subsidy makes sense.

I agree that the flat tax is a fair way to go for people that earn a a high enough wage to qualify. If someone doesn't make enough money to live without gov't assistance then it serves no purpose to take more money away from them.

Even under a flat rate system there should still be a taxable income threshold.