What is just one thing that could reduce the vitriol here?

[Anonymous]

To answer the OPs question, in one word: manners.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What percentage of NO-PAYERS of Federal Income Taxes are you comfortable with.

I am not comfortable with any level. People who don't pay income tax have very little income. I wish they had greater income. Shit, I wish they had enough income that they could complain about getting hit with an over $250,000 tax increase.

OK, Jeff thanks for a response. How does 47% NO-PAYERS sound to you? Please lets not get hung up on plus or minus 10%, and I agree that if there are deductions on mortgages for second homes and various other things those should be eliminated.

For now please share how you feel about the 47% neighborhood.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0

[Anonymous]

To answer the OPs question, in one word: manners.

With all due respect, I would proffer my opinion that my esteemed colleague the OP has revealed himself to be either a huckster or a rube.

[Anonymous]

ok, assuming you run up another few trillion in debt over the next three years, at what point do you think it acceptable to address it, and how? when the interest payments swallow a third of expenditures?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

To answer the OPs question, in one word: manners.

With all due respect, I would proffer my opinion that my esteemed colleague the OP has revealed himself to be either a huckster or a rube.

Is something standing in the way of your just finding another thread?

[Anonymous]

ok, assuming you run up another few trillion in debt over the next three years, at what point do you think it acceptable to address it, and how? when the interest payments swallow a third of expenditures?

I think you'll need to show your work there, champ. Hell, if we'd doubled the size of the last stimulus bill (rather than gutting it in the interest of "fiscal responsibility") the resulting growth and the revenue generated would've put us in a much better position than we're now in.

When ignorance of economics is the law of the land, you start getting grand ideas like the bipartisan stimulus bill. What's the maximum sized stimulus that's still smaller than what economists estimate will be needed to stimulate the economy? Perfect compromise!

[Anonymous]

PP here,

47% say it's not my problem. Can I have more? Damn it give me more! I deserve it!

10% pay 73% of the bills. America, what a great country!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
OK, Jeff thanks for a response. How does 47% NO-PAYERS sound to you? Please lets not get hung up on plus or minus 10%, and I agree that if there are deductions on mortgages for second homes and various other things those should be eliminated.

For now please share how you feel about the 47% neighborhood.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0

This is all part and parcel of income disparity. According to that article, a family of four making $50,000 a year would not pay income tax. You have never revealed what part of the country you are in -- I guessed West Texas but since you never mentioned guns, I'm probably wrong -- but maybe $50,000 is a lot of money there. Here, it would be pretty tough for a family of four to get by on $50,000. Keep in mind that about $4000 would be eaten by payroll taxes. I'd love to see their salaries at a level where they had $10,000 grand or so to contribute to taxes.

Editing to add:

Look at this chart to see how much inequity exist in the distribution of wealth in the US. I don't lose too much sleep over the fact that the light blue, and whatever the green is (turquoise?) don't pay income tax. You can barely see them in the top chart.

[Anonymous]

OK, Jeff thanks for a response. How does 47% NO-PAYERS sound to you?

I find PP's subtle use of ALL CAPS frankly compelling. They should give you your own show.

#mannerscostnothing

[Anonymous]

OK, let's try to be and succeed at being NON-RESPONSIVE.

Jeff, can you or any others just say, yes I am comfortable with 47% being NO-PAYERS?

There tends to be lots of chatter when answering a simple question is uncomfortable. Or, look over here and think about this to avoid answering a simple question.

[Anonymous]

Looking at Jeff's graphs there, yes, I can say without hesitation that I have no problem with the 47% who have nothing paying no taxes. In fact, your outrage is a bit like the outrage we saw by certain folks in the wake of the election when the map of various states colored red or blue came out. How could McCain have lost the votes when we won the acreage. It's borderline innumeracy.

Any other questions?

[Anonymous]

OK.

47% have nothing. Can you support that?

And, one person here is comfortable with 47% being NO-PAYERS.

I am awaiting your support of 47% have nothing.

[Anonymous]

Uh oh. Mr CAPS LOCK is back to calling them "NO-PAYERS". I guess "PAYERS OF A GREATER SHARE OF PAYROLL AND OTHER TAXES AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME, BUT NO-PAYERS OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX" doesn't have quite that zingy, razza-ma-tazz feel to it.

[Anonymous]

the problem with income disparity, and with many not paying any taxes, is the majority (if it becomes that) votes in their own interest. you need to have skin in the game for a representative democracy to work.

So everyone needs to have something at stake.

[Anonymous]

A President who can speak, loves the country, is proud of the country, doesnt smell, is not clumsy, has good judgement and gets people psyched up. (reagan)