Let Lower Income "Pay Their Fair Share"!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor people pay sales taxes, excise taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, and what they don't pay directly is passed onto them by adding it to the rent and other costs. They need public services more but generally get worse services than middle and upper income people and neighborhoods. The legal system and court system never cut them any slack they way they do for rich people all the time. If you follow the money, even social programs that help poor people are designed and administered in a way to enrich drug companies, nursing home operators, and other medical companies, slumlords and developers, food manufacturers and retailers, etc.

Stop resenting poor people. They are not the ones living the high life with your money.

Then the poor people need to shut the hell up when we are in a doctor's office, and I've just gone through a big (and loud) discussion with the front desk about the cost for surgery and if we can work out a payment plan....and then sit down to have a patient announce to me...."I don't pay ANYTHING! The government pays the whole thing." Isn't that stupid of the poor person to say that, knowing that I'm trying to figure out how to afford this surgery?

Why are you having a big, loud discussion about how to pay for surgery at the front desk? I worked in hospital billing for many years and nothing was handled in a public waiting room. It also kind of is hard to believe that both you and the "government" patient were discussing the exact same surgery at the same moment.

Well, that's where the discussion was. And the poor patient wasn't having my exact surgery. I have no idea what her surgery was going to be. She just felt it necessary, after I was in shock over the cost of my surgery, to tell me that the government was paying for hers.

I am sorry that happened. The hospital will work out a payment plan for you--they should be prepared to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor people pay sales taxes, excise taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, and what they don't pay directly is passed onto them by adding it to the rent and other costs. They need public services more but generally get worse services than middle and upper income people and neighborhoods. The legal system and court system never cut them any slack they way they do for rich people all the time. If you follow the money, even social programs that help poor people are designed and administered in a way to enrich drug companies, nursing home operators, and other medical companies, slumlords and developers, food manufacturers and retailers, etc.

Stop resenting poor people. They are not the ones living the high life with your money.

Then the poor people need to shut the hell up when we are in a doctor's office, and I've just gone through a big (and loud) discussion with the front desk about the cost for surgery and if we can work out a payment plan....and then sit down to have a patient announce to me...."I don't pay ANYTHING! The government pays the whole thing." Isn't that stupid of the poor person to say that, knowing that I'm trying to figure out how to afford this surgery?

Why are you having a big, loud discussion about how to pay for surgery at the front desk? I worked in hospital billing for many years and nothing was handled in a public waiting room. It also kind of is hard to believe that both you and the "government" patient were discussing the exact same surgery at the same moment.

Well, that's where the discussion was. And the poor patient wasn't having my exact surgery. I have no idea what her surgery was going to be. She just felt it necessary, after I was in shock over the cost of my surgery, to tell me that the government was paying for hers.

I am sorry that happened. The hospital will work out a payment plan for you--they should be prepared to do that.

Thank you. Yes, the hospital was flexible. It is obviously done frequently. As far as the poor patient bragging about how she would have to pay nothing, she was insensitive at best.

[Anonymous]

So we're back to the "takers" comments. So 2012. Don't you know your nominee is King of the Takers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So we're back to the "takers" comments. So 2012. Don't you know your nominee is King of the Takers?

More relevant to our lives would be, "Does your candidate plan to reduce the situation with 'takers' or add on to it?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor people pay sales taxes, excise taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, and what they don't pay directly is passed onto them by adding it to the rent and other costs. They need public services more but generally get worse services than middle and upper income people and neighborhoods. The legal system and court system never cut them any slack they way they do for rich people all the time. If you follow the money, even social programs that help poor people are designed and administered in a way to enrich drug companies, nursing home operators, and other medical companies, slumlords and developers, food manufacturers and retailers, etc.

Stop resenting poor people. They are not the ones living the high life with your money.

Then the poor people need to shut the hell up when we are in a doctor's office, and I've just gone through a big (and loud) discussion with the front desk about the cost for surgery and if we can work out a payment plan....and then sit down to have a patient announce to me...."I don't pay ANYTHING! The government pays the whole thing." Isn't that stupid of the poor person to say that, knowing that I'm trying to figure out how to afford this surgery?

Why are you having a big, loud discussion about how to pay for surgery at the front desk? I worked in hospital billing for many years and nothing was handled in a public waiting room. It also kind of is hard to believe that both you and the "government" patient were discussing the exact same surgery at the same moment.

Well, that's where the discussion was. And the poor patient wasn't having my exact surgery. I have no idea what her surgery was going to be. She just felt it necessary, after I was in shock over the cost of my surgery, to tell me that the government was paying for hers.

I am sorry that happened. The hospital will work out a payment plan for you--they should be prepared to do that.

Thank you. Yes, the hospital was flexible. It is obviously done frequently. As far as the poor patient bragging about how she would have to pay nothing, she was insensitive at best.

Was she bragging, or was she saying "wow, I feel bad for you, I can't believe you have to pay that much. I guess I'm lucky I get mine paid for." Why would she brag? Maybe she shouldn't have said anything, but I'm guessing it was a failed attempt at showing g empathy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is likely to be a controversial opinion, but here goes....

1) There's lots of calls (from liberals) for the wealthy to pay their share, ignoring the fact that the top 10% pay nearly all the taxes, with the top 2% paying the majority. One could argue that could afford to oay more, but this idea that they're not paying their fair share is skewed. They give a LOT.

2) Then of course you have the middle class, who pay a good chunk of their incomes in taxes and get very little, if anything, in terms of government benefits. Relative to their incomes, they give a lot, too. Many are following strict budgets to make sure all the monthly bills get paid.

3) And then we have the lower income, who receive food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing, free medical care, and so forth, without ever paying in a cent. There is an uncomfortable air (for me, anyway) of entitlement, and that they are simply "owed" help from taxpayers because they're poor. I don't think anyone should get off the hook completely, especially when moderate earners are making sacrifices to pay taxes, put food on the table, and pay the rent.

Instead, everyone should have some skin in the game.
- Everyone pays taxes, even a token amount of $100. For those on welfare, we could deduct $8 a month, just as middle class people have hundreds deducted from their paycheck.
- There should be NO free insurance and access to doctors, not while the middle class is crumbling under $20,000 a year in premiums. Everyone should pay $15 a month for insurance, and at least $10 for a doctor's visits. (For those who say $10 is a lot for a poor family, so is a $400 bill for a moderate earner. Everyone has to make sacrifices.)In this way, we will get rid of the entitlement attitude and/or the "poor, helpless me" victim mentality. Even a slight contribution is beneficial to instilling responsibility and the sense of a shared burden.

I expect the liberals will explain why poor people cannot contribute even token amounts, and conservatives will agree with me.

You seem to be one of those people who believe psychology is a field of philosophy, not one of science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You neglected to state that the very top really don't pay their fair share via loopholes and tax deductions, which the lower/middle income folks never get to use. Sure, they pay a lot in taxes, but that's because they make a lot. But, if they only pay 10% in taxes, and middle/upper are paying 30%, then that's not fair is it?

But, I agree with you in that the middle and upper/middle are the only groups probably paying their "fair share".

If we got rid of all the loopholes, then I might agree with you.

Everyone complains about "loopholes" yet no one can cite one. A loophole is, by definition, an unintended benefit. Deductions? Which would you get rid of? Solid tax policy would say get rid of all deductions for no revenue producing expenses. Otherwise, it's just a give away in the form of a tax subsidy. But I hear the hew and cry when people are faced with losing a mortgage interest deduction or child care credit.

What specifically would you want to see eliminated that would have a broad impact on the wealthy/UMC and would bring in more than a token amount of revenue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You neglected to state that the very top really don't pay their fair share via loopholes and tax deductions, which the lower/middle income folks never get to use. Sure, they pay a lot in taxes, but that's because they make a lot. But, if they only pay 10% in taxes, and middle/upper are paying 30%, then that's not fair is it?

But, I agree with you in that the middle and upper/middle are the only groups probably paying their "fair share".

If we got rid of all the loopholes, then I might agree with you.

Everyone complains about "loopholes" yet no one can cite one. A loophole is, by definition, an unintended benefit. Deductions? Which would you get rid of? Solid tax policy would say get rid of all deductions for no revenue producing expenses. Otherwise, it's just a give away in the form of a tax subsidy. But I hear the hew and cry when people are faced with losing a mortgage interest deduction or child care credit.

What specifically would you want to see eliminated that would have a broad impact on the wealthy/UMC and would bring in more than a token amount of revenue?

I had mentioned that we pay about 33% in tax, combined state+federal. If they got rid of most of the tax deductions, then *everyone* would end up paying their fair share, no? Personal exemptions and child credit is fine. These would actually help the lower/middle class. Yes, I'd be fine with getting rid of mortgage deductions as long as the very wealthy can't use any loopholes or other deductions either. That would actually be a much more fair system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You neglected to state that the very top really don't pay their fair share via loopholes and tax deductions, which the lower/middle income folks never get to use. Sure, they pay a lot in taxes, but that's because they make a lot. But, if they only pay 10% in taxes, and middle/upper are paying 30%, then that's not fair is it?

But, I agree with you in that the middle and upper/middle are the only groups probably paying their "fair share".

If we got rid of all the loopholes, then I might agree with you.

Everyone complains about "loopholes" yet no one can cite one. A loophole is, by definition, an unintended benefit. Deductions? Which would you get rid of? Solid tax policy would say get rid of all deductions for no revenue producing expenses. Otherwise, it's just a give away in the form of a tax subsidy. But I hear the hew and cry when people are faced with losing a mortgage interest deduction or child care credit.

What specifically would you want to see eliminated that would have a broad impact on the wealthy/UMC and would bring in more than a token amount of revenue?

I had mentioned that we pay about 33% in tax, combined state+federal. If they got rid of most of the tax deductions, then *everyone* would end up paying their fair share, no? Personal exemptions and child credit is fine. These would actually help the lower/middle class. Yes, I'd be fine with getting rid of mortgage deductions as long as the very wealthy can't use any loopholes or other deductions either. That would actually be a much more fair system.

I'm the PP. To make this work broadly (and fairly) you would also have to eliminate the distinction between capital gain and ordinary income, except as "capital" relates to direct infusion of money into an income producing activity. So no capital gain on market transactions, houses, etc. IPOs if the stock purchased is treasury stock. Direct investment in a business could retain its "capital" nature.

No step up in basis at death.
There would be other modifications needed, but once the base is established rates could be adjusted much more easily.

[Anonymous]

I'm self-employed, so I'd be happy with zero income taxes. Of course, other taxes and fees would be higher but that's fine with me. Also, I think those that are lower income "pay their fair share" in other ways - crappy, dead-end jobs, bad schools, true financial stress, unhealthy diets, poor nutrition, health problems, food deserts, being a victim of crime, being victimized by the criminal system, generational poverty, ect. I'd rather be middle class and struggling to pay for a surgery and health premiums than poor and getting everything for free.

[Anonymous]

OP, why don't you ask for more help for the middle class rather than trying to take away the crumbs that the poor get? If you force a family living in poverty, a family that is living from penny to penny, to give up their grocery/electricity bill/rent money to pay your $8/month income tax, your $10/visit doctor fee and your $100/year health insurance is that going to alleviate your $20,000/year health care burden?

Or is it all about making you feel better knowing that others are suffering worse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, why don't you ask for more help for the middle class rather than trying to take away the crumbs that the poor get? If you force a family living in poverty, a family that is living from penny to penny, to give up their grocery/electricity bill/rent money to pay your $8/month income tax, your $10/visit doctor fee and your $100/year health insurance is that going to alleviate your $20,000/year health care burden?

Or is it all about making you feel better knowing that others are suffering worse?

OP is one who somehow believes that if you play him in monopoly and he starts with all the properties except Mediterranean Ave and all the money and you lose it's not because OP started with so much it's because you're lazy and stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, why don't you ask for more help for the middle class rather than trying to take away the crumbs that the poor get? If you force a family living in poverty, a family that is living from penny to penny, to give up their grocery/electricity bill/rent money to pay your $8/month income tax, your $10/visit doctor fee and your $100/year health insurance is that going to alleviate your $20,000/year health care burden?

Or is it all about making you feel better knowing that others are suffering worse?

OP is one who somehow believes that if you play him in monopoly and he starts with all the properties except Mediterranean Ave and all the money and you lose it's not because OP started with so much it's because you're lazy and stupid.

Data from federalsafetynet.com (may be verified from public records, U.S. Census, federal spending breakdowns.). Spending on social benefits has not changed poverty, it has only made being poor more tolerable.

An small story: I had a similar experience where a crown on my tooth failed and I was advised to get an implant to replace it at a cost of about $15,000. I have to defer the work until I save (probably two years) because of the expense. Yet the next patient, who was Medicaid, was advised to get implants instead because it would all be paid for by his Medicaid plan which he immediately agreed to. If he had to pay out of pocket like me, maybe his decision would be different like the choice I was forced to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we're back to the "takers" comments. So 2012. Don't you know your nominee is King of the Takers?

More relevant to our lives would be, "Does your candidate plan to reduce the situation with 'takers' or add on to it?"

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You neglected to state that the very top really don't pay their fair share via loopholes and tax deductions, which the lower/middle income folks never get to use. Sure, they pay a lot in taxes, but that's because they make a lot. But, if they only pay 10% in taxes, and middle/upper are paying 30%, then that's not fair is it?

But, I agree with you in that the middle and upper/middle are the only groups probably paying their "fair share".

If we got rid of all the loopholes, then I might agree with you.

+1
Also, I don't know if you're just referring to very poor people, but when I started my career with an annual salary of upper $30Ks, I paid a sizeable portion of that in taxes. I don't know why your assume low income people don't party their fair share.