Let Lower Income "Pay Their Fair Share"!

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

You also forgot to mention that the poor pay sales tax (like everyone else), but there is no sliding scale in sales taxes (they are regressive).

[Anonymous]

It has always been a fact that the middle classes, as soon as they came into being, paid the brunt of taxes and were the real drivers of the economy.

The rich as a group have also paid their share. Some of them have indeed paid enormous sums, but not in this country, and the rest always found creative, but legal, ways of evading taxes. You have to understand that the rich are taxed much more in certain other developed countries, and that taxes here are comparatively reasonable.

And I doubt anyone would argue that the very poor should pay more in taxes - would you want to send them to debtor's prison, like they did in 19th century England, when they have no money left?

Your post is rather astoundingly ignorant. I urge you to read and study a little more.

[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.

OP here. I agree that there should be a minimum for the very top. I thought the AMT (don't know much about that.....never impacted me) was supposed to take care of that. I have no problem phasing out loopholes for those at the top, and requiring a "floor" percentage of 25% or thereabouts. (Many middle class don't pay 30% - that's the top marginal rate but the actual percentage paid is less.)

[Anonymous]

Disagree completely. You aren't going to teach ethics through the tax code. Poor people don't have a victim mentality. That's too simplistic a view of what's going on. Instead you must look at untreated substance use and mental health problems, higher proportions of lead poisoning, higher rates of physical and intellectual disabilities --- all of which hinder economic growth. People who face these challenges need even more access to quality education, food, and health care. And they don't get it. If you charge $10 for a doctor's visit, that's one less time Mom goes to the doctor because she's trying to stretch the cash to pay for the night sitter so she can work the second job. Or get the car fixed so she can keep that job. Providing an adequate safety net allows people to continue to work and feed their kids, and make it out of poverty. What we have now is adequate for some but not for many.

I got out of poverty because I could work year round and pay tuition at Maryland. But I was lucky enough to be able to live at home. Had an alcoholic dad but I could put up with him. My friend, in similar circumstances, had a dad who molested her when he was drunk. She got pregnant at 13 with his baby. She fled by 15, the baby being raised by her mom, as her sister. She's never made it out of poverty. She works at 7 Eleven when she feels like it. When she's not struggling with depression. She is too emotionally damaged. Howard County, FWIW. I'm fine with paying taxes to take care of her. Totally fine. I would hope our entire society would be fine with caring for those who cannot care for themselves, for whatever reason, including the invisible ones.

[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.

Does paying his fair share apply to Trump also? I'm more offended by someone with his lavish lifestyle not paying taxes than by lower income people not paying their fair share. I'm sure you'll come up with some excuse for Trump though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It has always been a fact that the middle classes, as soon as they came into being, paid the brunt of taxes and were the real drivers of the economy.

The rich as a group have also paid their share. Some of them have indeed paid enormous sums, but not in this country, and the rest always found creative, but legal, ways of evading taxes. You have to understand that the rich are taxed much more in certain other developed countries, and that taxes here are comparatively reasonable.

And I doubt anyone would argue that the very poor should pay more in taxes - would you want to send them to debtor's prison, like they did in 19th century England, when they have no money left?

Your post is rather astoundingly ignorant. I urge you to read and study a little more.

When did I say the very poor should pay "more" in taxes? There's no such thing as more....they pay nothing. (As does nearly half the country.) To the contrary, they are net receivers - even if they paid a token amount.

And what a leap to debtors' prison! Besides the fact they don't exist, we wouldn't worry about any debt. Just like we do, they would "pay" in advwnce throughout the year. If their "earnings" are via welfare, a little $8 deduction for a total of a $100 tax liability is more than reasonable.

Your attitude is not surprising, though. I've found many liberals become aghast at the thought that pooer people on all sorts of government assistance kick back even 1% in taxes, while having no problem bankrupting the middle class with taxes to pay for the poorer people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Does paying his fair share apply to Trump also? I'm more offended by someone with his lavish lifestyle not paying taxes than by lower income people not paying their fair share. I'm sure you'll come up with some excuse for Trump though.

OP. YES. I'd like to see a minimum required. So....wrong....no excuse for Trump. (Some liberals make a lot of assumptions, it seems.)

[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.

OP here. I agree that there should be a minimum for the very top. I thought the AMT (don't know much about that.....never impacted me) was supposed to take care of that. I have no problem phasing out loopholes for those at the top, and requiring a "floor" percentage of 25% or thereabouts. (Many middle class don't pay 30% - that's the top marginal rate but the actual percentage paid is less.)

I am upper/middle. We have hit AMT, and our combined state+federal = 33%, actual paid. We don't have enough deductions nor do we use loopholes to bring our tax rates down to 10%. Even with AMT, the very wealthy can reduce their tax liability by a huge amount just using those loopholes and deductions.

My parents and a sibling are lower/middle class. Parents live on social security. I'm fine with people on fixed income not paying much, and that my lower/middle class sibling hardly pays much in taxes. As it is, my sibling is struggling as a single parent with a dead beat dad.

[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.

OP here. I agree that there should be a minimum for the very top. I thought the AMT (don't know much about that.....never impacted me) was supposed to take care of that. I have no problem phasing out loopholes for those at the top, and requiring a "floor" percentage of 25% or thereabouts. (Many middle class don't pay 30% - that's the top marginal rate but the actual percentage paid is less.)

I am upper/middle. We have hit AMT, and our combined state+federal = 33%, actual paid. We don't have enough deductions nor do we use loopholes to bring our tax rates down to 10%. Even with AMT, the very wealthy can reduce their tax liability by a huge amount just using those loopholes and deductions.

My parents and a sibling are lower/middle class. Parents live on social security. I'm fine with people on fixed income not paying much, and that my lower/middle class sibling hardly pays much in taxes. As it is, my sibling is struggling as a single parent with a dead beat dad.

PP here.. forgot to mention, I am not a liberal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Disagree completely. You aren't going to teach ethics through the tax code. Poor people don't have a victim mentality. That's too simplistic a view of what's going on. Instead you must look at untreated substance use and mental health problems, higher proportions of lead poisoning, higher rates of physical and intellectual disabilities --- all of which hinder economic growth. People who face these challenges need even more access to quality education, food, and health care. And they don't get it. If you charge $10 for a doctor's visit, that's one less time Mom goes to the doctor because she's trying to stretch the cash to pay for the night sitter so she can work the second job. Or get the car fixed so she can keep that job. Providing an adequate safety net allows people to continue to work and feed their kids, and make it out of poverty. What we have now is adequate for some but not for many.

I got out of poverty because I could work year round and pay tuition at Maryland. But I was lucky enough to be able to live at home. Had an alcoholic dad but I could put up with him. My friend, in similar circumstances, had a dad who molested her when he was drunk. She got pregnant at 13 with his baby. She fled by 15, the baby being raised by her mom, as her sister. She's never made it out of poverty. She works at 7 Eleven when she feels like it. When she's not struggling with depression. She is too emotionally damaged. Howard County, FWIW. I'm fine with paying taxes to take care of her. Totally fine. I would hope our entire society would be fine with caring for those who cannot care for themselves, for whatever reason, including the invisible ones.

Yes, but your sympathy is going entirely to the poor, and nothing to the middle class who, in some cases, is also struggling financially - but with no help. You say the if you charge $10 for Mom's appointment, she's got to find a way to stretch money elsewhere. But what about the middle class? I myself am short-changing myself on my health care, while I see the poor get the full treatment they need because I (and others) are subsidizing it.

For example, I am supposed to be in PT twice a week for the next two months, but starting in November, I am switching to once a week because the $120 per session visit is unaffordable at that schedule. (Yes, I have Obamacare insurance, but it doesn't cover it until I meet a high deductible.) At the same time, the poorer people can go twice a week, because taxpayers are covering the FULL cost for them. I'm not expecting them to pay $120 like me (although until I finish the treatment I have curtailed some expenses), or even $90, or even $50. But $10 is fair, and I do beleive we install the knowledge that nothing is free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It has always been a fact that the middle classes, as soon as they came into being, paid the brunt of taxes and were the real drivers of the economy.

The rich as a group have also paid their share. Some of them have indeed paid enormous sums, but not in this country, and the rest always found creative, but legal, ways of evading taxes. You have to understand that the rich are taxed much more in certain other developed countries, and that taxes here are comparatively reasonable.

And I doubt anyone would argue that the very poor should pay more in taxes - would you want to send them to debtor's prison, like they did in 19th century England, when they have no money left?

Your post is rather astoundingly ignorant. I urge you to read and study a little more.

When did I say the very poor should pay "more" in taxes? There's no such thing as more....they pay nothing. (As does nearly half the country.) To the contrary, they are net receivers - even if they paid a token amount.

And what a leap to debtors' prison! Besides the fact they don't exist, we wouldn't worry about any debt. Just like we do, they would "pay" in advwnce throughout the year. If their "earnings" are via welfare, a little $8 deduction for a total of a $100 tax liability is more than reasonable.

Your attitude is not surprising, though. I've found many liberals become aghast at the thought that pooer people on all sorts of government assistance kick back even 1% in taxes, while having no problem bankrupting the middle class with taxes to pay for the poorer people.

As has been pointed out to you, they don't pay nothing, they pay no income tax. They pay payroll tax and sales tax and fees like the rest of us. I know everyone likes to share their favorite story of the deadbeat they know who doesn't work, but I think most of us know decent poor people who work, but they're just not getting out of poverty. I'm okay with them not paying. I'm okay with old people not paying, unless they're well off. I'm not okay with wealthy people having loopholes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP here. I agree that there should be a minimum for the very top. I thought the AMT (don't know much about that.....never impacted me) was supposed to take care of that. I have no problem phasing out loopholes for those at the top, and requiring a "floor" percentage of 25% or thereabouts. (Many middle class don't pay 30% - that's the top marginal rate but the actual percentage paid is less.)

I am upper/middle. We have hit AMT, and our combined state+federal = 33%, actual paid. We don't have enough deductions nor do we use loopholes to bring our tax rates down to 10%. Even with AMT, the very wealthy can reduce their tax liability by a huge amount just using those loopholes and deductions.

My parents and a sibling are lower/middle class. Parents live on social security. I'm fine with people on fixed income not paying much, and that my lower/middle class sibling hardly pays much in taxes. As it is, my sibling is struggling as a single parent with a dead beat dad.

PP here.. forgot to mention, I am not a liberal.

OP. I'm fine with people with modest incomes paying little in taxes. As long as everyone pays a little something. We should not have half the country paying zip in federal income taxes. And for the poorest - who subsist entirely on food stamps and welfare - I'm suggesting a token $100 for the year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It has always been a fact that the middle classes, as soon as they came into being, paid the brunt of taxes and were the real drivers of the economy.

The rich as a group have also paid their share. Some of them have indeed paid enormous sums, but not in this country, and the rest always found creative, but legal, ways of evading taxes. You have to understand that the rich are taxed much more in certain other developed countries, and that taxes here are comparatively reasonable.

And I doubt anyone would argue that the very poor should pay more in taxes - would you want to send them to debtor's prison, like they did in 19th century England, when they have no money left?

Your post is rather astoundingly ignorant. I urge you to read and study a little more.

When did I say the very poor should pay "more" in taxes? There's no such thing as more....they pay nothing. (As does nearly half the country.) To the contrary, they are net receivers - even if they paid a token amount.

And what a leap to debtors' prison! Besides the fact they don't exist, we wouldn't worry about any debt. Just like we do, they would "pay" in advwnce throughout the year. If their "earnings" are via welfare, a little $8 deduction for a total of a $100 tax liability is more than reasonable.

Your attitude is not surprising, though. I've found many liberals become aghast at the thought that pooer people on all sorts of government assistance kick back even 1% in taxes, while having no problem bankrupting the middle class with taxes to pay for the poorer people.

As has been pointed out to you, they don't pay nothing, they pay no income tax. They pay payroll tax and sales tax and fees like the rest of us. I know everyone likes to share their favorite story of the deadbeat they know who doesn't work, but I think most of us know decent poor people who work, but they're just not getting out of poverty. I'm okay with them not paying. I'm okay with old people not paying, unless they're well off. I'm not okay with wealthy people having loopholes.

Yeah, I know all out the other taxes. I am speaking of fed income tax. Everyone should pay at least $8 month in income taxes. That's my opinion.