Starting today!

[rockmom]

They should have the full force of the law thrown at them. It doesn't change my thinking that people should not get away with paying no income tax. The tax code should be changed in that regard.

 

The tax code isn't perfect at any level. And the real truth is that there are thousands at the top of the scale who use loopholes and have used these Swiss accounts to avoid paying taxes as well. So to cast only the lowest wage earners as those who don't pay taxes is misleading. The difference is that they do not pay taxes because of the current tax codes, while well more than a few are avoiding paying what is currently their share, benefiting as well from the Bush tax cuts on the top earners, and using illegal methods to even further reduce their liability. Now they receive amnesty. Hardly seems just.

 

As a tax payer, I can live with those who don't pay because their wages are lower than the tax code requires to pay taxes. I cannot help but be angry with and feel little pity for the approximately 15,000 top earners who shirked their duty using nefarious methods.

[2 Humped Camel]

Talk about hyperbole. Did you just seriously compare health insurance to segregation? Give me a break.

 

I refudiate that statement. It's an example not a comparison.

[bballfamily]

I refudiate that statement. It's an example not a comparison.

 

A very poor example at that.

[75center]

The tax code isn't perfect at any level. And the real truth is that there are thousands at the top of the scale who use loopholes and have used these Swiss accounts to avoid paying taxes as well. So to cast only the lowest wage earners as those who don't pay taxes is misleading. The difference is that they do not pay taxes because of the current tax codes, while well more than a few are avoiding paying what is currently their share, benefiting as well from the Bush tax cuts on the top earners, and using illegal methods to even further reduce their liability. Now they receive amnesty. Hardly seems just.

 

As a tax payer, I can live with those who don't pay because their wages are lower than the tax code requires to pay taxes. I cannot help but be angry with and feel little pity for the approximately 15,000 top earners who shirked their duty using nefarious methods.

 

I don't care how little someone makes, they should still have some skin in the game. As I said, I agree that anyone, high income or low income, who circumvents the tax law should have the book thrown at them. It is disgusting to receive amnesty on it.

[bballfamily]

The tax code isn't perfect at any level. And the real truth is that there are thousands at the top of the scale who use loopholes and have used these Swiss accounts to avoid paying taxes as well. So to cast only the lowest wage earners as those who don't pay taxes is misleading. The difference is that they do not pay taxes because of the current tax codes, while well more than a few are avoiding paying what is currently their share, benefiting as well from the Bush tax cuts on the top earners, and using illegal methods to even further reduce their liability. Now they receive amnesty. Hardly seems just.

 

As a tax payer, I can live with those who don't pay because their wages are lower than the tax code requires to pay taxes. I cannot help but be angry with and feel little pity for the approximately 15,000 top earners who shirked their duty using nefarious methods.

 

If they are using legal methods to reduce their taxes on the money they 'earned', what is the problem? If they cheated that is another story.

[acemona]

I don't care how little someone makes, they should still have some skin in the game. As I said, I agree that anyone, high income or low income, who circumvents the tax law should have the book thrown at them. It is disgusting to receive amnesty on it.

 

They do have skin in the game, just not in the form of income taxes. Why would the government levy a tax people that would make it difficult for them to survive. The government understands its gets its "skin" in other ways, that has a bigger impact on the lives the low income than it does on others.

[rockmom]

If they are using legal methods to reduce their taxes on the money they 'earned', what is the problem? If they cheated that is another story.

 

Did you read the article? The people we're discussing did not use legal methods.

[woodsrider]

They do have skin in the game, just not in the form of income taxes. Why would the government levy a tax people that would make it difficult for them to survive. The government understands its gets its "skin" in other ways, that has a bigger impact on the lives the low income than it does on others.

I would guess that the majority of those that pay no income tax qualify for the EI tax credit. Which would mean they get back more then they pay in and probably offsets most other taxes they may pay. So no they most likely have no skin in the game. Especially on the federal level.

[75center]

They do have skin in the game, just not in the form of income taxes. Why would the government levy a tax people that would make it difficult for them to survive. The government understands its gets its "skin" in other ways, that has a bigger impact on the lives the low income than it does on others.

 

What do they put into the system currently? If they can't throw in money, throw in service. But put something in. Obviously there would be circumstances where someone could do neither but that would be a census far smaller than the one currently not participating.

[acemona]

What do they put into the system currently? If they can't throw in money, throw in service. But put something in. Obviously there would be circumstances where someone could do neither but that would be a census far smaller than the one currently not participating.

 

If you have read the whole thread, and I understand that I sometimes skip around myself, but there were several examples of Federal Taxes paid that are not "income" taxes. I don't think the EI off sets all of the other taxes paid.

[Milfordflash]

I'm not a tax person but it always gets me when people talk about getting a refund that is a lot bigger than what they paid in over the year. Makes no sense to me. Also can someone tell me if there is a part in this new bill about having you're income go up by the amount of insurance premiums paid by you're employer? If that happens, there goes more tax to pay uncle sam.

[woodsrider]

If you have read the whole thread, and I understand that I sometimes skip around myself, but there were several examples of Federal Taxes paid that are not "income" taxes. I don't think the EI off sets all of the other taxes paid.

 

I skimmed through the thread and didn't see any examples. Doesn't mean they weren't there but just missed them.

 

Family of 4 making less then $45,295 gets a credit of $5028. I would say this would more then offset any other federal taxes but let's look at an example. The federal tax on gas is 18.4 per gallon I believe. If you figure the avg miles driven in one year is 15,000 and your car gets 20 miles to the gallon (most get better then that) then 15,000/20 = 750 gallons of gas per year....750*$0.184 = $138. That leaves you with $4890. What other federal (non income) taxes are common and would effect the average person?

[swamprat]

I'm not a tax person but it always gets me when people talk about getting a refund that is a lot bigger than what they paid in over the year. Makes no sense to me. Also can someone tell me if there is a part in this new bill about having you're income go up by the amount of insurance premiums paid by you're employer? If that happens, there goes more tax to pay uncle sam.

 

Actually, in 2012 employers are required to list the amount of your insurance they pay on your W-2, but that amount is not going to be calculated as part of your income or taxed separately. Makes you wonder, though. Why put have it on the W-2 at all, then?

[Milfordflash]

Actually, in 2012 employers are required to list the amount of your insurance they pay on your W-2, but that amount is not going to be calculated as part of your income or taxed separately. Makes you wonder, though. Why put have it on the W-2 at all, then?

 

Thanks for the info. I had heard it was to be added to you're income. I'm like you, why have it listed if it's not taxed.

[75center]

If you have read the whole thread, and I understand that I sometimes skip around myself, but there were several examples of Federal Taxes paid that are not "income" taxes. I don't think the EI off sets all of the other taxes paid.

 

As I explained, those taxes don't put you into the system. One is more of a user fee and the other is a welfare or pension program, if you will. I'm talking about contributing to the general revenue of the US Govt. Too many people avoid that.