I had to laugh at a couple Drudge headlines today:

 

"Half of households pay no income tax" and

 

Gallup: 43% say tax level "about right"

 

Well duh!

I have heard on a couple of the talk shows if you taxed every America at 100% this year, the government would still be in the red.

Stats came from the IRS

Edited April 18, 201115 yr by bballfamily

I have heard on a couple of the talk shows if you taxed every America at 100% this year, the government would still be in the red.

Stats came from the IRS

 

I was thinking it was everyone earning over $100,000. Either way kind of interesting, isn't it?

The numbers I found put it at around 38% of total spend.

 

You are correct if you include defense spending. That is why I mentioned that in the first or second post.

 

Discretionary spending in FY 2010 was $1.3 trillion, or 38% of total spending. More than half ($815 billion) was security spending, which includes the Department of Defense, overseas contingency programs and Homeland Security. (ask.com)

 

http://nationalpriorities.org/resources/federal-budget-101/charts/discretionary-spending/discretionary-budget-fy2011/

You are correct if you include defense spending. That is why I mentioned that in the first or second post.

 

Discretionary spending in FY 2010 was $1.3 trillion, or 38% of total spending. More than half ($815 billion) was security spending, which includes the Department of Defense, overseas contingency programs and Homeland Security. (ask.com)

 

http://nationalpriorities.org/resources/federal-budget-101/charts/discretionary-spending/discretionary-budget-fy2011/

No you didn't. You said it was 12% of the budget.

Discretionary spending is only 12% of the budget. Which conservative is going to step up and say "End all three wars we are fighting NOW", and cut military spending. We spend more on our military than the next 6 or 7 countries combined. How about if we just spent more than the next two or three combined, or even 4? Medicare spending is high, because no one wants to disrupt the "for profit" insurance and pharmacy business. The one program that we have put forth to DECREASE spending in medicare is the Affordable Care Act, and yet the conservatives want to repeal it. Why? Politics!!

 

Here is my post, including the the notion of someone saying to end all three wars and cut military spending. I should have said non-defense discretionary spending. Nothing meant to mislead, or course you can take it however you want. Doesn't change the fact that all of this "overspending" that you guys keep talking about is really for the military, and medicare and medicaid. Yet we act like it is home heating assistance, or WIC, or bridges and roads. Well its not. Military, medicare, medicaid. Medicare spending will be reduced by the Affordable Care Act. What else we got?

I have no problem with cutting defense spending. I'm in favor of across the board spending cuts. Taxes too. I have no problem letting them go back up for a while. What I don't like is only a portion of the population being targeted, even if I'm not part of that portion. Let everyone pay more income tax for a while. In fact, make sure EVERYONE pays income tax for a while. Get our finances in order. Looking at simply spending OR taxing is not going to get it done.

I have no problem with cutting defense spending. I'm in favor of across the board spending cuts. Taxes too. I have no problem letting them go back up for a while. What I don't like is only a portion of the population being targeted, even if I'm not part of that portion. Let everyone pay more income tax for a while. In fact, make sure EVERYONE pays income tax for a while. Get our finances in order. Looking at simply spending OR taxing is not going to get it done.

 

I agree.

When you say pay "nothing" you really mean no income tax. The thing is, it would be silly to pull income away from them when THEY HARDLY HAVE ANY. But they do pay ALL KINDS of other taxes.

 

The other thing is, you can really only pay taxes on what money you control, and the wealthy in this country control WAY OVER 50% of the money and wealth. So they control about 90% of the wealth and pay about 50% of the taxes. Interesting.

 

So, if myself and another person work the exact same job for the same pay over 30 years, but I save a decent percentage of my money and invest it and it grows, and the other person blows all of his money and I end up with more wealth than him I should pay more in taxes in your opinion? Simply because I have more wealth? Just trying to clarify your stance.

 

Thanks.

I would think if he "blows" his money he has paid taxes on the things he purchased and helped create jobs for the retailers and suppliers. He did not get his stuff free, so he paid taxes at 6% in kentucky and higher in Tennessee and other places. So your scenario is not as simple as you might suggest.

I would think if he "blows" his money he has paid taxes on the things he purchased and helped create jobs for the retailers and suppliers. He did not get his stuff free, so he paid taxes at 6% in kentucky and higher in Tennessee and other places. So your scenario is not as simple as you might suggest.

 

Sure it is. Two people make the same amount of money, one blows it, the other saves it. The one that saves it has more net worth than the other, so according to you, they should pay more in taxes, just because they were smart with their money. Your philosophy wants to punish people for being intelligent. Pretty simple if you ask me.

I would think if he "blows" his money he has paid taxes on the things he purchased and helped create jobs for the retailers and suppliers. He did not get his stuff free, so he paid taxes at 6% in kentucky and higher in Tennessee and other places. So your scenario is not as simple as you might suggest.

 

Okay, let's say the person that ended up with less money blew all of his money gambling or drugs or something along that nature. Would I still owe more in taxes in your opinion since I would have a greater net worth? Just trying to clarify.

Okay, let's say the person that ended up with less money blew all of his money gambling or drugs or something along that nature. Would I still owe more in taxes in your opinion since I would have a greater net worth? Just trying to clarify.

 

Again, not so very simple. You are primarily talking about income taxes. Is the money producing income and if so, how much? You seem to imply that the taxes would actually take away some of the money that you made to begin with, not true at all. Are you suggesting that if I take all of the money that I earn and save now and use it to start a business that benefits from the military, and police, and fire, and roads, etc., that I shouldn't have to pay taxes on it at all? I would think that is the same scenario you are talking about. Not only that you saving your money now is not going to put you in the top 1% of income earners.

Here is my post, including the the notion of someone saying to end all three wars and cut military spending. I should have said non-defense discretionary spending. Nothing meant to mislead, or course you can take it however you want. Doesn't change the fact that all of this "overspending" that you guys keep talking about is really for the military, and medicare and medicaid. Yet we act like it is home heating assistance, or WIC, or bridges and roads. Well its not. Military, medicare, medicaid. Medicare spending will be reduced by the Affordable Care Act. What else we got?

 

Even if you reduced the security discretionary spending to zero the remaining discretionary would still make up close to 17% of the budget. I agree that discretionary spending should be reduced across the board but so should all spending. The budgets for the all departments should be cut and cut big. I don't think you would have too many complaining about TEMPORARY tax hikes IF spending was cut and cut big time and everyone paid something. I don't care how much it is as long as it's something. And don't give me this crap about sales tax and gas tax and what. Because if you want to play that game the rich are paying WAY more then their 37% of income tax (or what ever the precentage is). What do you think the sales tax on a G6 is? And I'm not talking about the Pontiac.

Again, not so very simple. You are primarily talking about income taxes. Is the money producing income and if so, how much? You seem to imply that the taxes would actually take away some of the money that you made to begin with, not true at all. Are you suggesting that if I take all of the money that I earn and save now and use it to start a business that benefits from the military, and police, and fire, and roads, etc., that I shouldn't have to pay taxes on it at all? I would think that is the same scenario you are talking about. Not only that you saving your money now is not going to put you in the top 1% of income earners.

 

I'm am not talking about income tax, I am referring to the wealth tax reference you made in post #12. In my hypothetical scenario, the money is producing no income. It is simply sitting in a retirement or checking account. If that is the case, should I owe more in taxes than the other person since I have more wealth?

 

I am not suggesting that a business should not pay taxes, I am merely looking for an answer to the hypothetical scenario I posed. Two guys make the same amount of money over their lives, and one ends up with more wealth than the other. Should the wealthier person pay more in taxes because he has more wealth even though their incomes have been identical their entire lives?