47% of Americans do not Pay Federal Income Tax?

[Conan71]

If I were you, I would do what you are planning in reverse.

I may have to give up Marshall's and start drinking Hamm's or Schlitz again... damn vultures!

[Cats Cats Cats]

I'm assuming that people actually understand that businesses are only liable for income taxes on INCOME.  If your income is lower than your expenses and deductions you pay no income tax. 

So basically if an above company had a poor year, out of the 7 years aforementioned, than they paid no income tax. 

SO WHAT!

I read it in reverse that they paid no income for not 1 of the 7 years.

[nathanm]

Why debate the issue when you can simply change the subject?

You missed my point. The discussion is meaningless without considering the total tax burden.

[guido911]

You missed my point. The discussion is meaningless without considering the total tax burden.

Well to you it may be meaningless. But when I read that millions of people actually profit from the FEDERAL income tax structure, it sure as sh!t means a lot to me.

[Conan71]

You missed my point. The discussion is meaningless without considering the total tax burden.

Start your own thread on total tax burdens then...

I have no problem with that, as I've got plenty to add about close to, if not over 1/2 of my income is going to taxes: sales tax, property tax, hidden taxes in the products I buy, franchise taxes, utility taxes, etc.

[nathanm]

Well to you it may be meaningless. But when I read that millions of people actually profit from the FEDERAL income tax structure, it sure as sh!t means a lot to me.

It is a lot easier to rant when you refuse to consider the impact of other taxes on the people you're so annoyed with.

[guido911]

It is a lot easier to rant when you refuse to consider the impact of other taxes on the people you're so annoyed with.

Whatever. And what Conan said.

[JeffM]

It is a lot easier to rant when you refuse to consider the impact of other taxes on the people you're so annoyed with.

+1
Typical republican faux-libertarian arrogance.

[JeffM]

Damn, growth was a little over 3% in those days and people were predicting a recession.  We all know what happened to Mondull in that election.

So.  Deficits are bad.  Are the "failed economic policies" of the Reagan administration justification for the Obama Administration racking up record deficits?  That's what I keep hearing. 

President Reagan certainly never envisioned the country being $12 to $13 trill. in debt. 

No, dummy.  Deficits are only bad when the Dems are in office.
I learned that from the "liberal" media over the course of three decades....

Last time I checked, the stock market was over 11,000.... maybe you could give somebody a little credit....

Your political messiah's policies have been out of date for well over a decade.... the dogma and legacy of Art Laffer-style Reaganomics was the biggest redistribution of wealth from poor to rich in the history of this country.

Here's some more quotes from crazy liberals for all y'all......

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."
- Adam Smith

"I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective: a graduated inheritance tax increasing rapidly with the size of the estate."
- Theodore Roosevelt

"An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

"It's the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress."
-- Ronald Reagan, in 1986 after signing legislation greatly increasing the earned income tax credit

[heironymouspasparagus]

Reagan set the ball rolling.  His smallest deficit was about $150 billion.  (Jimmies largest was about half that).  And then, by the time it was over, we were about $3.5 trillion in debt.  (As compared to the approx $800+\- billion when he took office.)  And then George took over and it skyrocketed again.  And that was even with the tax hikes that were instituted in those 12 years.

Hey, here's a thought;  instead of being so stupid about tax cuts, big government, and blah, blah, blah, like the tea baggers are...why not worry about cutting spending??  Oh, yeah...that would put a crimp in the Republican plan, huh?

We cannot "tax cut" our way out of this kind of debt.  Reagan and Bush I knew at least that much.  It literally is like having an income of 50,000, debt of 250,000 and spending more to "fix" the problem.

From the Washington Times, from 1981 through 2008, the civilian work force remained at about 1.1 million to 1.2 million, with a low of 1.07 million in 1986 and a high of more than 1.2 million in 1993 and in 2008. In 2009, the number jumped to 1.28 million.

The count went down from 1993 until just after 2001, then went up for 'homeland security'.  A big surge is occurring this year for census, then is projected to be back at 1.2 next year.  These are civilian.  Add military and we are about 2.3 million or so.


Question;  Does that sound like an inordinate amount of employees for a country this size? 


Just curious...

[Conan71]

Hmmm, that's an interesting figure, Hier. I had assumed that number would be far higher. Add in UE, SSI recipients, military retirees, & direct contractors (ie independent consultants & the like) and the number of people dependent on the gov for their primary income and I'd bet that number is well up into at least 20% of the population.

Why do people keep harkening back to the Reagan & Bush years when the topic of deficits come up?  How do you justify the insane amount of spending right now by clomping back down memory lane by 20-30 years. Apparently the policies of the Nixon & Carter years weren't so great. Reagan increased the deficit to right the economic ship.

Sounds like a great idea now to Obama supporters with the whole stimulus, yet revisionist thinking wants to paint the government spending of '81 to '89 as an abysmal failure.   

[Cats Cats Cats]

Last time I checked, the stock market was over 11,000.... maybe you could give somebody a little credit....
f Congress."

Actually, while GWB was in office the DJIA was -24% when he left.  So far Obama is +34%.  Now lets see if the 11k is there in a year.

[Gaspar]

Actually, while GWB was in office the DJIA was -24% when he left.  So far Obama is +34%.  Now lets see if the 11k is there in a year.

I think that is very interesting.  Several major industries have failed, but the inside financial sector, AIG, Smith Barney, City and the cash traders like Soros are performing extremely well.  Large companies with new government contracts like GE are also performing.  Technology giants like Apple are innovating. 

. . . and believe it or not, BANKS ARE LOANING HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY.

The big mega-companies have more capital available to them than ever, because banks have rolled back into the safe investment stratagem of only loaning to the big guys.  The market is booming and will continue to boom because banks and Wall Street have been married by an unlikely pastor.

While this is good for my investments, it's not going to help unemployment or small business much.  The reason all this money is available to big business is because it's not available to individuals and small businesses. 

I invest, and I'm making great returns and turning investments quickly in this market, but most small businesses and individuals don't have the time or understanding to take advantage of a corporatist economy through investment.

So basically what I'm saying is that yes the economy has changed under President Obama.  It is far more focused on large corporate growth and trading than small business economic growth.  The administration has done everything within its power to help the mega-companies, but nothing to grow small business and reverse unemployment trends.

Eventually if this strategy continues we will see the big companies gobble up failing small businesses and take over new market sectors.  As this happens unemployment will begin to turn around slowly, however people will be working for an increasing number of massive conglomeration companies that will have increasing control over the economy.

This is not exactly Freshman Economics (101) but it's certainly not graduate level. 

I'm happy that the market is up, but I would rather see small business sector growth. 

[Conan71]

Actually, while GWB was in office the DJIA was -24% when he left.  So far Obama is +34%.  Now lets see if the 11k is there in a year.

...and the Dow was over 14,000 during the BushII admin (I know it was 2007 so that was President Clinton's accomplishment, no wait that was the false economy, no wait that was because Democrats had control of the house, no wait...), and around 6600 last March during the Obama administration (of course, that was Bush's fault).

Anyone note how the Dow grew from around 3700 to nearly 12,000 in eight years during the Clinton admin?  Great un-precedented growth, but how sustainable was that rate of growth going to be?  Especially since many companies were cooking their books in the process of making themselves look better off than they were (I know, another Bush-era practice), there was a lot of borrowed money in play (which we are now paying the price for), and many worthless companies made their founders and intial investors incredibly wealthy with the IPO fever of the late '90's.  Of course, those companies became worthless again in short order.

Hey, I'm not complaining. The 1990's were halcyon days for me.  My paycheck was ever increasing, profit sharing was great and my investments did well.  I also watched close friends gasp in horror as their 401K's, IRA's, etc. started shrinking in 2000 and they had no idea what to do.

The '00's haven't been bad to me, I've had a few lean years, this year isn't so great, but I'm optimistic that this admin's energy policies will be a benefit to my chosen line of work and industry will bounce back and be needing new equipment, equipment upgrades to keep up with growing capacity, and equipment upgrades to keep in compliance with emission standards.

I've simply always maintained a paradigm that if I think the economy sucks, my personal economy eventually will get to that point.  If I keep looking at the lighter edges, I will at worst do the same as the prior year or prosper.  There is money to be made in every economy, you just have to keep an open mind to find it.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Conan, it is great if you invest a lot in a brokerage account and don't invest in mutual funds in a 401k.  A lot of people don't trade stocks except maybe tweaking their mutual fund.  That means when you go from 2000 to 2010 and you don't actively sell or move around your cash in your 401k, you would be happy to break even (Assuming they didn't out or under perform the DOW). So going 10 years with inflation and no growth is kind of a big deal.  I remember a president saying we should invest all our social security money and HSA accounts in the stock market.  Yes, you can thank Bush for setting up the events to hit 14,000.  Then you can thank him for the events that sent it to 6,600.