• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poor Americans pay MORE in state and local taxes

RGacky3 said:
Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

Whenever progressives bring up how the rich pay way less in federal taxes, income, capital gains and so on, they say "oh thats only federal," well ... Here are the rest.
Click to expand...

Whenever someone brings up how the poor pays more than the rich in state and local taxes they are either unable to do math or have an agenda (or both).

According to the story you quoted, "the poorest 20 percent of households paid an average 10.9 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2007, while the top 1 percent on average paid just 5.2 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes." This is a tax rate, not a tax amount. Therefore, the rich do pay more than the poor. 10 percent of a $20,000 income is dramatically less than 5 percent of a $200,000 income (which isn't even the top 1%). Now if you and the story had said that the poor pay a higher percentage or rate than the rich, we can start having a discussion of "fairness".

But as it stands, this is nothing but a cheap tactic to skew the truth.
 

t should be noted that this always means as a percent of income. Silly you.
 
liblady said:
t should be noted that this always means as a percent of income. Silly you.
Click to expand...

I suppose one should use this as a driver to become more successful. Go to school, get a good job, start a company, do something productive therefor lowering the "amount" they pay in taxes (as the article and you would suggest).

I believe the underlying tone you are writing about is the "poor" are being treated unfair. The truth is there are many avenues for everyone to change their socio-economic status. Instead of complaining, live the "American Dream" and become something more than your parents, and stop implying somehow your neighbors tax bill is preventing another person from being successful. This is not a cast system. If you are unhappy with your tax share, change your income level.

Being an successful is not about waiting for someone to pick you up by your boot straps, it's about getting up on your own.
 
Pay more proportionately, no ****!!! Of coarse thats what I was talking about ...
 
RGacky3 said:
Pay more proportionately, no ****!!! Of coarse thats what I was talking about ...
Click to expand...

So the question which is not answered, is what do you feel should be done about it? Do you feel we should lower the tax rate on the "poor", and shift the burden further to the right? or do you feel the "poor" should use this as motivation to shift themselves to the right by making more money and better financial decisions - hence lowering their tax rate? In other words, should people help themselves, or should the government help those people?

Or are you suggesting, we should continue to give government incentives to the poor to remain poor and tethered to the government.

I guess i don't really understand the endgame you are working towards.
 

Ya, lowering the tax burden of the poor and middle class would be a start. It would also create a better economy as we would have more demand, and thus more jobs, and thus less people drawing welfare and unemployment, and more wealth being created. The rich certainly would benefit from more wealth being created.
 

This is 100% accurate.
 
imagep said:
Ya, lowering the tax burden of the poor and middle class would be a start.
Click to expand...
How does this provide incentive to better yourself? If I told you you could not work and live in your home for free, or you could work and pay to stay in your home, which would you pick? If the complaint is the percentage one pays, the easiest way to alter the percentage is to increase the denominator (income). There are very few people in this country that cannot make more money if they wanted to. Every place I look there are help wanted, or mexicans waiting on a street corner for a job. Mexicans are willing to work. If the poor were as motivated, they wouldn't be poor. The problem is many of these people are not willing to do "those" jobs, and rather complain about their tax rate.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf 3.7 million (on the books) job openings in the US. It is not a lack of jobs, it is a lack of desire to work.

imagep said:
It would also create a better economy as we would have more demand, and thus more jobs,
Click to expand...
Shifting the burden to the right only means higher taxes for those who do pay. Higher taxes do not create a better economy. There is no correlation to taxes obtained by the government and government spending. Higher taxes only remove money from the economic system. Futhermore if more people chose to work, and chose to make more money, that would mean a higher GDP and a better economy for all.

imagep said:
less people drawing welfare and unemployment, and more wealth being created.
Click to expand...
How do people get off welfare when they are encouraged to stay on it? There's a reason people call them entitlements. You can work less and live someplace without paying taxes, and get some food stamps, or you can work 20 hours more, take home the same amount because you are now paying taxes and for your food is paid for in cash... what is the incentive to get off government assistance? Stop subsidizing someone to stay poor and tethered to the government, and then you will get rid of these "entitlements".

imagep said:
The rich certainly would benefit from more wealth being created.
Click to expand...

We all will benefit when the government does stops encouraging people to be under productive.
 
Missed AB said:
How does this provide incentive to better yourself?
Click to expand...
You start off the debate with an unprovable theory. The theory that they need incentive to better themselves, or that they don't want to better themselves. It is an a priori statement with no examination or analysis to back it up.

One thing we do know is that reducing their tax burden is actually improving themselves and their ability to spend more, pay down debt more, and save more.
 
MaggieD said:
Just another article promoting class warfare. *Yawn*
Click to expand...

I am sick of that meme. IT really is a false paradigm that is brought out when people show inequality growing or that taxes, as a percentage of disposable income are grossly favored to the rich.
 
Overall it is very expensive to be poor.
 

JP Hochbaum said:
I am sick of that meme. IT really is a false paradigm that is brought out when people show inequality growing or that taxes, as a percentage of disposable income are grossly favored to the rich.
Click to expand...

Who's not brining the facts? Who's wrong... again. Child please... learn a bit of what you are wanting to discuss.

Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


At least I had the common sense to discuss the topic instead of just look for a way to put a hole in someone's discussion.

Try adding to the discussion, why are the poor, poor?

What is the best strategy to get the poor out of their socioeconomic hole? Do you imagine giving food stamps, welfare checks, and section 8 housing is helping? Talk about not providing anything of substance, Because the numbers for each are growing. Maybe we should just give everyone welfare checks and bill the rent to the US government, that will surely spur economic growth. We will all be in a better place when we all get a check from the government - right?



Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households


JP You ever notice every time you try to prove me wrong, you are wrong... What does that mean about your positions?
 
Last edited:

What exactly have you proved me wrong on? I simply showed that your statement was an a priori statement with no examination or analysis to back it up. How don't you get that?

Your statement was that the poor are poor because they have the incentive to stay poor. That is beyond asinine and unprovable to boot.
 

You seriously need to comprehend better... In slow man's talk for you. STUDIES DO EXIST, which is asinine you don't understand that. They show EITC encourage the poor to work instead of hang out on welfare.... Do you get it, the job existed before the EITC, but the poor refuse to do that job because welfare paid better. That is the incentive to NOT work. We pay people to NOT work.

“Empirical studies confirm . . . that the EITC increases the labor force participation and employment of people with low wages because they need to work in order to receive this credit.

If they weren't working, they wouldn't get the tax credit. Get it? They have more incentive to not work ie WELFARE pays better than working... until the tax credit comes around. 2 Jobs would pay better than welfare, but that's crazy talk... If you were right, then there would not be any variability and families would find a way to support themselves without government assistance. How do you not understand this reading? I am not trying to offend you, is Engilsh a second language? I ask so I can better explain myself and have a better conversation with you.

"Recent research by social scientist Chris Herbst of Arizona State University finds that the EITC is particularly effective at encouraging work among low-wage working..." http://www.chrisherbst.net/files/Download/C._Herbst_Labor_Supply_Effects.pdf If the working itself and getting a paycheck was not encouragement enough, because welfare paid more. They would need 2 jobs, but they won't work 2 jobs. So they will work for the tax credit because that is more than welfare paid. Get it?

Show me data that does not support this. Show me a study that contradicts this. I state most of the poor are capable of working, but choose not to because welfare pays better than a low end job and they get to stay home and not pay for the house either... You call my position asinine, how about you take the time to actually disprove it instead of making false claims that I am not supporting my data.

YOU DID NOT SUPPORT ANYTHING AND LOOK THE FOOL FOR IT. Where are your loyal JP supporters clicking "like" in the above post? You are so far off base, even the liberals are not touching you.
 
Last edited:
If welfare pays better then any sane person on the planet would take welfare. That is the poor bettering themselves.
 

You are right, it is a percent. That is how percents work. And the rich should pay the same or more in percentage of their income. Because it makes no sense that poor people pay a higher percent of their income.
 

What I suggest be done about it is a actual progressive tax ssytem.

The motivation for the poor to try and get out of poverty IS POVERTY ... being poor isn't nice or comfortable ....

Its not about the government helping people or not, the government helps everyone, its about the government setting up the institutions and economic framework in a way that allows poor people to help themselves easily, and that gives the means to do so.

No on ... NO ONE, enjoys being poor. And your characterization of the poor just shows your cluelessness.

MaggieD said:
Just another article promoting class warfare. *Yawn*
Click to expand...

Its being faught already by the Capitalists ...

Thrilla said:
our tax system is not proportional... it's progressive.
Click to expand...

No ... Its not ... in practice its regressive.

Misterveritis said:
Some people just never, ever tire of using statistics to lie. Awesome. And noted.
Click to expand...

Where is the lie?
 
RGacky3 said:
Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

Whenever progressives bring up how the rich pay way less in federal taxes, income, capital gains and so on, they say "oh thats only federal," well ... Here are the rest.
Click to expand...

ok just doing the most basic in my head math,i can tell that link is flat out lying or it is comparing effective rates of rich to marginal rates plus some other hidden taxes of other classes in a means to claim the rich pay a lower rate.

this same thing was done with romney claiming middle class under 50k a year pay more than him,but used marginal tax rates with no deductions plus payroll to compare to romneys effective,whereas effective vs effective romney paid 14% while the average middle class paid a little over 5% effective rate.

with state taxes it seems they took the same approach,there are only about 3 states double dgit numbers for income tax,and one of them is only for people who make over 1 mil a year.so for that number to be true low income would have to on average be paying double or triple the marginal rates averaged across states.

or you all can simply just glance at the rates yourselves,or if still not convinced average them out,and see the ops link cant be true unless low income paid above the top marginal rate.
 
It seems reasonable that most everyone would agree that the "rich" pay more in taxes than the "poor." Even if every single person paid the same rate, elementary math shows the truth of this matter. Therefore, the argument, as I said before, is not one of amount but of fairness. Fairness, by definition, is a qualitative assessment which will never be agreed upon if we focus solely on the "proper" rate of taxation.

There has been mention of lessening the burden of taxation on the lower and middle classes in order to allow for more jobs and more opportunities. I agree with this goal; the lower the burden of taxation for a person the better off he will be. However, this logic applies to every person without regard to the arbitrary class he is grouped into. The burden of taxation is entirely too heavy for each and every individual and business in the United States. (I would be more than happy to debate the flawed logic behind applying a lower taxation to only "lower" and "middle" class brackets, should anyone care to bite.)

Rather than continue to toss around typical party-line rhetoric, the discussion should focus on: 1) why is taxation a burden? 2) at what point does taxation become a burden? and 3) do the ends of taxation have an affect on the aforementioned questions?

I think quite a few people would see things in a little different light if we started here...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…