- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Messages
- 52,009
- Reaction score
- 33,944
- Location
- The Golden State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The share of households who aren't paying any federal income tax has fallen, and a new analysis from the Tax Policy Center predicts that it will continue to shrink in years to come.
That's partly because a slew of temporary tax cuts enacted during the Great Recession have started to expire. And it's partly because an improving economy means people's incomes should slowly start to increase, adding to their income tax bill.
Still, if you add those that work for the gov't, it is a majority of the elctorate.
Ya, damn them men and women in military uniform, and those who ensure that our meat is safe and that our airports and borders are secure (at least more secure than they would be without those people). They are all slackers, who are getting sumpen for nuten. We shouldn't pay them a dime, they should be forced to work for free.
And while we are at it, screw those old folks who are now living off of their lifetime savings. And those college student brats with their part time jobs. And especially screw unemployed people - they should have to pay income tax regardless of if they have any income!
You misunderstand my meaning. I am not saying anything is wrong with getting all that you can from your employer, simply that if your employer is the gov't then you tend not to vote for those promising cuts in gov't. The same is true of those that legally do not pay income taxes (for whatever reason), they have absolutely nothing to gain by voting for politicians that want to cut income taxes. My point is that those not paying income taxes and those working for the gov't are much more apt to support those politicians that wish to keep or expand gov't employment and tax someone else (the rich?) more.
You misunderstand my meaning. I am not saying anything is wrong with getting all that you can from your employer, simply that if your employer is the gov't then you tend not to vote for those promising cuts in gov't. The same is true of those that legally do not pay income taxes (for whatever reason), they have absolutely nothing to gain by voting for politicians that want to cut income taxes. My point is that those not paying income taxes and those working for the gov't are much more apt to support those politicians that wish to keep or expand gov't employment and tax someone else (the rich?) more.
Do you have any data on this or is it just tea party sociology at work?
Since you're in a speculative mood, I bet there is a lot of poor white trash in trailer parks who live on the dole and vote GOP everytime. I bet a lot of vets who get GI benefits including medical care from the government support conservatives. And I bet a lot of ethic groups, like Cubans, who got all sorts of special treatment from the Federal government vote rightwing causes and support limiting Federal benefits (for other people)
These "masses" of rural rednecks either live in red states/districts or get outnumbered by the blue cities in their states. Less than 10% of the U.S. population ever served in the military. Cubans make up just 3.7% of all U.S. Hispanics. Adding all of these groups together gets you less than 13% of the U.S. electorate - that is offset by blacks alone.
So you don't have any data to support your speculation but you don't like my speculation, is that it?
How many people are on welfare and what is their average age?
You know, the 47% who pay no federal income taxes, and are therefore, according to the Republicans, Democrats.
Well, it's down to 43% now.
What data can't you find? Your post contianed no "data" just BS about trailer parks, military veterans and Cubans.
The 10 Largest Hispanic Origin Groups: Characteristics, Rankings, Top Counties | Pew Hispanic Center
What percentage of the US population has served / is serving in the Military? - Yahoo! Answers
Much like your data. I mean your lack of data, since you haven't provided any to support your crazy theory.
It is somewhat amusing however that your position is that we need less taxes but you want more people to pay more taxes.
It's almost incoherent.
I never said any such thing. I said that we need less federal gov't spending. When have I ever called for less taxes? I have suggested that we should have less tax deductons, which would then mean more taxes for many.
You seem upset that poor people don't pay taxes and seem to be suggesting it spells the end of the Republic. So much so that you made up scenarios about how people voted without one scrap of empirical evidence to support your claims. Why would anybody do that unless they've got some kind of obsession with punishing the poor?
I am a poor person, and as such have no federal income tax liability, therefore I do not vote for candidates that promise tax cuts. If I worked for the government, as some of my friends do, then I would be very unlikely to vote for a candidate promissing smaller government, what part of that is hard to understand? People tend to vote for (favor?) what they feel makes their own situation better (or at least no worse). Your obsession with spending other people's money on the poor is not noble. What I wish is for the chance to work more, thus to no longer be as poor.
Sure. That explains why so many wealthy people vote for republicans. Republicans are advocates for the rich, just like dems are advocates for the poor.
I am a poor person, and as such have no federal income tax liability, therefore I do not vote for candidates that promise tax cuts. If I worked for the government, as some of my friends do, then I would be very unlikely to vote for a candidate promissing smaller government, what part of that is hard to understand? People tend to vote for (favor?) what they feel makes their own situation better (or at least no worse). Your obsession with spending other people's money on the poor is not noble. What I wish is for the chance to work more, thus to no longer be as poor.
Sure. That explains why so many wealthy people vote for republicans. Republicans are advocates for the rich, just like dems are advocates for the poor.
Unfortunately, neither are really advocates for the middle class.
I love how conservatives like to suggest that if working people vote for their self-interest, they are somehow dirty or unethical. While if rich people vote for their self-interest, they are just being rational.
Still no data on this from you. But at least your provided a personal anecdote -- the mother's milk of conservative "logic"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?