10 percent of all taxpayers receive more cash from the IRS than they contribute in federal income an

Justacommeman

No wonder why gold prices are at records levels. What a messed up world we live in

exerpt-

<To some, they are low-income Americans benefiting from smart and targeted welfare run through the tax code. To others, they are unacceptable free riders, contributing net zero or worse to the federal government.

Why? As National Journal's Peter Cohn explained it in a great article: The IRS as 'Sugar Daddy,' if we hate the system, we only have Congress and voters to blame. In the last 40 years, Washington has passed a series of laws, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and the child tax credit, that send money to lower- and middle-income families through the tax system. Republican presidents started and expanded some of these credits. Democratic presidents have started and expanded some of these credits. No party exclusively owns or disowns the Freeloading 15 million>


MJ

derryb

See you in line on Nov. 2.

Wolf359

Obviously, the entire system needs a major over-haul after everything burns down. Eliminate the IRS and income tax entirely and establish a national VAT Tax...is one of many needed changes I think.

7over8

like rubbing salt in the wound

roadrunner

I've been voting to throw the bums out since the 1992 election....without much success I might add since 3rd party candidates don't get much support or media attention. With nearly half of all voters getting govt handouts and paying no taxes why shouldn't they keep voting for either of the primary parties? This will not change by peacefull means. Unless you get every legitimate taxpaying vote to go 3rd party, there's no way to defeat the non-taxpayers.

roadrunner

jmski52

roadrunner, what would you think of a new party called, "The Taxpayer Party"?

dbcoin

roadrunner, what would you think of a new party called, "The Taxpayer Party"?

Would never work. We would be a minority party from the get go. Would rather see allowing only taxpayers to vote. Makes sense. Otherwise you just keep voting yourself other peoples money

Gemineye

A third party govt...?!?!?....We can barely afford to pay for the two we have now....!!!

gecko109

<< <i>roadrunner, what would you think of a new party called, "The Taxpayer Party"?

Would never work. We would be a minority party from the get go. Would rather see allowing only taxpayers to vote. Makes sense. Otherwise you just keep voting yourself other peoples money >>




This is the best idea of all. In almost any organization in this world, a person only gets to vote if they are a member of that organization "in good standing" ...which basically means up to date on the dues owed to that organization. Its not too much of a stretch to extend the same idea to voting in this government. If you are not a tax paying citizen, then you have not contributed financially to the "organization", and therefore should not have a say in how the monies are spent (via voting in politicians who run on certain platforms). The sticky part is what defines the term "taxpayer". It could be argued that anyone who bought even a stick of gum this year is a "taxpayer". Although technically correct, I tend to think of those who have paid more federal tax than they received back from government handouts as true "taxpayers". For example, a person who makes $28,000 per year with 2 kids might only end up paying $1,500 in federal taxes after all deductions/credits. That would be a "taxpayer" in my eyes. However, if that same person qualified for a daycare subsidy for those 2 kids valued at more than $1,500 for the year, then they no longer become a "taxpayer", but rather a burden on the system.

I may catch quite a bit of heat for this, but they are my honest feelings. My wife and I had a combined $24,000 in federal tax withheld last year with a federal refund of $5,000. That made us net payers of just over $19,000 in federal tax. Aside from the benefits every citizen receives......street lights, police protection, pot holes fixed.....we got a grand total of $0 in federal aid last year. I feel that my vote should count just a bit more than the person who decided not to work in 2009 and received thousands of dollars in federal assistance. Sorry, but it makes complete sense. If I pay, then I get to help decide how those funds are appropriated. If you didnt pay, then you really should get NO say in how those funds get appropriated.

mrearlygold

<< <i>roadrunner, what would you think of a new party called, "The Taxpayer Party"? >>




Doesn't matter. Ron Paul won EVERY online poll during the last election and was dissed by all the major media including the illustrious fox who claims every day to be supportive of smaller government ( ) The system is as corrupt as any 3rd world country, just has more money running it and a lot more to steal. Couple that with the overall ignorance of most people and we have what we have. This will go all the way, there's nothing to stop it and everything to accelerate it.

pf70collector

Not anti-family, but the child tax credit is backward. Family's should be owing taxes on every chlid they have to help pay for the free education they get in the public school system and help pay for the recent $26 Billion(most likely borrowed money), the Feds just gave to 160,000 teachers. Flame away at this comment.

jmski52

I've had to "log in" 3 different times just today. Is anyone else having this issue?


Re: Taxpayer party - I'm thinking that the voting turnout for such an idea would be double that of the non-paying class.

At some point, the non-payers might be accorded a less influential voting status. Yeah, I realize that's not a "democracy" but it would sure be alot more fair. A variation on being a democratic Republic, as it were. And it would incentivize the non-payers to become payers (or to suffer the consequences), wouldn't it?

And while we're at it, English proficiency and math proficiency might be reasonable requirements for voting. Double that for anyone running for elected office.

I truly have no interest in calling the shots in someone else's life however, if I'm being forced to support someone against my wishes, then it ought to become my business what they can and cannot do with my money.

mrearlygold

<< <i>I've had to "log in" 3 different times just today. Is anyone else having this issue?

I truly have no interest in calling the shots in someone else's life however, if I'm being forced to support someone against my wishes, then it ought to become my business what they can and cannot do with my money. >>




That's because you are libertarian and close to being of the same mind of the people who started this place so long ago. When there was a Constitution you would probably be heard on that. But there isn't and so we're not. We are in fact looked upon as either cannon fodder and/or a source of revenue. That is it.

I have not had the issues with logging in.

EagleEye

The problem is corporations run the country - and many of them don't pay a dime in taxes.

Ron Paul called Obama a Corporatist - “He's a corporatist. And unfortunately we have corporatists inside the Republican party and that means you take care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country.”

Justacommeman

The point of views expressed in this thread are stellar in my opinion.

I guess a flat tax is still out of the question? Too fair?

MJ

OnlyGoldIsMoney

<< <i>The point of views expressed in this thread are stellar in my opinion.

I guess a flat tax is still out of the question? Too fair?

MJ >>




A flat tax is out of the question. Politicians buy votes by delivering entitlements to the dependent class. A flat tax would limit the power to tax the productive to support the dependent.

The dependent class will grow ever larger. The war on prosperity will continue.

Justacommeman

<< <i>

<< <i>The point of views expressed in this thread are stellar in my opinion.

I guess a flat tax is still out of the question? Too fair?

MJ >>




A flat tax is out of the question. Politicians buy votes by delivering entitlements to the dependent class. A flat tax would limit the power to tax the productive to support the dependent.

The dependent class will grow ever larger. The war on prosperity will continue. >>

gecko109

"Politicians buy votes by delivering entitlements to the dependent class."



This is the truest statement EVER made on these forums!

ebaytrader

<< <i>The problem is corporations run the country - and many of them don't pay a dime in taxes.

Ron Paul called Obama a Corporatist - “He's a corporatist. And unfortunately we have corporatists inside the Republican party and that means you take care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country.” >>




First, if you listen to RP enough you'll find him on multiple sides of an issue. I wouldn't put much stock in anything he has to say. He's a sideshow for a reason.

Second, O'bomba is a "corporatist"? Laffable.

SilverBaron

Would rather see allowing only taxpayers to vote


If'n you check your history .... This was the rule in early America.



My thought for the day .... " Congress exist to sell and grant favors. "


Keep on Stack'n!!

Bear

In early America, you had to be a property owner in order to vote.

Coulport

<< <i>In early America, you had to be a property owner in order to vote. >>



And it has been all down hill from there.

calleocho

quote from the article.

"The way I see it, it does bother me that 10 percent of American families contribute net zero to the federal government even as they can vote on expensive programs to which they won't contribute, whether it's foreign wars or domestic entitlements. At the very least, it strikes me as an awkward civic deficiency."

maybe a VAT tax makes more sense??

ebaytrader

<< <i>quote from the article.

"The way I see it, it does bother me that 10 percent of American families contribute net zero to the federal government even as they can vote on expensive programs to which they won't contribute, whether it's foreign wars or domestic entitlements. At the very least, it strikes me as an awkward civic deficiency."

maybe a VAT tax makes more sense?? >>



Uh, not really. Every VAT plan I've heard floated in the US includes a "rebate" to low income earners.

fishcooker

I don't see what the big deal is. USA has paid people to live here for decades. 15 years ago I worked with guys who also farmed on the weekends. They wrote off everything under the sun, showed no income on IRS forms, and got paid by Uncle Sam to live and breathe.

Justacommeman

<< <i>I don't see what the big deal is. USA has paid people to live here for decades. 15 years ago I worked with guys who also farmed on the weekends. They wrote off everything under the sun, showed no income on IRS forms, and got paid by Uncle Sam to live and breathe. >>



The American dream? MJ

fishcooker

Yeah. And their kids got grants for college. Talk about the dream!

PerryHall

<< <i>In early America, you had to be a property owner in order to vote. >>



You also had to be a white male to vote.

ebaytrader

<< <i>

<< <i>In early America, you had to be a property owner in order to vote. >>



You also had to be a white male to vote. >>




Few colonies had ballots. It was done by voice vote in the presence of other voters (neighbors), officials, and the candidates. Very difficult to rig elections that way.

7over8

Here we go again - more help for the helpless. When will this end.


SEPT 7 - New FHA loans to help underwater borrowers.......

**Presently you must be underwater...and you must be paying your loan (this is where most will drop out)
**Credit score at least 500? HUh, this is a joke!!!! 500? That is a terrible score.
**2nd loans will still subordinate to new first
**New first mortgage is FHA.
**Total loan to Value of refinanced position must be no more than 97.75%

and the big one------drum roll

**Current lender agrees to "at least a 10% REDUCTION in Principal"

7over8

recently I heard a reasonable comment about voting

the comment was "you shouldnt be able to vote if you are receiving any kind of public assistance"

not such a bad idea.

derryb

With a majority of voters living on government money, the socialists have ensured their re-elections. This was no accident and explains how those giving away your tax dollars continue to get re-elected.

Votes should be like stock in a company - You should get a number of votes based on your payments (taxes) into the treasury. He who is paying more of the bill has more say on how it is spent.

The best proposal for a federal tax system is a flat rate federal sales tax. Taxing only money spent encourages savings. One federal tax applied fairly across the board, no annual tax forms, smaller IRS. Would put a small burden on businesses that would have to collect it, but most of them already do so for state sales tax.

derryb

<< <i>"Politicians buy votes by delivering entitlements to the dependent class." >>



Good example of one of those "vote buying" programs:

Free cell phone and air time from your Uncle

timcoin

Wow... You guys are my kind of people!

For the first time this year, I have donated money to candidates. I figured it was time to put my money where my mouth is! There are candidates all over the country running on messages similar to what you all are posting. They may not go so far as saying only taxpayers can vote, but they are outsiders running on the platform of a Fair Tax (tax only on consumption), State's rights, private property rights, and less regulations on small business (see 1099).

I encourage all of you to find a candidate you can get behind, and support that person financially. They don't have to be from your district, or even from your state! There are plenty of folks running for office who are putting their reputation on the line, and they are sticking their neck's out for folks like us who share their beliefs. They are fighting for the sames things we are, and they have a real chance of winning, but only if people like us give them money to advertise their message.

In my state, I found two very close House races, and donated to the candidates who were running against the big goverment incumbants. Oh, and I sent a little something to Sharon Angle too!

pf70collector

Nothing more than a treasonable act by these politicians because they are undermining the ability of the United States to sustain itself. The reason why the Chinese own over one trillion in U.S. Debt. Treason: impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance

gsa1fan

Honest ? 1 trillion is that all China owns of our debt?

OnlyGoldIsMoney

<< <i>Here we go again - more help for the helpless. When will this end.


SEPT 7 - New FHA loans to help underwater borrowers.......

**Presently you must be underwater...and you must be paying your loan (this is where most will drop out)
**Credit score at least 500? HUh, this is a joke!!!! 500? That is a terrible score.
**2nd loans will still subordinate to new first
**New first mortgage is FHA.
**Total loan to Value of refinanced position must be no more than 97.75%

and the big one------drum roll

**Current lender agrees to "at least a 10% REDUCTION in Principal" >>



As you note, lots of conditions that most effected borrowers will not meet. In particular the condtion that they must be paying their loan disqualifies many (most?).

It appears to me that this is another fine sounding, quite stylish program that will not work. Since I work with government programs I have seen this kind of well intentioned but woefully unworkable approach before.

The real befeficiaries will be the staff hired to oversee a program that few will actually use.

roadrunner

Every new candidate seems to say that they are running against big govt, the status quo, and will do things different for you, the people that elect them. But once in office, they do just the opposite. I've heard that campaign cry dozens of times over the years in my state, and not once has a new face gone against the grain.

roadrunner

Bayard1908

<< <i>

<< <i>roadrunner, what would you think of a new party called, "The Taxpayer Party"?

Would never work. We would be a minority party from the get go. Would rather see allowing only taxpayers to vote. Makes sense. Otherwise you just keep voting yourself other peoples money >>




This is the best idea of all. In almost any organization in this world, a person only gets to vote if they are a member of that organization "in good standing" ...which basically means up to date on the dues owed to that organization. Its not too much of a stretch to extend the same idea to voting in this government. If you are not a tax paying citizen, then you have not contributed financially to the "organization", and therefore should not have a say in how the monies are spent (via voting in politicians who run on certain platforms). The sticky part is what defines the term "taxpayer". It could be argued that anyone who bought even a stick of gum this year is a "taxpayer". Although technically correct, I tend to think of those who have paid more federal tax than they received back from government handouts as true "taxpayers". For example, a person who makes $28,000 per year with 2 kids might only end up paying $1,500 in federal taxes after all deductions/credits. That would be a "taxpayer" in my eyes. However, if that same person qualified for a daycare subsidy for those 2 kids valued at more than $1,500 for the year, then they no longer become a "taxpayer", but rather a burden on the system.

I may catch quite a bit of heat for this, but they are my honest feelings. My wife and I had a combined $24,000 in federal tax withheld last year with a federal refund of $5,000. That made us net payers of just over $19,000 in federal tax. Aside from the benefits every citizen receives......street lights, police protection, pot holes fixed.....we got a grand total of $0 in federal aid last year. I feel that my vote should count just a bit more than the person who decided not to work in 2009 and received thousands of dollars in federal assistance. Sorry, but it makes complete sense. If I pay, then I get to help decide how those funds are appropriated. If you didnt pay, then you really should get NO say in how those funds get appropriated. >>



Aren't you a government employee? If so, that money you "earned" came from other people's taxes.

derryb

<< <i>Aren't you a government employee? If so, that money you "earned" came from other people's taxes. >>



Big difference in being paid for services rendered with taxdollars and being paid for no services rendered with taxdollars. One is a public servant and the other is a public leech.

timcoin

<< <i>Every new candidate seems to say that they are running against big govt, the status quo, and will do things different for you, the people that elect them. But once in office, they do just the opposite. I've heard that campaign cry dozens of times over the years in my state, and not once has a new face gone against the grain.

roadrunner >>



From my perspective, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et al., are pretty much doing or have done just about everything they said they would, and more, with regards to socializing the US. The new Contract with America is coming.

fishcooker

It's a 3 word contract, though... "We ain't Them."

jmski52

A taxpaper-only voting system would give equal voting status to rich and poor as long as their monetary contribution was in the plus column. Go negative, and sorry - you get no say in the matter of how much free stuff you get from the government or anyone else. It doesn't mean that the government couldn't or wouldn't lend a helping hand, but it would keep politicians from buying votes and it would dangle much less reward to those who choose to do as little as possible.

The incentives would be in the right places.

mrearlygold

I just read that the US is the biggest tax haven in the world. That there's over 4 Trillion dollars in the US of foreigners money who do not pay tax on interest, no capital gains and no income tax. Does anyone know if this is true or not?

If it is then it would seem to be smarter just staying a foreigner in the US.

On another note, the evil USSR did not tax it's citizens who lived overseas. Nor does England or anyone else. The US does .

yellowkid

I've never understood why the more children you have, the more you use the system for education etc, the less taxes you pay.

sinin1

how big a difference is there if a government employee receives 30% more for equivalent service than private sector?

yellowkid

<< <i>how big a difference is there if a government employee receives 30% more for equivalent service than private sector? >>



The rationale for all the bennies if you worked for the government was that the pay scales were significantly lower than in the private sector. Wages have reversed now, but the bennies are still there. IMHO that won't last.

derryb

<< <i>how big a difference is there if a government employee receives 30% more for equivalent service than private sector? >>



Wasn't always like that. My 35 year federal tenure was at mostly lower wages. Until just recently Uncle Sam had to compete for good employees with a high paying private sector in a booming economy heading for ruin. Now that economic ruin has arrived working for Uncle is the best game in town. Power of public employee unions keeps pay and benefits from correcting the way they are correcting in the private sector. The greed of public sector unions (and their leaders) will be the downfall of many state and local governments that are not able to print needed money to continue meeting outragous pension promises. Washington is able to cover public employee union greed at the federal level because Washington controls the money supply. When the smoke clears, the only remaining middle class will be public sector employees/retirees.

PerryHall

<< <i>

<< <i>how big a difference is there if a government employee receives 30% more for equivalent service than private sector? >>



The rationale for all the bennies if you worked for the government was that the pay scales were significantly lower than in the private sector. Wages have reversed now, but the bennies are still there. IMHO that won't last. >>



In 1984, the federal government revised the federal employee retirement plan from the Civil Service Retirement System to thr Federal Employee Retirement System. Under FERS, employes get Social Security and a pension from their Thrift Savings Plan which is similar to a 401k plan that they have to pay into with a government match up to 5% of their salary. This new plan is nothing special and most private sector plans are as good as or better than the government plan.

renman95

<< <i>See you in line on Nov. 2. >>



Okay, so 11-2 comes and goes and both houses are taken by the 'pubs. Now what? Do they have the cajones to do what's right? Repeal Health Care, cut spending, pay down the debt, unflux what has been fluxed...?

I see 11-2 nothing more than a blocking maneuver to buy the country some time leading up to 2012. If the block is successful, the sheeple will see that Obama has been mellowed out and not so bad and he keeps anointed position until 2016.

derryb

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>how big a difference is there if a government employee receives 30% more for equivalent service than private sector? >>



The rationale for all the bennies if you worked for the government was that the pay scales were significantly lower than in the private sector. Wages have reversed now, but the bennies are still there. IMHO that won't last. >>



In 1984, the federal government revised the federal employee retirement plan from the Civil Service Retirement System to thr Federal Employee Retirement System. Under FERS, employes get Social Security and a pension from their Thrift Savings Plan which is similar to a 401k plan that they have to pay into with a government match up to 5% of their salary. This new plan is nothing special and most private sector plans are as good as or better than the government plan. >>



Retirement age for federal employees was also raised from 55 to 62 with the implementation of the FERS system. The new system only affected new and future hires and current employees who (foolishly) elected to go under the new FERS system. Advantage of the TSP over a 401k is that by law an employee can contribute into the TSP up to $16,500 tax deferred dollars in 2010 and an additional "Catch Up Contributions" of $5500 if age 50 or older. That offers a pretty good savings on current year taxes and also establishes a hefty.