The Classic Strawman: But 47% Don't Pay Taxes!

A drug that cures cancer? I don't understand the relevance of this question.

Then hand everyone a printing press. If you honestly think dumping more IOUs into the streets won't have any impact on the economy, then let folks print money at their leisure. Or you can have the government go deeper in debt to hand $100,000 to each citizen each year (since "no one cares" about debt and "everyone wants money.")

As folks have less need to produce value to get value (because they have free IOUs for that value), they're willingness to accept money for what value they have will decrease. The price of a quart of milk or loaf of bread will rise, the currency will crash, and we'll all have an unlimited supply of money -- that no one wants.

 

I am as of yet undecided on this matter, that is actually why I came here - in the hopes that opinons and facts from others would help me solidify my opinion on the issue...

I am never "baseless" in my opinions, and rarely am I "unsupported" in forming them...

"In Richistan, his exploration of America's wealthiest 1%, Wall Street Journal reporter Robert Frank uncovered a surprising factoid: Even the country's richest people are worried about their finances. When a survey by PNC Advisors asked about how much money it would take to make them feel secure, most answered that they would need around twice as much money as they currently had: "Those worth $500,000 to $1 million said they needed $2.4 million. Those worth $1 million to $1.49 million said $3 million. And those with $10 million or more said $18 million." Frank concluded that "people's definition of 'rich' is subjective and is usually twice their current net worth."
​

"In Richistan, he notes that an "upscale" lifestyle costs between $500,000 and $1 million per year. To permanently finance this level of opulence, one would need a bare minimum of $10 million in the bank and would need to receive at least a 5% annual return rate. Frank admits, however, that the actual price tag for a wealthy lifestyle is "probably more like $20 million." -- http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/08/23/how-rich-is-rich-where-america-draws-the-wealth-line/

​

If even a millilonare can spend enough each month that they feel they need twice what they make in order to be "happy" with their current standard of living, why should I not then assume that the same would not effect the middle-class and poor were they to pay no taxes what-so-ever.

To say this another way so we are perfectly clear my point; Why should I not presume that the middle-class will just increase their monthly expenses to match the new income level afforded by zero taxes, and then become dis-satisfied with even that standard of living, and setting upon the rich yet again seeking to increase their standard of living even more.


My opinion is also eloquently supported by the theory of "Relative Income Hypothesis" that I mentioned in my rebuttal. So again, sir, my opinions are never baseless, and rarely unsupported. I am not a mindless sheep to blindly follow the hyperbole and rhetoric whenever the politicians yank our leashes...


Now, please share with me your "supported" disagreement. Do you argue that the government does not waste our tax dollars? Do you argue that the middle class would indeed invest and grow their income if they just had that extra $1/m? Do you argue that you do not believe in the relative income hypothesis? Or perhaps all of these things or something else?

...so rather than discuss the actual point of my statement you wish to argue semantics entirely based on your original wrongful misinterpretation of an ambiguity which I voluntarily clarified, in advance, and further supported my original statement to be true in my rebuttal?

Very well then:

The first source http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society...rty-rate-jumps notes

"The news from a US Census Bureau report released Thursday underscores how deeply the Great Recession has affected the nation's standard of living." which directly implies that the information I cited "The US government considers an annual income of $21,756 to be the poverty line for a family of four." from said source was gleaned from a census bureau report.
​

Here is another census bureau report : http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032010/hhinc/new06_000.htm

It caps out at $250,000/y, er'go anything over $250k is in the same bracket and constitutes the governments definition of "rich." That plus the common knowledge tax tables which cap at the same $250,000/y, plus my rebuttal linked source noting that the President considers the bar for wealth to be $250,000/y easily supports the presumption that $250,000/y is "rich" according to the government who is ultimately who's opinion matter since they are the ones who will receive said tax increase.

Would you like to discuss the gist of my argument now?

As a reminder, the gist is that those in the upper middle-class make under $250k/y which is 11 times more than the lower middle-class who make more than $22k/y - er'go in the theory of "fairness" they should set upon each other to pay each other's taxes because one side makes so much more than the other side.

And let us keep in mind while discussing the income cap theory that according to the Census Bureau the average median household income for 2010 is $51, 914/y* er'go the "rich" only make 4.8 times more than the average family. FAR less than the income gap between the upper and lower middle classes -- http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html


Also, feel free to let me know if you would like to discuss the finer points of comprehension via sentence processing; singular vs plural usage, the effect of context preceding a given utterance, ambiguity, and incremental processing.

While I will admit that I perhaps should have worded my original sentence to be more easily understood, the way it was worded IS correct to my intentions, and therefore an assumption that all of my future "claims" are now questionable should not be made.

 

You can presume anything you wish. If you have no data that supports your presumption, it is baseless.

All you have presented so far is a article discussion what "rich" means, which in no way supports a presumption that the middle class will just increase their spending.

And for that matter, that was not the statement you made which I pointed out was baseless. That statement was:

Anyway, no actually, I argue raising taxes on the wealthy will only give the government more money to waste. In addition a tax break will NOT increase the poor and middle classes wealth because of their poor spending habits. - "The only thing separating the wealthy from the middle class is self control" - in other words, investing their new found "extra" money rather than buying the latest smart phone, or that widescreen plasma tv, or shiny new cars, or a bigger house. ​

Which still remains your baseless, unsupported opinion. With which I disagree.

The fact is, the middle class, especially the lower middle class, needs to spend all or a high percentage of their income on basic necessities.

A billionaire needs only a fraction of his income for necessities. He has far more disposable income to spend on luxuries and invest.

Thus, to suggest that the "The only thing separating the wealthy from the middle class is self control" defies economic reality.

Nice try. But sorry, claiming a fact is "according to the US Census Bureau" when in fact it was not is not just "semantics" but a false claim to create the impression your fact was from a notable, trustworthy source, when if fact it was not.

Not semantics. Deception and falsehood.

Bad link

When a true liar is caught in a fib, rather than admit it, they will lie more and more to cover up their original lie.

Having been caught in your original fib about the source of your claim ("According to the census reports under like $20k is poor and over $250k is rich") rather than admit your fib, you now spin new ones.

There is nowhere in the Census pages you cited that say over $250,000 is the threshold for "rich", or even that $21,756 is the threshold for "poor," though I would certainly agree that folks living in poverty count as poor.

So we see a little more of you character by which to judge your assertions in the future.

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave: When first we practise to deceive!"

 

I think we can no longer afford the "amenity" of a War on Drugs.

 

More foolishness and propaganda.

From http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
the outstanding debt was

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

There was a budget surplus, but the feds spent the surplus and more, just like they always do. The debt increased every year Clinton was in office.

Its a myth that Clinton (and Gingrich) were good fiscal stewards.

 

You misunderstood my point.

Clinton had a surplus budget.

You're figures are not deficits but the debt.

Clinton was the only (*)(*)(*)(*) "good fiscal steward" we've had in the past thirty years and it is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) to deny that fact.

 

Yes there was a surplus budget under Clinton. That just means there was more money coming in than the budget they created called for. It does not mean they spent less than the revenue. Every year under Clinton, the govt spent more than it took in. Thats why the debt grew every year.

If I create a budget of $10,000, but earn $20,000, and spend $30,000, I can still claim I had a budget surplus. It just means I am sneaky and dishonest and trying to mislead people (in other words, I would be a Democrat just like Clinton).

 

No, what a surplus budget meas is that they spent less than they took in.



http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables[1].pdf

You can see that in FY2000 they had revenues of $2,025B and expenditures of $1,789B yielding a total surplus of $236 billion. Those figures include excess SS receipts of $151 billion, but when you back them out you still get an "on-budget" surplus of $86 billion.

The debt measures how much is owed.

But it didn't grow every yaer. The debt fell $114 billion in 2000.

ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opds122000.pdf

That would not be a surplus at all. Your expenditures exceed income by $10,000, and you would have a $10,000 deficit.

Sneaky and dishonest is trying to dispute the fact that almost miraculous, a record deficit was turned into a suprlus during his presidency, and he was the only "good fiscal steward" president we've had over the last 31 years.

Clinton did it be raising taxes and trimming military spending. That's why you don't want to acknowledge this impressive achievement.

 

This will not work and I never said it would. Economics is a balancing act. The Fed/Govt target a 2-3% inflation rate each year. They do this for a reason. Not to devalue people's savings but to grow the economy. I know you won't believe this no matter how many economists throughout the world say it, but deflation is the worst thing an economy can face. It creates depressions and destroys economies. A healthy 2-3% inflation rate creates a nice incentive to increase the velocity of money.

There is only two ways to grow an economy

1) Increase velocity of money (aka people spend more)
2) Increase quantity of money

If you want depressions than try to decrease the qty of money when velocity decreases... that will be surefire way to destroy the economy! I guess this is why countries do what I say and they do not listen to what 99% of people on this forum say. And it's always hilarious how people call me the nut job when all I'm doing is describing what America does and why it does it, lol.

 

Here again is the issue of perspective. Define necessities...

I had an interesting discussion with some elderly wealthy friends, they argued that their maid was a necessity because they physically could not clean their house. My logical mind screams that a maid is a luxury, but emotionally, yes, for them that maid is indeed a necessity.

In general I do not consider a lot of the things the poor already have as necessities; cell phones, computers, televisions, cable/satellite reception, dishwashers, etc. I think of these as "luxury" items (and even more so when they come with a monthly bill)

I have a friend in the lower 48 attending college who argued that his cell phone was a necessity. I told him that cell phones are a "luxury" and he should get rid of it and it's monthly bill he struggles to pay - he reasoned that he has no home phone.

Is a phone a "necessity?" Well for a kid graduating college looking for a job in his field, he has to have some way for prospective employers to get a hold of he so I guess it is, but a home phone is far cheaper than a cell phone, so that puts it back as a luxury.

He then told me that his landlord would not let him install a house phone (he rents a room) so he has no choice but to pay for the cell phone. So can we consider HIS cell phone a necessity, even though there is a cheaper alternative out there?

Where does the line get drawn for "necessity"? How much is a wealthy person allowed to buy in groceries based on your "necessity" idea? Are they to move into cheaper houses to fit into your "necessity" idea? Do they need to take their kids out of private schools or does that fit within the amount of "necessary"? Should they sell their alternate properties, cabins and timeshares, (which usually cost money to maintain each month) in order to fit into the "necessary" ideal? And how about those maids, pool boys, and lawn maintenance kids, are those outside the "necessity" idea as well?

And what about families such as mine, who have carefully set up their lives to live within their wages rather than on any investment gains? My husband works 3 jobs to afford us the life we have. Why should he have to work any harder, nor us go without, in order to pay additional taxes on behalf of the poor/middle class?

Most wealthy are not fiscally responsible at all; they squander, and even drive themselves into outrageous debt, and lose it all. Take this article --http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/18/business/worldbusiness/18iht-broke.2848250.html

They talk about the psychological aspect of being wealthy, its along the lines of that "keeping up with the Jones" theory I mentioned and sourced in my other posts. That is exactly why we live relatively "poor" despite our worth. My husband was flat-out poor when he grew up, and honestly sometimes I think that is the only reason we have any money at all...

I'll take the kids to the mall and not even think about how much, how fast, money is going out. Amidst the laughing, eating, and trying on clothes, I'll suddenly realize that even by my (horrible - not usually allowed to shop alone) "don't look at prices" reckoning we're in the thousands already; pfft, it's okay, I know we have money, I know we can afford it. Then I come home to find out one of our investments failed and we lost $2mil while I was shopping...

To arbitrarily decide that the wealthy can easily afford to pay more taxes based on the costs of YOUR particular necessities is not right. Will you look into the individual circumstances of the wealthy to determine how badly these increased taxes will hurt them? If I remember right Obama is calling for a 42% taxes rate on over $250k/y. If it is reckoned that they only pay 17% now, then that is a full 25% more, an additional 1/4 of their income...

I know I said we could argue the finer points of the English language, sentence comprehension and the like, but stuff has come up and I'm sorry I just do not have the time. If you are really interested in me picking apart the letter, connotation, and implication of my original sentence I will do so at a later time, no problem. However you've misquoted me completely out of context in order to support your misinterpretation.

Now let me sum this up for ya:

I am here on this board SPECIFICALLY to figure out where I stand on the issue of taxing the rich to support the poor, which I have stated in more than one thread. Why would I seek to DECEIVE anyone else to follow my opinion, something "I" have not even clarified in my OWN mind?

With all due respect sir, your entire argument that I implied anything in an attempt to deceive anyone is outright stupid.


Contrary to your assumption, I am not here to turn others to my cause, I am here to resolve a very troubling issue in my own mind. An issue that "I" cannot resolve on my own because I understand that I can no more relate to the 99s, than the 99s can truly relate to me. I cannot rely on the rhetoric of the corrupt politicians who say that the 99s are either hurting or abusers, and the 1s are either abusers or success stories.

At every turn I see one side or the other skewing the numbers to their favor to support this or that side. I try looking things up, I read every report linked here, I follow every related YouTube video, and I attempt to calculate all the variables and numbers for myself, but I am not even sure if I am doing it right; this is out of my league of expertise.

Where else would I logically go to resolve this in my head, but to citizens of my beloved country.

Now if you are done shooting your own cause in the foot, I would very much like to have a discussion about politics...

 

It's not that hard to figure out basic necessities. Food, clothing, shelter, education, transportation for work, health care. I appreciate these are somewhat flexible concepts and with some growth of income we have changing views on it.

But that doesn't change the overall point. A family trying to get by on $20k is spending everything they have on necessities and still coming up short.

A billionaire need only a small portion of his income for necessities and the rest is for luxuries and investment.

So, again, to suggest that the "The only thing separating the wealthy from the middle class is self control" defies economic reality.

The wealthy have far more disposable funds at their disposal.

Fair enough. I appreciate your quest for information honestly. You will see that I usually link sources to the factual claims I make so that you can verify the veracity of the facts yourself. But if you are here to learn honestly, you can simply state your beliefs and thought without having to exaggerate the sources to make your positions sound more impressive. I actually would be very interested to know if the US Census defines "rich" or "poor" at any certain income level because it does come up in discussion, but I'm not aware they have done so.

 

Careful or you will fall into the trap.

You list Public Debt, that is not the total debt.

Through some fancy paper work, debt was shifted from the public debt to the intragovernmental debt.

Lets go straight to the real source, the US Treasury, at
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

The federal fiscal year is Oct 1 through Sept 30.

Looking at some of Clintons years, the US Treasury has this to say:

FY1997 09/30/1997 total national debt $5.413146T
FY1998 $5.526193T Oops, Clintin increased the debt by $113B
FY1999 $5.656270T Oh my, increased it by another $130.1B
FY2000 $5.674178T still more debt $17.9B
FY2001 $5.807463T and even more debt $133.3B
You can do the early years yourself.

Sorry, no surplus. Only more debt. At least according to the US Treasury.

It was all sleight of hand, cash was shifted from intragovernmental to public (they stole from social security).

 

There is never and was never any cash in intragovernmental debt. Did Clinton use a surplus in SS to decrease the portion of debt held by the public? Yes of course, because by law they have to.

But he did run a surplus in terms of real dollars. Since intragovernmental debt is an asset and a liability to the Govt an increase in intragovernmental debt is just an allowance rather than a hard dollar debt like public debt.

 

Well a family of 4 trying to get by on $20k a year is considered poor and they already receive government aid. But I will follow your point:

$22k/y equates to 1 person in a family of 4 working a full time job; the other adult needs to get a job. Even part-time at minimum wage, would provide their family with another $7k/y. A full time job at minimum wage would provide an additional income of $15k/y for their family.

That would be MORE than enough "extra" to not only pay for their "necessities" but to also afford them the disposable income to make investments (which they regularly claim only the wealthy have access to.)

My statement is that if they got that extra $600/m (part-time) or $1,250/m (full-time) they are far more likely to spend that money to increase their standard of living, rather than investing it to grow wealth.
Aka the only thing that prevents the middle class from becoming wealthy is the self-control it takes for them to live "without" luxuries, and instead invest that money in their future.

And I can easily support my belief in that opinion:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/06/news/companies/cable_bill_cost_increase/index.htm
CNN Money reports that the average cable bill is $75 month. IF folks went without cable, which I'm fairly no one can argue is a "necessity," for a year; they would have an extra $900/y in their pockets.

http://www.wirefly.com/learn/wireless_news/jd-power-analyzes-average-cell-phone-bill/
JD Power says the average monthly cell phone bill is $73 month. IF folks went without that cell phone for a year, they would have $876/y.

I believe it is more than reasonable to assume that the middle class have both cell phones and cable subscriptions - that is $1,776 A MONTH on things they do not really need. If they practiced some self control and went without those things for just ONE year, they would have $21,213 cash in hand to invest, and hopefully, grow their wealth.

They choose not to, because they want to have cell phones and cable TV to watch. This is fine, not my business, however, I point out that they actively CHOSE to put their "standard of living today" above "growing their wealth for their future." Therefore I also think it is reasonable for me to presume that regardless of any tax break, they will still continue to choose increasing their standard of living today over investing for the future.

My husband and I put $20k into a local RV sales & service department, it paid us dividends of $20k/y until the recession hit. We got $60k in dividends before the recession hit; cash money in hand. Would I trade a years worth of cable and a cell phone for $60k? Hell yes.

Would the average Joe? Doubtful. Why? Because it's not guaranteed. The rest of the story; while we did receive $60k in dividends, the extended recession hit and the company is on a negative float, and they can't afford to pay our initial investment of $20k back, unless they sell the property they work on (aka go bankrupt.)

Just sayin here: We could technically REQUIRE this company to return our investment - it would mean that place going out of business and disappearing. However we also know that they employ 30 people, so we write off the investment as a wash and do not accept dividends on their profits. -- It's not just the 1s TAXES that "support" this country...

I do not feel that I exaggerated any sources nor make my position more impressive, as I clarified originally, I meant that as a generalized overall based on what I've read.

However I do understand how you came to that impression, and I will attempt to be more clear when I generalize in the future.

In any event, to my knowledge the census bureau itself has not and will not ever define the terms of "poor" and "wealthy" because both these terms are highly subjective, and the politicians like to keep it that way...

You might wish to peruse some of the sources I'd linked in my other post -here http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...ebate-partners-rich-vs-poor-perhaps-more.html and more specifically what I discovered in this post - http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...rich-vs-poor-perhaps-more.html#post1060784074 which discusses the actual standard of living for the 'poor' of this country.

I also explored in this post - http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...rich-vs-poor-perhaps-more.html#post1060784230 - that no matter how you shake the stats, even those considered "poor" in America are well off, even wealthy, in the global scale.

 

I agree that Govt aid reduces their poverty.

Many conservatives are against such aid. Are you? If so, your point has not much merit.

There are 12 million unemployed and only 3 million jobs at the moment.

What if they can't get another job?

But so what? What does this have to do with whether they should pay the same rate of tax or not?

Or pay for education or health care or food and shelter.

A billionaire only spends a small fraction of his money on necessities and has a far greater portion of his income to invest.

That is why the 1% own 40% of the wealth in the country or whatever it is, and the bottom 20% or 50% own a tiny fraction.

No, because the lower/middle class spend a far greater portion of their income on necessities.

And I can easily support my belief in that opinion:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/06/news/companies/cable_bill_cost_increase/index.htm

My guess is the poorest pay a lot less than that.

But so what?. Having a telephone, which is pretty close to a necessity, and being able to watch TV, for a family on $22k, represents 8% of their income.

For a billionaire making $22 million, it represents .008% of thier income.

That's the difference.

Check you math. Your figure is wrong.

Who says that a family making $22k a year is spending $1,776 A MONTH on things they do not really need?

What percentage of families making $22k a year spend $1,776 A MONTH on cable and cell phones?

Good for you. So what?

The record speaks for itself but it is silly to argue about it at this point.

 

I have no issue with helping folks get back on their feet; my issue is with those who do NOT put forth effort to support themselves. You cannot argue that its only "fair" for the rich to pay more taxes and help support those less fortunate, then say that it's "no big deal" for people to abuse the welfare system...

Again, where I live there are, and have always been, jobs so this is a very hard concept for me to actually "believe". However, if that is the case nationally, then the solution is defiantly not TAX THE RICH, it is figure out how to expand hiring...

Well you argued that most are struggling to pay their "necessities" - I argue that if that is the case, and they are a family of 4, then they have an obligation to take responsibility for their lives as well - be that lowering their standard of living OR getting additional job(s) to make ends meet.

You've now proposed that there's not enough jobs and therefore these folks are unable to get a second job to be responsible for themselves. To which I will argue, then job availability is the REAL problem and "tax the rich more" will not SOLVE the problem.

I fail to see what any of this has to do with the percent of tax ANYONE should pay. Unless you are indeed of the mind that its NOT about whats FAIR, but rather about who HAS more...

Yeah I caught that after I sent it but the site went down before I could change it. I stand corrected it's actually $148/month for cable/cell phone.

I would point out that I didn't have EITHER of those when I grew up, and honestly, it wasn't that big a deal. If we are speaking in the terms of "can't afford basic necessities" (food, shelter) I see having cable/cell phone as a priority problem rather than a "necessity" problem.


My point with the RV investment was that IF people really WANT to "get ahead" then they are going to have to put forth some extra effort, and a second job is more than enough to get into investing. One of the jobs my husband has held for nearly 20 years is newspaper carrier; takes him 2 hours a day and he brings home $3k a month ($36k/y take home which helps us afford our "quality of life.")

 

In line with the argument that there's not enough jobs, I was exploring the Beveridge Curve and came across this interesting site/study: http://www.chmuraecon.com/underempl/

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this basically say that what we need is better educated folks to work the jobs that are available?

Could we not argue backwards then, that, at least in the long run, we as a country would be far better off working on encouraging folks to get a higher education? Just sayin; I would be in for a tax on the wealthy with the specific intent of assisting folks with college tuition. Thoughts?

 

That is incorrect. That is a classic Keynesian arguement that only applies if all debt is held within the country and even then it is a weak arguement. Once debt is held by other countries or individuals outside the country, even Keynesians say that arguement is no longer applicable.

The basis for that approach is that the nation is a closed system with a monetary system the govt can control through setting interest rates and printing money. Once debt leaves the closed system (such as going to a foreign nation who expects to be paid back and expects the US$ to maintain a certain value), then the approach cannot be worked.

Further it only applies if you treat the govt/nation as a single entity, it is not. When the govt borrows from Social Security, it is spending that money to benefit the current generation, future generations will have to pay it back. On paper, it can be made to look like there is no debt, but unless the govt is not going to repay its SS IOU's, there is real debt involved. If the govt prints money, it looks like it is paying its debt, but it devalues the US$ which hurts US citizens and all investors.

Printing money to pay your debt is called monetizing the debt, its the method of choice for nations in trouble, and it is not appreciated by lenders. Its just a fancy way of stealing.

 

That is the point of the leftists.

They hate investors, they hate lending for profit. They want to "Screw the banksters" by defaulting on our debt in the form of monetization.

 

No that is 100% false. What you are talking about is debt in a commodity backed currency such as gold or silver. We are dealing with a fiat currency that we alone can create. We can't create gold or silver to pay off our foreign debts, but we can create USD to pay off our debts denominated in USD.

You are making the assumption that a foreign nation "expects" the US$ to maintain a certain value. That is why they invest their USD to gain value. They wouldn't need to invest it if it remained the same.

No they won't. The Govt doesn't "borrow" from SS. It simply spends whatever revenue they get. That money doesn't disappear. The money the Govt spends from excess Social Security becomes tomorrows Social Security payments. Your kids and my kids and my kids, kids will never have to pay anything back just like we never had to for WWII. Money doesn't just disappear.

How else do you think a made up currency is created if it is not printed? Do you have a USD tree in your back yard?

 

We do not have a bottomless, unlimited fountain of cash in the US mint.

Inflation is very real and very destructive.

You are pretending that there is no such thing as inflation, or that it is a negligible statistic that can be safely ignored.

You are obviously against the idea of a "strong dollar".

 

LOL! Of course we have a bottomless, unlimited fountain of cash. Where else do you think a made up currency comes from? Can you tell me what our limit is?

And I am not pretending there is no such thing as inflation. In fact inflation is the only thing this country has to worry about... not running out of a made up currency or being broke. They have to worry about inflation.

 

How many times are we going to have to debunk this stupid argument?
So what do I get out of this? They must have chosen the wrong talking point. It's not that those 51% don't pay taxes - which would be scary if it were true - but it's they don't owe any taxes on April 15th. That means they already paid too much taxes and the government now owes them a refund. What does that mean? It means you're giving the government an interest-free loan.

If you owe anything to the government on tax day, that means the government gave you a no-interest loan - something that's beneficial. To get this no-interest loan, increase your federal and state deductions - you can do this without having a mortgage or kids - it's just a number that's in the system. You get a larger paycheck every time but you owe the government at the end. The best scenario is when the balance on April 15th is around zero. It means you don't have to pay anything and you didn't give the government a no-interest loan.

 

No, when we say they don't pay taxes we mean that they get back all of their withholding in their return, or receive a return larger than what was originally withheld by their employer.

I know a woman with two kids who works for 8 bucks and hour and she put in at best $1000 in witholding and yet she's receiving a 7500 dollar tax return. How did that happen huh? No one should ever get back everything that will withheld by their employer, let alone 6000 dollars more than they put in.

It's pretty common sensical IMO. Don't use the tax code as a means to subsidize the working poor! make them go and get a second job like I had to!

 

Considering I recently moved, and was looking at renting until I found a home I liked, I can attest this to be absolutely false.

I ended up buying a house, because it was cheaper than throwing away $1,500 a month on something I would never get a return on my investment for.