People who currently pay no income tax because they earn so little should pay.

[© tweed]

Now I personally picked "No" because I do believe in a negative income tax(NIT) as a replacement for welfare or unemployment benefits.

Good call. The negative income tax is a great compromise position that manages to reduce (though not eliminate) the incentive to avoid work that welfare and unemployment create without ignoring the well-being of the poor.

20 years ago liberals would scream bloody murder if you suggested that a proposal.

thank Bill Clinton for hatcheting the remaining social democratic strain of the party away.

[Link]

They are already paying something.

Payroll taxes, yes. And sales taxes if they live in certain states, but many don't pay income taxes. That being said, many of the people paying no income tax are olds. I hope the Republicans propose making them pay something. Or commit suicide. It's basically the same thing.

What exactly is your point?

If money comes out of my paycheck/bank account and goes to the government it doesn't care if it's called income tax, payroll tax, sales tax, gas tax, import duty, etc.  Why is it that instead of discussing real issues Republicans instead play word games.  The minute someone starts a conversation by saying ANYONE living in America is not paying taxes I put them on mental ignore.

Are Republicans so devoid of ideas that the only way they can get a conversation going is by engaging in this magical thinking?

For the last time Republicans:

Money paid to the government=Tax (PM if you do not understand this equation)

If being poor is such an awesome lifestyle give away all your earthly belongings, quit your current job, and get a job at McDonald's flipping burgers and live the dream.

You could make an argument that those with pretty low incomes don't pay any net federal tax period. They probably get a bigger earned income tax credit check back(i.e. refund) then they pay in payroll taxes. Not saying there is anything inherently wrong with that though because I bet that the cut off for net payer vs. net receiver is probably pretty low.

And sales tax isn't federal.

I'm going to say this one more time for the slow people.

Money paid to the government=Tax (PM if you do not understand this equation)

You didn't address import duties or federal gas tax.  Please finish you essay and the I will debunk.

[Link]

You could make an argument that those with pretty low incomes don't pay any net federal tax period. They probably get a bigger earned income tax credit check back(i.e. refund) then they pay in payroll taxes. Not saying there is anything inherently wrong with that though because I bet that the cut off for net payer vs. net receiver is probably pretty low.

And sales tax isn't federal.

Do you consider the distinctions between taxes paid to different levels of government important in this context?

It's just more Republican word games.  They start off with the premise that every poor person is a lazy parasite.  Then they back fill their data.

[Wonkish1]

You could make an argument that those with pretty low incomes don't pay any net federal tax period. They probably get a bigger earned income tax credit check back(i.e. refund) then they pay in payroll taxes. Not saying there is anything inherently wrong with that though because I bet that the cut off for net payer vs. net receiver is probably pretty low.

And sales tax isn't federal.

Do you consider the distinctions between taxes paid to different levels of government important in this context?

Yes I do! The argument that some have made about the problem with many not paying taxes to the federal government is that it creates the perverse incentive to just vote themselves everything they can because they aren't paying for it.

Now I said before I think that the level at which that happens is pretty low. I also said I'm for a negative income tax, so I don't necessarily agree that the bottom 10% really should have to pay out some net taxes to the federal government.

But in keeping with the argument that is the basis for this thread yeah making a distinction for Federal vs. state is very important because the people that make this argument aren't worried about people voting themselves more benefits at the state level they are worried at the federal level.

[Wonkish1]

They are already paying something.

Payroll taxes, yes. And sales taxes if they live in certain states, but many don't pay income taxes. That being said, many of the people paying no income tax are olds. I hope the Republicans propose making them pay something. Or commit suicide. It's basically the same thing.

What exactly is your point?

If money comes out of my paycheck/bank account and goes to the government it doesn't care if it's called income tax, payroll tax, sales tax, gas tax, import duty, etc.  Why is it that instead of discussing real issues Republicans instead play word games.  The minute someone starts a conversation by saying ANYONE living in America is not paying taxes I put them on mental ignore.

Are Republicans so devoid of ideas that the only way they can get a conversation going is by engaging in this magical thinking?

For the last time Republicans:

Money paid to the government=Tax (PM if you do not understand this equation)

If being poor is such an awesome lifestyle give away all your earthly belongings, quit your current job, and get a job at McDonald's flipping burgers and live the dream.

You could make an argument that those with pretty low incomes don't pay any net federal tax period. They probably get a bigger earned income tax credit check back(i.e. refund) then they pay in payroll taxes. Not saying there is anything inherently wrong with that though because I bet that the cut off for net payer vs. net receiver is probably pretty low.

And sales tax isn't federal.

I'm going to say this one more time for the slow people.

Money paid to the government=Tax (PM if you do not understand this equation)

You didn't address import duties or federal gas tax.  Please finish you essay and the I will debunk.

Those are pretty small taxes to the average person. Payroll is the bigger one. So yeah I think technically for some pretty low income folks they probably get more in tax refund then they pay in federal taxes, collectively. I can't say that I know that for sure though. I'm just adding up estimates in my head from what payroll tax, gas tax, etc. runs vs. earned income tax credit, etc.

But you seem intent on arguing with me about this when I'm just stating it as a technical point. I don't actually think that people with really low income should have net paid out taxes anyway. I mean whats the point they are still going to no matter what have net benefits received. Its not like they are really going to care much if they are net out a few hundred or in a few hundred when they are receiving a few thousand dollars of other supports.

[Wonkish1]

You could make an argument that those with pretty low incomes don't pay any net federal tax period. They probably get a bigger earned income tax credit check back(i.e. refund) then they pay in payroll taxes. Not saying there is anything inherently wrong with that though because I bet that the cut off for net payer vs. net receiver is probably pretty low.

And sales tax isn't federal.

Do you consider the distinctions between taxes paid to different levels of government important in this context?

It's just more Republican word games.  They start off with the premise that every poor person is a lazy parasite.  Then they back fill their data.

I think you like projecting onto others here. You're a shill, so you assume everybody else is.

[Wonkish1]

But you seem intent on arguing with me about this when I'm just stating it as a technical point. I don't actually think that people with really low income should have net paid out taxes anyway. I mean whats the point they are still going to no matter what have net benefits received. Its not like they are really going to care much if they are net out a few hundred or in a few hundred when they are receiving a few thousand dollars of other supports.

It's an interesting technical point, though, and in my view it undermines one argument for income taxes on the poor by showing that the premise that income taxes on the poor will create a more aware, engaged and responsive public may not be true.

I don't think anybody that actually spent time thinking about that would actually believe that a poor person being a $500 net payer to the government in taxes and a $20,000 net receiver of benefits would actually be a more responsible citizen and be more weary of voting himself additional government benefits than lets say a person that is a $500 net receiver of tax refund and a net receiver of $19,500 of benefits.

I mean its a pretty stupid argument if you ask me.

[Link]

But you seem intent on arguing with me about this when I'm just stating it as a technical point. I don't actually think that people with really low income should have net paid out taxes anyway. I mean whats the point they are still going to no matter what have net benefits received. Its not like they are really going to care much if they are net out a few hundred or in a few hundred when they are receiving a few thousand dollars of other supports.

It's an interesting technical point, though, and in my view it undermines one argument for income taxes on the poor by showing that the premise that income taxes on the poor will create a more aware, engaged and responsive public may not be true.

I don't think anybody that actually spent time thinking about that would actually believe that a poor person being a $500 net payer to the government in taxes and a $20,000 net receiver of benefits would actually be a more responsible citizen and be more weary of voting himself additional government benefits than lets say a person that is a $500 net receiver of tax refund and a net receiver of $19,500 of benefits.

I mean its a pretty stupid argument if you ask me.

You need to change your name.  You are no Wonk.  That much is certain.  The "poors" are not a monolithic voting block.  If you think poor black people and poor white people in the south all vote for the same person because it is in their economic best interest you haven't been paying attention.  Your theory is total nonsense.  All one has to do is look at real life voting patterns.

[Wonkish1]

You need to change your name.  You are no Wonk.  That much is certain.  The "poors" are not a monolithic voting block.  If you think poor black people and poor white people in the south all vote for the same person because it is in their economic best interest you haven't been paying attention.  Your theory is total nonsense.  All one has to do is look at real life voting patterns.

You can't read can you? I mean seriously. I am there paraphrasing a theory that some in my own party has said and am making fun of it. And you can't figure that out.

Maybe you should change your name to Dyslexic.

[Link]

You need to change your name.  You are no Wonk.  That much is certain.  The "poors" are not a monolithic voting block.  If you think poor black people and poor white people in the south all vote for the same person because it is in their economic best interest you haven't been paying attention.  Your theory is total nonsense.  All one has to do is look at real life voting patterns.

You can't read for $hit can you? I mean seriously. I am there paraphrasing a theory that some in my own party has said and am making fun of it. And your to retarded to figure that out.

Maybe you should change your name to Dyslexic. Maybe more people would give you a pass for your retarded bu!!$hit.

Sorry I didn't realize you 180ed.

[Wonkish1]

You need to change your name.  You are no Wonk.  That much is certain.  The "poors" are not a monolithic voting block.  If you think poor black people and poor white people in the south all vote for the same person because it is in their economic best interest you haven't been paying attention.  Your theory is total nonsense.  All one has to do is look at real life voting patterns.

You can't read for $hit can you? I mean seriously. I am there paraphrasing a theory that some in my own party has said and am making fun of it. And your to retarded to figure that out.

Maybe you should change your name to Dyslexic. Maybe more people would give you a pass for your retarded bu!!$hit.

Sorry I didn't realize you 180ed.

I never 180ed.
-I came out answering no for the poll.
-I then gave a reason as to why. I'm for the negative income tax(sliding scale welfare).
-I even went and detailed a good example of the way I would like to see a negative income tax work in the real world.
-I then said that I don't think low income earners should have to pay net tax out to the government.
-I then got into a technical argument about whether low income earners actually do pay net taxes or receive net tax benefits, but then I followed that up with my opinion that they shouldn't be net payers.

-I then detailed the BS argument as to why some in my party think that think that low income folks should be net payers and then made fun of it.
-You then came after me saying I didn't deserve my screen name and accused me espousing the very thing I was making fun of.

So I realize you don't actually read most of the posts you comment on, but you might want to start because then you wouldn't make a fool out of yourself.

P.S. I bulleted my response purely because you have trouble reading peoples posts.