-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
It’s a common claim from the Right, but it’s not true. Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), in a Senate floor speech, claimed “Fifty-one percent — that is, a majority of American households — paid no income tax in 2009. Zero. Zip. Nada.” At least he used the often omitted “income” adjective. However, those individuals still pay payroll taxes, like Social Security and Medicare, sales taxes, and often property taxes.
When Republican Senators give speeches complaining about someone not paying enough tax, you can be sure of two things: one, they’re not talking about corporations and two, they’re not talking about the wealthy. If you’re not a member of either of those two groups, hold onto your wallet. The Republican hatred of increasing taxes doesn’t apply to everyone’s taxes, just those who can afford to them get re-elected.
A report from the Tax Policy Center examines the facts. Here’s an overview:
- 23% pay nothing because they’re poor. For example, a couple with two children earning less than $26,400 will pay no federal income tax this year because their $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700 each reduce their taxable income to zero.
- 10% are elderly and pay nothing because their Social Security benefits are exempt from federal income taxes.
- 7% pay nothing thanks to provisions in the tax code designed to benefit low-income families: the earned income tax credit, the child credit, and the childcare credit account.
The other 6% benefit from tax-exempt interest, itemized deductions, education credits, other credits; and reduced rates on capital gains and dividends.
That’s whom the Republicans want to tax: poor families and the elderly, those least able to afford the tax increases. The shocking aspect of these facts is the existence of such a huge number of people that are so poor, they balloon the percentage up to 46%.
H/T: Kevin Drum, Roberton Williams, Donald Marron.
LK, N Vale,
I do appreciate your point of views….Initially I was defending Gene H’s right to post….It appears that it got out of hand and I will try and make sure I do not act according to the rules of trolls….I apologize for the disruptions….
You know people, N Vale has a point about the level of discourse. I suspect that if the Professor weren’t away he would have requested a less acrimonious and personal form of public comment and reminded us that an uncensored dialogue implies certain responsibilities regarding courtesy. LOL, or as my mother would have said “I’ve just sat down after a long day, don’t – make – me – get – up.
kathleen, no where did I defend GE. I simply said the two statements are exactly the same. I did not discount those other taxes that individual americans pay. I didn’t belittle them in the least. Again, just pointing out they are the same.
I did not say whether corporations should or shouldn’t be forced to have a minimum amount of taxes taken. I did point out the fact that increasing their tax base would just result in one or more of higher prices, lower wages, fewer benefits, fewer employees, or endeavors to utilize tax loopholes to avoid any additional taxes imposed. That FACT has no bearing on the subject matter at hand – namely using misleading terms and statements in order to influence people’s beliefs. Again, just pointing out that the misleading statement is misleading no matter who the statement is directed to.
Lottakatz, again. I am not saying whether GE and similar corporations should or should not pay an income tax to help pay for the infrastructure and societal needs we all require. That isn’t the point made in the article or in my comment. Just saying that saying “GE doesn’t pay taxes” is as false as saying “1/2 of Americans don’t pay taxes”
Rich, you have an odd definition of “troll”. You seem it means anyone who doesn’t sing the same tune as you. Comparing two statements is hardly hijacking.
I’m appalled by the way some posters speak to each other, but I realize it reflects today’s political discourse.
My favorite cousin learned I switched political parties. His spew included the words “liberal,” “pinko,” “commie,” “pussy,” and something about fornicating with pigs.
Tinfoil Elf boy,
RWR wasn’t responsible for:
1939 – Social Security was expanded to cover dependents and survivors
1950 – Coverage was expanded to job outside of commerce and industry, and benefit levels were increased
1956 – Disability Insurance was created, and expanded over the following years. Early retirement at age 62 for women was permitted.
1961 – Early retirement at age 62 for men was permitted.
1972 – Automatic cost-of-living-adjustments (COLAs), which index benefits to inflation, were introduced. The formula to calculate increases initially overstated inflation by 25%
Which are no doubt contributing factors to the unsoundness of SS.
Also, not adjusting the plan to account for the increasing retireee to worker ratio and for the longer life expectancies were the main culprits.
Do your anti-psychotic meds dull your abilities so much that you can’t recognize these things? I do feel for you.
So TinFoil Hatmaster, you have proved the point….It was not until the RWR, Bush years that it became unsound….Hmmmmmm..
I bet HenMans’ mommy is proud of him and all….Can yours say the same?
Your mommy must be proud of you, HenMan.
It’s ironic, sad, and depressing that so many public advocates (and their supporters) of reducing or eliminating SS, Medicaid, and Medicare, also
claim to be Christians.
It can’t be that they don’t have a conscience, rather, they do, but they
simply ignore the voice of the little man sitting on their shoulder, whispering
in their ear.
Kderrhoid-
It’s time for your Preperation H injection. Don’t skip it again. You know how crabby you get without it- not to mention the flashbacks to your imaginary days as Gauleiter of Warsaw.
A short history of social security and medicare. remember half of your payroll taxes are hidden from you since your employer pays them.
1935 – The Social Security Act, which covered workers in commerce and industry, was signed by President Roosevelt.
1937 – The Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) required workers to pay taxes to support the Social Security system. Payroll taxes were 2%.
1939 – Social Security was expanded to cover dependents and survivors. Payroll taxes were 2%.
1950 – Coverage was expanded to job outside of commerce and industry, and benefit levels were increased. Payroll taxes were 3%.
1956 – Disability Insurance was created, and expanded over the following years. Early retirement at age 62 for women was permitted. Payroll taxes were 4%.
1961 – Early retirement at age 62 for men was permitted. Payroll taxes were 6%.
1972 – Automatic cost-of-living-adjustments (COLAs), which index benefits to inflation, were introduced. The formula to calculate increases initially overstated inflation by 25%, and people born between 1910 and 1916 received an unintended windfall. Payroll taxes were 9.2%.
1977 – The mistake in the benefit formula was corrected. The “notch” refers to the difference in benefits paid to the group that received the windfall and those who retired following the formula correction. Social Security was thought to be actuarially sound. Payroll taxes were 9.9%.
1983 – The National Commission on Social Security Reform was created in response to the actuarial unsoundness of the system. The commission called for 1) and increase in the self-employment tax; 2) partial taxation of benefits to upper income retirees; 3) expansion of coverage to include federal civilian and nonprofit organization employees; and 4) an increase in the retirement age from 65 to 67, to be enacted gradually starting in 2000. Again, Social Security was declared actuarially sound. Payroll taxes were 10.8%.
1985 – The Social Security Trust Funds were moved “off-budget” so that the funds earmarked for the Social Security system would be tracked separately from the rest of the budget. Payroll taxes were 11.4%.
1986 – COLAs were increased to respond to minor levels of inflation. Payroll taxes were 11.4%.
1993 – The amount of taxable benefits for upper income retirees was increased to 85%. Payroll taxes were 12.4%.
@LK,
“Once you destroy the subsidies and insurance/retirement plan known as the social safety net and lower the expectations of the poor to having ones very own shanty”
Who is proposing that? Certainly not me.
“Srsly, have you never known any desperately poor people? ”
I have and, frankly and fortunately, people like that are only a tiny fraction of the group defined as the “poor” in this country. Further, these people must not be taking advantage of the lavish benefits we provide to our poor. Another failure of government.
Back in the late 80’s I came to realize that I was paying more in my Social Security taxes, than I was in my income taxes, in terms of what was being taken out of my paycheck. Yes I got a few bucks back at income tax time but as the decades wore on that became less and less because the kept reducing what you could declare. The were never any Social Security of Medicare rebates though.
In the early 80’s Reagan with the help of nominal Democrat Pat Moynihan declared a plan to “fix” social security. It almost doubled the SS tax and put it into the general government fund. This allowed for the military build up of the 80’s and therefore helped the Defense industry which backed both Reagan and Moynihan with campaign donations and other emoluments.
This represents the real taxation on working Americans that the anti-tax people never discuss. Please don’t get me started on property taxes. Back when I owned a modest Townhouse on Long Island, my property taxes were levied at $5,400 per year (1980’s). In Nassau County, which had been Republican ruled for 80 years, moderate condo’s paid more taxes percentagewise than sprawling Estates and upper class homes. The reason, as the condo Association was told by our attorney fighting the assessments was that the people running the County knew that Democrats mostly lived in the modest condos. Any time a politician tells you that they are against raising taxes, hold onto your pocket because it is being picked.
K: @LK, as I said, our “poor” are nothing like the poor elsewhere. You are equating apples to oranges. … it is far better than what they have and can do in their home countries.
—
Once you destroy the subsidies and insurance/retirement plan known as the social safety net and lower the expectations of the poor to having ones very own shanty our country is absolutely no better than any other 3rd world stink-hole.
Srsly, have you never known any desperately poor people? Have you never visited someone living in a neighborhood where the only car on the block that is running is yours, where your arrival causes the neighbors to come, in an endless stream to the broken-lock door of the person you have visited on some pretext just to see if you brought ‘something’, anything, even a bag of chips? Where people kill each other over a pork-chop? Literally kill each other over a scrap of food? I have.
There’s a whole ‘nother world out there and to it’s credit our government, our people, have tried to make inroads to not let people slide into it that alternate world and maybe get some people out of it. Lowering expectations is not negotiable. It’s not human.
@Rich, and I’m the one with “inaccurate knowledge.” lol
@LK, “Corporations and their owners, including stockholders enjoy …” And, there you go. We already tax the owners for the income/gains assocaited with owning a share of the corporations. You just want to double dip.
“And yet they are agitating for lower taxes for all, meaningthey are not acting in their own self-interest, at least according to your theory. Maybe some people do act on principle instead of self-interest”
I didn’t advance a theory, I raised a question. My guess isn’t that it’s principal, it’s probably ignorance.Much like association between being a Faux News viewer and having inaccurate knowledge about health care reform proposals.Your endless stream of “talking points” shows the same pattern of ignorance and your presumptuousness suggest a lack of interest in any real conversation. So, keep the verbal diahrrea coming, although I won’t be bothering to respond.
jeff: “It is amusing when people act high and mighty and denounce people for spreading the often-repeated bit about 1/2 of americans not paying taxes then turn around and spread the equally misleading bit about certain corporations such as GE not paying taxes.”
—
Perhaps you haven’t thought this through. Taxes are what everyone pays to have the benefit of society, of civilization. One kicks in an allotment of shiny stones and it pays for certain services and expectations. It’s been that way since the dawn of civilization. How do you think the massive granaries of Jericho, holding the wealth of Canaan were built? Albeit those early taxes were more often than not paid at the business end of a pointed stick held by the local warlord’s vassal but still…
It still works that way today. Corporations and their owners, including stockholders enjoy roads on which to move their products and workers, public utilities like water and electricity that are publicly subsidized, police protection, recourse to courts, food that isn’t poisonous, air fit to breathe, a 911 system and ready medical care, government research which by law is put into the public domain (selectively, but in the main distributed) and a national defense structure as well as a national emergency management structure. How about the massive subsidy to education on every level?
Just about every fruit of government regulation, education/research subsidy and infrastructure benefits corporations both directly and indirectly. Why the hell shouldn’t they pay an income tax which directly funds that same society from which they benefit?
@Ay, are you still talking? It’s like that chicken that managed to live for years after his head was cut off. Brain-dead but in a different way you are.
@LK, as I said, our “poor” are nothing like the poor elsewhere. You are equating apples to oranges. people flock to our shores for the honor of living at least as well as our “poor” do adn with the perospect of moving up the economic ladder. it is far better than what they have and can do in their home countries.
droscar-
Rick Warren’s parishioners have been instructed to make their tax checks payable to “The Rick Warren Ministries, Inc.” to carry out God’s work here on Earth. (And Mrs. Warren needs a new Bentley.)
LK,
Excellent points….I think I recall that segment…