ST Alpha - "The article from last weeks sources the independent Tax Policy Center as the source of the 47% number" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 153

In response to "Seen earlier on Glann Beck (I was channel surfing only) that 28% of the population paid zero fed taxes in 1950 and now it's 50%. They quoted the IRS. -- nm" by CrankYanker

The article from last weeks sources the independent Tax Policy Center as the source of the 47% number

Posted by ty97 Apr 13 '10, 16:46

"About 47% will pay no federal income taxes for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

The vast majority of people who escape federal income taxes do pay other taxes, including federal payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and excise taxes on gasoline, aviation, alcohol and cigarettes. Many also pay state or local sales, income and property taxes."

I still have trouble with this number (www.usatoday.com)

Responses:

Tax simplification is supported by all sectors of the political spectrum; I'm surprised it never gets anywhere. -- nm - mara Apr 13, 16:48 54
- Tax simplification has two major barriers that I see. - ty97 Apr 13, 16:51 53
  - [deleted] 37
    - Well sure. When I say "everybody" I mean "human beings", not the IRS - ty97 Apr 13, 17:15 29
      - [deleted] 28
        
        I don't for a second believe it's goign to happen. - ty97 Apr 13, 17:20 27
        
        [deleted] 26
        
        US taxes seem a bit more complicated from how they get described here, but that seems like a red herring - Reagen Apr 13, 17:25 25
        
        This is true to an extent, but prosecution is not the sole risk. - ty97 Apr 13, 17:28 1
        
        And unlike underpayment, the IRS won't tell you you did it. -- nm - the liioulu who is an idiot Apr 13, 17:29
        
        [deleted] 22
        
        Is that the number who "qualify for" or number who "claim"? - ty97 Apr 13, 17:30 15
        
        [deleted] 14
        
        I've of the opinion that people shouldn't be *required* to use a tax preparer in order to properly file taxes. -- nm - ty97 Apr 13, 17:36 13
        
        [deleted] 12
        
        I don't buy the analogy. - ty97 Apr 13, 17:46 11
        
        [deleted] 10
        
        Again, you're wrong. - ty97 Apr 13, 17:53 8
        
        [deleted]
        
        [deleted]
        
        It's not mandatory, or a law. - the liioulu who is an idiot Apr 13, 17:55 5
        
        No ones "required" to hire a lawyer to defend them in court either. - scorpion Apr 13, 18:09 1
        
        View more posts in this thread ...
        
        And no one is required by law to hire an attorney... - Stephen Apr 13, 18:02 2
        
        View more posts in this thread ...
        
        Some tax preparers do their own taxes, some hire other preparers to do it. - the liioulu who is an idiot Apr 13, 17:50
        
        401ks aren't deductable? -- nm - Reagen Apr 13, 17:30 5
        
        you don't have to itemize for that. - ty97 Apr 13, 17:32
        
        [deleted] 2
        
        Oh, I see - Reagen Apr 13, 17:35 1
        
        [deleted]
        
        No, they just aren't taxable unless you take money out of them. -- nm - the liioulu who is an idiot Apr 13, 17:31
    - [deleted] 6
      - and law firms (tax lawyers especially) -- nm - Beaker Apr 13, 17:09 5
        
        [deleted] 4
        
        ummm don;t tax lawyers make their living based on how complicated tax returns are� -- nm - Beaker Apr 13, 17:12 3
        
        [deleted] 1
        
        see the post right below. Took a second but I got it on my own :) -- nm - Beaker Apr 13, 17:24
        
        ahh, I got where you were going with it. -- nm - Beaker Apr 13, 17:13
  - What was the total take last year in federal income tax? - Fuzzy Apr 13, 17:06
  - they can't touch the mortgage interest exemption... it'd be crushing -- nm - stewie Apr 13, 16:53 13
    - That's one of the last ones I'd consider removing, It think. - ty97 Apr 13, 16:55 12
      - FWIW most other countries don't have this exemption. Also, the taxpayers that benefit most are the ones with the most expensive houses -- nm - Roger More Apr 13, 16:58 11
        
        Though there is a difference between not having it and taking it away. Even if a good idea in the long run, it would have to be done very gradually. -- nm - Dano Apr 13, 17:03 2
        
        [deleted]
        
        Oh sure - it'd be political suicide. -- nm - Roger More Apr 13, 17:09
        
        Thanks for adding this. I don't think it's all that sacrosanct. If you can't afford to buy, don't buy. -- nm - mara Apr 13, 17:02
        
        There are limits on it. -- nm - ty97 Apr 13, 17:01 6
        
        On interest up to $1 million of debt, according to wiki. I wonder how many people have more than $1 million of debt on their house -- nm - Roger More Apr 13, 17:07 5
        
        I don't know that I disagree with the $1 million number. - ty97 Apr 13, 17:10 4
        
        Yeah - maybe it could be linked to a % of the average house price in the area or something -- nm - Roger More Apr 13, 17:25
        
        Exactly, When a three bedroom, 2 bath house built in the 50's goes for close to 700k in the bay area (albeit this was 6 years ago) you realize - Stephen Apr 13, 17:23 2
        
        Ideally, numbers like this and the AMT should be localized. - ty97 Apr 13, 17:25 1
        
        [deleted]

Post a message top

The article from last weeks sources the independent Tax Policy Center as the source of the 47% number

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.