If their gross income is over $200,000/year, absolutely.

If its less than $20,000/per year for a family of 4, maybe not.

In EVERY case, yes. If you have an income, any income, and can vote, you should pay income tax. It makes no sense for people to get the benefits of this society but not take any of the responsibility. Everyone has to have skin in the game or its simply not a fair society or vote.

Wrong!!!!

Right!!!!!

FlyOverMe: Fine. Then corporations are people too and they should pay their fair share with an income tax.

Cough up Exxon, IBM, Nike, Microsoft, Conoco, and all you other zero taxers.

EVERYONE then needs to pay.

Only if everyone also pays payroll taxes on their income.

Only if investment earnings and other "unearned" income is taxes the same as wages.

Only if the minimum wage is sufficient to support at least one person above the poverty level.

And what are the chances that those supporting a flat tax will support all of the above?

60% of American corporations pay no taxes.

They're "people", too, right?
So they should pay just like all us REAL people.
Unlike under Herman Cain's plan.

Why not just do away with tax refunds? I know quite a few people that rely on their tax refunds to go take a trip or to go shopping or what have you. Do away with tax refunds is the best start in my opinion.

"Then corporations are people too"...haha...because you say so?...doesn't work that way , you don't get to make the decisions

Harry: I didn't make up the rules, the Supreme Court did.

Educate yourself and read the Citrizen's United case.

Real America to you have a link to your source for that

When Koch brothers, Big Banks, Wall Street, Big Corporations, CEOs start paying their fair share of income taxes, then I am willing to discuss this over beer at the white house.

It is not true that half of Americans dont pay income Taxes. There are many other taxes in the country, including payroll taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, state income taxes, and property taxes.

Most people who don’t pay federal income taxes still encounter some of these other taxes. In other words, uncle SAM is always finding a way to screw you up of your hard earned money...You can never escape uncle Sam, that's for sure....who the hell is this guy anyway? I would like to wring his neck!

Bachmann would like to take the old phrase "no taxation without representation" and change it to "no representation without taxation." While in principle it sounds like a no brainer that everyone should pay something, is it really necessary to put an added burden on people who are below the poverty level trying to put food on the table. The reality is that everyone pays some taxes in this country, even if they do not pay federal income tax. You pay sales taxes every time you buy something. You pay payroll taxes (social security and medicare taxes) regardless of how little you earn. You pay federal excise tax every time you put gas in the car to go to work, or change the oil in the car, or buy new tires, etc. Does it really make sense to take food off someones table so that they can pay taxes. There are some people in our society who are barely getting by and I do not understand why anyone would feel the need to make it even harder on them. If you want to reduce the number of deductions that people can take fine, but there will always be some people who make so little that they do not pay any taxes. Every change you make has consequences and changes should not be made as a knee jerk reaction to some perceived inequity. The full impact of the changes must be examined to see if they really make sense. For example, if you do something like take away the home mortgage interest tax deduction, which has been proposed more than once, you will cause the housing market to collapse even more than it already has.

kpokeefe: And thank the Lord that we keep you busy here on the Vine instead of having you off in the real world.

Maybe we could cut spending like the money spent so she can "be a farmer" and the money her obviously closeted gay husband charges us to "cure" gay. How much in taxes you going to get out of the poor? Most of those would don't pay any in taxes at the end of the year pay into the system during the year. They just get their money back. Why? BECAUSE THEY"RE POOR! I would call Perry, Bachmann, Paul, Santorium, and Cain the five stooges except that would be insulting to fine Jewish vaudeville comedians.

Harry Blank, the Supreme Court ruled that Corporations have "free speech rights" in reguard to donating money to candidates so they must be people if the have speech. The ruling was 5-4 will all 5 GOP nominated Judges voting in favor of Corporate "free speech". Follow the news much?

YES! The foul cry of the Wealthy today is why should we, the Job Providers, The Risk Takers blah, blah, blah why should we pay more? Well you don't . . .

Everybody pay 15% of income over $30k/yr no deductions, reductions etc. then it is relative to amount - yes the wealthy will pay more in dollars than a $40k person but not a larger percentage.

Business the same 15% no deductions.

Why is this such a problem, everyone knows how to budget and what is coming and going every year - is it just too damn simple for you people?

Here's a couple of great articles and charts:

Super rich pay a lot less in federal taxes than they did decades ago
Associated Press, Sunday, April 17, 2011, 1:27 PM

The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.

AND:

Sources of federal revenue, Fiscal 1950-2008
(note the decline in the revenues from corporate taxes!)

kpokeefe - since you obviously lack interpretive skills, I will spell it out for you:

A person should be able to support his/herself above the poverty level by working full time at a minimum wage job.

Anything else is slavery.

It's not like the money's not there to pay them a living wage - American GDP is above where it was in 2007, but it all went to the top 1%:

Good Graph Friday: You're working harder, they're making money

2010 CEO pay chart, sorted by total

Here's an alternative plan. It might be called 15-15

1. Tax only paper income, not labor income. That is, tax capital gains and dividends at 15%, and tax income on wages at zero. This incentivises people to work. Those who have enough to left over after buying food, clothing, shelter and IPhones to buy stocks will still need some place to invest their hard earned cash, so investment money ain't gonna dry up.

2. Eliminate the cap on payroll tax. Everybody gets to pay 15% (still split between employee and employer) for it on all their income. That should add solvency to SS for at least another 20-30 years.

Leave sales and property taxes to the local and state jurisdictions.

This is why we should throw our tax system out and go with a progressive flat tax rate. NO LOOPHOLES, no tax write offs, period. When GE can make 14 billion and pay no tax, that is wrong. At the other end of the scale, Earned income credit is also wrong. If a person only made $20,000 and paid in $500 in taxes, give him his $500 back, not $3500 back because he sits on some tax scale that some idiot running the government invented

@aboutthat

Everybody pay 15% of income over $30k/yr no deductions, reductions etc. then it is relative to amount - yes the wealthy will pay more in dollars than a $40k person but not a larger percentage.

I've had a similar suggestion ... a tad bit more involved, but the same idea. It does allow for varied sizes of households.

1st step -- establish the poverty level for households of various sizes (1-6 -- that allows 4 kids). For my example, let's say that's $15,000 for one; $20,000 for two; $25,000 for three ... you get the idea.

2nd step -- determine how much is needed. Your 15% may be right on, may be off some.

3rd step -- ALL income earned by a person/family ABOVE the poverty rate is taxed at that percentage. The ONLY exception is social security, but that probably wouldn't be above poverty rate anyway.

So, let's say the family of two earns $40,000 a year. The first $20,000 is tax free ... tax is paid on the rest at the established rate. No other deductions. Fair to all.

Doc

does George Soros pay his fair share of taxes?...let me know when you get your hands on the documents , that should be an interesting read

Income taxes only account for about 1/5th of federal revenues now.

Payroll taxes (paid by working-class people) are now up to 40%.

But corporate taxes are down to 9% of federal revenues.

And the portion of federal revenues paid by the top 2% has gone down, not up.

U.S. Federal Tax Receipts - Fiscal Year 2010

Sources of federal revenue, Fiscal 1950-2008

Let's talk facts, not knee-jerk sound bites.

The rich decided that they should not have to pay tax. If you want them to pay tax, you would have to pay them more money. In addition to that, if you let them pay taxes, they may actually want to have input into how the country is run. Naw, it is better to keep them worried about where the next meal is coming from than what is going on in Washington.

Harry Blank

"Then corporations are people too"...haha...because you say so?...doesn't work that way , you don't get to make the decisions

Don't tell us...tell Mitt Romney and the Supreme Court. They seem pretty sure corporations are people...

Doc

does George Soros pay his fair share of taxes?...let me know when you get your hands on the documents , that should be an interesting read

Probably not, he's a CEO and one of the 1%. Any other inane questions?

"When they show you who they are...believe them!"

The dark little secret is there is not enough income tax revenue collected to pay for discretionary spending. That problem has nothing to do with entitlements - discretionary spending does not include entitlements. The Republicans like to spin entitlements into the mix - but that has absolutely nothing to do with income taxes.

2009 is the most recent published IRS income tax statistics.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html

For the 2009 tax year, there was $6.8 trillion in taxable income (AGI) reported. Income taxes generated in 2009 was $0.95 trillion. The discretionary spending for 2009 was $1.7 trillion. To balance that spending level - ALL taxable income needs to be taxed at 25%. The capital gains tax was 28% before the 2003 tax cuts. All income tax brackets were lowered by at least 3% by the 2001 adn 2003 tax cuts.

The effective tax rate for all income in 2009 was 11.5% - roughly half the required amount to pay for the discretionary budget. To eliminate the deficit through spending cuts means the discretionary budget needs to be cut by 44% ($750 billion). That size reduction is more than the defense budget. Defense spending accounts for about 50% of the discretionary budget.

The 2009 IRS tax statistics also shows that the bottom 72% of returns accounted for 38% of all the taxable income (translates to taxable income of $37k). The top 28% of returns accounted for 62% of all taxable income (translates to $154K). The top quarter received four times the income of the bottom three quarter. Since 'fairness' is ultimately everyone's concern - the top quarter of income earners should be responsible for four times the income taxes of the bottom three quarter.

The tax code consists of more than 2,000 pages. It does not require that many pages to explain 6 income tax brackets, corporate taxes, and capital gains taxes. The bulk of the tax code is specifically about how to avoid paying taxes. The bottom line is that the tax code has been skewed so that the top quarter of income earners can avoid their share of taxes.

Before anyone begins calling for more taxes - fix the tax code first.

There shouldn't be cases where people make more money by working less, but that is fairly common. There are plenty of people who work less than 20 hours a week who would be taxed more if they worked full time. To me, that doesn't make sense. If people more money by doing your taxes than by working, then why work and pay taxes?

We can't continue to have 47% of our taxpayers pay nothing. It does not matter how much you tax the rich. Even the rich do not make enough to let that bottom 47% keep sucking the country dry, while adding nothing to it.

Beth, I like your plan. However, I do question why individuals that do not invest in businesses would have to pay for the portion of government that regulates business. It would seem to me that we would have to add an additional percentage to pay for the government agencies that regulate business. Agencies like OSHA or EPA. If businesses could be trusted, we would not need them. However it has been shown over and over that businesses only care about their investors and not the general public. There are also other agencies that cater to ... I don't want to say the rich, but let's say people that have more money. Should someone that makes 25,000 dollars a year have to pay for the part of the government that issues passports. Do you think they will ever need one. If you cannot afford to visit a National Park, should you have to pay to maintain them?

The problem isn't only taxes, it's spending. We simply can't raise enough taxes to bring our budget into balance. While I do think everyone should have some level of skin in the game, we still have to cut spending by about 30 to 35% or we're on the road to Greece. The spending cuts we've seen from Congress are bogus - they have no authority over future Congresses - and that's the game they continue to play.

I'm in the camp of no tax on corp income - as long as it's invested in the States. and bottom line is corps don't pay taxes - their customers do.

Some kind of progressive flat tax is probably the "fairest" tax. Zero on the first 15,ooo of earnings. Then a few rates on various income levels.

This is a seriously stupid approach. There are those that pay nothing or less than they should because they do not report their income. When congress tried to make us all issue w9's, that is what they were trying to get at... all the under reporting.

Then there are those that pay nothing because they lost their shirts this year or made very little money. You got a problem with these people? They're really the only ones that shouldn't be paying taxes.

The last group, I suspect, is the one Bachmann is referring to... the ones that make a moderate income but pay nothing due to tax breaks and credits they get legally. Well, I figure it's more a Congress problem than a people problem.

If the breaks and the credits and the tax-cuts do not stand on their own merit, then change them. If they do... then STFU.

Taxes should be simple. All able Americans should contribute to our government, as it is necessary.

The class warfare is for the most part nonsense.

If 1% earning 20%, and paying 40% isn't enough, tell me what is fair?

To say 60% of corporations pay no taxes is a complete lie. They pay all kinds of taxes, as do the poor. What's worse is, corporations only owe INCOME TAX on profit. If a company does not generate enough income to profit, or worse, operates at a loss, they do not pay corporate income taxes. Just like citizens who do not make enough money to owe income taxes.

So those making these ridiculous statements are idiots, liars, or both.

In both cases these folks pay other taxes. Payroll taxes, both pay. Sales taxes, both pay. Fuel taxes, both pay. Etc...

This constant exaggeration and lying by all the partisan ding dongs is beyond old, stupid, and tired.

Bingo.

phillyfan-2830508: "Why not just do away with tax refunds? I know quite a few people that rely on their tax refunds to go take a trip or to go shopping or what have you. Do away with tax refunds is the best start in my opinion."

Huh? Are you serious? Do you even know what a tax refund is? It's not when the government decides to give you vacation money. It's when you, whether by choice or by accident, withhold too much income to pay that year's taxes. Then when you properly calculate it at the end of the year and pay your taxes, the IRS gives back the excess.

By eliminating tax refund, that means the IRS just keeps money that *belongs to you*.

DUH. You clearly either don't work or don't file any tax returns.

For me this is simple.

Minimum wage is $7.25 x 40hr work week x 52 weeks = $15,080 a year.

All income earners (wages, tips, salaries, dividend, and capital gains) will be taxed at a rate of 17% with one personal exemption of $15,080.

That way all tax payers are treated equally, and the truly poor will still get a break.

A person making $25,000 a year will have an effective tax rate of only 6.7%.

or he is a democrat

Jman, the EIC isn't a refund of excess....

Should someone that makes 25,000 dollars a year have to pay for the part of the government that issues passports

@IR12 -- well, since it cost about $100 to get one, and that's merely a small part of what that office does, I don't think that's a great example. But yes, actually I do. Because that's the point of taxes, to pay for collectively what we can't pay for on our own. The State Department is one of those things.

Minimum wage is $7.25 x 40hr work week x 52 weeks = $15,080 a year.

All income earners (wages, tips, salaries, dividend, and capital gains) will be taxed at a rate of 17% with one personal exemption of $15,080.

@ wizard -- nice idea. Close to what I proposed, probably better numbers.

Here my idea. Because everyone that makes $20,000 or less DON"T PAY TAXES, is that what everyone is saying?? Will then lets have their bosses, rich CEOs, or who ever, give everyone a raise, to the extent that everyone makes over $20,000. So inturn everyone will be making more then $20,000 and then everyone will have to pay share of taxes.

Increase the minmum wage to $10.00 and hours, times 40 hours is $400 a week, times 52 weeks is $20,800.

No addressing the massive, bloated redundancy in the federal government. No addressing that this latest little 'humanitarian aid' in Libya, to date, has cost over a billion dollars. No addressing the massive amounts of money spent on Homeland Security, the internal 'civilian' army.

Nope, sorry but perhaps before the government starts taking even more money to spend on truly un-American activities like giving millions to Mexican truckers, billions to companies to build electric cars in Finland, billions more to 'green energy' (Obama supporters) Al Gore (see finland cars) and GE ( not paying taxes plus lots of money to build factories in China) we should look at where the money goes, who's pockets are padded at taxpayer expense and who benefits the most from all this government largesse. Hint: It ain't the taxpayer, that's a fact!

Lets see, all the wealthy candidates are wanting to change, do away with, or lower social security; all the wealthy candidates want a national sales tax, the middle class pays the burden, none of the candidates mention that Exon 155 billion in profits, received a tax refund, banking received 3.6 trillion in taxpayer bailouts, corporations producing overseas, shipping goods to America, not taxed on their straw company's; large insurance company's will be in control of Obama care, and decide how much you have to pay to stay alive; America wake up , you are being sold down the river by both party's !

Sure, let everyone pay an income tax.

Just as soon as we eliminate the regressive nature of Sales, Gas, and Payroll taxes.

RealAmerican

corporations in America pay a 37% behind Japans 39% ergo they take there business elsewhere...lower that tax rate , more corporations bring their business back and then there are m ore corporations paying into the pool and the percentage of "federal income" goes up...kinda like the health reform scam tries to increse the number of participants "in the pool"...if it would work for that pos legislation it must work in other applications

oh...Canada's corporate tax rate is 15%...hmmm interesting

if you lower the corporate tax rate and I can see closing loopholes corporations are less likely to need to pay tax lawyers MILLIONS of dollars a year to attempt to limit their tax liability , it has been done before and worked no what the liberal mouth pieces say...the problem with the liberal/democrat "plan" is they want to raise the corporate tax rate AND close the loopholes and deductions...great way to guarantee that businesses will take the plants elsewhere...and if you think that slapping "tariffs" and "penalties" on corps that move is going to work you must be on the chronic...there are to many emerging markets out in the world for that to be as effective as you might think...

I am not an economist...I just did some reading...and I play one on TV

oh, and yes I have heard the story about "corporations don't pay at the 35 to 37% rate" , it's refered to as the "actual rate" and that would be the purpose of the first paragraph

There is that blindness once again, promoted by Repug Party hype. There is no guarantee that lowering tax rates on Corporations would bring business back to America, when lower wages and regulation is what keeps corporations overseas as it is, along with income havens in offshore banking.

Believing that tax cuts would bring home corporate interests is merely showing how ignorant the repug american populace has become. Tax cuts in Bush's reign of power merely made corporations that much more rich, and unemployment went from 4+% to 7+% in a mere two years before he left office under tax cut plans that he embezzled through Congress.

Do away with the earned income credit first.Or at least a person does not get back more than they paid in.

"Probably not, he's a CEO and one of the 1%. Any other inane questions?"

haha...are you DocHolliday to ?...must be pretty crowded in that pumpkin head...I asked the question of DocHolliday because he failed to mention Soros in his liberal diatribe...

care to do any more inane coat tail riding?...get some original thought , it's fun and healthy

"unemployment went from 4+% to 7+% in a mere two years"

hmmm... I wonder if that had anything to do with a Democrat led Senate and House...interesting ...kinda like the liberal likes to cry that Republicans are holding up Obamas greatness...the Demostools must have caused that and the economic melt down , probably just as likely

man, we can do that stuff all day...it's fun!

@ted patrick

dead on right ted...but in the eyes of theliberal that makes you a racist...even though the demostools are the ones keeping minorities down with their offers of "don't try to succede , we will prop you up" and "you will never make it without us"

you keep coming up with the good ideas so we can listen to the liberal scream and babble...it's fun!

Corporations scream about the tax rate being too high. Correct?

Why is it that they have no problem paying X#(obnoxious $) millions for a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl? Does an ad during that 1 game result in obnoxious $ profits justifying those amounts?

Millionaires are screaming about a mere 4% tax increase. Correct?

That's 40k on $1 million income. It's also the same tax rate as a multitude of Americans,left,right,independent,communist,nazi,etc.

Is that really going to kill them by having tax equality? Is that really going to result in less jobs created by 'the job creators?'

I would like to see some sort of facts on those 2 scenarios. I can only take an educated guess about what they would be.

Heil rrright!!! Dey vill alvays be rrright,but very rarely correct IMO.

ABbsolutely! Tax everyone. If everyone has 'skin in the game' and 'no one makes it without help from everyone else' like we keep hearing the Progressives tell us, everyone should pay. If you don't contribute anything to the pie, then STFU and take what we give you.

I agree with a fair tax for all. Tax me the same as the bottom 45%. You want to be equal so be it. Now that's fair.

@ Monkey, Corporations are not people, they are commercial entities The Constitution sets up the method and relationship of business or commercial enterprises of paying taxes. It is different than the taxing of the people.

Yes if you live here and work here you should pay taxes here I don't care if it is only one red cent you should pay the same as everyone else percentage wise.

Sure, let everyone pay an income tax.

Just as soon as we eliminate the regressive nature of Sales, Gas, and Payroll taxes.

Do you even have a clue what "regressive" means???

Sales and gas taxes are FLAT taxes. Everyone pays the same percentage. They are NOT regressive. The rates do NOT go down as you buy more stuff or more gas.

Payroll tax is flat to the cap. People complain about that but always forget that higher income (above the cap) earners do NOT get any more benefits in terms of Social Security than those at the cap. In fact, they normally end up getting taxed more in retirement.

Income taxes are the opposite. The rates get higher as income goes up.

Self-imposed regression is a choice. If YOU choose to spend more on a flat-taxed item, that is NOT the fault of the tax.

Not everyone should pay taxes... This is America..., only the 'other guy' should pay taxes

Everybody must pay income taxes regardless the income even if it is one dollar. There are many other ways to help lower income people trough diferen programs that the federal, state or local organization provide. The important of that is even the lower income people will receive more help , the individual is also a tax payer. Tax code for corporations are different and for long time the government choose winner and loosers giving exceptions or subsidies creating loopholes that allowed corporation like GE not to pay taxes and that need to end. This is why we need a flat tax code where everybody pay their share, individuals , small busines,CEOs and their corporations

Let's start with Cain's 9-9-9 with some serious modifications

The 2 most important things first is if you make a dollar it is income and next it has to be pasted as a constitutional amendment to keep the government from continuing to raise the rates along with a balance budget amendment

1)the first $30,000 of everyone's income is tax exempt from the income tax (If filing jointly $60,000) no other exemptions

2) food has no sales tax

3) clothing has no sales tax

4) no sales tax on medical

5) the first $150,000 of the price of any home new or existing has no sales tax

6) the fist $20,000 of any car has no sales tax

7) the only corporate write off is real wages(no bonuses no stock options no materials or investments these are cost of doing business)

with these changes someone making $40,000 a year pays $900.00

someone making $400,000 a year pays $33,000

someone making $1,000,000 pays $87,300

so forth and so on

as we all know the more people make the more they spend on homes, cars, recreation so those who make more pay more sales taxes

this would also bring in money from the criminals that who have no reported income but spend money buying things

it also puts an end to corporations like GE who made Billions last year but paid no taxes

anyone else got some ideals I would like to see them

WE CAN NO LONGER SIT ON THE SIDELINES BELIEVING OUR POLITICIANS ARE GOING TO FIX OUR COUNTRY WE HAVE TO GET INVOLVED AND THEY HAVE TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE

Jman, I work and pay taxes thank you. I know what a refund is. You would have to be a total idiot to not know the definition of refund. Did you forget that their are also tax credits that turn into refunds? Like 1000 bucks per kid you have? All kinds of other credits and whatnot that turn into REFUNDS that were never paid to begin with. Thats what Im talking about. Why give someone 1000 bucks for having a kid? Thats just stupid. No wonder their are people out there with 8 and 9 kids on welfare. They make more money than I do...and I work! How the F is that even allowed? You pay a tax and thats it. Period. Thats my opinion. No refunds or credits. If you paid too much than thats your fault. It should be automatic based on your paycheck. All the other crap is smoke and mirrors.

You miss the point Beth, I have no need for a State Department and consider them a waste of my tax dollars. I have no desire to travel overseas nor do I want to sell or buy anything from a foreign country. I will never need the benefit of a United States embassy. Let me explain it like this. If 70% do not want a State Department, then we should not have it. However if 60% of the people making more than 75,000 dollars want a State Department then we should have a State Department and let the income group about 75,000 pay for it. That would require increasing the percentage of their income they pay above what those making less the 75,000 pay.

Dark Guardian ...

You do realize, don't you, that ALL sales taxes are currently imposed by the STATES. Cain's 9-9-9 plan would either ) Ignore this, or ) Eliminate the states' biggest sources of income.

Secondly, In your example the richest people would pay 8.7% in taxes, and poor people even less. So where does the money come from? RIGHT NOW it's nearly impossible to decimate Government spending because we've whittled it down to programs that 70% of the public supports. So under Cain's plan we'd have to further eliminate essential services, or - Gasp! - someone is going to have to pay more.

Who do you suppose that "someone" is likely to be?

There was NO INCOME TAX before 1913, NONE. The income tax was mainly created to pay interest to the privately owned Federal Reserve bank corporation which did not exist until 1913 either. This was the greatest swindle in American history.

Make no mistake, a direct tax on your labor is theft and not nessesary for government to function.

Harry: You're acting an awful lot like a PR flak.

How about Mr. Obama.....he WILL BE history after the 2012 election !!!!

Obamanose 2012

When she said this during the debates, it was excruciatingly painful. She finally said something that I agree with.

All citizens need to contribute to operation of our country.

The people who control 98% of the wealth need to pay 98% of the taxes.

Because they really control and hold the purse strings.

The rest of us who control 2% of the wealth should be tax 2% of our wealth.

As ye own so shall ye pay!

She's still in there making Romney, Cain and Perry look good.

Okay, Okay, Okay, all of these GOP Candidates have brought their E game.

Where's their A game?

A fair tax system should be based on a persons Wealth, not income.

They are two separate values. NO ONE is addressing that issue.

cathee

The 2% who own 2% of the wealth PAY NO TAXES NOW.

slodon

Wrong.

I pay taxes and i'm in the 2%.

Don't you pay taxes, or are you a part of the 98% that controls all of the wealth?

Ray, What about the working poor?

slodon, you are so wrong. 99% of the rich pay 24.6% tax on their income. Even your hero, Obama, FINALLY admitted it. I think that is more than enough!!! Only ONE percent did not pay that 24.6%!!!!

I DARE you guys to look it up. It is easy to find on respectable sites. There are a few bloggers that lie but the majority are saying that almost ALL the rich are paying their fair share of taxes. I was wrong, it is 23%, not 24.6% BUT, only a few exceptions like Buffet , do NOT pay their fair share. Maybe because he is a staunch Obama supporter?

It is easier to help a blind man see, than it is to make some of you understand how blighted your insight is.

The rich may have taxes valued at ~24%, but everyone who CAN see knows that they do not pay those actual rates. That % figure is what they are SUPPOSE to pay, what the tax code rates are, but records show that after deductions and tax loopholes, the rich DO NOT pay ~24%.

Its like trying to spread your BS about corporate America being taxed more heavily than any other country. NO, the current tax code has their tax rate at ~30%-35%...but we are not stupid enough, blind like you, to believe that GE paid 0% in and had tax refunds. You claim Exxon had billions in taxes, but they receive a refund too. Those tax rates aren't the problem, the tax code is, the one that allows all the loopholes for the rich and wealthy to skip by paying their fair share.

You wanna hear a scream heard across the country? Well, even though low income relish their tax refund, lets all agree we need to pay our fair share. For one year, for one tax season, everyone relinquish their tax credits, tax cuts and tax refunds. Then lets see who screams the most? Low income and middle class are use to that money being with held anyways and not having it in their pocket to play with during the year. To not get it back is not that painful. It wasn't there all year anyways. It is nothing to merely not have it realized come tax returns.

See how loudly the wealthy and rich cry and piss their britches when you take tax loopholes and tax cuts away. Then we will see the truth of who is paying what at what rates.

So the rest of the idiots in America need to quit repeating the same thing over and over about tax rates. Tax rates does not prove that those actual taxes are paid in!

End of the lies okay folks?

Did Exxon pay their fair share?

Did GE pay their fair share?

Nope, didn't think so. AS you struggle to find your diatribe and spout your BS back across the pages, just realize that we aren't too blind to see the fools out there that make up the piss poor mentality that acts so detrimentally as an enemy to our people. Your one of them, as yo comfortably stroke yourself as you spread your repug based and promoted pissing contests.

cathee

Excuse me I forgot to say INCOME TAXES!!

The 2% who own 2% of the wealth pay NO INCOME TAXES. Now is that better???

A better question would be why Ron Paul is being ignored.

Cathee we don't tax wealth, nor should we.

If I save 10% of my income each year why should I pay higher taxes then the person who makes more then I do but spends it all.

Taxing wealth prevents increasing wealth.

A fair tax system should be based on a persons Wealth, not income.

They are two separate values. NO ONE is addressing that issue.

Oh no, everyone wants to tax "the other guy", just not themselves. Fair would be a flat income tax. Fair would be a 4-line Form 1040.

1. Write your name and SSN.

2. Write your total income.

3. Pay 10% of line 2.

4. Signature

Wealth is accumulation of income. It's already been taxed and should be totally off limits. Totally. Doesn't matter if it is inherited wealth, or savings, or whatever. Taxing more than once is taxation without representation. (Remember those words?)

Make it even more simple. All gross wages taxed..., deduct it directly as it is now. No need to file an individual tax return..., no need for 25,000 IRS agents..., no need for H and R Block...

Dr. Larry, that makes too much since, and therefor shall be stricken from public knowledge.

Flat tax, one rate, no deductions. The first $10,000 a year is not taxed.

Let's start with Cain's 9-9-9 with some serious modifications

The 2 most important things first is if you make a dollar it is income and next it has to be pasted as a constitutional amendment to keep the government from continuing to raise the rates along with a balance budget amendment

1)the first $30,000 of everyone's income is tax exempt from the income tax (If filing jointly $60,000) no other exemptions

2) food has no sales tax

3) clothing has no sales tax

4) no sales tax on medical

5) the first $150,000 of the price of any home new or existing has no sales tax

6) the fist $20,000 of any car has no sales tax

7) the only corporate write off is real wages(no bonuses no stock options no materials or investments these are cost of doing business)

with these changes someone making $40,000 a year pays $900.00

someone making $400,000 a year pays $33,000

someone making $1,000,000 pays $87,300

so forth and so on

as we all know the more people make the more they spend on homes, cars, recreation so those who make more pay more sales taxes

this would also bring in money from the criminals that who have no reported income but spend money buying things

it also puts an end to corporations like GE who made Billions last year but paid no taxes

anyone else got some ideals I would like to see them

WE CAN NO LONGER SIT ON THE SIDELINES BELIEVING OUR POLITICIANS ARE GOING TO FIX OUR COUNTRY WE HAVE TO GET INVOLVED AND THEY HAVE TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE

So, you're saying that over 40 years of Republican policy (which created the low income tax loopholes) is a failure?

And if it's a failure, why should we listen to you now?

Democrats have been in charge of Congress for the majority of the last 75 years...damned public school

Monkey @ Keyboard: Yes, didn't these loopholes come about during the Nixon administration? Republicans used to realize that the working poor needed these loopholes in order to provide food, shelter, and healthcare for themselves and their families.

The GOP is no longer the Grand Old Party, in my opinion. It has been taken over by extremists.

the problem is the over-spending credit card using dem

Mary-1324335: As a former Republican and now proud independent, I couldn't agree with you more.

And Harry, improve your game. You're getting paid way too well to write so poorly.

Right sosad,

The Aid to Dependent Children should be suspended after three kids. It is so lucrative that it becomes a method of living without working for an entire family. It is misused.

@Mary

JFK wouldn't recognize the Democrats of today , they have been taken over by the communists

we can do that stuff all day

and yes, the communists used to run for election

"the working poor needed these loopholes in order to provide food, shelter, and healthcare for themselves and their families."

haha...then what is all the medicaid and food stamps and section 8 housing and tax returns without paying in...etc, etc , etc for?

just wondering and waiting for your detailed analysis of how much is to much...thanks

sosad, any good capitalist wants everybody to have money to spend - even if they are too poor to afford to spend it, just as long as they spend it and keep up the demand for goods and services.

I firmly believe that in the absence of good parents, the next best thing to promoting a productive life is a good education.

It is disengenuous to expect those who have no good education while growing up to have the same ability, the same ambition or the same oppportunity as those who have been well educated. Just because you may be able to name a dozen people who have had productive lives with neither good parents nor good education does not refute the arguement. The millions of cases otherwise swamp your dozens.

We encourage lack of education and abundance of poverty at our own risk.

Both parties have manipulated the tax code to tell citizens how to live. Get married, buy a house, go into debt, give to charities, make babies.

Harry Blank, but Republicans have been in control when most of the damaging legislation has passed (81-87, 95-01, and 03-07). Gotta love public school.

oh...your right...anymore drivel and pablum going to roll out? I hope you have a bucket under you desk

they weren't in control when the current health care scam , ponzi scheme and rape of American's was passed , quite clearly the most damaging bit of legislation that has ever been rammed through in an illegal manner...damned public schoolers that think they didn't go to public school

Harry Blank: While I certainly don't appreciate you condescending tone, I'll attempt to respond to your comment.

Yes, there are some in the Democratic Party who are way to the left. (I do realize that people used to run as Communists.) However, as a whole, the Democratic Party has moved closer to the center.

I'm not sure what you are asking me regarding a detailed analysis of how much is too much, but I'll attempt to answer.

Several Republican administrations put policies into place so that the working poor would be able to afford food, shelter, and healthcare. Surely, some abuse the system through the use of food stamps and welfare, but not the majority.

Again, I didn't uderstand your question, so I'm not sure that I answered it.

Edit: I read your last post after posting mine, and I guess I understand why I didn't understand your question.

Democrats still stand for the same things they stood for in the 60's. Universal healthcare and progressive civil rights, tax and spend. Sounds like the Dems to me. On your welfare bit, that's for people who don't work, or there work doesn't provide them with the rest of the food for the family, with population this large its governments responsibility to hold up the bottom part of the spectrum. The higher standards for the lowest-class, the better off we all are. Unless you want to pull a Roman Empire and quit adapting and progressing after generations of doing so, and then collapse from within.
If you want to call Social Security a 'Ponzi scheme' then go back to the 30s and blame FDR for the MOST SOCIALLY-APPROVED PROGRAM EVER. If you're against it you're against the average-American.
How is cheaper and more extensive healthcare for all Americans damaging?
Also, quit voting for your own comments.

The wealthy create jobs. So let's tax everybody the same amount, only on paper shuffling income (dividends and capital gains) and no tax on wage income made by honest labor. We've let labor subsidize capital long enough.

No deductions for anything (not mortgages, education, health care nor business expenses) except for created jobs. Give everybody some fiscally reasonable rebate for every additional increase in payroll headcount that lasts for at least 3 years.

Each layoff one year eliminates one deduction for each head count increase the following year.

Let's reward the job creators, and sniff out the wealth managers.

Harry Blank

Democrats have been in charge of Congress for the majority of the last 75 years...damned public school

Which explains why we still have a Country.

People who are wealthy also have to take risks with their own money in order to move forward...its risk and reward...what incentive do wealthy people have to invest in America or anywhere else? To create jobs??? NO!! When people realize how much investors have to risk losing in order to make progress, then they will understand the incentive motive behind business decisions. Most people here can sit on their perch and complain about wealthy people (which I'm not) not contributing their fair share (mostly true) but what have these same people risked in their own lives...what dollars have they risked in order to do better by themselves? People who make 20k per year aren't risking anything in their lives but the guy making 200k per year spends a lot of time awake in bed...I can guarantee you that...

wow Mary...closer to the center?..."the pope is a Nazi"..."tea party people want to lynch the President"..."kill Jewish bankers"..."take these bastards out" these are statements from the face of the Democrat party , I guess we will have to disagree on who is "extreme" and who is "centrist"

yeah the wealthy create jobs..to bad not in this country

monkey, please. The democrats created justa as many loopholes if not more, than the Republicans.

"Fair share" will be when they pay us what they COST US. Do you have drilling rig in the South China Sea? And just when was the last time a fully armed Nuclear Aircraft Carrier floated past your rig?? What do you think that might cost the US taxpayers??

I know you're mouthing your hero, President Obama's words, but what's their fair share? They already pay more than 50% of all taxes paid by individuals.

What do you pay?

Why is it that certain people always want to pick on the so called Rich? Who are you to say what rich is?

Why not everyone in this country pay something? That way everyone will work hard for themselves and their country.

Everyone should PAY something. Lets focus on who is NOT earning their Own Income. Everyone is entitled to make and Keep their own money.

Great article on the subject of taxes from Willamette Week in Portland, OR:

9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes

The Internal Revenue Service issues an annual report on the 400 highest income-tax payers. In 1961, there were 398 taxpayers who made $1 million or more, so I compared their income tax burdens from that year to 2007.

Despite skyrocketing incomes, the federal tax burden on the richest 400 has been slashed, thanks to a variety of loopholes, allowable deductions and other tools. The actual share of their income paid in taxes, according to the IRS, is 16.6 percent. Adding payroll taxes barely nudges that number.

Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1 percent in 1961 to 22.5 percent in 2007.

(By the way, during seven of the eight George W. Bush years, the IRS report on the top 400 taxpayers was labeled a state secret, a policy that the Obama administration overturned almost instantly after his inauguration.)

Yes tax me more, because I agree we need to pay our fair share first when this country has given me so much opportunity and it is how we create a healthy society. Don't like paying for the good of society and the prosperity of our country, move to the wilderness and get a way from people.

zkysr - At any time you can send a check to the IRS and MORE Taxes if you would like. Just because you want to pay more doesn't mean that the rest of us should be penalized.

No one needs to raise your tax rate - You Can Pay More whenever you want. I am assuming you will be sending a check to Washington tomorrow????

Zyksr, please pull out your checkbook, write a check and shut your piehole (in no particular order).

"move to the wilderness and get a way from people"

does that mean that you and those like you will never come to my "wilderness" ?...or do I get to run you off if in a hasty fashion if you do?

Harry, I think that means you get to trap your own food with the trap you made yourself, build your own shelter with a hand sharpened stone axe and trying to figure out how to get that bear-skin turned into something that can be worn.

It does not mean sleeping in a North Face Tent inside a -40 degree rated sleeping bag with a cell phone to call 911 if you happen to stub your toe and cannot walk out in your LL Bean boots.

In a true wilderness, running off all potential allies would not enhance one's longevity. If you like your second ammendment rights, you're gonna have to have commrades who support you, and some kind of community system to keep out the bad guys who may be bigger than you alone.

I'd say you need to be more specific since what defines rich? The top 5 to 10% of wage earners pay a bit more than their fair share of taxes. It's the SUPER rich--those in the top .25% that keep getting by with less and less taxes:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/17/super-rich-see-federal-taxes-

It's time we put a stop to letting the super rich have these tax loopholes putting all their wealth in ways to hide their incomes (mostly as capital gains) and kept offshore in many cases (Switzerland).

The poor should be paying something and NOT getting credits. They get more than enough credits from all the other freebie handouts.

Our system is totally out of whack and it's so complicated that that's why the super rich are able to beat (I would say swindle) the system.

We need more flat rates and Corporations are the biggest devil of them all--2 years running record $1 trillion dollar profits while our government is running $1+ trillion dollar deficits. This has to change. The corporate rate is the lowest in history-currently running at 17.5% whereas the rate is supposed to be 35%--exactly double what's actually being taxed.

That's because of excessive loopholes and tax breaks granted by corrupt politicians gaming the system to get reelected. In some cases--they are taking bribes to vote one way and opposite to the constituents who elected them--us.

It's time for a revolution boys!

If our government can't operate fairly and balance the budget it is our constitutional right to overthrow that government.

Per the Declaration of Independence:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

hey Green...it might be worth the effort to steer clear of the "gimme my benefits" crowd

oh and as a former Boy Scout , and avid camper , I recieved some basic training in such things , and I will not have any rabbit left when you wander into my camp

oh and by the sound of things , there are plenty of people that are tired of the way you and yours want do things, you know ,the socialist way .So I think that "commrades" (funny you would use that word) won't be to difficult

thanks for the explanation though

I'd say when the rich start paying their fair share then we can talk.

The mantra of the clueless. I am hardly rich, but they pay the vast majority of our nation's income already.

Well Harry, guess that make you an anarchist. I mean since all Federal, State, County and City agencies and programs are basically socialist. Good bye US Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard...good bye US Customs and Border Patrol...good bye State police, county Sheriff's Department...good bye fire department, FEMA, CDC, USDA. Guess we'll all be living in the woods killing each other over hunting rights. By the way, you should probably stay off of my ridge...I can still put a 5.56 round up a gnat's butt at 350 meters...lol

Bingo

sfilutze

I'd say when the rich start paying their fair share then we can talk.

They already pay more than their fair share. You just want something for nothing.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/04/the_rich_and_their_taxes.html

But Buffett is an exception—one of the super rich. By contrast, most of the wealthy in America today garner their income principally from wages, and thus not only pay more in taxes, but pay taxes at a higher real rate than everyone else—Warren Buffett aside. While taxpayers in every bracket do what they can to minimize their taxes, in 2005, the top 1 percent of filers paid 23 percent of their adjusted gross income in income taxes. Those earning between $62,000 and $104,000--certainly part of the middle class that Hillary Clinton says is bearing a bigger burden because of tax cuts for the wealthy--paid an average tax rate of 9 percent. The tax rate of those with incomes between $31,000 and $62,000 was under 7 percent, or less than one third of the tax rate of the rich.

The rich do not pay their fair share????

sfilutze

I'd say when the rich start paying their fair share then we can talk.

Quite the interesting take you have on this. But how about everyone starts paying, specially the 40 plus percent of Americans who do not pay a dime, and then we consider reworking the tax brackets. I am amazed that people actually think that they are entitled to pay ZERO in income taxes and yet want to tax those who already pay and support the government program those who don't pay enjoy everyday.

don't see where I said a thing about any of that, but did see where you tried to jump on some lame azz "you couldn't survive in the wilderness" diatribe and babble that was summarily slapped down...pretty easy really , oh and "you sound like an anarchist" with your ridge BS, I would think that some properly and easily placed detonatables would drop you and your trailer and your ridge at the bottom of hill jack mountain , oh and a 5.56 round is a girls round ...hahahaha...the Accuracy International L115SA3 (since we are name dropping weapon claims) round would have knocked you off of your 5 gallon pickle bucket toilet long before you made it to the 5.56...now that's funny!

and your post has what to do with the topic?...sorry vine , I got sucked into the off topic zone , won't happen again

What is the "fair share" someone who is making 50k should pay? What about 100k...if you don't pay any federal tax at 50k, why should someone pay at 100k? "Fair share" seems awful arbitrary doesn't it? I work my ass off for what I do for a living only for the government to tax the @!$%# out of me. When someone is making 15k with 3 kids and on the public titter, what "fair share" are you talking about? Instead of telling people who work hard for their money to pay their "fair share," why don't you focus on telling lazy people to get off their ass, work and use birth control....but then its so much easier to inject and eject 4 babies and get Medicaid at the social services office funded by "fair share" dollars, isn't it? People like that are not an asset to society....they are a burden and a drag?

Many rich people don't get their money through hard work. By "rich people", we're not talking about actors, software developers, etc. It's the likes of Rupert Murdoch that we all have a beef with.

I'd say when the rich start paying their fair share then we can talk.

Since the top 1% already pay 38% of total federal income tax, and the top 10% already pay 70% of federal income tax, and the "bottom" 46% pay NO federal income tax (or get EITC)..........

I'd say you have no clue and should probably start listening rather than talking.

Many rich people don't get their money through hard work. By "rich people", we're not talking about actors, software developers, etc. It's the likes of Rupert Murdoch that we all have a beef with.

So what? There are plenty of rich actors that really don't "work" in the classical sense, but they get what the market will bear. Your bias is clear - you only want higher taxes on certain people you don't like, right?

How can so many drugs, cigarettes, and cheap alchohol be sold in neighborhoods on the Public dole? Maybe, everyone should either be paying cash or contributing labor. At least then people would have a real stake in the Federal Budget.

So Arthur is against the Alcohol Industry, The Cigarette industry and the Pharmaceutical industry. Job Killer

Chris, MSNBC is the most liberal organization out there. If they are actually reporting something like this, I got to believe it is true in this case.

Only those who can afford to. The idiotic baggers are spreading lies as usual eventhough many of them are in that number.

Let's look at that.

By definition, "Teabaggers" would be liberals, so I agree with the rest of your statement.

But "afford to"? Taxes should not be optional or decided by anything but hard numbers. A flat tax is a fair tax and should apply to all income, regardless of source or amount.

She IS a government BOOB.

is that anything like Obooba?

The real question is why 47% of so called Americans feel they deserve a free ride on the backs of the American middle class and those you folks consider wealthy. The 53% that do pay Federal Income taxes are the hardcore middle class and those some of you consider the wealthy. Too assume that these folks do not pay their fair share when they on average pay 35% before write-off's compared to 47% paying 0%. Fair???? of course not

Write-off's are legal - they are not gimmicks, they are not cheating the system - they allow a write off for charitible donations - major source of income for charities is the American Taxpayer, the write-offs allow a family to deduct interest on home loans which has allowed millions of families to afford to buy a home, we have tax write-offs for medical expenses, for disabilities, for children, for college funds, for the aged, for catastrophic losses caused by natural disasters etc etc etc.

Those wealthy you sneer at are the job creators, they are the risk takers they are the backbone of our economy. The 47% - the no federal taxpayers are the losers of our society, the deadbeats, the malcontents, the druggies, the criminals, the uneducated, the pregnant teens, the whiners, the dredge of our society - the ones pulling our econmy and our country down.

If the wealthy I 'sneer' at create the jobs then WHERE ARE THEY!! They're not creating any jobs, the wealthy are hording their moneys in stocks, bonds and making a mint on capital gains taxed at 15%!

If the wealthy I 'sneer' at create the jobs then WHERE ARE THEY!! They're not creating any jobs, the wealthy are hording their moneys in stocks, bonds and making a mint on capital gains taxed at 15%!

How many jobs are created by the "poor", or "middle-class"? With this administration, stocks are doing poorly. BTW - anyone can buy (invest in) stocks and bonds - are you doing it? Put your money where your mouth is.

Also, for 2010, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is 15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. (source:IRS)

I have no problem throwing out the current tax code and going to a flat tax on everything. Otherwise, people and companies will move their money to where they get the best bottom line (as is done now).

But you are OK with GE making 5 billion in profit and paying no taxes. Right??

However, someone who makes 50k a year probably contributes more in other various taxes. Property, real estate, sales, gasoline, etc. These taxes are from purchases that are necessary to get to work and back. I agree that everyone should pay something, but saying that a 50k a year earner shouldn't pay isn't wrong. Look at the bigger picture and I can attest that a 50k a year earner, even federal tax exempt, pays more a year in some sort of tax than a 25k earner.

But you are OK with GE making 5 billion in profit and paying no taxes. Right??

Did I say that, Bill? NO!!! Don't change the subject!!!

However, someone who makes 50k a year probably contributes more in other various taxes. Property, real estate, sales, gasoline, etc. These taxes are from purchases that are necessary to get to work and back. I agree that everyone should pay something, but saying that a 50k a year earner shouldn't pay isn't wrong. Look at the bigger picture and I can attest that a 50k a year earner, even federal tax exempt, pays more a year in some sort of tax than a 25k earner.

Sorry, disagree. Everyone else is subject to all the other taxes and still has to pay federal taxes. It is wrong to exclude a certain class of people from federal taxes and that includes corporations. A flat tax with no exceptions at all is the answer!!!

Disagree with you on flat tax, Rallyforge... it isn't fair to the either the lower or higher income earners.

Example: 10% 'flat tax' -

Person making $30k/yr pays $3k in taxes & tries to live on $27k

Person making $300k/yr pays $30k in taxes & lives on $270k, yet most likely doesn't use or get access to services like the lower income earners do.

This is a major hit to lower-wage earnings, and a mere annoyance to the wealthier income earners... yet in this example, the higher wage earner carries more of the burden.

Tell me again, how this is 'fair' to EITHER taxpayer? WHY should higher wage earners carry more of the burden for having become more financially successful? We still need a tiered tax structure...

Homie -

We are not guaranteed equal outcomes (or incomes), only opportunities.

Fair and flat are the same when it comes to taxes. Having progressive or regressive rates is NOT fair, either way.

People that pay nothing for services don't appreciate them and come to treat them as a right (see the real world today). People that foot the bill for others, look for ways to keep more of their money (see outsourcing, etc, in real world).

Right now, we have an extremely unbalanced so-called "progressive" rate structure for federal income tax that heavily penalizes income producers. Top 1% pays 38% of the total bill, top 10% pay 70% of the total bill, 46% pay none of the total bill.

Homie, living on 27K is not hard to do.

income tax clown..

She means federal tax. When the kid buys his gum, none of that tax goes to the Feds.

So using your logic the RICH pay more too since the goods they purchase are more expensive and thus earn more in taxes. So why do you think they don't pay enough????

Leeches - slow but deadly drains on society

This woman is ridiculous. Everyone does pay taxes, even a kid pays taxes when he buys a candy bar. What malicious screwed up planet is Michelle Bachman from?

And you're allowed to vote? Very scary indeed!

James - Not everyone pays Federal Income Tax. There is a difference.

Donna, No kidding--but EVERYONE does pay all those other taxes and they are substantial. They are also a much larger percentage of low income family income than all the taxes combined on high income families including their Federal Income Tax.

What we should focus on is the fact that in the richest country in the world those who don't pay Federal taxes don't make enough to do so. If they had to pay they would be even worse off and an even bigger problem for society. The real culprit is wage and salary levels. They have not kept pace with real inflation for about thirty years--result, compensation, especially at the lower levels, is running about 30% lower than it should.

You want a real shot in the arm for the economy?? Raise the minimum wage. Those folks will spend every dime of that money buying goods and services in the good old US of A, business sales will increase and employers will hire, even at the higher minimum wage. Why? Because there is no negative direct cause and effect result---henry Ford learned that when he DOUBLED factory wages in 1919 from $2.50 a day to $5.00 a day. He said at the time, "Now they can afford to buy one of my automobiles" !

Linda-496324 & James. The conversation is about federal income taxes, not local sales and use taxes. They are quite different things and not connected in any way. This conversation is about federal taxes, not stste and local taxes.

That being said, yes, Bachman is an idiot and was history before she even started.

James, by raising the minimum wage, companies will just pass the added cost on to the consumers that buy the products or services. In other words, a hidden tax just passed on to those of us that already support those who enjoy the handouts from our government. True, even the poor will have to pay more for those goods and services, but the 50% of us that actually pay income tax already will see more of what we make taken from us. The Democrats are hoping to buy support from the masses by taking the personal wealth from a small portion of this country to support the rest. If the polling question was, "Do you want the government to raise taxes on James, or do you want them to raise taxes on yourself?", I'll bet the answer will be raise taxes on James. What do liberals ( I don't know whether or not you are one) have against the term personal responsibility? Every citizen in this nation should pay for the privilege of living here.

James,

Come back from outer space when you are ready.

Nobody gets a break from sales tax so that isn't really what we are talking about here.

Regarding your backwards logic on on minimum wage, try looking at history.

Regarding your backwards logic on Ford, the reason everyday Joes could afford his cars is because he brought the price down through mass production. If he wasn't mass producing cars they would have still been thousands of dollars, instead of 200 dollars.

madmax seems threatened by this conservative woman politician. max, the real threat to this nation is the current President and the Democrats in DC who continue to take from the producers to buy votes from the non-producers. I admit I voted for Obama, but it was the biggest voting mistake of my life. Bachman is right when she says every American should pay something, or as President Obama would say, have skin in the game.

JohnLaz,

By 1919 Henry Ford was already well into mass producing Automobiles, in fact, Ford Motor at the time was one of the first truly vertically integrated manufacturing operations in the world. World War 1 had just ended in 1918. Demand was high for cars. He needed workers for his assembly plants at River Rogue, he needed stable dependable workers, he was going to spend money training them, provide company housing etc. To insure they would be attracted to Ford and become loyal and stable he DOUBLED THE STANDARD WAGE OF THE DAY. When questioned about this his comment was, and it was true at the time, "Now they can afford to buy one of my automobiles" No one was ever more conservative than Henry Ford.

Unlike these petty little creeps of today, Henry Ford clearly understood the relationship between wages and sales.

Lanai Kai Ron.

Wages and Prices are two differnet things and not necessarily connected. Prices are set by the competitive market place which is a very big place indeed. Lets take the common Hamburger. Lets say that McD's raises the minimum wage at their shops to 1.4 times the current minimum wage.

here are the considerations:

1) Workers will be attracted to McD's who will have the pick of the bunch, so they will get the better workers, more stable, intelligent, customer oriented, trainable. etc. This is good for McD's.

2) Costly turnover will decrease dramatically, this is a big item. This cost is experienced at the adminisitration end of the business where costs are highest.

3) McD's will determine how much the increase wages are really impacting their bottom line after all the trade offs are effective in their system. This will not have a direct pass through effect, Hamburgers will not go up in price 1.4 times, not even close.

3)Other fast fooders will have to either raise their wages to attract workers or try to compete on price and continue with their now "second rate" work force.

4) McD's will incurr a favorable response from its customers both on a PR basis and at the POS level. This is very good for McD/s, SALES WILL GO UP! How far up depends on how well they manage their brand while doing this. Higher sales yield higher margins ( I think this alone could pay for the increase in wages but I'll let McD's determine that)

5) Finally when a big company does something like this they impact the entire market for low cost labor. Why would I work in MAcy's clothing department for lower wages than I can make at McD's?? So now Macy's has to seriously consider raising their wages too.

6) Lastly if McD's raises the price of their burgers too high the consumer can always go to the market and buy Hamburger to cook at home, this is why I say the "market" is a big place, consumers have other choices that tend to keep prices in check.

We as voters and consumers have got to stop this simplistic thinking, and we cannot continue to let politicians garner our votes or manipulate our actions with such petty and inconsequential ideas and concepts. The world is bigger and more complex than that.

James,

These points sound intelligent, except earlier you were talking about gov raising minimum wage. One company choosing to pay more to get better employees is something totally different.

Linda-496324 - I Agree with you! I have been saying for along time that the other 47% need to pay some sort of Federal Income Tax. I have worked hard for my money and would like to keep more of my money. I raised 3 children - I do not need to help pay for the rest of the Country that Do Not want to Support themselves.

Actually you received help from the rest of the country with child deductions on your income taxes.

So are you one of those who don't want to support themselves and bear the financial obligations of your decisions?

linda, you don't pay for anyone EXCEPT YOURSELF! Get over it.

Larry 2094469 - Stop it with the child deductions comment. At one time long ago we used to have deductions for local sales tax, interest from car payments, interest from credit card bill, etc. There were many many more deductions that us middle class folk had until President Bill Clinton did away with them.

What about the earned income credit - where people just get money back?

I do believe there are enough people in this Country that DO NOT help themselves more than a person like me that had a child deduction for a few years.

now you are talking!!

Amen Lexguy!!!

LexGuy - Now you are talking. I like this!

When the nation was created there were certain requirements to vote, not because the Founders were racist or classist, but because they wanted those that had a vested interest in the nation to guide it with their votes. What does a a person who has no vested interest in the nation's well being vote do? They vote for what is best for themselves, not the nation. And yes, there is a difference.

Poll tax was outlawed years ago!

lexguy, So you think votes should be for sale?? That is exactly what would happen.

Of course under our current system, your vote may not be for sale but the representative you elect is.

It should be more like australia- if you don't vote, you pay extra taxes/penalty.

How about this then @!$%#s who hate the poor so much?

Most of our military is made up of people from income brackets that don't pay federal income taxes. The vast majority of the upper middle class and the rich have NEVER served in the nation's armed forces. You gasbag bitches tell us all here...who the phuck has done more to protect and participate in the vested interest of our nation...someone paying taxes or someone putting their LIFE on the line everyday in defense of this nation,your phucking sorry asses included?

You haven't served in the military then you can't vote. Try THAT on for size pussies.

@GroverOwnedParasites
I LOVE that idea! I'm a NCO in the Army with almost eight years in and more time overseas than in the US. I come from an affluent background with a tradition of military service dating back to the french and indian war(every single male without exception). I believe that an individual should earn their right to vote through service to this nation that way all, whither rich or poor, have a vested interest in our great nation due to their service. Said service does not have to be in the military, look at how many European countries use their national heath care systems with the support of said individuals. Beyond that bring back the CCCP of the 30's (yes I know under the New Deal it was a "socialist" program). Let those that want to EARN their right to vote serve their nation in national defense, the health care system, or through infrastructure improvement programs(CCCP). Those that don't won't lose their civil liberties, but why should they have the right to vote! Almost 50% of americans don't pay federal income taxes and vote based on what is best for them, NOT WHAT IS BEST FOR THE NATION! I currently pay my ENTIRE Army base pay and then some to taxes because of my investments! That being said, I would WILLINGLY pay higher rates IF it were for the betterment of our country. However the majority pay no taxes and vote in line with policies that support PERSONAL gain, not that which is best for the nation. I grew up in LAMORINDA California(look it up) in one of the most affluent communities in the entire US with one of the best school districts! My friends, and their parents will and do vote for what is best for the nation, NOT THEMSELVES! If the american electorate does not follow this trend of what is best for the nation I will bail on the nation that has done so much that is great for me and my family if they betray what is best for the nation via the electorate of the masses!(I'm Jewish and can/will commit to Aliyah, others will just straight BAIL!) The next few years, to include the next election, will decide the future of our great state based on the votes of the masses, or those with a vested interest. Vote as you see fit...

EVERYONE already pays taxes.... sales tax, gas tax, payroll taxes, etc. NOT necessarily income tax.

Your post makes no sense....everyone pays taxes but not necessarily income tax. Why should a certain class pay no federal income tax at all. Some of these people I know go out and have fine vacations with the money they get back every year.

They get money back because they do not claim enough deductions and give the government a 0% loan.

zk -

And what of the EIC?

What? Fabulous EIC funded vacations?

If you are living in poverty or unemployed, then you should NOT have to pay income tax

And you think they are paying anything?? If you income is zero, your tax would be zero. If your income is above zero, you should be paying some income tax.

46% already don't pay federal income tax!! How many more should get this free lunch?

Tell it to the judge.

It is almost impossible to be acquitted of charges of not allowing the government to steal one's money. Sad really. Surrender your money or your freedom. Pure oppression by the government and most people sanction it.

Whats even more insulting is that they take it from the emploer before you even get to touch it. It's "I want your money and I dont trust you to pay it to me".

Plus it is an unconstitutional tax that has been stealing hard working Americas money since it was implemented by Woodrow Wilson. He himself stated this after the Federal Reserve Act was instated

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world — no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." - Woodrow Wilson

But I thought according to our current President the tax cuts and the Republicans are only for the wealthy

Funny how facts and public perception are different.

jollyoldsoul1: While I'm not sure that "welfare" fraud is as widespread countrywide, as you state, I do agree with you regarding that we have an obligation to help the working poor who, due to physical or cognitive reasons, cannot totally support themselves. You seem to reflect some of the views of the Republican party with which I grew up.

And, I agree, that some able-bodies people do feel that they deserve help, even though they have never worked a a day in their lives.

Mary -

Welfare fraud exists in New Orleans as well and is probably evident in every large city. Look at Charlie Rangel - 3 rent-controlled apartments in NYC. These are supposed to be for those who need the financial help, not politicians who make plenty of their own.

So, I would say that welfare fraud has become a way of life for many on the government dole.

Tammy: I realize that welfare fraud exists and exists in every large city. Additionally, as you state, it has become a way of life for many on the government dole. Howver, it is not as widespread as some like to believe and is hardly a driver of the deficit.

This argument assumes the premise, that all have income's sufficient to negotiable amounts of income levy, which from the get go, kills the whole speculative proposition. The poor, and even much of the "labeled' middle class really cannot, without undue burden, pay the taxes they now pay. If one receives compensation, regardless of amount, and/or spends money, regardless of where, or on what, the value is net, and therefore diminished, after taxes, always attached to the transaction. Progressive income tax should be as it purports to be. That is; higher percentages, or amounts, progressively levied as incomes progress to larger amounts. What good is it to levy taxes on incomes insufficient to cost of living, then finangle with the money, turn around and inefficiently distribute it back? In fact, such a scheme only adds more mud to the already rationed water. The politicians are putting the cart before the mule here. Instead of speculating how to add burden to the mules back, they should be looking for ways to gain more mules with which to more evenly distribute and carry the load. How about some appropriate paying jobs, which will yield sorely missing revenues? How about effecting appropriate tax obligations to appropriate income levels?

TBoz: Good thought. Possibly, people paying sales tax creates this sense of ownership and pride, but this is something to think about.

I know people who spend more money on cigarettes than they do in income tax. You are right in saying that even a minimum amount like $100 dollars is nothing compared to some of the habits people spend money on now.

Don't they also get social security beneiffts and medicare payments, but they have still not paid anything towards the rest of the government operations like education, defense, infrastructure and they benefit from those services as well and don't have any skin in the game.

As for taxes, CBO calculates that the top 1 percent paid 27.6 percent of all federal taxes, including:

• 38.8 percent of federal individual income taxes
• 4.0 percent of federal social insurance taxes (Social Security and Medicare)
• 58.6 percent of corporate income taxes (indirectly, through stock ownership)
• 5.5 percent of federal excise taxes (on such things as gasoline, tobacco, alcoholic beverages and telephones.)

I believe they have paid their fair share.

Everybody should pay the same percentage for all types of taxes. The rich should pay more in taxes because they make more money, not because they get taxed at a higher rate.

I agree, Jeff White.....

And don't forget the TAX CREDITS should END for those who have no income, welfare.

The national debt held by the public, which reached $9 trillion by the end of fiscal 2010. In 2010, these interest payments claimed $196 billion, or about 6 percent of the budget.

A flat percentage of income paid in taxes for everyone is NOT fair. Why? Because people don't live by percentages. You take a dime of every dollar from a family of 4 making $20,000 a year, and you do more damage to their buying power than if you took a dime of every dollar from a family of 4 making $80,000. It would only be "fair" if everything people had to pay for was based on a percentage of income and not a raw dollar amount.

Also, I don't know what is considered the 'poverty line' these days, but I doubt that anyone at or below it would be paying taxes, unless you're talking about things like sales taxes, utility taxes, etc. I was "poor" once too (which is a relative term after all, isn't it?) and my income was so low I had ZERO tax liability. I didn't get welfare, but with an infant son and spouse to feed, I had to get food stamps. As soon as my income situation improved I reported it and was no longer eligible for food stamps. I didn't LIVE OFF public subsidies either, but I did accept the HELP until I was able to do better.

I don't think middle class people should be paying 20% of their income in taxes, I don't think rich people should be paying 30% of theirs, that's just too much; and I don't think poor people should pay ANYTHING.