http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html
Quote: from football at 9:47 pm on Nov. 11, 2008 Quote: from PrideAndJoy at 7:51 am on Nov. 11, 2008 Quote: from football at 8:37 pm on Nov. 9, 2008 So I was thinking today about how Obama promised to "lower taxes for 95% of Americans", and it made me ask, "Does that mean less than 5% of Americans don't have to pay taxes?". That number seemed incredibly low to me, so I went online and looked it up. Turns out, as of 2006, about 41% of Americans don't pay any taxes to begin with, so how does Obama propose to cut their taxes? http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html You are wrong when you say 41% of American's don't pay ANY taxes. That's just absurd. Please educate yourself now. And you are stupid when you pretend you thought I meant ALL taxes. We both know that Obama was referring to income tax, and if you had educated yourself, you would have known what I was talking about. "Turns out, as of 2006, about 41% of Americans don't pay any taxes to begin with." Any. Yeah, you only meant income. Fuckhead. Either you are really that dumb or really that smart and attempting to mislead the blind following of the GOP, as did Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.
Quote: from PrideAndJoy at 7:51 am on Nov. 11, 2008 Quote: from football at 8:37 pm on Nov. 9, 2008 So I was thinking today about how Obama promised to "lower taxes for 95% of Americans", and it made me ask, "Does that mean less than 5% of Americans don't have to pay taxes?". That number seemed incredibly low to me, so I went online and looked it up. Turns out, as of 2006, about 41% of Americans don't pay any taxes to begin with, so how does Obama propose to cut their taxes? http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html You are wrong when you say 41% of American's don't pay ANY taxes. That's just absurd. Please educate yourself now. And you are stupid when you pretend you thought I meant ALL taxes. We both know that Obama was referring to income tax, and if you had educated yourself, you would have known what I was talking about.
Quote: from football at 8:37 pm on Nov. 9, 2008 So I was thinking today about how Obama promised to "lower taxes for 95% of Americans", and it made me ask, "Does that mean less than 5% of Americans don't have to pay taxes?". That number seemed incredibly low to me, so I went online and looked it up. Turns out, as of 2006, about 41% of Americans don't pay any taxes to begin with, so how does Obama propose to cut their taxes? http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html You are wrong when you say 41% of American's don't pay ANY taxes. That's just absurd. Please educate yourself now.
So I was thinking today about how Obama promised to "lower taxes for 95% of Americans", and it made me ask, "Does that mean less than 5% of Americans don't have to pay taxes?". That number seemed incredibly low to me, so I went online and looked it up. Turns out, as of 2006, about 41% of Americans don't pay any taxes to begin with, so how does Obama propose to cut their taxes? http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html
You are wrong when you say 41% of American's don't pay ANY taxes. That's just absurd. Please educate yourself now.
And you are stupid when you pretend you thought I meant ALL taxes. We both know that Obama was referring to income tax, and if you had educated yourself, you would have known what I was talking about.
"Turns out, as of 2006, about 41% of Americans don't pay any taxes to begin with."
Any. Yeah, you only meant income. Fuckhead. Either you are really that dumb or really that smart and attempting to mislead the blind following of the GOP, as did Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.
Ok, I will admit that I should have been smarter, remembered that there are morons like you out there, and spelled out exactly what I meant in idiot-proof detail, so they you wouldn't have to figure it out for yourself. Interestingly enough, what I did is no different than what Obama did, in saying one thing while actually meaning something slightly different, and expecting others to figure out the difference, yet when I do it I am a "fuckhead" but when he does that I am also a "fuckhead" for pointing it out.
That 41% number is incorrect. It does not factor in the difference between a payroll and income tax. Furthermore, to even qualify for the impoverished benefits, you have to file an income statement. So theoretically you are paying taxes. "Don't have to pay any taxes" is an indigenous statement in lieu of events. The poor penny up for the property, sales, and gas tax, just like anyone else. If you want to talk about tax breaks, you have only to look at the top income earners.
"Don't have to pay any taxes" is an indigenous statement in lieu of events. The poor penny up for the property, sales, and gas tax, just like anyone else.
If you want to talk about tax breaks, you have only to look at the top income earners.
Property and sales taxes, for the most part, have nothing to do with this argument as they are local (state and lower level) taxes. Obama has no reason to include people who pay those in his rhetoric.
Even though the rich pay into the (so-called) Social Security 'fund', there is a 'means' test for receiving that money back. Which, in that sense I guess, does make it a 'tax' for them.
TAX FOUNDATION FIGURES DO NOT REPRESENT MIDDLE-INCOME TAX BURDENS Figures May Mislead Policymakers, Journalists, and the Public
Greenspan Warns Against Seriously Flawed Approach Tax Foundation Uses In a 2002 Congressional hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned that the type of approach the Tax Foundation uses — dividing total tax receipts by the Gross Domestic Product (or a similar measure), to determine the overall average tax rate (i.e., to determine the percentage of total income in the nation that is paid in taxes) — is simply not valid. Greenspan flatly stated: "you can't use tax receipts over nominal GDP as a tax rate." Chairman Greenspan explained one reason that such an approach is improper: although capital gains taxes are counted as part of federal tax receipts, the capital gains income on which such taxes are paid is not counted in GDP. The Tax Foundation uses a closely related Commerce Department income measure — NNP, or Net National Product — that also omits capital gains income. Counting capital gains taxes as part of tax receipts, while failing to count as income the very capital gains income on which these taxes are paid, distorts — and inflates — average tax rates.
In a 2002 Congressional hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned that the type of approach the Tax Foundation uses — dividing total tax receipts by the Gross Domestic Product (or a similar measure), to determine the overall average tax rate (i.e., to determine the percentage of total income in the nation that is paid in taxes) — is simply not valid. Greenspan flatly stated: "you can't use tax receipts over nominal GDP as a tax rate."
Chairman Greenspan explained one reason that such an approach is improper: although capital gains taxes are counted as part of federal tax receipts, the capital gains income on which such taxes are paid is not counted in GDP. The Tax Foundation uses a closely related Commerce Department income measure — NNP, or Net National Product — that also omits capital gains income. Counting capital gains taxes as part of tax receipts, while failing to count as income the very capital gains income on which these taxes are paid, distorts — and inflates — average tax rates.
Two-Thirds of Tax Units Pay More Payroll Tax Than Income Tax April 15 is synonymous with taxes in the United States, but most Americans actually pay more payroll taxes than federal income taxes. In 2006 workers and employers each paid 6.2 percent Social Security tax on the first $94,200 of earnings and 1.45 percent Medicare tax on all wages. While the statutory obligation to pay payroll taxes is split evenly between workers and employers, most economists believe that the employer tax usually translates into lower wages, so workers bear the full burden of the tax. Thus, the total payroll tax rate equals 15.3 percent of earnings for most workers. About two-thirds of taxpayers owed more payroll taxes (including the employer portion) than individual income taxes in 2006. Many households (including most retirees) do not have any wage income and thus pay no payroll tax. Among households with wage earners, 86 percent have higher payroll taxes than income taxes, including almost all of those with incomes less than $40,000 and 94 percent of those with incomes less than $100,000. If only the employee portion of payroll taxes is considered, 44 percent of taxpayers and 56 percent of wage earners pay more payroll tax than income tax, including nearly 80 percent of earners with incomes less than $50,000. The payroll tax is very regressive with respect to current income: The average tax rate falls as income rises. The income tax, in contrast, is progressive. The regressivity of the payroll tax is mitigated to a substantial extent when Social Security and Medicare benefits are considered as well (not shown).
About two-thirds of taxpayers owed more payroll taxes (including the employer portion) than individual income taxes in 2006. Many households (including most retirees) do not have any wage income and thus pay no payroll tax. Among households with wage earners, 86 percent have higher payroll taxes than income taxes, including almost all of those with incomes less than $40,000 and 94 percent of those with incomes less than $100,000. If only the employee portion of payroll taxes is considered, 44 percent of taxpayers and 56 percent of wage earners pay more payroll tax than income tax, including nearly 80 percent of earners with incomes less than $50,000.
The payroll tax is very regressive with respect to current income: The average tax rate falls as income rises. The income tax, in contrast, is progressive. The regressivity of the payroll tax is mitigated to a substantial extent when Social Security and Medicare benefits are considered as well (not shown).
http://www.urban.org/publications/1001065.html
Quote: from football at 8:37 pm on Nov. 9, 2008 So I was thinking today about how Obama promised to "lower taxes for 95% of Americans", and it made me ask, "Does that mean less than 5% of Americans don't have to pay taxes?". That number seemed incredibly low to me, so I went online and looked it up. Turns out, as of 2006, about 41% of Americans don't pay any taxes to begin with, so how does Obama propose to cut their taxes? http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html That 41% number is incorrect. It does not factor in the difference between a payroll and income tax. Furthermore, to even qualify for the impoverished benefits, you have to file an income statement. So theoretically you are paying taxes. "Don't have to pay any taxes" is an indigenous statement in lieu of events. The poor penny up for the property, sales, and gas tax, just like anyone else. If you want to talk about tax breaks, you have only to look at the top income earners.
That 41% number is incorrect. It does not factor in the difference between a payroll and income tax. Furthermore, to even qualify for the impoverished benefits, you have to file an income statement. So theoretically you are paying taxes.
Did you even look at the link? Payroll taxes have nothing to do with it, that is tax that companies pay for the money they pay their employees. 41% of Americans don't pay income taxes. Are you trying to say that Obama is going to make sales and property taxes become something that is based off of your income too now? That is ridiculous, and would never happen.
his plan means that 95% of tax-payers get tax cuts. If you make under 250k a year you get a tax cut.
I don't think it's that simple, taxes rarely are, lol. But I'm not sure how they work, myself.
Again, HE never said that. You can't just put words into his mouth to make what he said make sense. If that is what he meant he either should have said that, or done the simple math to find out what 95% of taxpayers was, and said that. By the way 95% of taxpayers is 56% of Americans, see how easy that was? But saying he will lower taxes for 56% of Americans doesn't sound nearly as nice as 95% does it? Just saying...
hes going to lower taxes for 95% of WORKING americans, meaning they pay taxes.
For one thing he never said that, and secondly, most of those 41% do work, but don't owe taxes because of various deductions.
592 users online 
223155 members 811 active today Advertise Here
592 users online 223155 members 811 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
