On-Topic 47% of Americans Pay No Federal Income Tax

[HenryReardon]

which indicates “nearly two-thirds of households that paid no income tax paid payroll taxes.”

A totally irrelevant bit of data in this context. Payroll taxes (SS/Medicare deductions) are premiums paid for defined benefits. Nothing to do with taxation in general.

 

[bankside]

Taxation is not theft

When money is taken from you at gunpoint so that it can be given to people who haven't earned it and probably don't deserve it, it is theft, pure and simple.

In my case we just use payroll deduction. It's far more convenient that that gun thing you were talking about.

 

[HenryReardon]

In my case we just use payroll deduction. It's far more convenient that that gun thing you were talking about.

Yes, but: fail to do that and the gun becomes the final argument.

 

[Kulindahr]

So we have three positions here:

Taxation is

a. theft
b. part of a common obligation
c. a 'membership' requirement


These rest on philosophical positions on the nature of humans as individuals and as groups.

 

[JayHawk]

I tried to follow that to see if I need to file this year, and it just went in circles....

This is the link i believe Opi intended to provide. Essentially barring any other form of compensation such as railroad pension or social security then you are required to file if you make over 9500.00 in income.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Do-I-Need-to-File-a-Tax-Return?

 

[bankside]

So we have three positions here:

Taxation is

a. theft
b. part of a common obligation
c. a 'membership' requirement


These rest on philosophical positions on the nature of humans as individuals and as groups.

Right.

There is no concept of theft, or court of law, or statute, that would exist outside one's own head without society having first worked out the details. We wouldn't even be having a conversation in these English words "theft," "law," and so on, without us having inherited a thousand years of English societal concepts. While I'm big on the freedom for an individual to shape his own identity, there is no getting away from society, from the benefits it bestows upon us, or from the obligations that might fall to us in maintaining it.

There is an "I-am-an-island" individualism which sounds very appealing to people who want to pretend society isn't there so they don't have to pay taxes for it. But that doesn't square with reality.

It's kind of a "Where's the foetus going to gestate? You're going to keep it in a box?!" moment. Whatever you might want to believe about society, it's still there. You can't just wish society away.

The "Membership" idea might be particularly appealing to a country settled by those who were told "if you don't like it just leave" and who did just that whilst skipping along to the "new world." The trouble is "terra nullius" was always a dodgy legal concept, and it is certainly out of the question today. There isn't a piece of land left that is not already used by, claimed by, maintained by a society of record. There is nowhere else to be but as part of a society.

A voluntary "membership" notion of citizenship was scarcely workable in the 1700s. It may be revived in the future with the prospect of interplanetary colonisation. However that does not eliminate the problem of social obligation. Whose resources will colonists suggest they use to set up a new society on another planet ?(or to set up a non-society of individual fiefdoms if they prefer.)

They won't take anything off this planet without paying for it, and they will make good on any back taxes owing to the societies before them that invented rocketry, terraforming, the space suit, the printing press, the slide rule, the wheel, the plough, without which their [STRIKE]hopes[/STRIKE] delusions of self reliance would be dashed.

The only choice in that bouquet of ideas about human nature is b.

We all have the equal right to push and pull society in a direction that suits us. But we don't have a right to disregard it or shirk responsibilities toward it. Pay your taxes; vote for people to do sensible things with it instead of going on an anti-society bender.

 

[Benvolio]

Bankside, I am glad that you now agree with Republicans that most people should pay taxes, rejecting the Democrat plan of fewer and fewer paying more and more.

 

[bankside]

Bankside, I am glad that you now agree with Republicans that most people should pay taxes, rejecting the Democrat plan of fewer and fewer paying more and more.

Has Mitt Romney announced his planned tax increases for the middle class and lower-income earners? Or are you announcing it for him?

 

[opinterph]

which indicates “nearly two-thirds of households that paid no income tax paid payroll taxes.”

A totally irrelevant bit of data in this context. Payroll taxes (SS/Medicare deductions) are premiums paid for defined benefits. Nothing to do with taxation in general.

The CBO refers to what you identify as “premiums paid for defined benefits” as “social insurance taxes.” Those taxes are compulsory and are complied as “off-budget” items within the federal budget accounting process.

 

[Kulindahr]

Right.

There is no concept of theft, or court of law, or statute, that would exist outside one's own head without society having first worked out the details. We wouldn't even be having a conversation in these English words "theft," "law," and so on, without us having inherited a thousand years of English societal concepts. While I'm big on the freedom for an individual to shape his own identity, there is no getting away from society, from the benefits it bestows upon us, or from the obligations that might fall to us in maintaining it.

There is an "I-am-an-island" individualism which sounds very appealing to people who want to pretend society isn't there so they don't have to pay taxes for it. But that doesn't square with reality.

The concept of theft exists the moment there are more than two people. It's part and parcel of the obvious understanding that what I've made or earned is mine -- and that rests on the self-evident truth that each person owns himself.

It's kind of a "Where's the foetus going to gestate? You're going to keep it in a box?!" moment. Whatever you might want to believe about society, it's still there. You can't just wish society away.

LOL

The question, though, is what relationship there is between the individual and the society. The mere fact that society exists doesn't give it any claim on the individual; and any authority a society has arises from individuals. So any claim asserted over an individual which violates the individual's rights is null and void.

The "Membership" idea might be particularly appealing to a country settled by those who were told "if you don't like it just leave" and who did just that whilst skipping along to the "new world." The trouble is "terra nullius" was always a dodgy legal concept, and it is certainly out of the question today. There isn't a piece of land left that is not already used by, claimed by, maintained by a society of record. There is nowhere else to be but as part of a society.

Benvolio is essentially using the membership concept -- though he isn't allowing it to be voluntary. If everyone has to pay something in order to participate, that's a membership model.

A voluntary "membership" notion of citizenship was scarcely workable in the 1700s. It may be revived in the future with the prospect of interplanetary colonisation. However that does not eliminate the problem of social obligation. Whose resources will colonists suggest they use to set up a new society on another planet ?(or to set up a non-society of individual fiefdoms if they prefer.)

They won't take anything off this planet without paying for it, and they will make good on any back taxes owing to the societies before them that invented rocketry, terraforming, the space suit, the printing press, the slide rule, the wheel, the plough, without which their [STRIKE]hopes[/STRIKE] delusions of self reliance would be dashed.

The only choice in that bouquet of ideas about human nature is b.

We all have the equal right to push and pull society in a direction that suits us. But we don't have a right to disregard it or shirk responsibilities toward it. Pay your taxes; vote for people to do sensible things with it instead of going on an anti-society bender.

From where do those responsibilities arise? What's the source of this claim on the individual? Is it purely pragmatic? If so, that boils down to "might makes right": because the individual is outnumbered by society, society may make demands.

Bankside, I am glad that you now agree with Republicans that most people should pay taxes, rejecting the Democrat plan of fewer and fewer paying more and more.

Where did he say that?

 

[bankside]

The concept of theft exists the moment there are more than two people. It's part and parcel of the obvious understanding that what I've made or earned is mine -- and that rests on the self-evident truth that each person owns himself.

The concept of "society" exists the moment there are more than two people. What is not so obvious is that the minute you've made something, it is very likely your reliance on the tools provided by society that has allowed you to become prosperous. What is also not so obvious is the boundary between what is yours, and what is society's, and the rightful return that society can expect for its investment. It is certainly not so clear-cut as you would have it. What you earn may be yours, but not all of what you have done, nor what you have come to possess, is what you have earned; society has earned something too.

If you would like to adopt the Thatcher maxim that "there is no society" then fine; it is not society but an investment by a Corporation of the Whole, and it is entitled not by your consent, but by right, to a reasonable return on its investment in your life and your prosperity.

If you don't want to pay society for what it has given you, return your use of the English language, return property law, return technology, return custom and comfort, return all the intangible things you did not invent, and without which your life would be miserable if not impossible; return them to their rightful owners, expunge them from your mind, and then I will say that you owe nothing to society. Until then, you are born with a debt that only grows, to be repaid to the estate of the humans who have gone before you, and their heirs.

 

[Kulindahr]

If you would like to adopt the Thatcher maxim that "there is no society" then fine; it is not society but an investment by a Corporation of the Whole, and it is entitled not by your consent, but by right, to a reasonable return on its investment in your life and your prosperity.

The Corporation of the Whole concept has possibilities. The one weakness is that everyone should have the explicit opportunity to opt in or out -- say, on graduation from high school. Opting in would mean signing onto the Constitution; opting out could mean being required to leave, or becoming something less than a citizen (at which point a "head tax" of non-citizens would be an interesting option).

The whole problem with the old "social contract" business was that no one ever actually signed a contract. The same problem comes along with "societal obligation" notions. But if we made it an actual contract making one a member of the corporation of the whole, the foundation would be solid.

In the present situation that corporation has to assumed to be implicit -- but that's philosophically a lousy foundation.

 

[bankside]

You can call it "social serfdom" if that seems more accurate to you. The trouble with your opt-out provision is it's not clear to me how the 18-year-old graduate repays for the advantages society has already conferred on them.

 

[HenryReardon]

The concept of theft exists the moment there are more than two people. It's part and parcel of the obvious understanding that what I've made or earned is mine -- and that rests on the self-evident truth that each person owns himself.

he question, though, is what relationship there is between the individual and the society. The mere fact that society exists doesn't give it any claim on the individual; and any authority a society has arises from individuals. So any claim asserted over an individual which violates the individual's rights is null and void.



?

If you really believe that you cannot possibly support the Democrats, who seem to think that the individual doesn't count and the group is everything. Look at some of Hillary Clinton's speeches attacking the very idea that the individual matters.

 

[Kulindahr]

You can call it "social serfdom" if that seems more accurate to you. The trouble with your opt-out provision is it's not clear to me how the 18-year-old graduate repays for the advantages society has already conferred on them.

Not being an adult, the new graduate has no obligation to repay: those benefits were conferred without his consent. That is the point at which the individual is deemed ready to enter into a contract with consent; prior to that the contract is a one-way affair, with the "corporation of the whole" providing benefits as an investment.

 

[Kulindahr]

If you really believe that you cannot possibly support the Democrats, who seem to think that the individual doesn't count and the group is everything. Look at some of Hillary Clinton's speeches attacking the very idea that the individual matters.

That's a very warped view of what the Democrats believe, so you ought to be providing citations to back it up. I suspect you can't find anything any worse than what Republicans have said. Neither major party really believes in liberty; they just have different aspects of our liberty that they want to restrict.

 

[HenryReardon]

Take a look at speeches by Hillary Clinton and you'll find plenty of citations.
She's spoken of what she refers to as the "cult of the indiviudal", among other things.

If you have any interest at all in learning the truth, you'll have to work for it just a bit.
Not to mention the fact that you wouldn't believe it if I spoon fed it to you.

 

[opinterph]

Question:

What percentage of federal revenue is derived from federal income tax and how does that compare with the percentage of federal revenue that is derived from payroll taxes?

 

[JayHawk]

I don’t understand how deficit spending “drops the debt.” It seems to me that a revenue surplus would be required to reduce the federal debt. Perhaps you intended to suggest that the Obama Administration has reduced the rate of increase in the federal debt?

Well yes that is what i mean. However if you make less debt you are removing already planned to exist debt. thereby dropping the debt. I see your point of view but the Government will never run actually in the black. it didn't even run in the black when Clinton was President that was merely the projected surplus. It was quickly gobbled up.

 

[JayHawk]

The main points of the Business Insider article appear to indicate:

Most of the 47% are employed and pay payroll taxes; and many of the 47% who are not employed are elderly.

The percentage of persons not paying federal income tax increased after the 1980s, but has decreased since the first year of the Obama Administration.

Tax cuts initiated during the GW Bush Administration and other changes to the tax code, combined with increases in the inequality of income are responsible for much of the increase in the percentage of persons not paying federal income tax.

It would be a good idea to broaden the tax base and that should include a repeal of the Bush tax cuts.​

Question:

What percentage of federal revenue is derived from federal income tax and how does that compare with the percentage of federal revenue that is derived from payroll taxes?

This comes from a Mitt Romney supporter so I wonder the validity but it was what i could find....

This one is from Wiki which could be equally false: