We talked yesterday about Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-Ohio), who likes the idea of raising federal income taxes on those who currently pay nothing, to ensure that low-income families have some "skin in the game." It turns out, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) is thinking along the same lines.
For those who can't watch clips online, Travis Waldron published a transcript of the relevant portion:
"We also know that over 45 percent of the people in this country don't pay income taxes at all, and we have to question whether that's fair.... I'm saying that, just in a macro way of looking at it, you've got to discuss that issue.... I've never believed that you go raise taxes on those that have been successful that are paying in, taking away from them, so that you just hand out and give to someone else."
Remember, millions of Americans may be exempt from income taxes, but they still pay sales taxes, state taxes, local taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare/Medicaid taxes, and in many instances, property taxes. It's not as if these folks are getting away with something -- the existing tax structure leaves them out of the income tax system because they don't make enough money to qualify. Indeed, many are retirees who can't earn an income because they're no longer in the workforce.
But for Cantor, this isn't "fair" -- if wealthier people are paying federal income taxes, then everyone should pay federal income taxes.
Of course, to make that happen, Cantor would necessarily have to endorse a higher tax burden on those least able to afford it. For the House Majority Leader, policymakers should "discuss" doing just that.
In the coming months, it'd be worthwhile to get other Republicans on the record on this. In recent months, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann have all said they'd like to see those who aren't paying federal income taxes start contributing more. Now, Eric Cantor is expressing a similar sentiment.
This appears to be a new, fairly standard position for the GOP mainstream, but are all Republican congressional candidates on board with this? I suspect there are millions of American voters who may want an answer before Election Day 2012.
Leave a Comment:
And how many of the 45% are the poor picked on filthy rich? And do they count the "people" corporations that rarely pay anything?
some 443,000, or 0.6 percent of the total, are in the top quintile. there are 78,000 non-paying units in the top 95th to 99th income percentile, 24,000 in the top 1 percentile, and 3,000 in the top tenth of a percentile.
I saw a report yesterday that state and local taxes are levied on the POOR more than on the wealthy. So although they don't qualify to pay FEDERAL taxes, the burden of state/local falls on THEM. So in REALITY spending every dime of our salaries to LIVE actually contributes MORE to the economy than the WEALTHY do. I forgot to add I really am disgusted at these sanctimonious aholes that continue to LIE to the voter as they rake in money for doing it...
Funny that, huh ??
Here in Fresno, there are hundreds of businesses that have fallen behind on their local taxes. The city makes almost zero effort to collect. Some of these businesses haven't paid taxes (local only) for several years. In a budget cut, the tax collection department even lost staff.
In contrast, if a poor person can't pay a bill, justice is swift and harsh. Fines and 'time'-- for pennies.
Oh, did I mention that Fresno is nearly broke and has dramatically reduced city services... except police. Go figure....
What you are describing is similar to what is happening in Greece where wide spread non-payment of taxes is the central problem in an otherwise prosperous country.
Wow, the GOP should in reality be dying of self-inflicted wounds but, we have a completely mentally retarded and self-centered electorate in the US thus they have a shot at anything.. Still, I have to believe in miracles, right Jesus? (/snark)
Love the Bank of America plug behind dip@!$%#..
Apparently Fox News has pushed this idea for months and months. Since the Fox News base is on board and they are convinced they are the only real Americans the idea has broad wingnut support.
So they expect retirees who are living on a fixed income and HAVE ALREADY PAID INCOME TAXES on their retirement to pay again? Yeah, that will go over well with AARP. Makes me ashamed to be from Ohio--though that's been sort of constant since Boehner became Speaker.
Exactly. But people aren't listening to you.
I was thinking along the same lines. There are a lot of retired people, children and the unemployed so they do not pay income tax exceppt retirees that have a pension plan and investments. Once you eliminate these people then we have a real look at how many people do not pay income tax. I suspect a lot of the working poor do not have enough income to tax. All these numbers are relevant to the argument along with the percentage of income that goes to the different income groups. Fairness is not a simple number of how many pay.
Why do people who aren't super-rich vote for Republicans? Anyone with a brain would know that if you're not a rich fatcat or a lobbyist, the Republicans just aren't that into you.
It is amazing, I'm no longer young & have ask that question for years. I have never heard a satisfactory answer. Having a blantenly partisan court is so wrong & so far from what the founders had intended might possibly open discussion & more important, eyes.
But anyone who isn't a Republican is one of those latte-drinking arugula-eating elitists. Not a Real American like them. You know, faded jeans and a beat-up hat, driving a pickup truck instead of a Volvo like those east-coast nose-in-the-air types. Someone who goes fishing and hunting.
People like Charles Koch, not like Rachel Maddow.
Pretty soon they'll want our first borns. Democrats need to get a very big backbone and start calling these morons out in PLAIN ENGLISH.
The GOP is making the case that the poor and jobless are the problem, caused the problem and now need to pay for the problem. Now I know how Alice felt when she fell down that rabbit hole.
The thing I never see discussed is the fact that the reason a person's taxable income falls to zero is because they've taken the standard deduction (assuming they don't itemize) and the personal exemption for their family. These are the same tools available to millionaires, it's just that after deductions (which they do itemize) and exemptions, their taxable income is over $1.
People not paying taxes and millionaires are playing by the same rules - why is that a problem?
also, between 2000 and 2008 the percentage of filers who paid no federal income tax rose from 25.2 percent to 36.3 percent. most of that increase was due to the child tax credit.
So where's Grover Nyquist complaining that the Republicans are not standing behind the no tax pledge that they signed?
yep. My thought exactly.
Using an analogy, assuming the GOP see themselves as the brain, it is still necessary to feed the body (us) or the brain will die as well. Who do these rich morons believe will use their products and services if no one can afford them? When we are all in a privatized debtors' prison, who will be the tax base to pay for these prisons?
actually, they'll just have the fed print up more money.
The thing I never see discussed is the fact that anyone not paying federal taxes has taken the standard or itemized deduction and the personal exemptions for their family. If this brings their taxable income below $1, they have no liability. People paying taxes do the same thing - take deductions and exemptions. It's just that their taxable income is over $1.
Both groups playing by the same rules - what's the problem?
Apparently payroll taxes don't count as income tax either.
Because these people are idiots and do not realize that the payroll tax was created as a compromise w/ the federal income tax. The deal is you take federal taxes out of their working salary and that way they do not have to pay into the federal income tax system. If they are going to introduce federal income taxes on 47% of Americans who are currently paying federal payroll taxes then they need to remove the federal payroll tax since that's why it was initially established in the first damn place.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505
I want you to especially look at this tagline:
Can you possibly be serious? I happen to still have this year's tax forms close by, and I'm also capable of basic arithmetic. If you've got a married couple with 5 kids, then the standard deduction plus exemptions come to $37,500. So to be exempt from federal income taxes, a family of 7 can make no more than $37,500 a year. Is that your idea of a majestic sum for a family of seven to live on?
And that's the highest number you can come up with. A single mother of three can make no more than $19,600. And so on.
So here is one important and meaningful distinction between these two groups: whether they'll even notice the tax increase. On the one hand you've got affluent people bitching and screaming about tax increases they would never even know about if they never talked to their accountants.
And on the other hand you've got a married couple who have to feed, clothe, house, and provide medical car for themselves and their five kids on $3125 a month.
Who should be willing to pay more? Are you kidding me?
This makes me think of the Monty Python song Dennis Moore
"He steals from the poor and gives to the rich...stupid bitch!
If heartless cruel obnoxiousness had a smell, you wouldn't be able to get within a state of two of Cantor in particular and Republicans in general.
So it's ok that the poor add their "skin in the game" but those who have no health insurance don't put their "skin in the (insurance) game" that Republican's demanded just a few short years ago before they flip-flopped when the Democrats came on board?
Of course it isn't fair that a great many people don't make enough to pay taxes on! But squeezing blood from turnips isn't the answer. Maybe if they made more (hint: raise the minimum wage), they would have something to tax. It has been the dream since the inception of government to tax the poor (there are so many of them) but I can't recall it ever having worked.
Willie Sutton.
"We also know that over 45 percent of the people in this country don't pay income taxes at all, and we have to question whether that's fair...."
Yes! It is!
...Any other questions Mr. Cantor??
Two problems:
1. As what eye thynk said, retired people trying to make it on social security can't afford to pay taxes on the piddly amount they get.
2. If you institute taxes on the first $5000 of income in order to get those "freeloaders", then everyone is going to get a tax increase. As it is now, no one is paying taxes on the same income that the 47% aren't paying on. If you tax their income, then those who are already paying on their excess, will pay increased taxes, too.
Can someone explain to me what the subtle difference is between a hand up and a hand out?
Seriously? I get so sick and tired of bumper sticker slogans it drives me nuts
PS- Cantor is aware that if he raises taxes on the poor it will inevitably raise taxes on everyone else, yes?
Sorry, Mouzer, but even I can think of several ways to hit the poor but not anyone higher up -- and I'm not a professional scum-sucking legislative mechanic.
To name just one: limit the standard deduction (etc.) to at most half of your AGI. Doesn't affect anyone above the median income, but really reams the poorest.
That's removing a deduction. I'm talking about increasing taxes. Unless your interpretation of Cantor's language was that he's solely proposing we remove deductions that will mostly target the poor?
I was hearing his statement as saying that he wants to lower the income tax threshold so that people making less than 20k/yr have to contribute to the pool beyond the federal taxes they already pay.
Maybe I heard what I wanted to hear? o.O
kj;ljksdkfjsd damn bubblegum error. Sorry ignore this second post.
Mouzer, it's a Norquistian world. Dropping a deduction is raising taxes.
However, it would also be easy to raise rates and then hand out an itemized deduction for a percentage of AGI. Thousands of ways to get the same result.
Well I realize the net effect would be higher taxes...but it's somewhat splitting hairs. When I hear 'raise taxes' I interpret this as stating that the rate is going to increase. When I hear 'remove deductions' I interpret this as simply not allowing you to avoid paying that rate.
But I suppose you are correct that I was debating semantics versus net effect.
Touche ;-)
There should not even be a discussion over this tax issue. Everyone should pay something toward the running of government. States and cities do it through a combination of sales, income and property taxes. Everyone should pay to support the federal government through an income tax. Simplify the tax code, eliminate all credits and deductions, and assess graduated rates based on income. Then, government doesn't have to make value judgments. FICA and Medicare taxes help pay for future entitlements. College, child care, etc. are not entitlements and tax payers should not have to support.
Everyone should pay something toward the running of government.
Oh, absolutely. For instance:
You mean he's also going to tax all those corporations that aren't paying any taxes too? They're people, you know, and should also have some 'skin'.
Make no mistake. The charlatans, aka Republicans, are out to kill the EITC for the poor and needy working class citizens who are near poverty.
"EITC, the Earned Income Tax Credit, sometimes called EIC is a tax credit to help you keep more of what you earned. It is a refundable federal income tax credit for low to moderate income working individuals and families. Congress originally approved the tax credit legislation in 1975 in part to offset the burden of social security taxes and to provide an incentive to work. When EITC exceeds the amount of taxes owed, it results in a tax refund to those who claim and qualify for the credit.
To qualify, you must meet certain requirements and file a tax return, even if you do not owe any tax or are not required to file."
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96406,00.html
As the repooplicans want mothers of 2 year old children to work for their benefits,, should not they want estate taxes raised to where the children of the rich won't inherit more than $50,000? So that they too can achieve some dignity by having to work... (Talking to your stock broker once a year does not make you a great money manager.)
For the first time I actually fall into Cantor's 45% who don't pay taxes when I filed this year. I'm retireed now and my property taxes and a few other tax deductions enabled me not to pay any additional taxes on my returns. I'm glad the tax code allows for property and other tax deductions or we'd be paying double on them and maybe that's what the GOP want us to do?? I do like LuzCanN's suggestion of giving the rich kids some extra "dignity of work" by restricting their inheritances to $50,000. Afterall, the GOP should agree that the inheritance $ should help finance the national debt.