Jump to content
Paulding.com

Where the 47% Live?


Recommended Posts

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/where-the-47-percent-live.html

 

 

2. Georgia

Total Returns: 4,589,611

Returns With Income Tax Liability: 2,639,561

Returns With No Income Tax Liability: 1,950,050

Nonpayers: 42.5%

 

Georgia is home to nearly 2 million households that pay no income tax. This puts it near the top of the list of states where the 47 percent reside.

 

“Georgia is number two for returns with no taxable income,” Kasprak said. “It’s also fourth for returns receiving the refundable child tax credit.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://finance.yahoo...rcent-live.html

 

 

2. Georgia

Total Returns: 4,589,611

Returns With Income Tax Liability: 2,639,561

Returns With No Income Tax Liability: 1,950,050

Nonpayers: 42.5%

 

Georgia is home to nearly 2 million households that pay no income tax. This puts it near the top of the list of states where the 47 percent reside.

 

"Georgia is number two for returns with no taxable income," Kasprak said. "It's also fourth for returns receiving the refundable child tax credit."

 

 

I don't pay any Federal Tax, but Georgia charges the heck out of me in taxes. I though mostly Republicans represented this state.

 

 

Oh, wait, it's Obama's fault down here. drinks.gif

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you take a home owner income tax deduction? If yes, you are part of the 47% (do some reading as this is a big part)

 

The thing that irks me the most is those that get a earned income credit..... Like they need to get a bonus for working and a lot get thousands of dollars and most don't pay a dime in taxes.

 

This is one of the biggest rip offs beside the free cell phone crap.

 

 

I pay Federal, State FICA ETC Etc. Maybe I can get a t-shirt saying I am one of the 53%

 

i-am-the-53-percent-t-shirt.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most retired people don't pay Federal Income tax, students usually don't pay income tax and the disabled don't pay income tax. Which one of those groups would like to start taxing ?

 

All of them if they have income from a job.

Edited by cptlo306
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Most retired people don't pay Federal Income tax, students usually don't pay income tax and the disabled don't pay income tax. Which one of those groups would like to start taxing ?

 

 

We are retired and we pay Federal Income tax. I worked with someone who had paid only 420 dollars in federal taxes one year but, because she had two sons one 15 and the other 16, she recived 4200 dollars back in her refund because of the child tax credit. If you do not pay it in you should not get it back. If you pay not taxes you should not get any refund of any kind.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We are retired and we pay Federal Income tax. I worked with someone who had paid only 420 dollars in federal taxes one year but, because she had two sons one 15 and the other 16, she recived 4200 dollars back in her refund because of the child tax credit. If you do not pay it in you should not get it back. If you pay not taxes you should not get any refund of any kind.

 

:clapping:

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are retired and we pay Federal Income tax. I worked with someone who had paid only 420 dollars in federal taxes one year but, because she had two sons one 15 and the other 16, she recived 4200 dollars back in her refund because of the child tax credit. If you do not pay it in you should not get it back. If you pay not taxes you should not get any refund of any kind.

 

 

This was a Repubican idea, embraced by both parties, as an alternative to raising minimum wage which, Republicans feared, would raise unemployment rates. The same can be said of Dubya's doubling of the child tax credit, another big tax break that increased the number of individuals who, in effect, pay no federal income tax.

 

We might as well all go ahead and get ready to bend over...no matter how much the GOP says they won't accept a dime of tax increases or how much the dems howl that they only want to raise taxes on the wealthy, we're going to have to inevitably raise taxes on everyone. Whether that comes in the form of a true rate increase, eliminating popular credits and deductions, or a combination of both, it's coming.

 

mrnn

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a Repubican idea, embraced by both parties, as an alternative to raising minimum wage which, Republicans feared, would raise unemployment rates. The same can be said of Dubya's doubling of the child tax credit, another big tax break that increased the number of individuals who, in effect, pay no federal income tax.

 

We might as well all go ahead and get ready to bend over...no matter how much the GOP says they won't accept a dime of tax increases or how much the dems howl that they only want to raise taxes on the wealthy, we're going to have to inevitably raise taxes on everyone. Whether that comes in the form of a true rate increase, eliminating popular credits and deductions, or a combination of both, it's coming.

 

mrnn

 

Don't go confusing them.

 

They love Reagan until his ideas get in the way of their agenda, and then they blame those Reagan ideas on "liberals."

 

Then Why not just tax goods and services instead of income?

 

Because that would mean the poorest would pay a highert percentage of their income in taxes compared to the wealthy. A $10 tax on clothing hits those who make $30,000 with 2 kids a lot harder than it does someone who makes $200,000 and no kids.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because that would mean the poorest would pay a highert percentage of their income in taxes compared to the wealthy. A $10 tax on clothing hits those who make $30,000 with 2 kids a lot harder than it does someone who makes $200,000 and no kids.

 

That's a lame argument. In most cases, someone making $200K is going to pay much more in taxes because they are going to spend more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." ~ The Chief Author of our Declaration of Independence

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? So how do they live? What do they eat? How do they clothe themselves? Get school supplies for the kids? Get household appliances?

Under fair tax proposals as well as other proposed tax plans, used consumer goods are not taxed, and necessities such as groceries are minimally taxed if at all. So goodwill or secondhand stores would be exempt from consumption taxes. The consumption tax would only apply to new goods and services. So In other words, people with higher incomes that would most likely be purchasing more new goods and services would be paying more consumption tax.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not to mention you can also buy from the Amish. They make great stuff. Would also inspire folks to learn to knit and crotchet and stitch and sew...of course there would be a tax on the string, yarn, cloth, and buttons....but it would cost less than buying the clothes outright. This would cut down on child labor in foreign countries, so one would imagine that this would be a great thing if you support human rights and a higher quality of life in countries where child labor is exploited. This would also increase business to places like goodwill which is a purely American institution keeping more of our money at home via the increased jobs with them it would create. Repairmen would also see an increase in business and hire more help due to people trying to keep older appliances running rather than buying new ones at the drop of a hat. Just food for thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They could grow their own food. And under some consumption tax plans, there are no taxes on used goods.

And this would be the piece of the equation everyone leaves out. So we cut out the subsidy to low wage earners. They will find a way to feed themselves some how, not! We are a cash society,we live on small lots or even in apartments. We do not have enough land to support growing enough food to be totally dependent on, the poor can't even afford the tools if they did want to try. In this cash society a person does not even have access to free clean drinking water.

 

I won't be like the depression where many still lived rural enough to survive on gardens and chickens.

It will be stealing and rioting, then your tax money will go to pay for prisons.

 

There is too much air in this tire and the pressure is rising, it is going to blow sooner or later.

We are being convinced that there is not enough to go around by those that want to gain politically.

The consequences of buying in to this have the potential to be disastrous on a very large scale.

 

There is more than enough resources and money than you can imagine, there is no shortage period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is forcing you to express your opinion, but I see you most need to do it, even if what you say is ridiculous NB!pardon.gif

And what's your excuse HA...?

 

Really? So how do they live? What do they eat? How do they clothe themselves? Get school supplies for the kids? Get household appliances?

 

 

Get on their Guberment provided Laptop, or their Guberment provided cell phone and call ZC..... 8)

Edited by gonefromhere
Link to post
Share on other sites

We are retired and we pay Federal Income tax. I worked with someone who had paid only 420 dollars in federal taxes one year but, because she had two sons one 15 and the other 16, she recived 4200 dollars back in her refund because of the child tax credit. If you do not pay it in you should not get it back. If you pay not taxes you should not get any refund of any kind.

 

The child tax credit is $1000 per child, so that should only be $2000. Where did the other $2200 come from? Also, if you worked with her then how was the federal not being withheld from her pay? If someone doesn't pay federal income tax because they're unemployed but still have kids, they don't deserve their child tax credit? I was a single mom, going to nursing school full-time, working part-time, so I didn't pay very much in federal income tax but you can be dang sure I got my $1000 child tax credit. I still had to feed and clothe him and put him in daycare and after school care. I wasn't working full-time because I was bettering myself for me and my son. You're saying I didn't deserve my refund? The job I had wouldn't support the two of us financially and I didn't want government assistance. I tried Medicaid while I was in nursing school just in case I needed medical care but was denied (my son was approved for Wellcare, but that is only for primary care--no specialists because they don't cover "sick" visits, hence the "well" in Wellcare). As soon as my health insurance kicked in with my new job I dropped the Wellcare and the only reason I kept it after graduating nursing school and waiting for work is to avoid the coverage gap which would have led to pre-existing coverage denials. True, there are some that abuse the system, but those that are actually doing something shouldn't be punished by having their money withheld.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The child tax credit is $1000 per child, so that should only be $2000. Where did the other $2200 come from? Also, if you worked with her then how was the federal not being withheld from her pay? If someone doesn't pay federal income tax because they're unemployed but still have kids, they don't deserve their child tax credit? I was a single mom, going to nursing school full-time, working part-time, so I didn't pay very much in federal income tax but you can be dang sure I got my $1000 child tax credit. I still had to feed and clothe him and put him in daycare and after school care. I wasn't working full-time because I was bettering myself for me and my son. You're saying I didn't deserve my refund? The job I had wouldn't support the two of us financially and I didn't want government assistance. I tried Medicaid while I was in nursing school just in case I needed medical care but was denied (my son was approved for Wellcare, but that is only for primary care--no specialists because they don't cover "sick" visits, hence the "well" in Wellcare). As soon as my health insurance kicked in with my new job I dropped the Wellcare and the only reason I kept it after graduating nursing school and waiting for work is to avoid the coverage gap which would have led to pre-existing coverage denials. True, there are some that abuse the system, but those that are actually doing something shouldn't be punished by having their money withheld.

 

That is just FLAT OUT WRONG. My kids were both on Wellcare. My daughters both went to well and sick visits. My youngest daughter also needed to be see by a pediatric cardiologist and a pediatric neurosurgeon. I paid $0 out of pocket for any medical treatment that either one of them received. HOWEVER, that is where I find fault in Medicaid. My kids qualified while my husband was out of work, we weren't POOR, but my job didn't offer insurance, and we couldn't afford medical coverage. However, we could have paid a co-pay or something towards their medical care, and would have done it gladly. Maybe we should look into making it a sliding scale instead of all or nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was denied Medicaid because I "made too much" as a single mom waiting tables two nights a week. I've worked in different medical offices (specialists) and Wellcare is the one Medicaid plan not accepted because they won't pay. I don't know if CHOA is the exception to the rule, but the ENT and allergy/asthma clinic I worked at both couldn't accept Wellcare because it's for well visits. That's great that you found specialists that could take it, most can't. I agree that it should be on a sliding scale and some do have a small $2.00 copay. Hope your kids are doing well now--my baby had to see a pediatric cardiologist and have an EKG and echo to check a heart murmur (fortunately it's benign) but that was pretty scary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is just FLAT OUT WRONG. My kids were both on Wellcare. My daughters both went to well and sick visits. My youngest daughter also needed to be see by a pediatric cardiologist and a pediatric neurosurgeon. I paid $0 out of pocket for any medical treatment that either one of them received. HOWEVER, that is where I find fault in Medicaid. My kids qualified while my husband was out of work, we weren't POOR, but my job didn't offer insurance, and we couldn't afford medical coverage. However, we could have paid a co-pay or something towards their medical care, and would have done it gladly. Maybe we should look into making it a sliding scale instead of all or nothing.

I ran into the same thing, there are billions of dollars out there for healthcare that nobody will touch.

Many people could pay some type of premium or something towards a doctor visit. If they can't have every penny they are asking for then they turn it down flat.

 

If we would allow the working poor to pay at least 25 a week towards care, the taxpayers would not be stuck with the entire bill. The way it stands now if you have 25 a week to pay you are making too much to get assistance for medical.

It does not sound like much until you add up the numbers on the 40% more or less that will now be able to contribute. We will save billions of dollars by spending millions on early diagnosis instead of people ending up in the hospital with critical conditions that could have been easily and inexpensively taken care of by the GP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was denied Medicaid because I "made too much" as a single mom waiting tables two nights a week. I've worked in different medical offices (specialists) and Wellcare is the one Medicaid plan not accepted because they won't pay. I don't know if CHOA is the exception to the rule, but the ENT and allergy/asthma clinic I worked at both couldn't accept Wellcare because it's for well visits. That's great that you found specialists that could take it, most can't. I agree that it should be on a sliding scale and some do have a small $2.00 copay. Hope your kids are doing well now--my baby had to see a pediatric cardiologist and have an EKG and echo to check a heart murmur (fortunately it's benign) but that was pretty scary.

 

When my oldest was first on Wellcare the took it at all the Wellstars, but they no longer do. We had to drive to Villa Rica to go to find a doctor that accepted it. And we used CHOA specialists. We were very lucky to have that, thankfully there was nothing seriously wrong with our youngest. She had a head misshape, but at almost 6 months it's corrected itself. With her heart she has a Supravalvar pulmonary stenosis, but it's a mild case. It was very reassuring to have healthcare coverage for the kids when we couldn't provide it. Luckily my husband now has a job with insurance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not to mention you can also buy from the Amish. They make great stuff. Would also inspire folks to learn to knit and crotchet and stitch and sew...of course there would be a tax on the string, yarn, cloth, and buttons....but it would cost less than buying the clothes outright. This would cut down on child labor in foreign countries, so one would imagine that this would be a great thing if you support human rights and a higher quality of life in countries where child labor is exploited. This would also increase business to places like goodwill which is a purely American institution keeping more of our money at home via the increased jobs with them it would create. Repairmen would also see an increase in business and hire more help due to people trying to keep older appliances running rather than buying new ones at the drop of a hat. Just food for thought.

 

 

Yeah, what's saved in sales tax could be spent instead on shipping that great stuff the Amish make.

 

Why not just roll back the clock a hundred years or so, abandon all this fancy technology and live off the land - although many people who can't afford to pay increased sales tax probably can't afford to buy a home with land, either.

 

As for keeping appliances and the like running, most of the stuff sold today isn't worth the cost to repair, if parts are even available.

 

Many of the problems, both economic and otherwise, we face in this country are a result of politicians ignoring the critical issues or opting for the easiest, quickest solution based on what plays best for them come election time or is the most profitable for their corporate "citizen" constituents ($$$$$$ supporters) and can't/won't be addressed unless and until major changes take place.

 

Since those changes would require effort, selflessness and cooperation as well as concern for the well-being of the population as a whole by politicians and citizens alike, I just don't see it happening. Not in my lifetime, anyway.

 

Personally, I think our apparent goal of avoiding as much labor-intensive work as possible by creating machines to do it for us is a major source of many of our ills...but that's another matter entirely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then Why not just tax goods and services instead of income?

 

A consumption tax is a good idea if you're young and working but for those that are retired and getting by on S.S and their life savings, which by the way have already been taxed, a new 28% sales tax would be a harsh and unfair burden. This would be on top of the 7% sales tax we are now already paying so it would be asking people on a fixed income to pay a 35% tax on groceries, utilities and prescriptions.

Simply saying these people are not forced to by consumer goods seems a little naive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A consumption tax is a good idea if you're young and working but for those that are retired and getting by on S.S and their life savings, which by the way have already been taxed, a new 28% sales tax would be a harsh and unfair burden. This would be on top of the 7% sales tax we are now already paying so it would be asking people on a fixed income to pay a 35% tax on groceries, utilities and prescriptions.

Simply saying these people are not forced to by consumer goods seems a little naive.

The monthly prebate (Fair Tax benefit) basically reimburses those people (retired and getting by on S.S).

Link to post
Share on other sites

A consumption tax is a good idea if you're young and working but for those that are retired and getting by on S.S and their life savings, which by the way have already been taxed, a new 28% sales tax would be a harsh and unfair burden. This would be on top of the 7% sales tax we are now already paying so it would be asking people on a fixed income to pay a 35% tax on groceries, utilities and prescriptions.

Simply saying these people are not forced to by consumer goods seems a little naive.

 

You have NO understanding of The Fair Tax.

 

I don't believe the Fair Tax is the answer, but it's a good start.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have NO understanding of The Fair Tax.

 

I don't believe the Fair Tax is the answer, but it's a good start.

Papi, you are right. For Fair Tax to work the Government needs to stop out of control government spending on pork barrel projects. Clark Howard pointed this out. We hand over a good idea to the Government and it goes sour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...