> Einstein wrote:
>
>51% of the nation does not pay taxes

You've said this twice now within 24 hours of your having claimed that even a pauper making only $1000/mo pays a 23% tax rate.

Which is it?  You can't have it both ways.

politics in the name of a nation is so old fashioned. start to think globally, vote for Pirates!

> Justinian I wrote:
>
> Hawaii,
>
>Although a low income earner may pay 23% in taxes, 51% of the population receives their taxes back after deductions.

No, that's false, as Flint himself brought up just the other day.

51% of the population pays no *income tax* because of deductions and due to things like EITC some even get more money back than was withheld.  But the income tax isn't that big of a deal in the first place.  It doesn't supply half of federal government revenues and gathers about as much for the federal coffers as payroll taxes do.  And poor people pay a lot in payroll taxes.  15.3% of that low-earner's income is getting collected by the taxman right there.  That's quite a bit.  Bigger share of their income than most wealthy people pay (payroll taxes phase out for six-digit incomes).  And we really haven't gotten started on federal excise taxes (gasoline?  alcohol?  cigarettes?) that low-income folks tend to spend a large portion of their incomes on.  Nor have we gotten into state and local taxes (sales tax?  property tax?) that not only do low-income workers have to pay, but that they generally pay at much higher rates (in proportion to their income) than do their wealthy neighbors.

If poor people weren't paying large chunks of their income in taxes to federal, state, and local governments, I wouldn't contest this, but the fact is that they do pay taxes.  There are very few people in the United States who don't pay any taxes and I'm not jealous of their unfortunate situations.

>While true, what Flint fails to mention is this is a recent phenomenon resulting from temporary measures intended to relief households.

Nah, I'm trying to figure out what's with Flint's sudden amnesia.  He seemed aware of this reality just the other day and now he's forgotten it.  I guess amnesia can be politically expeditious, unless you get called out.  And really, you do deserve to be called out when it's plain as day that you are either suffering from amnesia or that you know better than what you're prattling.  Dishonesty deserves scorn.

that's a lot of words you use to attack your opponent, without giving arguments, and advertising your own party, without giving reasons.

Why would a person who isn't sure of who to vote for vote for you? do you really think a program of slander and no input of its own is going to persuade people to help you win your elections?

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance!"
Empty slogans like these make me puke.

Although somewhere it does sound vaguely like a cheap rip off of some of the slogans mentioned in George Orwell's "1984"
"War is peace! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is strength!"

Just remember, Big Brother is watching you...

" But the income tax isn't that big of a deal in the first place.  It doesn't supply half of federal government revenues and gathers about as much for the federal coffers as payroll taxes do.  And poor people pay a lot in payroll taxes.  15.3% of that low-earner's income is getting collected by the taxman right there.  That's quite a bit.  Bigger share of their income than most wealthy people pay (payroll taxes phase out for six-digit incomes)."

Are we pretending that 7% to Social Security is govt revenue?  Cause, I'm guaranteed every penny back, FDR said so!

"  And we really haven't gotten started on federal excise taxes (gasoline?  alcohol?  cigarettes?) that low-income folks tend to spend a large portion of their incomes on.  Nor have we gotten into state and local taxes (sales tax?  property tax?) that not only do low-income workers have to pay, but that they generally pay at much higher rates (in proportion to their income) than do their wealthy neighbors."

1. I'm sure the rich pay more property tax than the poor.
2. Sober poor people who don't smoke probably pay less than Rush Limbaugh in alcohol and tobacco taxes.
3. No shit $1/$18000 is a bigger fraction than $1/$50000.  Shall we subsidize 99CentsOnly to help out?

I just want to note that, on tobacco and alcohol taxes, they really shouldn't count in this calculation, because unlike income or gas taxes, these taxes are absolutely 100% voluntary, because nobody needs to drink or smoke.  The tax is specifically intended to be high in order to price people out of the market, but without being so high as to be indistinguishable from a general ban on the good (which the prohibition period showed would be a terrible idea).  So yeah, if someone has a higher tax burden due to tobacco and alcohol taxes, and the big impact of the higher tax burden is that their personal economic situation is hampered, it's extremely different from an income tax burden, specifically because those people are choosing to pay those taxes (granted, there are specific exceptions, such as an alcoholic who became an alcoholic before a particularly large increase in the cost of alcohol, but that's honestly stretching it on this particular issue).

> SavingHawaii wrote:

> What you're saying is correct but many poor people do drink and smoke.  Them's the facts jack.  Whether or not they have to, or should smoke and drink, there's a lot of poor people who do pay a lot of money in taxes to the federal government in the form of alcohol and tobacco excise taxes.  Just sayin'.

No... they're two completely different types of taxes, and you're just ignoring the substantive differences:

1: Yes, poor people drink and smoke.  But a cigarette or beer is a purely elastic good, where an income is inelastic (okay, you could be a subsistence farmer, but I'm willing to assume that since you're on the Internet, you're not Amish, so you'll probably be much worse off being outside the economic interdependence of the city-state as opposed to being part of that system).  With cigarettes or beer, a person could avoid the tax simply by avoiding the product.  But they choose not to, despite the best efforts of the government to make it a terrible financial decision with added taxes... because people like to get wasted.

Would it be legitimate for me to use 100% of my income on beer, assuming 50% of the cost of beer is taxes, and claim I have the highest tax burden in the country?  Or how about if I just outright wrote the government a big check in the amount of my total year's salary, then complained that 100% of my income went to the government?  No... because I willingly made the decision to be a dumb ass with my money.  That's what's happening here... not that everyone buying beer an cigarettes is a dumb ass, but they chose themselves to make that income commitment, including the tax, without any form of state intimidation regarding the product... and in fact, with many states actively hoping to reduce their tax revenue from these sources in order to reduce the amount of use of the goods in question... it's one of the few taxes where people aren't compelled to pay the taxes... they're compelled against paying them. 

Remember, this is a debate about tax burdens.  If I willingly decide to pay an amount to the government when I could have easily avoided paying that amount to the government without significant loss to life or liberty, it's not a tax burden.  In contrast, income taxes, property taxes, or other taxes place requirements to pay for specific goods necessary for life or liberty, so it's very rare the individual has much of a choice in how much of their taxes to pay (with the exception of income that could go to either income tax revenue or other sources such as donations, to be used as a write-off).  THAT is a "tax burden."

> SavingHawaii wrote:

> Zarf... I absolutely do not disagree that cigarette and alcohol excise taxes are avoidable.  Nor do I disagree that most people would be wise to avoid them.  Nor do I feel that somebody who spends his entire income on pall malls and thus pays a very high tax rate has a right to complain.  I agree that the general purpose of cigarette and alcohol excise taxes is to deter behavior, not to generate revenue.  (By the way, what are your opinions on gasoline excise taxes?)  I'm simply stating that most poor people do actually pay quite a bit of money in taxes.  And Flint himself has stated as much.  He didn't mention excise taxes but he talked about payroll taxes, state and local taxes; all of which poor people pay.  And they pay excise taxes too.  Even the ones who don't smoke and drink generally pay gas taxes.

Okay... that's a fair point, and I was watching to see most of that debate evolve.  At the point where you're agreeing on the issue of tax burdens with regards specifically to alcohol and cigarette taxes, my one and only argument to show in this debate's been agreed with... and thus I really don't have a stance on the issue as a whole (I wasn't in this debate to prove Flint right or wrong, but wanted to address one concern within your argument... even if it was just a microcosm of the debate, I thought the generalization was worthy of clarification).  Back to hiding in the corner and watching the debate for me. 

As for gas excise taxes... honestly, it really depends on what you want to achieve.  Taxes generally have two purposes: revenue generation and disincentive creation.  For example, although import tariffs used to be a revenue-generating tax for the US (accounting for I believe 60% of government revenue in the 1800's), they account for about 1% of US revenue today... not just because the US has reduced its trade barriers, but because the amount of international trade as a percentage of US production has declined.

So back to gas taxes... how much do they generate?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=401

In 2007, the highest point up to this time, total gas tax revenue from the state and local levels... $37 billion.  If the purpose of the tax is revenue generation, that's a terrible tax.  Revenue generators are supposed to minimize the perceived impact, so people don't really worry about them too much... and don't need to make too much compensation to change behaviors... the gas tax is a problem here because it's a hidden tax, and because it's on a good that, because the price is high already, the tax gets blamed as a partial cause... so it gets the added effects of tax burden claims...

But what if its purpose is to be a disincentive?  What if the purpose is to increase the effective cost of gasoline, in effect creating a market for alternative energies?  It would pretty much have the same effect as an import tariff on a specific industry.  In that case, the government actually wants to do the exact opposite... "oooh, look at the big scary tax... wouldn't you want to avoid this tax?  Well, there's this perfectly good alternative that is cheaper than this product you want, but does the exact same thing... maybe you could... oh, I dunno... buy that?"  In that case... yes, the tax would be doing exactly its job!  It's supposed to be a tax burden... because it's supposed to get people to say "wait a sec... this is expensive... this sucks... I'm switching to non-polluting!"  Now whether the gas tax is used to that effect is a different story... it could just be a pile of legislation that had an intent at one time, but now just sits there due to legislative inertia...

>>1. But they often don't pay proportionally more.  Property taxes tend to be in the vein of "1% of assessed value" or something like that, causing poor people and rich people to pay similar rates.  Still, my parent's $200,000 house is more than double their yearly income.  Bill Gates's $5,000,000 mansion is a small fraction of what he makes every year... in all respect, he probably pays a lower property tax rate than they do.<<

POOR people don't own houses at all.  And no, the county sets the assessment at a fixed percentage of value so the RATE is identical.

Any person, even Bill Gates, even Michael Jackson, can CHOOSE to spend themselves into a point where their voluntary lifestyle is "dangerously" out of line with their income.  The answer to that is to choose to live more cheaply, or choose to earn more.  Complaining the "system" puts you in a place where a middle-class lifestyle is proportionately expensive to you is destructive. 

Once upon a time people built a system that set out to deny anybody wealth from selling food and housing and medicine and education, that took the ownership class out and shot them...the result was still a society where some people were waiting in line to be given food and housing and medicine and education, and were denied any shot of earning it by work.

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote: As for gas excise taxes... honestly, it really depends on what you
>want to achieve.  Taxes generally have two purposes: revenue generation and disincentive
>creation.  For example, although import tariffs used to be a revenue-generating tax for the
>US (accounting for I believe 60% of government revenue in the 1800's), they account for
>about 1% of US revenue today... not just because the US has reduced its trade barriers, but
>because the amount of international trade as a percentage of US production has declined.

Back when tariffs accounted for a large portion of government revenue, they were as much a means to generate revenue as they were a mechanism to affect industrial policy.  They were both.  Look at Hamilton's commentary on the matter.  They were designed to protect domestic industries.  That they also generated revenues was a bonus.  Today where they exist they tend to be used for foreign policy or industrial policy, but the latter is relatively rare.  On to gas.

>So back to gas taxes... how much do they generate... In 2007, the highest point up to this time,
>total gas tax revenue from the state and local levels... $37 billion.  If the purpose of the tax is
>revenue generation, that's a terrible tax.  Revenue generators are supposed to minimize the
>perceived impact, so people don't really worry about them too much... and don't need to make
>too much compensation to change behaviors... the gas tax is a problem here because it's a
>hidden tax, and because it's on a good that, because the price is high already, the tax gets
>blamed as a partial cause... so it gets the added effects of tax burden claims...

First you highlight a dollar figure that only accounts for state and local gas taxes.  Federal gas taxes generate more revenue than those two combined.  Secondly, gas taxes are primarily designed as a user fee.  To utilize roads (which generally requires utilizing gas) you end up paying a gas excise tax to help fund those roads.  Federal roads (generally US highways and interstates) are almost entirely funded on gasoline excise revenue.  As for state and local roads (which account for a larger portion of pavement) it's usually a fraction of the actual cost (typically much less than 50%).  Even in user-fee friendly Texas there isn't a single state or locally-funded road that pays for itself with excise tax revenue (http://www.christianforums.com/t7377651/#post52117162).

Gasoline taxes are designed to be revenue generators (as user fees) and should probably be somewhat higher than they currently are (hear that Flint?).  In contrast, most toll booths have a dual purpose which is revenue generation and disincentive.  They're designed to generate taxes and to also discourage excessive commuting.  I don't really think your discussion of a gasoline tax as a disincentive is relevant.  Given that current gas taxes don't even support the societal costs of providing roads to drive your car on, it's probably fair to say that gasoline today is subsidized by the government.  (Still, it's a tax that poor people pay Flint!)

>>The rest of your post ranged from strawman to red herring.  Not going to play that game.  Stay on topic, stop punching strawmen, and maybe we can have a fruitful discussion.<<

Who are you talking to?  Are you twelve years old?  "No, I dismiss your points as off my topic. Stick to my assumptions, my concerns, accept without question my priorities.  Maybe you'll measure up to my standard of a good conversation."

As we do not allow graduated pricing like medieval societies that had one price for the poor and one for the wealthy, there is absolutely no point complaining about "relative portion of income".  $1.89 coffee is hard on the poor, sniff sniff.

Btw tax talk here is off topic, this topic is about activism.

Please conduct tax talk in the appropriate thread.