How many will pay no federal income taxes in the next administration?
posted at 8:05 am on October 22, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
Under either John McCain or Barack Obama, millions of Americans will wind up paying no federal income taxes. According to the Tax Foundation, tax liabilities will drop to zero (or less) for 15-16 million more Americans than now, pushing that to almost half of all filers. While that may seem optimal to some, if it doesn’t come with significant reductions in overall revenue, it forces fewer people to pay for more government:
The tax code has always contained provisions that reduce the income tax burden for low-income workers, such as the standard deduction, personal exemption, and dependent exemption. Between 1950 and 1990, the percentage of tax filers whose entire tax liability was wiped out by these provisions averaged 21 percent. Since then, lawmakers have expanded credits—such as the earned income tax credit (EITC)—while creating a plethora of new credits, including the child tax credit, the HOPE credit, lifetime learning credit, and the credit for adoption expenses.
Most tax credits can only reduce a taxpayer’s amount due to zero, but the EITC and the child tax credit were also made refundable, meaning that taxpayers are eligible to receive a check even if they have paid no income tax during the year. Those tax returns have become, in effect, a claim form for a subsidy delivered through the tax system rather than a direct payment from a traditional government program like welfare or farm supports.
As shown in Table 1 below, the Tax Foundation estimates that there will be 47 million tax returns with zero income tax liability in 2009 under current law. That’s one-third of all tax returns, and those 47 million tax returns represent 96 million individuals.
Both the McCain and Obama plans would increase this number by expanding existing tax benefits or creating new ones. Senator McCain is proposing one expanded provision—the dependent exemption—and one new credit, a $5,000 refundable health care tax credit. The Obama plan contains seven new provisions, including a new “Making Work Pay Credit,” a “Universal Mortgage Credit,” and a plan to eliminate income taxes for seniors earning under $50,000.1
Taken together, the Tax Foundation estimates the McCain proposals would increase the number of nonpayers by about 15 million, bringing the total number of taxpayers who pay no personal income taxes to 62 million, roughly 43 percent of all tax filers. Almost all of this is due to McCain’s health care credit, which dramatically realigns health care incentives and gives people a powerful motive to buy health insurance. This tax provision has a bigger impact on cutting people’s taxes than any single proposal from either party.


This seems very unhealthy in terms of commitment to federal government. The government serves all Americans, and except for the poorest among us, we should all be contributing to its maintenance. Without that kind of connection, the people who pay nothing will have no risk in demanding ever-increasing services and flat-out welfare, which is what Barack Obama’s tax plan really delivers in its seven refundables. McCain doesn’t give away money to quite the same degree, but it has almost the same effect on taxpayers.
As the second chart demonstrates, the Bush tax cuts did not burden the poor. It had a similar effect as what both Obama and McCain propose here. Bush increased the number of people without any federal tax liability by 30%, from 25% to 33% overall.
We need to seriously consider Steve Forbes’ flat tax plan soon if we don’t want to turn the US into a welfare state. Our tax policies will drive capital out of our markets and into other arenas for investment if the capital class winds up funding all of the federal government, and the electorate continues to demand services for which they don’t pay. These graphs show a disaster ahead even if we didn’t already face two with Medicare and Social Security, which largely have the same origin.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Your title:
Your post:
Left mentioned:
Property taxes, sales taxes, capital gains, payroll taxes, etc.
Did you see the switch there? ;)
e-pirate on October 22, 2008 at 8:09 AM
Good point. I fixed the title.
Ed Morrissey on October 22, 2008 at 8:15 AM
Like 9/11 being needed for this country to take terrorism seriously (well, some of our country anyway), the US will apparently need some truly, staggeringly hard times to take wealth distribution, our bizarre taxing system, and our government’s obscene spending seriously.
Yeah, we need more “Joe the Plumbers.” What we have is a heck of a lot of “Peters” more than happy to have Obama rob “Pauls” for them. Troubling times.
Sugar Land on October 22, 2008 at 8:16 AM
Either a low % flat tax or a consumption tax on goods and services that excludes food, clothing, shelter (primary residential real estate) and health care.
All these “credits” and “deductions” are merely ploys that our betters use to encourage certain behaviors and discourage others. Well sorry, but as an American (indeed as a homo sapien) I am in charge of my life and should get to run it as I see fit, not as Dear Leader Obamassiah thinks I should.
rbj on October 22, 2008 at 8:17 AM
Not everyone pays property taxes. Payroll taxes = EIC. Capital gains? ha.
Dash on October 22, 2008 at 8:18 AM
Obama contributors knew they were making an investment. He made that clear.
marklmail on October 22, 2008 at 8:20 AM
For those like e-pirate who miss the point, why should anyone not pay for the cost of the federal government?
At the very least, those that pay no federal taxes should lose their ability to vote in federal elections. Since they may continue to pay real estate and other taxes, allow them to vote in state and local races only.
Two types of voting for two types of citizens.
Battle cry for 21st C. America:
NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION!
JiangxiDad on October 22, 2008 at 8:21 AM
Why work when the pies are free. Socialism is a code word for stoopid.
tarpon on October 22, 2008 at 8:23 AM
Rush Limbaugh has said for years that we’re screwed once the percentage of people not paying taxes reaches 50% — then they become the majority, and the remaining taxpayers have no recourse. The trajectory of that graph gets the number to 50% by 2012. (And you thought this election was fun …)
GoHskrs on October 22, 2008 at 8:23 AM
Excellent. Since I pointed out the discrepancy then it only follows that I should applaud the correction. Thanks.
Sounds like you may be suggesting that paying taxes is almost, day I say, patriotic?
e-pirate on October 22, 2008 at 8:24 AM
Did you actually mean “significant reductions in overall spending?”
I’d have no problem with 1/2 the people didn’t pay income taxes, as long as we also don’t hand out money and benefits to them like it was candy.
Keith_Indy on October 22, 2008 at 8:26 AM
Sheer insanity.
The socialists are winning. Handily.
misterpeasea on October 22, 2008 at 8:27 AM
Screwed as a country yeah, but it’s not particularly the remaining minority of taxpayers who are screwed. Read Atlas Shrugged. When those remaining few get tired of supporting the looters, and simply stop, there’s nothing the looters can do about it. Slowly, producers/investors will remove their productive capacity from the economy. That’s what Ed is warning about.
Adam Smith’s invisible hand works in both directions. I don’t think the libs realize that.
JiangxiDad on October 22, 2008 at 8:27 AM
YEP. We’ve funded out-of-control breeding by the underclass, and unchecked illegal immigration. Now we are the minority.
marklmail on October 22, 2008 at 8:29 AM
Assuming you have no problem with No Taxation Without Representation, I wonder why you would have a problem with its reverse?
JiangxiDad on October 22, 2008 at 8:29 AM
And if Biden is correct that paying taxes is patriotic, shouldn’t everybody do it?
And for the record, Biden thinks paying ever higher taxes is patriotic.
JiangxiDad on October 22, 2008 at 8:31 AM
And this is assuming salaries remain stagnant, folks. It doesn’t even account for how many will be part that payroll small business cuts when small business owners get smacked with more taxes.
Sekhmet on October 22, 2008 at 8:32 AM
In the rush to power, the Dems hurt the poor just like they hurt minorities (no one minority owns the poverty market no matter what Black “reverends” say). I am involved with projects that are church affiliated and offer assistance and housing to those people who are truly homeless. The bounty that is given by Americans to those who have fallen on bad times is amazing. The combination of faith filled people and the churches working with local communities has received praise from local city leaders.
If you take away from those that work hard and give to the less fortunate, there will simply be less for those people in the future. The Dems are racing towards a land of wealth and power for the few and connected and pure poverty and misery for those Americans that for whatever reason have no options. This includes the growing elderly population that they terrify every election.
Old Testament tithing was five to ten percent and was provided to support the poor. We tithe thirty to fifty percent the the Feds already which makes it tougher to support charities. Obama and Biden would not understand that concept since neither of them give one percent of their huge earnings to charity.
Hening on October 22, 2008 at 8:32 AM
Poll tax, anyone?
OldEnglish on October 22, 2008 at 8:33 AM
JiangxiDad—-+1
love that idea…no federal taxes, no vote…now getting it passed through a Dem. Congress…
hippie_chucker on October 22, 2008 at 8:33 AM
Do you dare suggest that restrictions on voting safeguard democracy?
JiangxiDad on October 22, 2008 at 8:36 AM
+1
Who is John Galt?
m064404 on October 22, 2008 at 8:37 AM
I wonder if Dan Cantor, formerly of Obama’s Socialist “New Party” who shared offices with ACORN, and currently of the “Working Families Party” who share offices with ACORN, will have a role in an Obama administration.
First he proposed a tax increase for anyone making over $250,000 a year (sound familiar?) and then he rolled out this scheme:
Buy Danish on October 22, 2008 at 8:39 AM
You know what I don’t care. If less and less people pay taxes maybe we will finally bankrupt this nation. I urge every person if Obama wins to get every dime they can from the government. Every dime. It is the only way to destroy socialism. People like ayers and Obama want to destroy capitalism from within. We need to do the same with socialism. the Soviet Union and other socialist countries have shown beyond a doubt that socialism doens’t work. The only way their systems have been brought down is when they ran out of money. I think it is a patrotic duty for every Americian to bring down this socialist welfare state.
Look at the child health welfare system in Hawaii. It was destroyed by people dropping their coverage and signing up for the “free” health care. It is the only way. Bankrupt the government is my new motto.
unseen on October 22, 2008 at 8:40 AM
I would tax Megan Fox, because she sure taxes me.*
*I love being able to paraphrase Monty Python
TwinkietheKid on October 22, 2008 at 8:42 AM
Yes! Democracy in its final form = Ochlocracy.
OldEnglish on October 22, 2008 at 8:44 AM
KING MARK – You don’t pay taxes, you don’t vote.
marklmail on October 22, 2008 at 8:46 AM
During the last ill-advised “stimulus” give-away, here in southern Arizona there were signs posted at many traffic intersections exhorting people (in Spanish) to call the phone number shown on the signs and find out about getting their government check. The signs told people to call even if they had “no papers” (i.e., even if they are illegal aliens) and/or had filed no tax returns last year, because the person on the other end of the phone could still help them get “their share” of the stimulus hand-outs.
I mention this for the people who believe that granting amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens just isn’t that big of a deal. Adding 20-30 million new welfare . . . er, “tax credit” recipients to the federal tax rolls is going to have a devastating impact on our economy. The people who take will vastly outnumber the people who pay, and once they have the legal right to vote there will be no stopping them from voting themselves even more — more money, and more amnesty deals for their fellow countrymen who are also planning to come here for their piece of the pie.
AZCoyote on October 22, 2008 at 8:46 AM
He’s a guy who had a place to go hide from the looters. With a magical invisibility spell, just for good measure.
My question is where in the heck is John Galt going to hide in the real world?
misterpeasea on October 22, 2008 at 8:47 AM
For all of you that think that it’s a good idea to say “if you don’t pay federal taxes, you shouldn’t get to vote,” let’s think about that for a second. I’m a stay-at-home mom. I don’t pay taxes, because I have no income. So I shouldn’t get to vote, because I’m staying at home to watch my children? Nice. You’d frak over a lot of military families (and other conservative ones) with that line of thought. Heck, my husband as an E-6 doesn’t have any tax liability, because we have 3 children and a low income. He pays taxes, but we get money back every year. We work damn hard, and our low income has more to do with how much the Dem Congress hates the military than us slacking off.
I’m just asking for a little forethought before spouting off on how all nontaxpayers are drains and we should thereby lose our vote. And incidentally, we qualify for several federal programs, but don’t use them, because we’d rather not sponge off the government. But to be honest, there are a lot of military members who do qualify, and I don’t blame them one bit for using them.
Anna on October 22, 2008 at 8:49 AM
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Tytler went on: “The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.”
Star20 on October 22, 2008 at 8:49 AM
Wow.
For some perspective, property taxes on very typical, modest 3br homes on tiny lots in the NYC suburbs are approx. $12000/yr. That would make for very hefty refunds for the majority of citizens.
I would think that other states ought to start advertising campaigns here in NY to attract those who would have to pay the difference to move.
Some serious inter-state competition would be great! The sooner the blue states implode economically the better. Michigan remains the gold standard, but the Empire State will be 2nd to none.
JiangxiDad on October 22, 2008 at 8:49 AM
Because, according to the progressive tax reformers, it is “immoral.”
Paying taxes isn’t patriotic. It is mandatory for some of us.
angelat0763 on October 22, 2008 at 8:50 AM
Hi Anna. Didn’t mean to offend. I’ve said several times on this site that I think those in the military ought to get two votes. If someone would like to raise that to 5, I’m in.
JiangxiDad on October 22, 2008 at 8:53 AM
Military is a different animal. It makes no sense to tax income derived from taxes, IMHO.
Having said that, I would never support taking away the vote from poor people. I would prefer to see the SCOTUS reverse the decision that made wealth redistribution legal. For 150 years, they consistently ruled that it was illegal, but in a brief moment of fear they caved.
They’ve reversed themselves before, they can do it again.
And finally, if you’re not paying taxes *or* providing service to the government, then yes – you are indeed a drain.
angelat0763 on October 22, 2008 at 8:56 AM
No worries. And I’d agree with your proposition, but only for those that have reenlisted. Some of those yutes that join just for the benefits need a little more life experience before I’d let them get an extra say. : )
Anna on October 22, 2008 at 8:57 AM
I suspect you already know how on-board I am with this idea ;)
LimeyGeek on October 22, 2008 at 8:57 AM
Wouldn’t that be nice. How about the “must serve in the military to earn the right to vote” idea?
misterpeasea on October 22, 2008 at 8:57 AM
Anna on October 22, 2008 at 8:49 AM
i like Starship troopers idea. If you don’t serve you don’t vote.
unseen on October 22, 2008 at 8:57 AM
Fair Tax, Fair Tax, Fair Tax!
We must push this issue and do away with the IRS.
mindhacker on October 22, 2008 at 8:57 AM
The mortgage crisis bail-out is just a warm-up for the social-security and Medicare/Medicaid bail-outs to come.
GWB testing the waters.
As per no vote w/o taxation, slippery slope there. What seems like a rational approach would become a monster too easily.
FIRST: Secure the voting rights of CITIZENS by eliminating all fraud. Until that occurs, there is no secure basis for any election.
PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP TRUMPS HOW MUCH YOU PAY IN TAXES.
Before you know it, only property owners may vote, and you have devolved back to feudalism. Also, without the citizenship identification per voter, aliens both legal and illegal who pay taxes would argue their right to vote on grounds of having “bought” the right via taxation.
maverick muse on October 22, 2008 at 8:57 AM
I have said that for years. Oh, my, have I been saying that for years. I haven’t heard a good explaination yet.
Anna on October 22, 2008 at 8:58 AM
maverick muse on October 22, 2008 at 8:57 AM
Hmmm the founding fathers thought diferrently.
unseen on October 22, 2008 at 8:59 AM
Did I steal the quote from you? I’ve said a few times before that I took it from another commenter here but couldn’t recall who. So now I just use it. If it was you, thanks.
JiangxiDad on October 22, 2008 at 9:00 AM
From your post, you do pay taxes. It’s just that your refunds cancel them out. That is not the same as paying no taxes, because you, as a family, can’t be bothered to work for a living.
OldEnglish on October 22, 2008 at 9:00 AM
I would prefer to see the SCOTUS smacked down and told that they do not rule at all.
We need to stop this unconstitutional and pathetic habit of ‘running to teacher’ to settle our squabbles.
SCOTUS has no authority to ‘rule’ at all. They do not have veto power over the other two branches of gubmint.
LimeyGeek on October 22, 2008 at 9:00 AM
PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP TRUMPS HOW MUCH YOU PAY IN TAXES.
…aliens also arguing their “right” to vote via taxation AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, finally the “right” of internationals to vote in American elections because they own our national debt.
maverick muse on October 22, 2008 at 9:01 AM
You know, when I read that book, I thought that was a very good idea, especially because they had different areas for everybody. It wouldn’t work in today’s military, because personally, I’d only want the best and the brightest (and the 100% willing) to serve. I see some of the current crop of junior enlisted (esp. in the intell. field that my husband is in), and I just shake my head.
Anna on October 22, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Mac has mentioned the two tier flat tax, at 10 and 25%, but only a couple times, wish he’d talk more about it. Thing is, unless we can win back Congress, and stop our socialist slide, we’ll never get a change in taxation, other than adding less people to the rolls…
hippie_chucker on October 22, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Hmmm the founding fathers thought diferrently.
unseen on October 22, 2008 at 8:59 AM
Tolerating slavery and no vote for women, either.
maverick muse on October 22, 2008 at 9:03 AM
I think the point about if you don’t pay taxes, you shouldn’t vote is that the congenital welfare queens or kings should not have a vote. If you are working, you are paying social security and medicare taxes. If you qualify for the earned income credit and are hard working, that will be a temporary situation.
When my son was very young and very ill, the out of pocket medical was unbelievable. We qualified for the earned income tax credit for one year. Last year we paid almost $50,000 in taxes to the federal govt. I think we have paid them back for that tax credit from 20 years ago.
JiangxiDad is right, military should get two votes.
bopbottle on October 22, 2008 at 9:04 AM
People often wonder how Islam spread so quickly, like wildfire, in the 8th century.
Hillaire Belloc points out that if an individual surrendered to Islam, they were released from paying taxes.
Those who did not submit were taxed mercilessly.
Interesting.
jeff_from_mpls on October 22, 2008 at 9:04 AM
unseen
The 18th Century AS IT APPLIES in the 21st Century
Are you advocating the return to the vote being limited to white male property owners (who pay taxes)?
maverick muse on October 22, 2008 at 9:06 AM
I guess I just split my husband and I up in my head – he works, but has no liability. I don’t work, I have no taxes. I guess together as a family, yes, we do pay taxes, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around that (I’m used to my own income).
I don’t even begin to understand how people don’t want to work for a living! And speaking of work, I have to get back to mine – looks like it’s spontaneous morning bath time!
Anna on October 22, 2008 at 9:06 AM
Jeff, where do I sign up? :)
hippie_chucker on October 22, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Dhimmis paid the “jizya”, but were essentially excused from military service.
Hillaire Belloc is an amazing writer. One of my favorite books of his was a chronicle of his wanderings through Europe to Italy–The Path to Rome. I always use it to summon up a sense of life when Christianity was pre-eminent.
JiangxiDad on October 22, 2008 at 9:10 AM
It occurs to me that what might work would be an Amendment that limits the size of government in some way, which would cap spending, and therefore tax hikes.
Everyone still gets to vote, but there are spending controls on the government.
hippie_chucker on October 22, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Steve Forbes for Treasury Secretary!!!!
trainwife1962 on October 22, 2008 at 9:12 AM
Oh no, I wasn’t accusing you of plagiarism at all….I’ve certainly said such a thing in the past, but so have you and a few others. I was just glad to see you raise the issue :)
I’d go even further, in fact….make all ‘taxes’ voluntary. If you choose to participate in a standardized gubmint revenue-generation scheme (flat 10% or whatever), then yuo get to vote – if you buy in, you get a say in how your money is spent.
LimeyGeek on October 22, 2008 at 9:13 AM
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 :15% and 28% were the only two tax brackets.
Congress couldn’t leave it alone though.
The GOP had control of the country, all 3 branches, for 6 years. There’s sadly no good reason to think that winning back Congress will stop or reverse the socialist trend.
We are at the point where we have to hunker down and just wait for the system to collapse under it’s own weight.
angelat0763 on October 22, 2008 at 9:13 AM
I’m for that.
BALANCED BUDGET REQUIRED AT ALL TIMES
maverick muse on October 22, 2008 at 9:14 AM
By “not everyone”, it would mean, primarily, those living in gov’t subsidized housing or street bums. Those renting are paying it because the property owner passes along the tax to the customer – that’s what businesses do, pass along taxes.
About the Fair tax. Yes, yes, yes.
The drawbacks: an uninformed public. Right now, Jim Martin is closing in on Saxby Chambliss in Georgia primarily because he’s flooding the market with false advertising about the fair tax, and – surprise – the press is letting him get away with blatant lies. We’re talking Clintonesque levels of lying, folks. Yeah, we need the fair tax, but we need to factor in that the public is going to be informed about it by the same people who informed them about Sarah Palin by investigating her vagina, her husband’s political affiliations and lies about books in libraries & creation.
We have Tim Donaghy playing the role of reporter in the USA & we’re the team he’s bet against. Tough hill to climb.
rjwest21 on October 22, 2008 at 9:14 AM
As Arthur Godfrey once said:
“I’m proud to be paying taxes in the United States. The only thing is — I could be just as proud for half the money.”
Ann on October 22, 2008 at 9:15 AM
The strategy is obvious – 48.1% of tax filers who won’t pay tax is 48.1% of tax fliers who will only vote Democrat (forever). This of course is the fundamental flaw of democracy – i.e., that groups will coalesce that will agree to loot the rest of the electorate. I think it was Bastiat that said something to the effect that government is a fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.
pussum207 on October 22, 2008 at 9:15 AM
The back-and-forth of this thread shows that the American Experiment fails without an underlying moral foundation based on Judeo-Christian virtues.
We have people arguing here that only the workers should have a vote. Some are horrified at this, and saying that everyone should get a vote.
But if everyone gets a vote and there is no longer a recognized and respected moral imperative to work hard and contribute to society — the virtues of fortitude, humility, courage — when there is no guiding idea that prevents people from sitting back and demanding the state take care of them, such a system quickly degenerates into totalitarianism, as we are now learning.
jeff_from_mpls on October 22, 2008 at 9:16 AM
I think the libs in power realize it all too well. In fact they’re counting on it. The less the private sector can provide, the more the government can step in, controlled by the leftist ruling class.
I am John Galt. I suspect there may be a few more out there…
Gilda on October 22, 2008 at 9:16 AM
I’m actually a big fan of the Fair Tax as a more ethical revenue-genereation scheme.
However, if I am to be consistent in my ‘no tax, no vote’ principles, I have to recognize that the Fair Tax would result in everyone getting to vote.
LimeyGeek on October 22, 2008 at 9:18 AM
Took me a while. Mob rule. heh.
JiangxiDad on October 22, 2008 at 9:19 AM
That is when we pull a ‘John Galt’ and refuse to pay.
LimeyGeek on October 22, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Sorry. I’m stupid. Don’t get it.
LimeyGeek on October 22, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Ochlo= crowds, such as in ochlophobic.
JiangxiDad on October 22, 2008 at 9:22 AM
So tupid, in fact, that I forgot to google it
shame, thy name is LG
LimeyGeek on October 22, 2008 at 9:24 AM
I think we need to be really, really careful about indulging in class warfare of our own on this issue. Yes, a substantial percentage don’t pay income taxes, but they pay PLENTY of other taxes. When I was poor, I resented taxes even more than I do now, because I didn’t have any financial slack and they HURT. Sales taxes, unemployment insurance, Social Security. Plus assorted government fees and licenses.
And people who own property get to deduct mortgage interest, which feels really unfair when you’re a renter.
Can we not be divisive on this one? Not counting those few hopeless cases who live totally on the state (and they are few). Everybody pays taxes, everybody hates them. Let’s rally around it, shall we?
S. Weasel on October 22, 2008 at 9:25 AM
Having the majority of voters not pay taxes has been the agenda of the Left for years. That way tax reform won’t ever be a campaign issue since only the minority will care about it. Then the majority can continue to demand more services from those who have no power to deny them.
This is why in the past people were required to own property to vote since they had a vested interest in the outcome and success in the country.
At this point, however, the majority of people want to vote for a guy who comes from a county with a 10% sales tax rate, from a city that won’t let you eat certain foods, that has failing schools, that has police cameras on most traffic lights, that spends more money on landscaping and iron fences than to fight crime, from a state that re-elected two governors who were under investigation and a state and city that is so utterly corrupt no one in power thinks it’s wrong to do business with Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko.
Sensible Mom on October 22, 2008 at 9:25 AM
Good idea that can be discussed passionately for the next decade at the Cato Institute or on Steve’s Highlander yacht. “The era of big government ain’t over”. Bush did nothing to slow its growth. Now PelosiReidObama will make the tax rate even more progressive. At some point there will be a backlash but not until the global economic crisis is over, and that seems to be 2 years away at least.
dedalus on October 22, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Fairness? That sounds distinctly unfair to me.
Vashta.Nerada on October 22, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Personally I would like to see what the cost to benefit ratio is atm. In other words the value of the benefits people receive from government programs contrasted with the amount of tax they pay.
I mean If your in the top tax bracket how much of the money you pay in taxes goes into government spending that directly benefit you. And if your in the income bracket that pays no taxes how much of the tax burden that everybody else pays goes into government spending that you benefit from?
Dreadnought223 on October 22, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Two words: Debit Tax. Forget income taxes, regressive or progressive. Forget sales taxes, gas taxes or tax credits. We now have the means to electronically siphon .5% of every transaction. If an individual withdraws $1000 from a bank, he is taxed to the tune of $5.00. If a business sells a $50,000 piece of machinery, the buyer pays no tax on it, and the transaction results in an EFT of $250 from the seller’s account to the Treasury.
This encourages savings, but at the same time is small enough that people will not hesitate to buy what they need/want, because they are keeping more of their money. No one evades the tax, everyone is equally responsible, and there are no loopholes for anyone to jump through. The money is made here, and stays here.
Just my $.02, and I’m sure many people more knowledgeable than me that are more familiar with this not-new idea will set me straight. But, it seems, on the surface, to be worth a look.
Flyover Country on October 22, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Obama has blanketed Virginia with ads saying he will lower your taxes and anyone with a brain in his head will not believe a word he says.
With Democrats controlling all three branches of the federal government, taxes will skyrocket. They’ll be handing out checks to the desperate, addled losers who vote Democrat every year, like Halloween candy.
Not to mention criminal outfit supporters of Obama, such as ACORN.
When the economy crashes, not even the media’s lickspittle jackass “reporters” will be able to cover for Obama and his worthless Democrat Party on this one.
NoDonkey on October 22, 2008 at 9:37 AM
sure they will…they’ll blame the wall-street republicans…jews..kulaks…whites…whatever, and the people will lap it up…
right4life on October 22, 2008 at 9:39 AM
The person that buys the machinery will have had to debit his account, thus incurring a .5% fee, no?
Sounds like you’re making a convoluted description of a consumption tax – a la Fair Tax.
LimeyGeek on October 22, 2008 at 9:45 AM
If you file jointly, then you get a share of the working spouses vote.
The plan I have put forward gives an automatic extra vote for everyone who has served in the military.
Regardless, why do you feel that people who don’t pay taxes should be allowed to determine how those taxes are spent?
MarkTheGreat on October 22, 2008 at 9:51 AM
A consumption tax is the best option. Money spent on consumer goods is taxed, money saved or invested is not. That would move us from a debt ridden nation to a nation of savers. Additionally, the hookers and drug dealers and cash-only handymen would be paying taxes that they are not currently paying.
Vashta.Nerada on October 22, 2008 at 9:57 AM
How about we just make, tax payments, interest payments, health care, and education, tax deductible. All interest payments, mortgage, credit card, car loans.
Grand schemes for reforming the system from top to bottom are great, but the probability of getting it passed are slim.
That’s why it’s such a laugh when people say “Republicans had control of the Senate, etc.” That argument doesn’t hold water when the Republicans, and Democrats only hold a majority of 1.
That is not sufficient to enact real change in our system of government.
Keith_Indy on October 22, 2008 at 9:57 AM
That’s pretty weak, to be fair. Votes are indivisible and atomic. They should both get a vote – ’sharing’ a vote is bullshit.
Extra vote for the military? Why? Are they ‘more worthy’ than other mere taxpayers? Why does their service earn them extra weight in the decision-making process?
LimeyGeek on October 22, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Let’s cut to the chase. The REAL problem is the amount of money the government spends. Why do we need any federal agency that has anything to do with education? Isn’t that a state function? All forms of welfare are a state function. Medicaid? A state function. If the government were cut to the actual size required of a FEDERAL government, I would be surprised if it were 1/4th the size it is now.
BTW: Leaving now to early vote and then volunteer at the Republican headquarters to take people to early vote that the say need a lift. Early voting ends Nov 1, so I will then get a break until election day when I will again volunteer to take people to the polls… (by “people”, I mean McCain voters). I suggest everyone that can volunteer in some manner in the remaining days to get out the vote.
CC – BHO: “my Muslim faith”
CapedConservative on October 22, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Even renters benefit from the mortgage interest deduction. If the land lord did not have this deduction, he would have to raise your rent to compensate.
In fact, landlords get tax advantages that most homeowners don’t.
I can’t deduct my property insurance. A landlord can.
I can’t deduct the cost of home repairs and maintenance. A landlord can.
Every penny that a landlord can deduct, eventually is reflected in the rent that you pay.
MarkTheGreat on October 22, 2008 at 10:01 AM
I really can’t stand the way the media and Obama supporters have vilified Joe the Plumber, especially in pointing out that he’d be “better off” under Obama’s tax plan.
First, it assumes that Joe is a one-issue voter. The economic benefit of Obama’s array of refundable tax credits (and not all apply to all taxpayers) is a very high price for the rest of the Obama agenda. Indeed, I contend that if you only consider the increased cost (time, hassle, out-of-pocket expense) entailed in claiming Obama’s tax credits on a tax return, it’s going to be nearly a wash.
I won’t bother with any of the other items of the Obama agenda, because it would require describing a tidal wave of destruction.
Second, Joe has shown a great deal of maturity and civic duty in taking the position that Obama’s cotton-candy tax credits aren’t something that win his vote. Isn’t anyone else heartened by a middle-class guy who takes the position that the gub’mint doesn’t owe him anything except to ensure equal opportunity?
Third, I can’t get over the Left’s shock that Joe would turn down the largesse of Obama’s tax credits. I see two analogies here.
In one, McCain offers Joe a well-balanced meal with all the food groups represented: some meat, vegetables, rice, salad, and water or milk. Nothing glitzy, but something that sustains him and is good for his health. Granted McCain might throw in a little something non-nutritional, but relatively speaking, you see where I’m going. In contrast, Obama offers the quickie fast food or pizza delivery. Big Mac, fries, apple turnover, and milk shake. Quick, cheap, no nutritional value, satisfying only a craving. In the end, Joe’s ridiculed for taking the longer-term view and choosing McCain’s meal over Obama’s food out of a bag or box.
The second analogy, content warning, is the comparision between being offered a hooker and an introduction to a real nice woman. The hooker is a “sure thing” in one respect, satisfies one urge, but does nothing positive for you in the long run–quite likely, something negative in that regard. The other alternative is the prospect–the hope–though not necessarily any guarantee, for a nice relationship, possibly leading to marriage.
Why can’t the left understand this? More important, why is a man like Joe, who took a stand on principle, vilified for taking such a stand?
BuckeyeSam on October 22, 2008 at 10:01 AM
When the Income Tax began, it was a flat rate with a high zero-bracket amount. The incentive for legislators to mess with the tax code, creating progressive brackets as well as special deductions and credits, will again turn any flat tax into a Byzantine mess like we have now.
In the real world, these higher rates for some are actually paid not only by the nominal payors, but also by their employees and customers. The latter may not realize this, and therefore support making “someone else” pay higher taxes.
If we must tax economic activity, the FairTax is the best way to do it, because it isn’t possible to nominally tax certain people at a higher rate at the cash register.
The Monster on October 22, 2008 at 10:03 AM
A sales tax is able to tax the underground economy. The debit tax isn’t.
When you do all of your transactions cash only, and never put the money into a bank, you will pay nothing to a debit tax.
MarkTheGreat on October 22, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Depending on how much taxes you paid, your family could easily have more than one vote.
As to servicemen and women, they were willing to put their lives on the line to protect me. For that they are entitled to an extra vote or two.
MarkTheGreat on October 22, 2008 at 10:07 AM
One of the reasons why the govt spends so much, is because their is a sizeable chunk of the populace that doesn’t pay taxes, but does benefit from govt spending. These voters can be counted on to vote for the candidate who promises to increase govt spending.
MarkTheGreat on October 22, 2008 at 10:08 AM
It has pretty much been ignored by the MSM, but Sen. Obama is going to repeal the Bush tax cuts which means EVERYONE will get a tax increase.
I found this calculator from another article and you can see what your taxes are now and then compare them to 2000 when the Bush tax cuts go away, which would be your tax increase under Obama. Now this does not count all his NEW and additional taxes he is also proposing.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
JeffinSac on October 22, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Because as a nontaxpayer, I am affected by those taxes too. Nontaxpayers aren’t strictly liberal wastrels, that’s what I’m saying. If, by a stroke of bad misfortune, I became a widow, I would still not be able to work for a while – I would have to survive off savings/death benefits for some time (daycare is a PITA). I would not be paying income taxes, so I should lose my right to vote/have a say in my government just because I’m at home? Yes, my family pays income taxes (because my husband has income), so why shouldn’t the both of us have a say?
I don’t like government sponges any more than the other folks here, but I do accept the fact that they have the right to vote (have a say in taxation and where it’s spent). Any efforts to curtail that right scares me – my gender hasn’t had the right for 100 years yet, and I’m sure there are those out there that would see that right gone too.
Anna on October 22, 2008 at 10:14 AM
From today’s WSJ:
DerKrieger on October 22, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Well, I hear you (figuratively….I actually read you). Been there.
But, sales taxes are for your state/local gov’t. Nothing’s “free”. Those local roads & those local schools (some areas use sales taxes to fund the schools) gotta be paid for by something other than property & income taxes – unless one wantw the burden to be completely on the backs of the homeowners & income earners.
Social security? If you’re poor, you get it back via EITC, so you really pay none (but you get the credits for the payments, which means you’ll still be able to collect social security as if you really paid. Great scheme, huh?).
rjwest21 on October 22, 2008 at 10:24 AM
maverick muse on October 22, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Well it really wasn’t until the women got the vote that welfare started. not a knock on women but they are more compassionate than men. Therefore if you want to do away with welfare you might want to think about getting rid of the women vote.
unseen on October 22, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »