Taxes for USA citizens. 50% don't pay Federal income tax. What this means?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justice and Mercy

I'm saying that you shouldn't force me to pay for your education.

I don't care who goes to what university. I don't plan on disappearing into intellectual obscurity because I went to a second-rate university, I don't think it matters. I already have a superior grasp of several subjects compared to many "top-tier" intellectuals.

Brilliant poor kid who can't get into some Ivy League school? Don't care. He's brilliant, the degree is window-dressing. If the degree is what matters, he wasn't that brilliant do begin with.

---

So you are saying a top rate uni does not significantly increase one's career opportunities?

Wow. Now we have reached the point at which basic facts are just ignored. Nice denial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Astaroth

So you are saying a top rate uni does not significantly increase one's career opportunities?

Wow. Now we have reached the point at which basic facts are just ignored. Nice denial.

---

No. I'd say that if you can get into a top rate uni you're going to have good career opportunities. If you're smart and work hard you can do anything. But you're going to start low and work your way up like everyone else.

Playing collegiate Lacrosse is about as pertinent to getting a job at Goldman Sachs as the Ivy League. It's about who you know and what you know.

When the economy is bad I'd rather go somewhere cheap and not get stuck with 200k in debt.

My sister's boyfriend is wealthy and is going to Bentley to study Finance and play Lacrosse. In his situation it makes sense to do that. He'll wind up making good money at a bank. My sister is going to do medicine, probably nursing, and she's going to a school that has a respected nursing program.

But if you're not all planned out why would you spend the big bucks to do gen eds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The spartan

Always an interesting point. If you benefit from someone else's education, why shouldn't you pay for it?

---

For the same reason I shouldn't have to pay for the capital that built this computer years before this computer was built.

Because it's not my risk to take.

Quote:

---

That is an idealistic view, but a unrealistic one. Sure you have entrepreneurs who skipped college to make billions of dollars, but those stories are few and far between. The typical employer does not want to take risks, even if the risk is worth taking (thanks human psychology). Employers will take the applicant with the more prestigious degree over the one with the more typical degree if they feel it is less of a risk. Also, there is a lot of psychological effects that go into attending a prestigious school, most of which is self-efficacy. If you feel like you are receiving the best education, you begin to start acting like it.

---

The kind of genius that changes the future of a field doesn't need a degree. If this brilliant kid isn't that kind of genius, I honestly don't care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Astaroth

So you are saying a top rate uni does not significantly increase one's career opportunities?

---

Yes. Statistics might suggest something else, but statistics do not account for the fact that top-tier universities work with primarily brilliant kids to begin with, which means the statistics are geared in their favor from the start.

The information available to the students of either school is the same. The kind of man I care about getting his education will learn what he needs to learn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justice and Mercy

Yes. Statistics might suggest something else, but statistics do not account for the fact that top-tier universities work with primarily brilliant kids to begin with, which means the statistics are geared in their favor from the start.

The information available to the students of either school is the same. The kind of man I care about getting his education will learn what he needs to learn.

---

Lol. Again, denying basic facts. If 100 people apply for a top job in a bank and 10 of them don't have an ivy league history (while the others do), why would they even be invited for a talk?

It's not as much about the quality of the education as about the worth and value of the certificate/degree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Astaroth

Lol. Again, denying basic facts. If 100 people apply for a top job in a bank and 10 of them don't have an ivy league history (while the others do), why would they even be invited for a talk?

It's not as much about the quality of the education as about the worth and value of the certificate/degree.

---

I'd hire the guy who does the best interview. It's all about small talk, eye contact, and a firm grip. That's how I've gotten every job I've been hired for. (That and some Nepotism.)

Resume's just offer context as to what they've already done. If I interviewed multiple people who sell themselves well and are articulate and likable then I'd turn to their past experience. Where they went to school doesn't matter. I got in better schools than I went to.

I don't understand how it's sustainable for people to expend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a foot in the door in a low paying entry position...

If I'm hiring a CEO I want to know what he's done before, not what what his GPA was at Berkeley.

If there are 1000 applicants to a job you can't just say, "hey, let's invite all of them, even the ones who went to community college or had a GPA of 2.5". Before the interviewing a harsh process of removing the "unworthy" ones happens. Face it already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Astaroth

Lol. Again, denying basic facts. If 100 people apply for a top job in a bank and 10 of them don't have an ivy league history (while the others do), why would they even be invited for a talk?

---

More to the point, why would I care?

Sounds like that role is over-saturated as it is. What do you think giving those other ten a ride through Ivy League schools would accomplish other than wasting a ton of money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Astaroth

Wow. Now we have reached the point at which basic facts are just ignored. Nice denial.

---

Welcome to the 2012 argument against sanity. Brought to you by: The Tea Party, Libertarians, other peoplez.

I think only tax payers should be allowed to vote since they're usually the ones who pay attention to what is going on in the government and want good people running the country. Non-tax payers I like to call "McDonald's people" where they go to McDonalds and spend the free money they take from tax payers on buying five cheeseburgers and six extra large fries with extra salt all for themself. Fatty. :F

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thrillology

I think only tax payers should be allowed to vote since they're usually the ones who pay attention to what is going on in the government and want good people running the country. Non-tax payers I like to call "McDonald's people" where they go to McDonalds and spend the free money they take from tax payers on buying five cheeseburgers and six extra large fries with extra salt all for themself. Fatty. :F

---

Okay then, only people who pay taxes can serve in the Military then, since they're obviously the only ones invested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthShizNit

Okay then, only people who pay taxes can serve in the Military then, since they're obviously the only ones invested.

---

Yeah. That's a totally reasonable statement. Lets bring it one more step. Limit the vote to veterans who have paid all their taxes (in the year before the given vote.) It's like Starship :wub:ing Troopers.

However I can tell you think it's absurd.

If you aren't putting money in the dish why should you get to say where the money goes?
If you aren't going to put your life on the line shouldn't be in a position to choose who will make the decisions which will get people killed.

A Tax Paying Veteran... Yeah that's what I consider active citizenship.

Forget the 99%. Lets talk about the 9%. The 9% of Americans who are active citizens. That's 91% of the country who have never served and 47% who don't pay federal taxes. Me included in that 91% mind you. I'd give up my vote if that was going to take away the vote of that other 91%.

I'm not saying you can't be a citizen unless you serve, but I'm saying the vote is a privilege, not a right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Col. Tartleton

Yeah. That's a totally reasonable statement. Lets bring it one more step. Limit the vote to veterans who have paid all their taxes (in the year before the given vote.) It's like Starship :wub:ing Troopers.

However I can tell you think it's absurd.

If you aren't putting money in the dish why should you get to say where the money goes?
If you aren't going to put your life on the line shouldn't be in a position to choose who will make the decisions which will get people killed.

A Tax Paying Veteran... Yeah that's what I consider active citizenship.

Forget the 99%. Lets talk about the 9%. The 9% of Americans who are active citizens. That's 91% of the country who have never served and 47% who don't pay federal taxes. Me included in that 91% mind you. I'd give up my vote if that was going to take away the vote of that other 91%.

I'm not saying you can't be a citizen unless you serve, but I'm saying the vote is a privilege, not a right.

---

cool story bra

Quote:

---

Forget the 99%. Lets talk about the 9%. The 9% of Americans who are active citizens. That's 91% of the country who have never served and 47% who don't pay federal taxes. Me included in that 91% mind you. I'd give up my vote if that was going to take away the vote of that other 91%.

---

Let them eat cake?

It's funny to see how the sophistic :wub: of the rightist rhetoric finally goes from ''not paying taxes'' to let's limit the vote.

It's almost like a natural route: ''we are the important ones and therefore we should rule according to our best interests, which are in general, those of the unwashed masses as well''.

The proletarii have no business in politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justice and Mercy

Perhaps not, which is why if you make that little money you ought to move somewhere else, since "somewhere else" will be FAR cheaper and offer the same pay or more.

---

This take is not really connected to reality.

You think all the low income earners in Los Angeles can pack up and move to Phoenix Flagstaff and Tucson metros and they can just find jobs that PAY MORE? Thats entirely unrealistic as AZ for example tends to offer less money for jobs than CA. And thats across industries from jobs available in Hollywood and Silicon Valley that don't exist in Arizona to construction, restaurant, farming jobs that will pay better and be more available than equivalent opportunities in AZ.

So in most cases for people to move to cheaper areas, they will making less money IF a job is even available. Usually rural areas offer far less in the way of job opportunities for workers of all skill and education levels than cities.

Quote:

---

The important point is that they can certainly afford living costs with 25k a year, and much MUCH less.

---

You never proved this. You just asserted it claiming yourself as example. You never demonstrated that people can live easily in big cities like LA, SF or NYC off of such low yearly salary. Nor is it viable for most of the 47%.

And college students were only the group *most* capable of living cheaply. Sure its possible for one person to rent the American Gothic house in rural Iowa for $250 a month but the vast majority of low income earners in big cities cannot live off 15K a year, they can barely survive off 25K a year and telling them to "move somewhere cheaper" is entirely unrealistic in many cases. One reason living in Phoenix is cheaper than LA is that jobs tend to pay LESS in Phoenix than they do in LA, especially jobs for non-college grads/unskilled workers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Astaroth

It's not as much about the quality of the education as about the worth and value of the certificate/degree.

---

Yup. And one of the biggest values to top tier University degrees are the connections you make. You go to Harvard and you have high powered connections that you won't have if you go to Appalachian State.

Quote:

---

47% who don't pay federal taxes. Me included in that 91% mind you. I'd give up my vote if that was going to take away the vote of that other 91%.

---

You don't drive? Most people own a car and thus pay federal excise taxes on gas (or effectively pay it on everything shipped or using a taxi etc)

Quote:

---

If you aren't going to put your life on the line shouldn't be in a position to choose who will make the decisions which will get people killed.

---

Well so nobody else is risking there lives? Not firemen, construction workers, linemen? No one else is serving the greater good of the country not teachers, researchers, public defenders, etc. Or how about the level of hassle people in the reserves for example have to put up with from employers. I mean If you want national service than fine make some real laws with real teeth and real enforcement or perhaps even better just make everyone serve for 18 or 24th months at 18. But until then I cannot really see justifying military service as a nessecity for voting.

I always thought the point of Representative Democracy is so that people are represented in the Government which has power over them. It's a social contract that has been at heart of American political history since the Revolution.

I don't see why we should abandon that principle for some sort of oligarchy. How exactly could we chastise a military oligarchy like Myanmar if we ourselves banned 90% of the population from voting, and put control of the Government in the hands of a military class? We'd be the pot calling the kettle black.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Astaroth

Oh god, please not one of these threads again. Is this TWC or Fox news?

They pay plenty of other taxes (such as sales tax and various other state taxes etc).

---

Asty I have to take you to task on this. :P

The truth is the truth, sorry that very few places other than Fox actually report the real numbers even though you can get them yourself right from Obama's own website.

You are completely wrong. The first thing you have to do is make a distinction between federal tax and state tax, which you do not. Obviously federal taxes support federal spending, and state taxes support state spending. The two are completely different.

Yes, it is true that the bottom 50% of US tax payers pay no federal income tax at all. Its a fact, get used to it.

Quote:

---

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.


In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.

---

The federal taxes that they do pay, such as federal gasoline tax, are outstripped by federal spending. Severely outstripped. So much so that 49% of the population receives some form of federal aid.

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

Quote:

---

Also, in the US most people pay comparatively little income taxes in terms of % (unlike in Europe you don't have to pay 50%+ income tax),

---

Another statement that is simply just wrong, because you refuse to look at the other taxes being paid here even though you cite them above. The combined tax (federal, state, local) is well above 50% for the people that actually pay taxes.

Quote:

---

Also, lots of rich people pay almost no taxes, either. See Buffet or Romney.

---

Another BS statement. There is a huge difference between capital gain and income. If you seriously need that explained to you I will, but the basics is that income is income, capital gains is the money you make on the money you invest AFTER YOU PAID FEDERAL INCOME TAX on your income.

As for the lie about Buffet I am sick to death of it. Hes completely full of :wub: when he says he doesnt pay enough taxes, and in fact is right this very minute involved in a lawsuit over taxes. Yes, thats right, the guy who says he doesnt pay enough taxes is being sued for $366 million for tax avoidance.

Funny how the guy on the "I dont pay enough taxes" bandwagon is doing everything he can so that his company can avoid paying taxes. People should quit repeating his lies and using it as a platform to raise someone else's taxes.

You will notice that I did not post any links to Fox when I gave you sources. That is to show you that the information is out there. The difference is that only Fox puts it on primetime television. MSNBC, CNN, etc, only put it in obscure web articles so they can say that actually "presented the news" and then their live idiots on TV ignore it and put their own spin on it.

Get off the Bash FOX News Bandwagon, and get the facts.

I never said that the claim about the "no federal income taxes" was wrong. The problem with Fox is that they make it seem as if 50% of the country are just some lazy bums who sit on the beach with their drinks and live the good life (paying zero taxes at all) while everyone else is working his ass off. Of course Foxnews don't say that word for word, but it is heavily implied.

As for the "50%" number: I was only talking about the federal income tax in Europe. Here in Germany, many people pay 40%+ in federal income tax, plus a sales tax of 19% among many other taxes. So really, compared to Europe your taxes are nothing. :P