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

[Nevins]

So if a kid from a low income neighborhood who is talented at physics and biology and gets into UCLA on academic merit to study neuroscience your solution is "tough s--t, move somewhere cheaper"? Well considering the difference in out of state tuition and in state tuition that simply isnt a realistic option at all.

So ya, your tough luck response is just not a solution. You simply can't live that cheap in most metropolitan areas and if you are born in a specific state, the cost of attending out of state schools is much, much higher and essentially would negate any savings in living expenses.

What actually happens is low income kids just go into more debt to be able to afford the good school (because usually a person would be making a foolish, poor life choice in refusing to go to UCLA and attending Fresno State simply because living in Fresno is cheaper than LA).

So if we are using a limiting case where metropolitan areas are the only place where you can study, I guess you would be correct. A shame that many top universities are located in relatively rural areas, take University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign for instance, which are very similar to the area that I study in. All of this ignores the multitude of grants, scholarships, and so forth available for low income students. And hell, if out of state tuition is the issue then go live and work in that state for a year or so and declare residency. Problem solved.

Your post more or less supports my initial point: living on 15K a year is simply impossible in many metro areas let alone "living easily off 15K". You aren't denying the reality that 15K is not enough to live off in certain areas. You just propose a solution that is simply not viable, unrealistic and impractical for many people.

For some people, I apologize there isnt a one size fits all solution

@Azoth - still a problem with your whole picture, it assumes a finite size of wealth. Whatever percentage is owned by a particular demographic is largely irrelevant when the total "Wealth" is not a fixed amount. Is income disparity an issue? Yes. But you are looking at it entirely incorrectly.

[chilon]

So if we are using a limiting case where metropolitan areas are the only place where you can study, I guess you would be correct. A shame that many top universities are located in relatively rural areas, take University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign for instance, which are very similar to the area that I study in. All of this ignores the multitude of grants, scholarships, and so forth available for low income students. And hell, if out of state tuition is the issue then go live and work in that state for a year or so and declare residency. Problem solved.

You seem to have lost the plot a bit here and gone off on a tangent unrelated to the main argument. So step back a second and review.

I was replying to Justice and Mercy who asserted that 25K was "more than enough" to "live easily" and that he can "live easily" off of 15K a year.

I countered by saying that his assertion simply isn't true for the vast majority of people that live in big cities where the cost of living is much greater and 15K is not nearly enough to "live easily". I also asked someone to prove that one could "live easily" off of 15K in a city like Los Angeles going to UCLA. Telling me about some rural town doe not prove that it is possible to live off 15K in Los Angeles going to UCLA.

So taking in the context of this discussion, your comments of "tough s--t move somewhere cheaper" make NO sense whatsoever. While justice brought up the example of being a college kid, his original statement was not directed only at college kids but at ANYONE making 15K or 25K a year. You can't tell everyone that makes say 10-20K a year to just "move to some rural area where you can live cheaper". I don't think I need to explain why that would not work at all as any sort of solution- even if it was practical which its not. And still that does nothing to prove that it is possible to live off 15K or 25K "easily" anywhere in America (which was implied by the complaining about someone making 15K not paying Federal Income Taxes).

The reality is the vast majority of people making 15k - 25K do not live in cheap, BFE rural areas, they live in the metropolitan areas and big cities. 80% of the US population lives in urban areas.


BTW as a side note, the majority of the top US Universities are in urban areas. Almost all top universities in America are in urban areas not rural ones (Harvard, Stanford, Cal Tech, MIT, Columbia, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, Brown, Berkeley, UCLA, etc). Sure there are a few exceptions like Univ of Illinois and Penn State but the majority of top ranked universities are in urban areas not rural ones.

[xcorps]

Having a hard time scrounging up sympathy for the plight of students attending Harvard etc etc.

[Justice and Mercy]

Where?

Phoenix, and you'll note that being such a big college city prices are pretty high where college kids live (lots of demand).

How do you cope? Find a relatively cheap but still good university, like ASU, attend the local community colleges for the first two years saving money and becoming a state resident, and then transfer to whatever university you had in mind.

If you still can't cope (because you're terrible at budgeting) student loans of only a few thousand a year can get you by, and if you're in a bad financial situation as it is the Federal government will give you some money.

If we were making this challenge really realistic (and representative of the situation of students who grew up low income in cities like Los Angeles or San Francisco) then we would have to include costs for your car and computer in that 15K a year.

My vehicle is paid off, because I wasn't a lazy bastard in high school (well, except regarding school itself), and a computer shouldn't cost you anymore than $1,000 even for a good laptop. Assuming you didn't get a "full-ride" scholarship and thereby need to spend your own money on rent you ought to be spending $1,000 a month at the very most even in relatively expensive areas on all household costs if you find a roommate. If you're not as smart as I am and don't have a vehicle paid off, ride a bike or carpool (I know I would drive someone to school if they took over gas expenses, which is certainly cheaper than buying a vehicle.)

Are prices too high for college students? Abso-fricking-lutely, precisely because people aren't expected to take care of it themselves like I do. People are loose with other people's money.

[The spartan]

I agree, poor people have it the easiest.

I am glad to see JAM is still falling into the fallacy of: "If I can do it, why can't they?!". Good to know JAM. Keep on truckin.

[chilon]

Phoenix, and you'll note that being such a big college city prices are pretty high where college kids live (lots of demand).

Ah! ASU. Right there in lovely Scottsdale. Isn't your stadium now named after the "University of Phoenix" ?

BTW Phoenix is the crappiest place on earth I've ever lived. You are aware that prices in Phoenix are not remotely similar to prices in California yes?

You can live off AZ's 101 way, way cheaper than you can live off CA's 101 (101 and 17 provides a lot of cheap housing you couldnt find anywhere near UCLA or CAL) .

How do you cope? Find a relatively cheap but still good university, like ASU, attend the local community colleges for the first two years saving money and becoming a state resident, and then transfer to what ever university you had in mind.

Well, ASU might be a "decent university" but its definitely not a great one. Its certainly not on the level of the best undergrad public schools such as the top UC schools, UMIch or the other top public universitites. At least 7 UC campuses are more challenging universities and rated higher than ASU. You do have one of the cheapest law schools in the country at ASU though.

If you still can't cope (because you're terrible at budgeting) student loans of only a few thousand a year can get you by, and if you're in a bad financial situation as it is the Federal government will give you some money.

K, anyone going to UCLA, CAL, Stanford or USC has much greater costs of living than you do in the Scottsdale area. Its not about "budgeting", its about the difference in the cost of living. I am very familiar with Phoenix, Scottsdale and AZ and none of the costs are remotely similar to California. So in short, its great you live in a state no one wants to live in so its hella cheap but don't think your situation applies to the majority of college students on the west coast.

[Count of Montesano]

I found the following link from the Atlantic magazine quite enlightening - it shows breakdown of American taxes, who pays them, and what the money goes for. The "50 percent don't pay any federal taxes" is very misleading. Nearly everyone who earn income pays for social programs like social security and medicare, which btw are the biggest expenditures in federal spending. Also, a major reason why federal tax revenues are down is the same reason corporate taxes are down - it's the economy. IF you earn less money you pay less in taxes.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...o58mQ.facebook

[Phier]

The reason is simple. The fewer people paying direct income taxes, the more likely democrats get elected. Bush did not help this.

Most taxes like payroll taxes and SS are basically hidden from the employees and are not thought of as taxes. These idiots get a return and somehow think its a good thing they paid and got a small fraction back.

If everyone had to write a check on April 15th, for all their taxes, we would see a revolution in this country.

[chilon]

Most taxes like payroll taxes and SS are basically hidden from the employees and are not thought of as taxes.

No, payroll, medicare and SS are on every paystub right below (or above) the Federal Income tax line. They are not "hidden from employees" at all, and everyone I know thinks of them as taxes. Not sure where you get this strange idea from but it certainly isn't accurate.

[Sphere]

If everyone had to write a check on April 15th, for all their taxes, we would see a revolution in this country.

Stupid American's don't understand their own tax rates?

Usually such paternalism is the realm of leftists, not libertarians. It is hard to believe in the rationality of individualism and the stupidity and ignorance of individuals at the same time.

Bottom line is the US has some of the lightest taxes in the industrialized world. Not that that is the wrong way to run the country, but this cry of over taxation is still an irony.

[chilon]

Stupid American's don't understand their own tax rates?

Usually such paternalism is the realm of leftists, not libertarians. It is hard to believe in the rationality of individualism and the stupidity and ignorance of individuals at the same time.

Bottom line is the US has some of the lightest taxes in the industrialized world. Not that that is the wrong way to run the country, but this cry of over taxation is still an irony.

Thanks for the link. Through link searching I found this article on the "47% issues"

Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.


The reason is that poor families generally pay more in payroll taxes than they receive through benefits like the Earned Income Tax Credit. It’s not just poor families for whom the payroll tax is a big deal, either. About three-quarters of all American households pay more in payroll taxes, which go toward Medicare and Social Security, than in income taxes.



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/bu...eonhardt.html#

[Kitsunegari]

The net tax consumers out numbering the net tax payers, something John C. Calhoun predicted 200 years ago.

[chilon]

The net tax consumers out numbering the net tax payers, something John C. Calhoun predicted 200 years ago.

Its a myth (see above)

[Kitsunegari]

Reread the quote....

[chilon]

Reread the quote....

Maybe I dont quite understand what you mean by "net tax consumers".

[Thorn777]

The net tax consumers out numbering the net tax payers, something John C. Calhoun predicted 200 years ago.

Even if so, Its really a self fulfilling prophecy when you start busting unions, outsource manual labor, encourage migration of cheap workers etc, and at the same time have education, daycare, housing, medical costs going trough the roof.

And then jump on the soapbox and do all the rhetoric you subscribe to is also a very questionable pattern I often see in the American political landscape: first break it, then call it broken, then move in and cut, privatize, eradicate and so on.

Really weird that this works...

[TheDarkKnight]

Part of the problem with people not being able to support themselves is that they are attempting to live beyond their means, and spend a good portion of their money on luxury items. Granted, I'm a firm believer in being able to spend your money as you wish, but if I see/hear you complaining on your new Iphone about having to eat ramen for another night expect little sympathy.

Another thing that pisses me off is when people go out and spend hundreds on tattoos and/or piercings and then complain about not having enough money.

[Kitsunegari]

Sorry here's the exact quote

… it must necessarily follow, that some one portion of the community must pay in taxes more than it receives back in disbursements; while another receives in disbursements more than it pays in taxes… The necessary result, then, of the unequal fiscal action of the government is, to divide the community into two great classes; one consisting of those who, in reality, pay the taxes, and, of course, bear exclusively the burthen of supporting the government; and the other, of those who are the recipients of their proceeds, through disbursements, and who are, in fact, supported by the government; or, in fewer words, to divide it into tax-payers and tax-consumers.

[MathiasOfAthens]

We have buses and trains in America pal, just FYI.

You know very well that most cities have poor systems and suburbs have none whatsoever.

[Thorn777]

Sorry here's the exact quote

??? ok and then what? Do you think thats just because one is to tax shy and the other to generous? Whats the point?