How does someone making $24,000 a year pay federal taxes?

[_beastie]

The fact that Droopy is a relatively poor person constantly ragging on the "taker" class that he clearly is a part of with sweeping, mean-spirited generalizations, is a basis for ample ragging on him, though. Ironically, Droopy is an archtypical example of the stereotype of the older, working-class, white male fed on a steady diet of conservative propaganda funded by wealthy interests that cause him to adopt attitudes that are hateful to the very group he is a part of. Droopy, you moocher, you.

And that is exactly my point. I have never faulted him for receiving help he needed. I have faulted him because he's a hypocrite because he rags on the "taker" class with mean-spirited generalizations when he's a "taker", too.

He's one of the 47% that Romney also ragged on with mean-spirited generalizations, implying that Droopy has no stake in the government because he pays no federal income taxes.

[_Doctor Scratch]

It appears I've been vindicated yet again. Droopy, I believe you owe me an apology.

[_Analytics]

droopy clarified here:

Payroll taxes are federal taxes, Ilsa. I never claimed to have paid "income" taxes, and if I did manage to say that somewhere, it was an oversight on my part.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 14#p661814

That makes more sense. However, social security withholdings do not factor into this discussion.

Why not? When Warren Buffett makes the argument that his secratary pays a much higher percentage of total income in taxes than he does, they certainly do play a part. When Mitt Romney makes the argument that people who don't pay income taxes refuse to "take personal responsibility and care for their lives," he doesn't count it.

In the years that Droopy was making $24,000, he paid a much higher percentage of his total income in payroll tax and excise tax (i.e. federal tax on gas that is added-on at the pump) than Romney did. Throw in local sales tax and property tax, and it's quite possible that Droopy paid about as much of his total income in taxes as Mitt Romney did.

Just because Mitt Romney's analysis shows that Droopy is a moocher that pays no federal tax doesn't mean that is the best way to look at it.

[_beastie]

Why not? When Warren Buffett makes the argument that his secratary pays a much higher percentage of total income in taxes than he does, they certainly do play a part. When Mitt Romney makes the argument that people who don't pay income taxes refuse to "take personal responsibility and care for their lives," he doesn't count it.

In the years that Droopy was making $24,000, he paid a much higher percentage of his total income in payroll tax and excise tax (i.e. federal tax on gas that is added-on at the pump) than Romney did. Throw in local sales tax and property tax, and it's quite possible that Droopy paid about as much of his total income in taxes as Mitt Romney did.

Just because Mitt Romney's analysis shows that Droopy is a moocher that pays no federal tax doesn't mean that is the best way to look at it.

Yes, I agree with your point, but that is not the context of this exchange. The context is that Droopy criticizes people who receive government assistance and says that the state is stealing on their behalf. So I asked him, since he considered this theft, if he had paid back the money he "stole" (ie, received government assistance.) His response was that he had paid back MORE than he had taken out in taxes since then. But FICA does not go into the fund that is used to fund entitlement programs such as SNAP, welfare, or HUD, which is apparently what he received. That's for social security, which he will receive the benefits of one day. That's why I said it couldn't "count" in terms of him having paid back the money he "stole".

Don't misunderstand me. I do not criticize Droopy for needing help, or receiving help. I understand that life circumstances can be so difficult and trying that it is nearly impossible at times to exist without that help. But I'm not the one who calls that "theft" and then criticizes the people receiving the help. That's why I fault Droopy. He thinks somehow HE is different than those OTHER people who need help - you know, the lazy ones that are the victim of the entitlement culture. The ones who don't really want to work. THOSE people. But Droopy was different, somehow.

My point is that Droopy isn't different, and the vast majority of people who receive government aid do so for less than five years, as did Droopy. Only 20% are on it long-term (and I agree that is a problem that needs to be addressed, but I'm certain I would disagree with droopy on how to address it.)

[_Droopy]

As to Social Security I have a strong suspicion Droopy will start suckling at that teat as soon as he can and will get far more out of it than he paid into it.

(sigh...)

1. I have no choice in the matter.

2. By the time I start receiving those checks, in 2025, the entire system will be in a state of financial collapse (it already is, of course, but its just not obvious yet). The actual fund runs out of money entirely in the 2030s in theory (and in fact, probably far sooner than that) and has no money left to pay new recipients after around 2017 or so. I may never get anything at all, unless Congress wrecks the economy entirely to fund it (and the economy will be entirely destroyed by other factors long before this state of affairs comes about).

[_beastie]

I'm requoting Droopy because there was something else that caught my eye.

viewtopic.php?p=661721#p661721

So what you are here saying is that now, after having paid back into the federal treasury through my own hard work far beyond what I ever used in benefits, I should, as someone who has never made more than $24,000 in my life, write personal checks to the federal government to feed a morally and economically indefensible monstrosity that has destroyed the inner city black family, helped bring the nation to the brink of financial ruin, created a raging entitlement mentality, slowed economic growth and job creation, and incentivized values, habits, mentalities, and cultural attributes that are incompatible and hostile to gainful employment, let alone something that could be called a career. You want me to pay more taxes to support this system rather than leaving it in my hands to support myself and my own family as I see fit?

Look again at what I bolded.

I absolutely agree that Droopy, or anyone low-income worker, should not be expected to pay more money to the government. But Mitt Romney appeared to believe that even low-income workers would be better off paying more money to the government. This is from the transcipt of Romney's 47% remarks:

Romney: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like. I mean, when you ask those people…we do all these polls—I find it amazing—we poll all these people, see where you stand on the polls, but 45 percent of the people will go with a Republican, and 48 or 4…

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... #47percent

According to Mitt Romney, "those people" show that they don't take personal responsibility and care for their lives. He made this judgment because they don't pay federal income tax. In other words, because "those people" pay no federal income tax, they do not have a stake in the tax issue.

Droopy had to know that Romney was talking about HIM. Yet somehow he's able to convince himself that Romney was NOT talking about him, I assume.

Romney's generalization is obviously, patently false and insulting. And to follow his statements to their logical conclusion would mean that Romney WOULD, indeed, expect Droopy and other low-income workers to pay more federal income taxes. Yet Droopy clearly does not think that should be so - at least in his case.

[_beastie]

(sigh...)

1. I have no choice in the matter.

2. By the time I start receiving those checks, in 2025, the entire system will be in a state of financial collapse (it already is, of course, but its just not obvious yet). The actual fund runs out of money entirely in the 2030s in theory (and in fact, probably far sooner than that) and has no money left to pay new recipients after around 2017 or so. I may never get anything at all, unless Congress wrecks the economy entirely to fund it (and the economy will be entirely destroyed by other factors long before this state of affairs comes about).

Do you concede that the money you paid in FICA cannot count as "paying back" money you received as government assistance in OTHER programs?

[_Droopy]

I view all taxes as a form of property seizure.

We agree.

I view it as a necessary evil at times, but often I am concerned about people who don't think through the idea that what the government does with that wealth has to justify the evil of seizing it.

We agree.

The idea that the property was the public's to take in the first place, as some liberal arguments go, is appalling to me.

We agree.

But, since we reasonably think of theft as improper taking of property, I don't regard all taxes as theft since I do think some of that is proper.

I follow Bastiat on this. Taxation becomes theft when it reaches:

1. Certain levels.

2. Is used, not to fund the legitimate functions of the state, but as a gratuity from the state to certain dependent classes from certain other preemptively indemnified classes. That is, when the state takes by force from those to whom money belongs and transfers it to other citizens (not necessarily legitimate government agencies and their employees) to whom it does not belong. He termed this "legal plunder," which, by modern standards, is uniquely applicable.

Since Droopy isn't an anarcho-capitalist and advocates for things like a 2 trillion or so dollar military,

Huh?

he clearly is fine with the government engaging in "theft" even if he calls it that.

Where have I ever, anywhere, defined all taxation as "theft?"

I also think it's hard to charge someone with hypocrisy for taking advantage of government services that they politically oppose. The government's intrusion into the matter naturally limits their choices and puts them at a competitive disadvantage otherwise. So when someone who opposes government owned and operated roads is told to drive on their own roads then, it misses the idea that the government's seizing of that economic sector largely crowds out that option.

We agree again (you'd better sit down, E., before you pass out face first and end up with a knot on your forehead).

Plus, the government's taking your property and giving you that option. If you say "No Thanks" to that service, you don't get your property back. It's Ok to work inside of a system you oppose. So I don't fault someone for accepting welfare even if they oppose the program anymore than I fault myself for listening to NPR even though I oppose government funded public media.

We agree again. Can someone bake a cake...

The fact that Droopy is a relatively poor person constantly ragging on the "taker" class that he clearly is a part of with sweeping, mean-spirited generalizations, is a basis for ample ragging on him, though.

Now it begins to deteriorate. An emotion-based statement that imposes value judgements on critical argument and observations of the social milieu rather than meeting rational argument with rational argument. The "takers" are known to exist, and they have existed for a long time as a growing and permanent demographic. That demographic now extends well into the middle class and increasingly, into the politically connected corporate world. This has nothing to do with the legitimacy of taxation qua taxation, but everything to do with the uses to which taxation is bent and to the proper size, scope, and prerogatives of the state.

Ironically, Droopy is an archtypical example of the stereotype of the older, working-class, white male fed on a steady diet of conservative propaganda funded by wealthy interests that cause him to adopt attitudes that are hateful to the very group he is a part of. Droopy, you moocher, you.

Its always fascinated me how someone who claims to be a libertarian can lurch, in a single post, from standard libertarian ideas to stuff that could have come out of the New School for Social Research, a standard critical theory textbook, Dennis Kucinich, or a political activist manning a kiosk at an Occupy rally.

Way, way out, man.

[_Droopy]

And that is exactly my point. I have never faulted him for receiving help he needed.

As a vigorous partisan of the welfare state, I wouldn't have expected you to.

I have faulted him because he's a hypocrite because he rags on the "taker" class with mean-spirited generalizations when he's a "taker", too.

And this is where you're argument falls on its face. I am not a part of that demographic. I landed my first job a 16. I am now almost 54. In that time, I used welfare benefits for around three years or so (but not continuously during that time, this is a total, and does not represent unbroken continuity). The "takers," - the so-called 47% of the population who are permanently or semi-permanently, over much or the totality of their lifetimes - Julia, in other words - receiving some form of government assistance, benefits, or government checks on a continual basis, and who receive on average, more in government transfers from their fellow citizens than they pay in taxes, is the problem. Some people receiving some help sometimes, here and there, in some ways, was never the problem (although the central, federal government's role in such a safety net is a fundamental problem).

He's one of the 47% that Romney also ragged on with mean-spirited generalizations, implying that Droopy has no stake in the government because he pays no federal income taxes.

No, you see, I'm not, and that's the point. Over my lifetime, I've worked vastly more and paid far more in taxes than I ever used in those few years on welfare. The "takers," even when they're working, are still on "welfare" in some sense and receiving more in government largesse than they pay in taxes to support it. Its ongoing and continual - a way of life - and one that becomes ever more inconspicuous as it becomes accepted, normative, and unquestioned. At the high end, the proliferation of "crony capitalism," (the most egregious example being the "green" tech sector) presents the same problems; entire corporations that receive more in state subsidies then they can possible generate in profits in the free market. They're utterly dependent - they're "takers" and takers on an effectively permanent basis. Both the welfare underclass, the working poor, the middle class, and large corporations in this environment become permanent net rent seekers in such an environment.

The "takers" are not defined just by the welfare underclass for whom government dependency is total or nearly so. Its larger core - and the problem it presents to a free, civil social order - are that critical mass of citizens who do work and pay payroll taxes but no income taxes (at much higher levels) but receive more in redistributed wealth from the state than they pay in taxes, and with the promise of always more, more, more, and ever more in the future.

Their incentives and political proclivities? Ever expanding government, ever expanding government programs, and ever more government colonization of economic and personal life.

[_beastie]

The "takers," - the so-called 47% of the population who are permanently or semi-permanently, over much or the totality of their lifetimes - Julia, in other words - receiving some form of government assistance, benefits, or government checks on a continual basis, and who receive on average, more in government transfers from their fellow citizens than they pay in taxes, is the problem. Some people receiving some help sometimes, here and there, in some ways, was never the problem (although the central, federal government's role in such a safety net is a fundamental problem).

Please list all the various forms of government assistance, benefits, or government checks that "47%" receive on a continual basis.

And please provide evidence that those folks who receive said benefits simply don't work, thereby distinguishing themselves from you, who started working at 16.