Of course, this argument falls on deaf ears on the conservative side because they believe that taxes are evil and only take away their hard-earned money. An "exclusion" or "exemption" is not a giveaway from the government, because it was their money to begin with, and the exemption merely allows them to keep what is theirs, not the government's.
15
The word "taxes" is frequently used to mean exclusively income taxes. It is then a short step to criticizing people who "don't pay taxes". This ignores payroll taxes and sales taxes. I see frequent references to the "Reagan tax cuts", referring implicitly to income taxes. I don't see many references to the Reagan payroll tax increases.
16
No, when the taxman takes a portion of your income and lets you keep the rest, the dollars you keep are not a government handout. Giving it a big name like tax expenditures does not change that simple fact.
16
What a ridiculous conclusion by the author. The author is equating "getting stuff" from the government with idea that higher-income earners "could be paying more".
So the fact that I dont have to pay MORE tax on the interest I pay on my mortgage is "getting stuff"? I dont think so.
The government isnt ENTITLED to my income. We CHOOSE to elect individuals who represent us on how much tax the government should be allowed to take from taxpayers to run the basic services of our system.
And by the way, folks - if you think you're paying too much tax into the system, you can vote for representatives who agree with you and want to shrink the size of our broken government. That gets my vote.
So the fact that I dont have to pay MORE tax on the interest I pay on my mortgage is "getting stuff"? I dont think so.
The government isnt ENTITLED to my income. We CHOOSE to elect individuals who represent us on how much tax the government should be allowed to take from taxpayers to run the basic services of our system.
And by the way, folks - if you think you're paying too much tax into the system, you can vote for representatives who agree with you and want to shrink the size of our broken government. That gets my vote.
16
Ah yes, my favorite lefty position: that the government basically owns you and everything you make, so any dollar you're allowed to keep is basically a "gift" from your masters, the State.
This one is almost as good as "Taxes are the dues we pay for a civil society". But of course, only a few of us actually pay those dues. And folks like Bryce live off them with government sinecures and lobbyist largesse.
Thanks, but no thanks, Bryce. You can keep yourself chained to the State if you like. Say "hi" to the other six-year-olds at ThinkProgress!
This one is almost as good as "Taxes are the dues we pay for a civil society". But of course, only a few of us actually pay those dues. And folks like Bryce live off them with government sinecures and lobbyist largesse.
Thanks, but no thanks, Bryce. You can keep yourself chained to the State if you like. Say "hi" to the other six-year-olds at ThinkProgress!
21
While I learned from the article I believe it missed the concept of need. Section 8, food stamps and the like give those in need and their families sustenance at a bare minimum. Wealthy households don't need a break on their mortgage or additional tax benefits to shelter, feed and clothe their family members. Why do the folks who have so much generally want more at the expense of anyone else? When does the myth of more end?
22
OK OK, let's get a few things straight. First of all, poor people are not "vulnerable," they're lazy stupid takers. Second thing, these "tax expenditures" for the rich are not handouts, they are just rescinding the unjust amount of taxation that rich people don't deserve to have to pay. *Now* we're speaking Republicanese, why don't you go back and re-type your opinion piece with these key notions in mind, and you'll see how the perspective changes.
7
If someone gives me something for nothing, I just got some "free stuff". If someone allows me to keep something I already own, instead of taking it, nobody has given me anything.
The entire "tax expenditure" argument only makes sense if you believe the government is entitled to every dollar you make and anything they deign to allow you to keep is "free stuff". NO.
The entire "tax expenditure" argument only makes sense if you believe the government is entitled to every dollar you make and anything they deign to allow you to keep is "free stuff". NO.
15
It would be nice to know what the amount is of the tax deduction on Jeb's mortgage or should that be plural?
6
I've NEVER gotten anything FREE from the US government.
I'm white - work for a living - no government entitlements or subsidies.
So not sure where this "we all get free stuff from the government" comes from.?
I'm taxed extra by cable to help subsidize the poor or entitled.
I'm taxed extra on my cell bill to subsidize the poor or entitled.
Taxes I pay the government support the poor or entitled.
Ok - I do get to deduct the donations I make online to charities, women's shelters, Red Cross, DiggDeep, - so you consider my donation deductions a FREE stuff?
Go scratch!!
I'm white - work for a living - no government entitlements or subsidies.
So not sure where this "we all get free stuff from the government" comes from.?
I'm taxed extra by cable to help subsidize the poor or entitled.
I'm taxed extra on my cell bill to subsidize the poor or entitled.
Taxes I pay the government support the poor or entitled.
Ok - I do get to deduct the donations I make online to charities, women's shelters, Red Cross, DiggDeep, - so you consider my donation deductions a FREE stuff?
Go scratch!!
7
You never get free stuff from the government? Really? Did you build the roads you drive on? No? Someone else built them for you? You mean you paid the entire cost of the construction of the roads you drive on? Surely you're joking!
23
A dollar is fungible...whether you receive a tax deduction or a check from the government or the government builds the road you drive on or the subway you ride. They are the same. It's a reallocation of the earning power of the people. Social engineering by government tries to steer people's earnings to favored enterprises and away from others.
5
So, when I pay "only" 50-55 percent of my income as federal, state, county, property and sales taxes, as opposed to, say, 75 percent, because I have kids and a mortgage, that's me getting free stuff?
Only the New York Times could keep an institutional straight face while letting an editor with ThinkProgress and the Nation make that argument.
I wonder who ThinkProgress believes is paying for food stamps, welfare and the other truly free stuff?
Only the New York Times could keep an institutional straight face while letting an editor with ThinkProgress and the Nation make that argument.
I wonder who ThinkProgress believes is paying for food stamps, welfare and the other truly free stuff?
18
Mr. Covert is so wrong. First, letting someone keep what they earn is not getting anything "from the government." So, the government taking less of my earnings is not me getting anything "free" from anyone. They are my earnings and they are not "free"...I have to earn them.
Second, the actual income taxpayers are the ones who pay to fund the government. Those who pay no income taxes are, literally, those getting "stuff for free.".
Third, all the envious, resentful freeloaders who are attacking the "1%" do so because, in part, of the misleading nature of the NYT and this piece. Something like 47% of ALL income taxes are paid by the top 5%..or is it 1%? The 1% pays much much more than its "share" of government expense. The truth is there are freeloaders galore in this country. They are not the folks who got educated and go to work every day. They are not the folks paying income taxes, real estate taxes, etc. The NYT could try to be more factual and fair in seeing how much the freeloaders suck out from the taxpayers.
Second, the actual income taxpayers are the ones who pay to fund the government. Those who pay no income taxes are, literally, those getting "stuff for free.".
Third, all the envious, resentful freeloaders who are attacking the "1%" do so because, in part, of the misleading nature of the NYT and this piece. Something like 47% of ALL income taxes are paid by the top 5%..or is it 1%? The 1% pays much much more than its "share" of government expense. The truth is there are freeloaders galore in this country. They are not the folks who got educated and go to work every day. They are not the folks paying income taxes, real estate taxes, etc. The NYT could try to be more factual and fair in seeing how much the freeloaders suck out from the taxpayers.
11
I hope an OP-ED like this is printed every month during the election season so the myth of "free stuff" is challenged. Thanks to Bryce Covert for the information to use in conversations with those who refuse to understand government insurance programs, benefit programs and the tax code.
13
If you use this "Covert information" in your next conversation with reasonably smart people who actually have jobs and pay taxes, prepare to be schooled and humiliated in front of a group!
8
I'm a moderate democratic voting citizen, but even I see a difference between a direct benefit hand out of cash/food stamps/free housing, and a so-called "submerged benefit" where the government, out of the goodness of its heart no doubt, permits me through tax credits/breaks to keep more of the money that I earned. While the effect on the government ledger may be the same, it isn't to the other parties (i.e. if the gov't pays someone $1000 vs getting $1000 less from me, the gov't would be in the same financial position, down $1000). The person who gets that $1000 in food or housing didn't earn it (though they may in fact need it), whereas I earned my income through my labor, and getting a tax benefit for using my money a certain way, doesn't place me on equal moral footing with regard to that money. I'm maybe not articulating this perfectly, but getting $1000 feels different from forbearing from paying $1000, because it is different.
11
This is silly. To consider amounts not paid in theoretical taxes and fees as government "free stuff" is ridiculous. The government has really no ability to generate wealth by itself - it is all done (via threat of imprisonment or worse) - but forced confiscation of the wealth of others. Some of this, of course, is the cost of living in a society, but to suggest we "get" anything from the government when they don't tax or take shows us how extreme those on the left really are in matters of taxation.
9
So-called tax expenditures distort our economy partly because they are not clearly understood and partly because they misallocate money in ways which are only marginally useful. Since they appear to have little cost they are not very carefully analyzed. For example the mortgage interest deduction costs a lot of money but does little to improve housing affordability. I could go on, but we need to re-think the whole system.
Each tax expenditure has its proponents and so they are very hard to reform even when it can be shown that it is a waste of money.
Each tax expenditure has its proponents and so they are very hard to reform even when it can be shown that it is a waste of money.
2
The wealthy always benefit more from government than the poor.
A poor person may get a $100 voucher for monthly rent, $100 in food stamps, and takes the bus to work. A wealthy person writes off $4000 in interest on their mortgage, deducts the costs of their $100 business lunch, and then drives to work on that new "free" Interstate, which was built with taxpayer money.
Let's be honest. The "free stuff" term is just another dog whistle phrase that generates the all-too-predictable racist reaction. It's not by accident that Romney and Bush were both referring to African-Americans when they made these statements. They should be ashamed of themselves, especially since the majority of welfare recipients (and wealthy people for that matter) are not African-Americans.
A poor person may get a $100 voucher for monthly rent, $100 in food stamps, and takes the bus to work. A wealthy person writes off $4000 in interest on their mortgage, deducts the costs of their $100 business lunch, and then drives to work on that new "free" Interstate, which was built with taxpayer money.
Let's be honest. The "free stuff" term is just another dog whistle phrase that generates the all-too-predictable racist reaction. It's not by accident that Romney and Bush were both referring to African-Americans when they made these statements. They should be ashamed of themselves, especially since the majority of welfare recipients (and wealthy people for that matter) are not African-Americans.
15
The biggest beneficiaries of govt. spending are those who can leverage what the govt. does for their private gain. This is one important reason that the wealthy should pay a considerably higher proportion of their income in taxes compared to the rest of us.
A new highway is constructed, paid for with everyone's tax money. The result: developers build shopping centers, housing tracts, etc. and get rich in the process. They didn't put in the new freeway, they merely had the money to leverage the new advantage.
The Internet, lest anyone forget, was a govt. project. Billions and billions rest upon that creation. Most of the profits go to those who had the most money to invest (venture capitalists, stock speculators, etc.).
The same applies to the development of silicon chips and many other technologies underlying personal computers. Many were developed with govt. support or on behalf of defense or space efforts. Who gets the profits? Those who received the govt. contracts and were then able to turn the chips into consumer products or to sell the patent rights to others, etc.
The wealth of our society rests on the total activities of business, education and creativity. Having money at the start does not guarantee good results, but it is one of the best paths to getting more money.
Welfare has a bad name. It conjures people getting paid to do nothing. Welfare for the rich is hidden and some people are ignorant enough to believe that the rich deserve, inherently, to get more.
A new highway is constructed, paid for with everyone's tax money. The result: developers build shopping centers, housing tracts, etc. and get rich in the process. They didn't put in the new freeway, they merely had the money to leverage the new advantage.
The Internet, lest anyone forget, was a govt. project. Billions and billions rest upon that creation. Most of the profits go to those who had the most money to invest (venture capitalists, stock speculators, etc.).
The same applies to the development of silicon chips and many other technologies underlying personal computers. Many were developed with govt. support or on behalf of defense or space efforts. Who gets the profits? Those who received the govt. contracts and were then able to turn the chips into consumer products or to sell the patent rights to others, etc.
The wealth of our society rests on the total activities of business, education and creativity. Having money at the start does not guarantee good results, but it is one of the best paths to getting more money.
Welfare has a bad name. It conjures people getting paid to do nothing. Welfare for the rich is hidden and some people are ignorant enough to believe that the rich deserve, inherently, to get more.
17
Gosh, Congress gets more free stuff than anyone else. What hypocrites.
7
It’s about direct public assistance, not tax treatment.
2
Whatever you reward, you will get more of and the two things no country needs are any more rich people or any more poor people.
5
The author, Mr. Bryce, draws a false parallel between say mortgage tax deduction “free stuff” and Section 8 housing voucher “free stuff.”
Let’s assume Mr. Bryce and other liberals were to wave a magic wand and do away with the “free stuff” mortgage tax deduction. Well, all of us taxpayers who no longer had that tax deduction would pay more in the final analysis for our housing, or would reduce our new net housing expense by downsizing.
However, doing away with Section 8 housing vouchers would end up putting people out on the street with no roof over their heads.
So, here’s the real difference – some people actually depend on government “free stuff” to provide the basic necessities of life (food and shelter) for themselves. Others rely upon themselves to provide those necessities.
Let’s assume Mr. Bryce and other liberals were to wave a magic wand and do away with the “free stuff” mortgage tax deduction. Well, all of us taxpayers who no longer had that tax deduction would pay more in the final analysis for our housing, or would reduce our new net housing expense by downsizing.
However, doing away with Section 8 housing vouchers would end up putting people out on the street with no roof over their heads.
So, here’s the real difference – some people actually depend on government “free stuff” to provide the basic necessities of life (food and shelter) for themselves. Others rely upon themselves to provide those necessities.
7
I’ll bet Republicans are desperately searching for a new code word to replace “free stuff” because even though the code word has been tarnished, the sentiment is still golden. Lower income citizens get stuff they don’t deserve; one-percenters get the tax credits they do deserve.
8
Keeping more of your own money is a government handout ?
9
I think the point is that "your money" was most likely made possible by government programs such as fuel and food subsidies , free trade agreements, transportation infrastructure, security services, global US military dominance, etc., etc.
All of this costs money, and what has been considered the "fair share" contributions of our nation's top earners has decreased significantly over the past three decades.
All of this costs money, and what has been considered the "fair share" contributions of our nation's top earners has decreased significantly over the past three decades.
12
What a bunch of junk. Sorry, you cannot claim that the government gave you something just because it didn't collect it from you. The same thing applies to all. Hypothetically, as a surgeon I charge $5,000 to replace a hip. Medicare, by contract, might pay me $1800. I am not entitled to claim the uncollected $3200 as business loss.
4
Is there an example of a modern democratic government that doesn't engage in what is being called "free stuff"? What would such a government look like, and who would elect it?
1
This piece omits all the free stuff given to private industry in the form of subsidies.
7
I'll be eligible for Social Security benefits in a few years. Will I be getting "free stuff"? I don't think so. I'll just getting a return on what I've paid into the system over the years.
The "paid" part is one that some comment writers have an understandably difficult time crossing. How can something I've to which I've contributed on balance be construed as free? The argument is no without merit, but it might have been better argued outside the shadow of the candidate's ungenerous remark.
The "paid" part is one that some comment writers have an understandably difficult time crossing. How can something I've to which I've contributed on balance be construed as free? The argument is no without merit, but it might have been better argued outside the shadow of the candidate's ungenerous remark.
3
To "Hold on hold on hold on": I'm betting most people getting checks in the mail and not working would prefer employment. How about giving older workers or workers who've been out of work longer than employers prefer, a job? Yes, and there are inexperienced young people who'd be great too.
Most people want to work and pay taxes. Give them the chance to prove it!
Most people want to work and pay taxes. Give them the chance to prove it!
7
You seem to be confusing the short-term unemployed or underemployed with the generational and intergenerational government assistance recipients.
Agreed, KS. People want a sense of purpose and working is one way of finding that purpose.
1
So your premise is that all working Americans have a obligation "endowed by their Creator" to pay the federal government 40% of their earnings, so anything less is a gift from Uncle Sam? Only a liberal could have such a twisted worship of government.
12
I see. The poor and elderly get "free stuff." The rest of us get entitlements and benefits that we earned. Until we are laid off.
I keep reading op-eds from supposed "elites" and intellectuals that make no sense.
Its not "free stuff" if you are being forced to pay for it.
I encourage upper and middle class friends and acquaintances to take as much from the government as possible.
I would rather my tax dollars go to people I know, and not to billionaire Democrat creeps like George Soros.
Its not "free stuff" if you are being forced to pay for it.
I encourage upper and middle class friends and acquaintances to take as much from the government as possible.
I would rather my tax dollars go to people I know, and not to billionaire Democrat creeps like George Soros.
1
This idea of letting the corporations success or fail on their own is not a new idea. In fact, it is the idea of the free market. Interesting to me is that the folks on the right want to deregulate for the free market to work. Yet when the theory of the free market gets to the point about how the market will regulate itself in order to avoid bubbles, bankruptcy, and a community that can not afford its goods the right folds on its beliefs about the free market regulating itself. They fold to the pressure and bail out the market with tax dollars. The market (which is now a person thanks to Citizens United), is now the welfare queen living on the hard earned dollars of the working poor and middle class. So, yeah, let the market regulate itself and watch how money gets redistributed when all the greedy rich find themselves with nowhere to turn for free stuff and their goods are not being consumed because no one can afford it. Just hope when that time comes, you own land. Oh, wait, the rich are consuming all of that too!
5
Ok, so let's agree that Democrats are more like than their counterparts to offer the poor free school lunches, food stamps and other benefits which some regard as bad things.
Meanwhile, Republicans deliver their "welfare" payouts on a far grander scale. These take the form of $12 billion aircraft carriers to complement recent $6 billion ones, jets that don't fly, and wars that enrich military suppliers and defense contractors (Haliburton for example) as Governor Bush's brother initiated a while back.
I'll suffer with the free lunches any day over the other alternatives.
Meanwhile, Republicans deliver their "welfare" payouts on a far grander scale. These take the form of $12 billion aircraft carriers to complement recent $6 billion ones, jets that don't fly, and wars that enrich military suppliers and defense contractors (Haliburton for example) as Governor Bush's brother initiated a while back.
I'll suffer with the free lunches any day over the other alternatives.
5
Good op-ed piece. Too bad most "tax payers" don't think about all of the "free stuff" they get. What is so deliciously ironic how so many on the right castigate the poor, but fight against anything that might help the poor raise their economic station, like increases in minimum wages (which, I would point out are subsidized by the Earned Income Tax Credit) or doing something to bring back jobs to the U.S. that have been exported because the rich and powerful turn a blind eye to subsidized loans and currency manipulation because it helps them so much to export these jobs to low wage countries and all of the other tricks they use to keep everone else down.
35
Since when is a tax deduction or exclusion "free stuff"?! They reduce the amount of money the Federal or state government takes from my paycheck, which I earned. Unless a taxpayer gets all of his withholding back via tax refund and additional money on top of that, then that additional refund is "free stuff" from the government.
1
The money kept by taxpayers through deductions was never the government's in the first place. That is the difference between Republicans and Democrats. The former understand that taxes pay for civilization but feel that the return on investment with our government stinks. The later think the taxpayers money really belongs to the government and taxpayers try to keep too much. I'll stick with the former, thank you very much.
8
What would happen if the benefits taxpayers receive through tax breaks, e.g., mortgage interest deduction, required that people visit a government office, get a certificate, and submit this with the tax return. A personal visit would be required. Do you suppose they might see what they're getting in a more accurate light, i.e., a release from the obligation to pay taxes on a portion of their income.
I'm sorry there is a difference between earning money and there being legal deductions which reduce what you pay and simply getting money from the government through welfare and similar programs. The difference to be clear is one person is a contributing member of society and the other one isn't. That said I'm all for eliminating mortgage deductions and charitable deductions, etc and having a simple straight forward tax code with lower rates to reflect the lack of deductions. The only net losers would be tax accountants.
3
Some people and some groups pay a lot in campaign contributions to get "free stuff". The carried interest tax break is one such tax break. Religious organizations does pay income or property taxes. Not-for-profits act like for-profit entities but don't pay tax. The only way to get some form of fairness would be to have a flat tax with few, if any, deductions. Keep the charitable deduction, a limited mortgage interest deduction, a more robust health care deduction and let the chips fall where they may.
1
FREE STUFF carries a very high price. Such propaganda trivialize the support that caring citizens wish to provide for those who are in need of help. Dehumanizing the process by eliminating the intentions of those who work hard to fund the programs and those whose needs are answered is what we've seen since 1980. Sangfroid--cold-bloodedness has overtaking the sense of noblesse oblige--to whom much is given, much is expected.
I see a lot of danger signs when citizens begin to dehumanize others--"those people over there." Well the fact is that there os no "over there" there. We're all on the same planet. The explosion of a nuclear electrical generating plan in the Ukraine continues to contaminate great swaths of areas in Europe that were previously pristine. Sands that blow from African and land on coral shoals thousands of miles away are contributing to the death of reefs. The CO 2 and other air pollutants generated anywhere in the world can end up anywhere else in the world.
The Framers of the Constitution were sons of the Enlightenment. Opening up the human mind to the possibilities of freedom, equality and fraternity. The goal was and still is to elevate the human spirit above species of lesser ability.
But it turns out that the most intelligent of other species may, indeed, treat each other far better than we humans treat ourselves. Elephants, dolphins and primates show great compassion. Where did we humans lose ours?
I see a lot of danger signs when citizens begin to dehumanize others--"those people over there." Well the fact is that there os no "over there" there. We're all on the same planet. The explosion of a nuclear electrical generating plan in the Ukraine continues to contaminate great swaths of areas in Europe that were previously pristine. Sands that blow from African and land on coral shoals thousands of miles away are contributing to the death of reefs. The CO 2 and other air pollutants generated anywhere in the world can end up anywhere else in the world.
The Framers of the Constitution were sons of the Enlightenment. Opening up the human mind to the possibilities of freedom, equality and fraternity. The goal was and still is to elevate the human spirit above species of lesser ability.
But it turns out that the most intelligent of other species may, indeed, treat each other far better than we humans treat ourselves. Elephants, dolphins and primates show great compassion. Where did we humans lose ours?
3
To D.H., "to whom much is given, much is expected" has gone from voluntary to confiscatory => "to whom who has, much will be taken."
And as for your examples of intelligent species being "compassionate," are there truly examples among elephants, dolphins, and primates where some members of their species do nothing for their entire adult lives while other members feed and shelter and take care of them?
And as for your examples of intelligent species being "compassionate," are there truly examples among elephants, dolphins, and primates where some members of their species do nothing for their entire adult lives while other members feed and shelter and take care of them?
President Reagan's original tax plan would have reduced income taxes for almost everyone, with higher tax rates on those with higher income -- but his plan would also have eliminated all itemized deductions. That plan lasted about 5 minutes while every special interest demanded -- and got -- continued tax preferences for mortgage interest and many other things. The only real change was to eliminate deductions for interest on consumer loans, which most heavily hurt lower income people who have to borrow money for a car, medical expenses and sometimes even food.
3
The 1% are really parasites living off our society. They produce nothing of value that enriches society as a whole. They buy special legislation that enables them to float along with minimum taxes and plenty of entitlements. It must be grand!
7
Welfare and entitlements start with Corporate subsidies for sugar, corn with ethanol supports in the form of additives for gasoline that do nothing other than provide income to producers, drug research by CDC which is given free to Pharma, university research grants which subsidize Pharma and the MIC, oil and gas royalties on government acreage set lower than most other countries charge big oil, highway taxes for road use for transport companies below market rates, government mineral royalties on public lands for copper-iron-uranium set below market.
then the worst of all - Media -TV/Radio / Wireless spectrum below market value and then allow TV charges for advertising for political campaigns - why aren't these TV & radio spectrum grants setting aside for free advertising for campaigns as part of the license?
then the worst of all - Media -TV/Radio / Wireless spectrum below market value and then allow TV charges for advertising for political campaigns - why aren't these TV & radio spectrum grants setting aside for free advertising for campaigns as part of the license?
4
Free stuff. Fair enough to say that free stuff includes tax credits, deductions and other tax benefits.
There are of course individuals who file tax returns and have through credits, deductions and other tax benefits have a net federal income tax burden of zero. Almost all of those filers are the working poor, retirees and the misfortunate who have suffered catastrophic losses or debilitating injuries or chronic illness.
Too many commenters have made statements that denigrate those who pay zero taxes. One commenter said, "But let's get one thing straight: If 47% aren't paying Federal taxes, but they ARE getting Federal benefits--yes, they ARE getting free stuff."
The 47% (actually 41% of filers pay zero federal income taxes) referred to are just like the other 53%. The 53% get tax deductions, credits and other benefits that reduce their tax liability, just not to zero.
When I see a queue of 53%'ers hoping to join the working poor, retirees and chronically ill, to get that magic zero tax liability, I'll reconsider the merits of such comments.
There are of course individuals who file tax returns and have through credits, deductions and other tax benefits have a net federal income tax burden of zero. Almost all of those filers are the working poor, retirees and the misfortunate who have suffered catastrophic losses or debilitating injuries or chronic illness.
Too many commenters have made statements that denigrate those who pay zero taxes. One commenter said, "But let's get one thing straight: If 47% aren't paying Federal taxes, but they ARE getting Federal benefits--yes, they ARE getting free stuff."
The 47% (actually 41% of filers pay zero federal income taxes) referred to are just like the other 53%. The 53% get tax deductions, credits and other benefits that reduce their tax liability, just not to zero.
When I see a queue of 53%'ers hoping to join the working poor, retirees and chronically ill, to get that magic zero tax liability, I'll reconsider the merits of such comments.
101
One tax code for all. No deduction for anything. All income exactly the same.
You want a spouse, kids, mortgage, high tax state - your choice.
Income < $30,000 - no tax
30-50,000 - 7.5 % tax
50,000-75,000 - 10% tax
75,000-100,000 -15% tax
100,000-500,000 - 25% tax
500,000 -1,000,000 - 39 % tax
> 1,000,000 - 50% tax
You want a spouse, kids, mortgage, high tax state - your choice.
Income < $30,000 - no tax
30-50,000 - 7.5 % tax
50,000-75,000 - 10% tax
75,000-100,000 -15% tax
100,000-500,000 - 25% tax
500,000 -1,000,000 - 39 % tax
> 1,000,000 - 50% tax
3
If you work and pay taxes on that income and there is something in the tax code that allows you to claim a deduction and thus pay less tax, that is not "free stuff"; it is in fact your own money that the government legally allows you to keep because politicians decided at some point that said tax law encouraged positive behavior (see mortgage interest deduction for buying a home or IRA for retirement -unless you make too much and are not eligible based on arbitrary cutoffs). Or perhaps best example is deducting charitable contributions so you don't pay taxes on on the "free stuff" you give away.
This is obviously in contrast to receiving a check for welfare or food stamps which is not taken from the income you do not have and thus did not pay into. This is a social safety net that exists to help people until hopefully they recover and get back on their feet and begin to pay into the system that helped them. I would consider this "free stuff" but Bush has a point that maybe it would be good to help people not grow dependent on it.
This is obviously in contrast to receiving a check for welfare or food stamps which is not taken from the income you do not have and thus did not pay into. This is a social safety net that exists to help people until hopefully they recover and get back on their feet and begin to pay into the system that helped them. I would consider this "free stuff" but Bush has a point that maybe it would be good to help people not grow dependent on it.
4
But then living wage jobs would have to be available -- and that is not going to happen, as you know.
2
I work fully more than a third of the year to pay my taxes. Yet somehow Mr. Covert thinks the benefits I get from the government is free. Mr. Webster and I strongly disagree with your definition of free.
2
This is for felix and Michael F,
You are mistaken. If you are getting a deduction you are getting something for free. Otherwise you would not be deducting things.
OldBoatMan explains it better but the fact is your deductions being the same deductions that the poor use simply do not amount to you having to pay zero taxes because you are more fortunate and earn more money.
I suspect your objecting to being considered the same as someone who gets welfare has more to do with what you imagine about welfare than it does with the reality that you are exactly the same with a better job and probably a better education and better health too.
You are mistaken. If you are getting a deduction you are getting something for free. Otherwise you would not be deducting things.
OldBoatMan explains it better but the fact is your deductions being the same deductions that the poor use simply do not amount to you having to pay zero taxes because you are more fortunate and earn more money.
I suspect your objecting to being considered the same as someone who gets welfare has more to do with what you imagine about welfare than it does with the reality that you are exactly the same with a better job and probably a better education and better health too.
3
Mr Covert must be joking. "Not taking from someone-i.e tax deduction", is not the same as giving something to someone. By his definition, because I did not rob his house today, he received "free stuff" from me. Socialism is a mental disorder.
6
God forbid we feed hungry children, house the homeless, treat the sick, educate the youth, care for the elderly. That would just be crazy.
3
The Government's Budget comes from Taxpayers. We can complain about anything we want as far as Government expenditures are concerned.
Beginning with demanding the Private Sector isn't further squeezed by increased taxes.
If the Government uses the full faith and credit that our never-ending tax receipts provide in order to borrow money, against the future well being of the national economy, we will object until the cows come home. And as long as the Government continues to do so without showing any tangible benefits to the growth of our tax producing economy, we will continue to do so.
Perhaps you leftists out there believe the Democrats still control the Congress.
Beginning with demanding the Private Sector isn't further squeezed by increased taxes.
If the Government uses the full faith and credit that our never-ending tax receipts provide in order to borrow money, against the future well being of the national economy, we will object until the cows come home. And as long as the Government continues to do so without showing any tangible benefits to the growth of our tax producing economy, we will continue to do so.
Perhaps you leftists out there believe the Democrats still control the Congress.
1
Yes, that's Republicans for you. They (Republicans and their families) deserve the free stuff; but you ( anyone outside of themselves and their families) don't deserve free stuff. What hypocrisy.
3
This piece is very similar to what was previously on http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/most-americans-get-free-stuff-from-th...
This needs to be shortened to a few succinct lines--set in 18 point type--and pasted on every lamppost.
2
The issue is if you are middle class and working, own a modest home, are of any race, and have a serious financial setback from losing jobs, unexpected expense, or a catastrophic illness, you cannot go to the welfare office and ask for temporary assistance of even a modest degree. No one will hand you a voucher to help pay your rent or house payment for a month or two to get back on your feet. No one will give you food stamps. You might have a little savings that you are going to need so that disqualifies you. The other spouse might make just a little too much. You apply for SS Disability but get turned down for that even though you paid into it. Or you might have a serious illness or injury that is not going to incapacitate you forever, but now, this month and next, you are not able to work, but someone in your family is still working and contributing tax money to pay for those who do not work, have never worked, own nothing, and thus we pay their bills. It is not that we do not want to help those truly in need. This is one of the most generous countries in the world. We hear a true need and we donate, even if we don't have much ourselves. The elderly paid in all their lives to Social Security and Medicare. These are not entitlements. These are benefits they deserve. Yet, when we want to tighten up a little on welfare qualifications, we are being selfish. Are we? The Democratic Party has lost touch with the middle class, the modest working people.
1
Isn't the answer to your objection to open up the safety net programs to help middle class people who run into a temporary fiscal jam, rather than tightening the programs for people who are even worse off? That's what's done in most developed countries.
2
I view this a bit differently. Annual government expenditures (national, state and local) are roughly six trillion dollars. To make this easy, let's say we have 300 million U.S. citizens who benefit from these expenditures. This works out to a benefit of $20,000 per citizen. So, if you, or your family, are paying less than $20,000 per person annually in taxes, you are getting "free" stuff. Likewise, if, like most Americans, you receive more in Medicare or Social Security benefits over the course of your lifetime than you put into the system (including a fair rate of return on your investment) then you are getting "free" stuff.
By my simple analysis, the vast majority of Americans receive "free" stuff from their government. Personally I have no problem with this. It is a system that, for the most part, works well to provide the baseline of what we need for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Would it be better if each person was able to cover his or her portion of the bill? Perhaps, but I for one don't mind paying more when I'm able, knowing that if at some point I cannot cover my share, others will step in and help me out.
By my simple analysis, the vast majority of Americans receive "free" stuff from their government. Personally I have no problem with this. It is a system that, for the most part, works well to provide the baseline of what we need for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Would it be better if each person was able to cover his or her portion of the bill? Perhaps, but I for one don't mind paying more when I'm able, knowing that if at some point I cannot cover my share, others will step in and help me out.
2
Exactly. People have gotten to the point that they believe that they should not have to pay the price for admission or membership in the US. They see the government as stealing "their" money, as if they'd printed it up all by themselves. They don't recognize that the money they earn is part of a vast, interconnected network of relationships and that without those relationships, they'd have nothing. We would be living in a place like the DRC, where the roads are mostly potholes, there is no healthcare, the country is in constant civil war, there are few services ... in other words, anarchy.
1
The problem with your logic (and with reality) are the tailcoat "free-riders."
Given that there is little to no social stigma any more to being on government assistance (some would even say that in some areas, it is seen as sort of an entitlement or "badge of honor" of "sticking it to the Man"), how do you dis-incentivize someone who could and should work from applying for and consuming all the governmental assistance that's available?
Given that there is little to no social stigma any more to being on government assistance (some would even say that in some areas, it is seen as sort of an entitlement or "badge of honor" of "sticking it to the Man"), how do you dis-incentivize someone who could and should work from applying for and consuming all the governmental assistance that's available?
False equivalency.
Tax breaks are merely economic incentives for behavior that benefits society -- charitable donations, homeownership, local taxes that fund schools. The only thing a deduction does is let you keep more of your own money. Welfare programs (including the earned income tax credit) provide income where little or none was made.
That's not to condemn welfare programs, they're absolutely essential to our society. But to suggest that the $14K tax deduction that I get from paying mortgage interest is the same as getting an $1,100 check every month from Uncle Sam is absurd.
Tax breaks are merely economic incentives for behavior that benefits society -- charitable donations, homeownership, local taxes that fund schools. The only thing a deduction does is let you keep more of your own money. Welfare programs (including the earned income tax credit) provide income where little or none was made.
That's not to condemn welfare programs, they're absolutely essential to our society. But to suggest that the $14K tax deduction that I get from paying mortgage interest is the same as getting an $1,100 check every month from Uncle Sam is absurd.
4
No, a tax break reduces the amount of tax you are legally obligated to pay. Yes, it's an incentive, but your tax rate is your tax rate, based on what the government has determined is fair for what you earn and what you should pay based on those earnings. It's not money the government is stealing from you. It's the price of admission for being a part of the USA. And yes, you are getting that money back. You are being reimbursed for part of the interest you pay on your mortgage because Uncle Sam wants to subsidize the housing market. And if you pay rent on a house that has the same payment, you don't get anything for that, even though you are paying the mortgage of the person who owns the rental property. So people who can afford to buy houses get a break, where people who can't afford to, don't.
2
But then let's compare your 14K tax deduction to someone who receives 0 deduction because they are renters or they make too little to benefit from it. Why are you entitled to this special tax break? Not everyone gets it. You're just special. You deserve it- you're rich.
2
There’s a whole treasure trove of government handouts that aren’t dispensed through spending, but rather through the tax code.
------------------------------------------------
That would only be so if you thought that all the money I earned belonged to the government and in their beneficence, they would let me keep some. Sorry but it is the other way around.
------------------------------------------------
That would only be so if you thought that all the money I earned belonged to the government and in their beneficence, they would let me keep some. Sorry but it is the other way around.
4
Taxes are how we pay for the goods and services that we decided to purchase through our duly elected representatives in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. The government is not some alien entity intent on stealing our money.
1
So you think you don´t need the government? That is so funny! You don´t need highways, or the justice system, or police, or sanitation, or schools, or postal service, or .. .biggest expense .. our mighty United States Armed Forces
1
The problem is "we" don't vote to pay for goods and services ourselves. "We" love services but always want someone else to pay for it; the liberal way.
There's another item in the "free stuff" category that is rarely discussed. When one spouse begins receiving social security, the other spouse gets an additional 50% of the retiree's check. As a single, never married person, this irks me. Currently I compete with people (mostly men) who have a person at home doing many things that I have to spend my time doing, i.e. housework, running around getting things fixed, dealing with insurance companies. This gives them a current unfair advantage like more time to spend getting business. Then, the never worked spouse of a highly compensated person gets an additional hand out at retirement. Humph!
37
That policy was set up when most women did not work. It's time to get rid of it.
1
As a single person, you don't need to support another person. Why would you expect to get the same money that a two-person household gets? Your being single is your choice. And remember that the other person, who is receiving that 50%, worked for nothing for all those years. She or he wasn't paid to do all that housework and child-rearing ... Humph yourself.
1
Not to mention the fact that almost no women in the WWI and WWII generations worked, so Boomers and Genx Xers have been supporting tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people for 30-40 years who never contributed one penny.
There has to be a better way.
There has to be a better way.
And don't forget all the free stuff for corporations, like oil and agricultural subsidies, etc.
2
I find it interesting to still see the infamous 47% still bandied about. If I recall, half of that figure are too destitute to pay Federal income taxes while the remainder are elderly and some even very rich. But the irony is that they are joined by the other 53% of us in getting "free stuff" through the same mechanism: the tax code. It just appears that you have to be at either end of the income spectrum to get the "freest" stuff.
2
Where does this "free" money come from? Er, taxpayers. Those who pay less in taxes then they receive in benefits are, by definition, getting stuff from those who pay more in taxes than the receive in benefits. And issuing government debt just pushes that IOU down the road, it isn't free money any more than buying stuff with your credit card is free.
This transfer of money though the government can be either efficient or not, it may provide great value or just be a waste. A mature debate on this topic would include real numbers about both of those points rather than claiming taxation and government spending is inherently bad (some GOP) or inherently good (this OpEd).
This transfer of money though the government can be either efficient or not, it may provide great value or just be a waste. A mature debate on this topic would include real numbers about both of those points rather than claiming taxation and government spending is inherently bad (some GOP) or inherently good (this OpEd).
2
Here's a radical idea:
1. Get rid of all the redistribution programs. This includes but is not limited to: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Unemployment, TANF, SNAP, etc.
2. Get rid of all the tax deductions.
3. Establish a flat tax - 10% of all income (hint: the Church used to do this, so if it was good for Pope ??? back then, it's good now too; Islam does this today).
4. Tax religious organizations like the businesses they are.
5. Tax institutions of higher learning like the businesses they are.
6. Get rid of all government (i.e., taxpayer funded) loan programs.
7. Get rid of all government funding of businesses.
8. Get rid of all government grants.
The rich can then no longer complain about anyone getting free stuff - because no one will be getting free stuff.
The poor can complain that they're not getting free stuff - but then, that's pretty much what they do now anyway. Of course, the reduction of government expenditures will provide increased funding of charitable organizations - much like there were in the 1800s when de Tocqueville wrote "Democracy in America".
1. Get rid of all the redistribution programs. This includes but is not limited to: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Unemployment, TANF, SNAP, etc.
2. Get rid of all the tax deductions.
3. Establish a flat tax - 10% of all income (hint: the Church used to do this, so if it was good for Pope ??? back then, it's good now too; Islam does this today).
4. Tax religious organizations like the businesses they are.
5. Tax institutions of higher learning like the businesses they are.
6. Get rid of all government (i.e., taxpayer funded) loan programs.
7. Get rid of all government funding of businesses.
8. Get rid of all government grants.
The rich can then no longer complain about anyone getting free stuff - because no one will be getting free stuff.
The poor can complain that they're not getting free stuff - but then, that's pretty much what they do now anyway. Of course, the reduction of government expenditures will provide increased funding of charitable organizations - much like there were in the 1800s when de Tocqueville wrote "Democracy in America".
1
Somehow I don't think "reduction of government expenditures will provide increased funding of charitable organizations." If anything, it will place enormous new burdens on charitable organizations (including churches running food pantries, etc.) to take up the gap where there used to be governmental assistance through all of the various welfare program variants.
Plus you compound the problem by eliminating tax breaks for charitable organizations (and presumably, tax deductions for financially supporting them).
Finally, in this day and age, people tend to be more self-absorbed and self-obsessed. Just note the drop in membership and participation in community service organizations. So, I don't see (younger) individuals making up the difference in the charitable dollars pool. Most likely, those dollars will just go to the new iPhone, iPad, i-am-the-center-of-the-universe...
Plus you compound the problem by eliminating tax breaks for charitable organizations (and presumably, tax deductions for financially supporting them).
Finally, in this day and age, people tend to be more self-absorbed and self-obsessed. Just note the drop in membership and participation in community service organizations. So, I don't see (younger) individuals making up the difference in the charitable dollars pool. Most likely, those dollars will just go to the new iPhone, iPad, i-am-the-center-of-the-universe...
1
Hogwash. There is no equivalency, moral or otherwise, between letting someone keep more of their OWN money and writing them a check of someone ELSES money. None. Liberal nonsense. Enough of the free stuff.
4
The distinction you make is sophistry. From an accounting point of view, the taxpayers in general pay for both types of benefit.
1
Who paid for the highways you drive on? Who pays for the firefighters and police officers who protect you? Who pays for the military that keeps you free? Who pays to educate those firefighters and cops and soldiers? Who pays for snow removal from your streets? It seems you think that you own all the money you earn, which means you think someone else should pay for all the things society provides you with. That is incredibly selfish and greedy. Anyone who sees taxes as the government taking away something that belongs to them wants government to give them things for free. The anti-tax crowd are the shameless egoists who want free stuff -- who, in other words, don't want to pay for the services they use. There is no way around that conclusion.
It's disingenuous to claim that a tax deduction amounts to keeping more of your "own" money. Saying that all the money you earn is your "own" is the same as saying you shouldn't have to pay for your house or your car.
Don't claim that you are giving your "own" money to the IRS if you do any of the following:
1. walk or drive on roads;
2. use bridges or airports;
3. routinely go out with a wallet in your pocket without fear of being robbed, thanks to cops who keep your neighborhood safe;
4. rely on firefighters to save your life in case your house or apartment is on fire;
5. take any kind of medication or vaccine that was developed with government funding;
6. rely on government regulations to make sure your water is safe to drink and to bathe in;
7. depend on a literate and generally well-informed society, thanks to the public schools system;
8. know that the government will rescue you in case of a natural disaster in your area.
The list could go on and on.
If you take any advantage of the many benefits our society provides you with, you have to pay for it in the form of taxes. There is nothing more shameful than the hypocrisy of those who claim to be against government and taxes while happily taking advantage of the countless services our government and society provides for them.
Don't claim that you are giving your "own" money to the IRS if you do any of the following:
1. walk or drive on roads;
2. use bridges or airports;
3. routinely go out with a wallet in your pocket without fear of being robbed, thanks to cops who keep your neighborhood safe;
4. rely on firefighters to save your life in case your house or apartment is on fire;
5. take any kind of medication or vaccine that was developed with government funding;
6. rely on government regulations to make sure your water is safe to drink and to bathe in;
7. depend on a literate and generally well-informed society, thanks to the public schools system;
8. know that the government will rescue you in case of a natural disaster in your area.
The list could go on and on.
If you take any advantage of the many benefits our society provides you with, you have to pay for it in the form of taxes. There is nothing more shameful than the hypocrisy of those who claim to be against government and taxes while happily taking advantage of the countless services our government and society provides for them.
2
My irritation here is the assumption that the government is somehow entitled to your compensation, and therefore if you get a tax break the government is somehow subsidizing you. Letting you keep your own money is not a government subsidy!
We live together in society and agree together that the government is allowed to collect money from us in order to provide services we desire. It is necessary that the government be transparent and honest when spending our money. Whoever thinks that corporations are some evil miscreants while government is a benevolent benefactor just has their head buried in the sand. This fantasy of the government as some inherently altruistic organization lessens the sense of accountability that there must be. And results in more government.
We live together in society and agree together that the government is allowed to collect money from us in order to provide services we desire. It is necessary that the government be transparent and honest when spending our money. Whoever thinks that corporations are some evil miscreants while government is a benevolent benefactor just has their head buried in the sand. This fantasy of the government as some inherently altruistic organization lessens the sense of accountability that there must be. And results in more government.
5
@workingman, Huh?
We used to have Government that was accountable and did deliver the services that were not only wanted but necessary like regulation of the economy that prevented huge swings up and down caused by speculators uncaring of who they harmed for one.
IDK what you are ranting about but getting a deduction is being given something if you meet the requirements to take it.
Corporations are not being people but being made up of people are just as inherently evil as is any person you may meet on the street with the added danger of being far more powerful due to wealth and connections to leaders than most people you meet on the street. So if the folks of some kind hearted well meaning corporation decides to rig a computer or poison the water source for the locality they do it in they are far less likely to be held to account and can do more to fight that accountability than a egular person could.
So forgive me if I look at large companies as I would being grizzly bear if I were in a cage with one.
We used to have Government that was accountable and did deliver the services that were not only wanted but necessary like regulation of the economy that prevented huge swings up and down caused by speculators uncaring of who they harmed for one.
IDK what you are ranting about but getting a deduction is being given something if you meet the requirements to take it.
Corporations are not being people but being made up of people are just as inherently evil as is any person you may meet on the street with the added danger of being far more powerful due to wealth and connections to leaders than most people you meet on the street. So if the folks of some kind hearted well meaning corporation decides to rig a computer or poison the water source for the locality they do it in they are far less likely to be held to account and can do more to fight that accountability than a egular person could.
So forgive me if I look at large companies as I would being grizzly bear if I were in a cage with one.
Nice try, Bryce, but no cigar.
1
This incessant GOP harping on spending for so-called "entitlements" is frankly misguided. There is indeed an entitlement problem, but its not the one the GOP radicals love to talk about. The real entitlement problem is that of our entitled rich, who have been rigging the economy, and particularly the tax laws, to their advantage for more than thirty years. Here are a few suggestions for the two self-styled musketeers of the GOP, Boehmer and McConnell bent on wrecking what's left of our shredded safety net. Want to " fix" Social Security? Forget about benefit cuts, just eliminate the caps. Problem solved. Budget deficits? Return to the Clinton rates which produced surpluses, and eliminate outrages like the "carried interest" tax preference that allows billionaire hedge fund managers to pay taxes at rates half that of the middle class, and oil companies to pay nothing. And why exactly should dividends, or capital gains income which require no work have preferred tax treatment over wages and salaries? How about going back to policies that reward work, not Wall Street casino speculators?
6
Romney talked about "free stuff" and paid half the percentage of income taxes than most in the middle class pay.
3
Interstate highways are certainly "free stuff". Does Jeb! propose to privatize the system? Police protection is certainly "free stuff". Clean air is certainly "free stuff". Time standards are surely "free stuff".
5
Tax expenditures disproportionately benefit the wealthy, who live disproportionately in wealthy coastal metropolitan areas with high taxes and expensive real estate. These areas are overwhelmingly liberal.
So when my good liberal friends complain that the rich aren't paying enough taxes, I suggest that we eliminate tax deductions for mortgage interest and state/local/property taxes as a start. I've found no support so far.
So when my good liberal friends complain that the rich aren't paying enough taxes, I suggest that we eliminate tax deductions for mortgage interest and state/local/property taxes as a start. I've found no support so far.
2
So, John...you advocate / suggest that we eliminate tax deductions for mortgage interest and state/local/property taxes.
Okay, fine....and let's raise the top tax bracket to where it was when the USA was in the best fiscal shape: Back to 1939, the top rate was 75%. or when it rose to 91% during WWII to pay for the cost of our 'adventures' overseas.
Okay, fine....and let's raise the top tax bracket to where it was when the USA was in the best fiscal shape: Back to 1939, the top rate was 75%. or when it rose to 91% during WWII to pay for the cost of our 'adventures' overseas.
2
Dectra, you're on to something.
I've also suggested to my good, high-earning liberal friends that we raise rates significantly on all income over $150,000 per year. Interestingly, they don't support that either.
I've also suggested to my good, high-earning liberal friends that we raise rates significantly on all income over $150,000 per year. Interestingly, they don't support that either.
These facts are obscured for most people.
Let's stop there. Now ask yourself why? Why are "these facts" obscured for most people? Isn't that YOUR job NYT?
Stop with the puff pieces on the "horse race" and get down to business. I EXPECT many more articles like this one. And I expect YOU to call out all candidates who fail to meet the test. Do not let up on them. Pound them with facts!
Let's stop there. Now ask yourself why? Why are "these facts" obscured for most people? Isn't that YOUR job NYT?
Stop with the puff pieces on the "horse race" and get down to business. I EXPECT many more articles like this one. And I expect YOU to call out all candidates who fail to meet the test. Do not let up on them. Pound them with facts!
6
They are obscured because they are nonsense and only a hack like Mr. Covert would think otherwise. Mr. Covert is a died in wool progressive and facts have never had any meaning to them.
1
Here is how it might be considered in - I don't know - maybe the real world:
If you put a hundred dollars into a pot and got five dollars of free-stuff back - it is not really free.
If you are one of the 48% who pay absolutely no Federal Income tax into the pot and you get Federal Government benefits - you are getting Free Stuff.
If you plan and structure your life around getting Free Stuff - you are an elite of that 48% minority - you are a Professional Free-Stuffer.
And - as a bonus - sometimes you get to publish your Free-Stuff views in the Grey Lady.
If you put a hundred dollars into a pot and got five dollars of free-stuff back - it is not really free.
If you are one of the 48% who pay absolutely no Federal Income tax into the pot and you get Federal Government benefits - you are getting Free Stuff.
If you plan and structure your life around getting Free Stuff - you are an elite of that 48% minority - you are a Professional Free-Stuffer.
And - as a bonus - sometimes you get to publish your Free-Stuff views in the Grey Lady.
1
"If you are one of the 48% who pay absolutely no Federal Income tax ''
That, sir is a lie. And an easily debunked one at that. David Leonhardt at the New York Times demolished it two yeas ago:
The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years — the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama — have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.
But the modifiers here — federal and income — are important. Income taxes aren’t the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and investment taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too.
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.
That, sir is a lie. And an easily debunked one at that. David Leonhardt at the New York Times demolished it two yeas ago:
The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years — the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama — have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.
But the modifiers here — federal and income — are important. Income taxes aren’t the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and investment taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too.
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.
2
What you guys don't seem to be getting is that taxpayers in general pay for both types of benefit--the deductions that you take and the benefits paid to Those People.
1
Free stuff is allowing billionaire hedge fund managers to pay taxes at rates half that of the middle class, and oil companies to pay nothing. Free stuff is the oil industry paying a fraction of what oil costs and selling it for an easy profit. Free stuff is giving the banks a 2% interest rate on hundreds of billions to lend at 15%. Free stuff is tax brakes to build stadiums so teams with playing making 10 million a year can show off. Free stuff is allowing drug companies to write off advertising as a business expense, inflating their profits, instead on innovating. Free stuff is preferred tax treatment for dividends, or capital gains income which require no work over wages and salaries? How about going back to policies that reward work, not Wall Street casino speculators?
8
The level of selective perception here is quite incredible. No amount of factual information will change the people who are determined to consider those below them on the socioeconomic ladder as less deserving.
Even the poorest who don't pay income taxes still pay a much higher percentage of their income in sales taxes, fees, and fines beyond what a wealthy person pays -- but people here still claim they don't pay into the system. They still pay into Social Security, and Medicare, and Workers Comp, and Unemployment from their paychecks, even when they receive no healthcare or retirement benefits from their employer. It is easy enough to do some research on how the laws and policies are written so that poor people stay poor, and the wealthy remain wealthy.
And the amazing thing is that those excoriating the poor, are probably not that much better off. For some, the blinders will remain on, but keeping publishing these articles NYT, you never know.
Even the poorest who don't pay income taxes still pay a much higher percentage of their income in sales taxes, fees, and fines beyond what a wealthy person pays -- but people here still claim they don't pay into the system. They still pay into Social Security, and Medicare, and Workers Comp, and Unemployment from their paychecks, even when they receive no healthcare or retirement benefits from their employer. It is easy enough to do some research on how the laws and policies are written so that poor people stay poor, and the wealthy remain wealthy.
And the amazing thing is that those excoriating the poor, are probably not that much better off. For some, the blinders will remain on, but keeping publishing these articles NYT, you never know.
2
Just how dumb does Jeb! think we are? He is being disingenuous when as the column points out that he and the entire Bush! clan get lots of "free stuff" in the form of tax codes and loopholes that advantage the 1% like himself. They are the primary beneficiaries of "free stuff." An earned tax credit once a year may be nice - but it doesn't help throughout the year with monthly expenses. The problem is that most of us don't know any really rich people so we have no idea what they actually get - and they aren't talking.
3
It would be useful to analyze the re-distribution of federal monies to -- wait for it -- red states. Such an analysis would show that the major beneficiaries -- the "taker states" are below the Mason-Dickson line.
In a prior comment, I mentioned sugar subsidies; Let us do a search on other subsidies! What about the oil and gas, the corn and the milk subsidies etc.
Also let's look at expenditure for weapons that the Defense Department does not want but it is forced to take because it is someone pork barrel.
Pentagon Tells Congress to Stop Buying Equipment it Doesn't Need
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/28/pentagon-tells-congress-to...
Someone with more skills that I have, please calculate the price of a tank in equivalent food stamps.
Also let's look at expenditure for weapons that the Defense Department does not want but it is forced to take because it is someone pork barrel.
Pentagon Tells Congress to Stop Buying Equipment it Doesn't Need
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/28/pentagon-tells-congress-to...
Someone with more skills that I have, please calculate the price of a tank in equivalent food stamps.
7
Interesting also since despite the considerable subsidies granted to the sugar industry, one of what would seem to be the biggest users of sugar; the 'soft drink' industry rarely use natural sugar but instead use in their products a sweetener process from the complex starches in corn. Which is also--ouila--subsidized!
What a country!
What a country!
Here you go:
$120,000,000.00 = Abrams Tank Upgrade Awarded
9000 = Abrams Tanks lost
$183,000,000.00 = To replace the Abrams Tanks LOST
$20,333.33 = Calculated cost of an Abrams Tank ($i.e. $183M / 9000)
$225.38 = Maximum monthly SNAP benefit
811,962 = Number of SNAP Recipients if they were to receive the new $183M to replace Abrams Tanks Lost at $225.38 apiece
90 = Number of SNAP Recipients = 1 Abrams Tank at Max SNAP Benefit of $225.38 at a time
But if you add the $120M plus the $183, you get:
$303,000,000.00 = combined award to fund Abrams tanks & replacements
1,344,396.13 = Number of Recipients that could be funded at Max SNAP Benefit $255.38
So yes, this is a vulgar, inhumane waste of taxpayer money if you ask me.
$120,000,000.00 = Abrams Tank Upgrade Awarded
9000 = Abrams Tanks lost
$183,000,000.00 = To replace the Abrams Tanks LOST
$20,333.33 = Calculated cost of an Abrams Tank ($i.e. $183M / 9000)
$225.38 = Maximum monthly SNAP benefit
811,962 = Number of SNAP Recipients if they were to receive the new $183M to replace Abrams Tanks Lost at $225.38 apiece
90 = Number of SNAP Recipients = 1 Abrams Tank at Max SNAP Benefit of $225.38 at a time
But if you add the $120M plus the $183, you get:
$303,000,000.00 = combined award to fund Abrams tanks & replacements
1,344,396.13 = Number of Recipients that could be funded at Max SNAP Benefit $255.38
So yes, this is a vulgar, inhumane waste of taxpayer money if you ask me.
If I actually took home all I earned over the last 36 years I would own a home and be in great shape for retirement. But as a single childless non home owning (sap) tax filer, all I see are the $$ add up yearly on the pay stub. Oh yeah, thanks for all those great tax breaks I got, $400 occasionally, along with every other tax payer in the country. Love thinking how my lifetime of taxes, which significantly lowered my standard of living, rolled back up to the rich in tax breaks so they could trickle back down to me.
10
"If I actually took home all I earned over the last 36 years I would . . . "
Allow me to finish the thought differently:
" . . . have little to show for it. With no police, it probably would have been stolen from me. Actually, I might not have even have earned it. You know, with no actual road to get to work on, how would I have gotten there? Then, there's the school I wouldn't have gone to. And we might very well have been taken over by another country, what with no military and all. But, yeah, it would have been great to have taken home all of my money."
None of us likes to pay taxes. Those with more should contribute more. But, c'mon.
Allow me to finish the thought differently:
" . . . have little to show for it. With no police, it probably would have been stolen from me. Actually, I might not have even have earned it. You know, with no actual road to get to work on, how would I have gotten there? Then, there's the school I wouldn't have gone to. And we might very well have been taken over by another country, what with no military and all. But, yeah, it would have been great to have taken home all of my money."
None of us likes to pay taxes. Those with more should contribute more. But, c'mon.
2
Heidi - I shared your status up until very recently when I finally bought a condo that I could afford. As a recent retiree how long I will get the "benefits" of home ownership remains to be seen. There should be a more inclusive definition of need other than income. As a single woman who does not live near family, I may need help and not be able to get it because I may not qualify income-wise. It also assumes that I have tons of money set aside to cover various expenses like a home health aid should I need one in the future. I found this out the hard way a few years back when I was still working but was out for a non-industrial disability health issue. I was told that because I had private insurance that I didn't qualify for a county paid home health aid during my recovery. I paid three ways, my health care premium and copays, my taxes so that others could get free help when I could not, and I had to pay a private agency for very occasional help when I really needed it. Somehow it just didn't seem fair. My need was as great as anyone else's but that just didn't seem to count.
Heidi, if folks didn't pay any income taxes, how would you propose the government pay for police and fire officers, emergency services, sewers, waste disposal, public parks, roads, bridges, and public transportation systems? Surely your standard of living would be lower without these services than, as you attempt to illustrate, by having additional income by not paying taxes.
You comment seems to be entirely focused on lost earnings in your paycheck while wholly ignoring the role that government-services play in the lives of all of us.
You comment seems to be entirely focused on lost earnings in your paycheck while wholly ignoring the role that government-services play in the lives of all of us.
1
Thanks for this article. As it points out the poor are given pennies while billions are handed out to the international corporations, big ag, big pharma, mic, and on down the line. Instead of money in the millions to help the poor the money is given to the top one percenters would fix our infra structure.
You only have to look at Scott Walker's Wisconsin to see this in action, cutting $250,000,000 one week from the University of Wisconsin so you can give $250,000,000 the next week to those poor Milwaukee Bucs hedge fund owners so they can build a new forum for their basketball team. The Democrats and Republicans teamed up on that one.
Thanks again.
You only have to look at Scott Walker's Wisconsin to see this in action, cutting $250,000,000 one week from the University of Wisconsin so you can give $250,000,000 the next week to those poor Milwaukee Bucs hedge fund owners so they can build a new forum for their basketball team. The Democrats and Republicans teamed up on that one.
Thanks again.
24
Demicans, Republicrats they are all the same more or less when it comes to passing out Our money to people who will benefit them personally at some unspecified later date.
Fortunately for all of us, Scott Walker isn't so popular anymore.
1
47% of Americans who do not pay Federal Income Taxes are in fact getting "free stuff." Those that wallow that they "pay" for their SS and Medicare payouts do not realize that the average person pays in $350K but takes out over $750K. Those that are raping the SS Disability System by having fraudulent claims (we all know a few people I am sure who are doing this, I know I do) are getting 100% "free stuff."
6
The averages cannot be what you suggest, or social security would be insolvent. Or is it insolvent?
@Anita, if You know a "few" people whom are defrauding the SSD system then you should be turning them in and stopping that fraud. It is your duty as a citizen.
BTW did you know that most people on SSD are there because the Work Comp system is being defrauded by lawyers and judges that shift the employer/insurer responsibility for paying the disabled folks to the taxpayer? They delay delay delay the process for years making sure to make the injured person is destitute before finally offering a low ball one time settlement when they should have to be paying them monthly for as long as they are disabled.
More of the gaming of our system by the rich who get as much or more from Us the tax payers in tax breaks and benefits than they do by whatever business they do.
BTW did you know that most people on SSD are there because the Work Comp system is being defrauded by lawyers and judges that shift the employer/insurer responsibility for paying the disabled folks to the taxpayer? They delay delay delay the process for years making sure to make the injured person is destitute before finally offering a low ball one time settlement when they should have to be paying them monthly for as long as they are disabled.
More of the gaming of our system by the rich who get as much or more from Us the tax payers in tax breaks and benefits than they do by whatever business they do.
1
As evidenced by may comments, a "tax break" is not considered the same as a direct government benefit. This is why the tax code is as crazy as it is. It is a way to subsidize something without it looking or feeling like government spending, We all rail against the complex tax code but it is exactly what we want. Either tax breaks are the same as spending, in which case we need more transparency, or they are not in which case bring them on and make tax law more complex as long as I get the break.
3
OK Let’s put aside tax deductions and concentrate on direct payments. What about subsidies! Let’s look at sugar subsidies beloved by Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. That is really free stuff, our tax tax dollars going to some fat cat but it also increases the price of sugar and everything that uses sugar for everyone.
From : http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2001/02/floridas-fanjuls-200102
"Every few years the Fanjuls and the Florida growers lobby tirelessly for the reauthorization of the sugar program established under the 1981 Farm Bill. Of all the political handouts that campaign money forces through Congress, the sugar program is one of the most controversial. Each year Florida Crystals receives about $65 million in price supports; the Fanjuls’ chief rival, U.S. Sugar, takes in $55 million. Although the price of sugar on the world market is 10 cents a pound, American sugar growers by law are guaranteed 21 cents a pound. When the farmers overproduce—as they did last year—and the price of their crop dives, the government takes the surplus at the guaranteed price and holds it in warehouses.
The sugar program adds $1.4 billion to consumers’ bills and funnels about $560 million back to the growers, Harper’s magazine recently reported"
From : http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2001/02/floridas-fanjuls-200102
"Every few years the Fanjuls and the Florida growers lobby tirelessly for the reauthorization of the sugar program established under the 1981 Farm Bill. Of all the political handouts that campaign money forces through Congress, the sugar program is one of the most controversial. Each year Florida Crystals receives about $65 million in price supports; the Fanjuls’ chief rival, U.S. Sugar, takes in $55 million. Although the price of sugar on the world market is 10 cents a pound, American sugar growers by law are guaranteed 21 cents a pound. When the farmers overproduce—as they did last year—and the price of their crop dives, the government takes the surplus at the guaranteed price and holds it in warehouses.
The sugar program adds $1.4 billion to consumers’ bills and funnels about $560 million back to the growers, Harper’s magazine recently reported"
9
not to defend Carson and his statements in any way but if this guy were a black LIBERAL running for President Mr. Blow would be giving Carson a pass all day, week and year for the statements he makes. In fact Mr. Blow would be defending any statement made, and calling those questioning and/or making fun of Carson by calling them racists and slapping the race card down on the table.
4
Perhaps you will want to read Charles Blow's column today, in which he castigates Carson's spree of recent blockhead statements and actions. Of course, that would require facts instead of your ridiculous meme of "race card" conspiracies.
1
Paying less in taxes on income earned from a job is not the same thing as the government giving you free food or paying for your rent. It is arguments like that one that give liberals a bad name in the eyes of working class people.
12
@Basic Human Being
Huh? benefit is benefit free is free it is not any different to give a tax break o subsidy top industry and the wealthy than it is to give a subsidy to the destitute. If one were being rational the wealthy and industry should get no breaks or subsidy at all.
Huh? benefit is benefit free is free it is not any different to give a tax break o subsidy top industry and the wealthy than it is to give a subsidy to the destitute. If one were being rational the wealthy and industry should get no breaks or subsidy at all.
1
I've never understood this "free stuff" GOP line of thinking when it comes to governing our nation. We need, roads, bridges, clean food and water, schools, fire and police protection, etc.. a decent infrastructure if you will, to even be considered a modern society. People also have to eat, food stamps is probably one of the best government assistance programs yet, the money goes back into the economy and people get fed. The GOP is the one that gives free stuff away, it's just to the people and corporations who need it the least. Trickle Down just lets the rich keep more of their money, while services are cut or discontinued for those who need it the most.
142
When did the GOP ever say that we don't need roads or bridges?
I don't know how many times I have to listen to this lie. A tax break allows you to keep more of the money you EARNER. A direct payment is money you receive for nothing from someone else who EARNED it. Really simple stuff.
9
Are you a hedge fund manager whose income is taxed at a lower rate than is a school teacher's? Didn't you both "earn" your money? Why should a teacher pay at a higher rate than you are?
Is your income from investments? Other than directing your investment money to one thing or another, how can you say you "earned" your dividends and capital gains? What about the citizens who have no disposable income? Why, really, are you living high on the hog? Did you get a college education at a public school, or at a private school whose endowment is built from donations that go tax-free?
There are so many holes in your argument. Since you don't like our current democratic structure, why not move to the Cayman Islands, Guernsey, or some other tax haven? Then you won't feel robbed by the least among us.
Is your income from investments? Other than directing your investment money to one thing or another, how can you say you "earned" your dividends and capital gains? What about the citizens who have no disposable income? Why, really, are you living high on the hog? Did you get a college education at a public school, or at a private school whose endowment is built from donations that go tax-free?
There are so many holes in your argument. Since you don't like our current democratic structure, why not move to the Cayman Islands, Guernsey, or some other tax haven? Then you won't feel robbed by the least among us.
18
This analysis presumes that all of one's income belongs to the government, so that when the government refrains from taking it away from you, they've given you "free stuff." It is either purposely deceptive, or the product of a looking-glass perspective that's perfectly in opposition to the principles upon which our country was founded.
6
Not a good article, as the real obfuscation are the usual democratic-party lies proffered by the leftist writer of the day.
The mortgage deduction is not an "outlay" by the federal government since 1) the AMT eliminates it for many/most people 2) the government should not be "paid" for by people taking out a mortage. This is like the nonsense where because each year a person's home grows in value, their real estate taxes should rise - why is that? Does government become cheaper when housing prices decline?
The democratic party is the one based upon handouts to buy votes; for illegal aliens, for public employee unions, for the poor - all done with funds thefted from the middle class who pay most of the taxes and get little of the benefit. The party is a cancer, led by the worst president ever - obama - and should be disbanded with its lunatic policies like the 1965 immigration act rescinded.
The mortgage deduction is not an "outlay" by the federal government since 1) the AMT eliminates it for many/most people 2) the government should not be "paid" for by people taking out a mortage. This is like the nonsense where because each year a person's home grows in value, their real estate taxes should rise - why is that? Does government become cheaper when housing prices decline?
The democratic party is the one based upon handouts to buy votes; for illegal aliens, for public employee unions, for the poor - all done with funds thefted from the middle class who pay most of the taxes and get little of the benefit. The party is a cancer, led by the worst president ever - obama - and should be disbanded with its lunatic policies like the 1965 immigration act rescinded.
3
Bob, I respectfully disagree with your thoughts. The mortgage interest tax deduction is a failure to collect taxes from a certain constituency that would otherwise be collected. It is the government choosing to forgo income from a select set of individuals who happen to overwhelmingly be upper middle class. Your belief that government should not be paid for mortgage interest is an argument against property taxes, but not an argument against the tax-deduction as an outlay by the government. Your statement about AMT is true, but it does not change the fact that the interest tax deduction is the single largest subsidy available to Americans in the entire land, and it does almost nothing to help the lower-class (and distorts our economy by subsidizing home ownership).
Secondly, government costs do grow when home values rise, which is why property taxes are a percentage of home values. It costs more money to employ government workers in locales with high property costs. It costs more money to maintain government property and lands. It certainly makes sense that property tax would increase as home prices increase.
Secondly, government costs do grow when home values rise, which is why property taxes are a percentage of home values. It costs more money to employ government workers in locales with high property costs. It costs more money to maintain government property and lands. It certainly makes sense that property tax would increase as home prices increase.
1
Nonsense. The AMT in this context applies only to those who have claim deduction considerably more than their income would imply affordability to pay. In other words, the perception that other assets (or hidden income) is being used to pay debt that would appear to be unaffordable based on the filer's reported income.
"Tax deductions" being described and accounted for as "expenditures" is a fairly recent innovation in the interpretation of the tax code. Did this start under Obama? I think it did...
So, why weren't "tax breaks" considered "expenditures" for well over the first two hundred of this country's existence?
Because they're not.
That seems pretty simple. Is it not?
So, why weren't "tax breaks" considered "expenditures" for well over the first two hundred of this country's existence?
Because they're not.
That seems pretty simple. Is it not?
no, tax breaks for the working poor have been descried as expenditures since 1980. so this is not new. The change is Looking at the entire scope of the tax code, instead of just the poor. That might be new, but it is not Obama. Us liberals are doing it. Obama just looks liberal if you still think the world is flat, and the sun goes behind the clouds at night.
5
Free stuff just depends on who's free stuff is being terminated. When we talk about "free stuff," maybe we should include unnecessary military bases and equipment, roads and bridges to noplace, airports, church freebies, etc. I doubt that these and similar are what are meant by "free stuff." More likely, we're talking about some four year old getting sufficient nutrition for the day.
9
Your argument about bridges to nowhere is excellent and critical. This is what you would basically call government corruption. Yet you argue in your next breath that we should give the government more money. No logical.
@Workingman re "bridge to nowhere"
That bridge was not a bridge to nowhere. That bridge would connect Ketchican Alaska to its own airport. The only way to and from the airport is via ferry boat which is subject to the fickle nature of the weather the seas and if it breaks down. If the ferry breaks no one comes from or goes to the airport except by private boat.
That bridge would make travel to and from as well as cargo delivery more easy and probably let them get lower prices because of the added convenience of being able to bring in more cargo. It would also make for a very good reason to connect Ketchican to the AlCan Highway making cargo coming in and out even more easy and further lowering prices for the residents on items they have to import.
It made for a nice slogan and insult but the fact is the reason we do not normally let personal opinions control how spending is done is because of people who live in places like Ketchican would almost never get the votes necessary to win support for things they need like that bridge.
Americans used to understand that we all contribute to make us all better off everywhere.
That bridge was not a bridge to nowhere. That bridge would connect Ketchican Alaska to its own airport. The only way to and from the airport is via ferry boat which is subject to the fickle nature of the weather the seas and if it breaks down. If the ferry breaks no one comes from or goes to the airport except by private boat.
That bridge would make travel to and from as well as cargo delivery more easy and probably let them get lower prices because of the added convenience of being able to bring in more cargo. It would also make for a very good reason to connect Ketchican to the AlCan Highway making cargo coming in and out even more easy and further lowering prices for the residents on items they have to import.
It made for a nice slogan and insult but the fact is the reason we do not normally let personal opinions control how spending is done is because of people who live in places like Ketchican would almost never get the votes necessary to win support for things they need like that bridge.
Americans used to understand that we all contribute to make us all better off everywhere.
The whole "free stuff" theme is just a means for politicians to get frustrated middle-class voters to "punch downward" at the poor rather than upward at the corporate kings and heirs of dynastic wealth who avoid taxes and wield money and power to secure more money and power, heedless of their effect on the common good. After all, political money comes from the top, not the bottom. Politicians who punch upward won't benefit from the flow of big money during and after their political careers.
For those who feel stiffed by poor people getting benefits, here's a pragmatic and comforting thought:-- what if there were no subsidized food, housing and other benefits for the poor while living-wage jobs are still scarce? You really want to see hordes of hungry, homeless, desperate people with nothing to lose spilling out into the streets and building Hoovervilles in your neighborhood. However much you feel robbed at paying taxes to give them benefits, you'd feel much more robbed if they get nothing.
Focus your anger at the top few who skim off the cream and leave the rest of us to curdle.
For those who feel stiffed by poor people getting benefits, here's a pragmatic and comforting thought:-- what if there were no subsidized food, housing and other benefits for the poor while living-wage jobs are still scarce? You really want to see hordes of hungry, homeless, desperate people with nothing to lose spilling out into the streets and building Hoovervilles in your neighborhood. However much you feel robbed at paying taxes to give them benefits, you'd feel much more robbed if they get nothing.
Focus your anger at the top few who skim off the cream and leave the rest of us to curdle.
14
Politicians and pundits always talk about "simplifying" the tax code. They then go into these convoluted plans, flat tax. fair tax blah blah blah
We already have a simplified tax code in place which 13% of filers use- the 1040EZ.
A) call ALL income income.. no more separating hedge fund commissions as carried interest
B) add only deductions to EZ for dependents (which is currently not on it)
C) eliminate all other forms and rules that go with them
This keeps the tax code progressive, lumps all income as "income" and simplifies filing for EVERYONE
We already have a simplified tax code in place which 13% of filers use- the 1040EZ.
A) call ALL income income.. no more separating hedge fund commissions as carried interest
B) add only deductions to EZ for dependents (which is currently not on it)
C) eliminate all other forms and rules that go with them
This keeps the tax code progressive, lumps all income as "income" and simplifies filing for EVERYONE
8
If you want to talk about Free Stuff - how about the Obamaphone. Some families get more than one. Why do they have to be given free a cell phone - how about the normal telephone and not the more expensive Obamaphone.
Then there is the Child Tax Credit that has a big LOOPHOLE in it that the Democrats refuse to close. No check in made to ensure that only US citizens get the Benefit. COnsequent it is known that illegal immigrants obtain the benefit and often register their offspring who do not live in the US in order to get that benefit. The form to file for this benefit does NOT require a SS number. But the Democrats refuse to close this loop even when confronted with the facts. The IG has fund this to be true.The title of the report summed up the IG’s finding: “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/undocumented-worker...
All this theft by illegal aliens from the government is what is correctly called FREE STUFF. And the Democratic Party refuses to close the Loophole
Then there is the Child Tax Credit that has a big LOOPHOLE in it that the Democrats refuse to close. No check in made to ensure that only US citizens get the Benefit. COnsequent it is known that illegal immigrants obtain the benefit and often register their offspring who do not live in the US in order to get that benefit. The form to file for this benefit does NOT require a SS number. But the Democrats refuse to close this loop even when confronted with the facts. The IG has fund this to be true.The title of the report summed up the IG’s finding: “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/undocumented-worker...
All this theft by illegal aliens from the government is what is correctly called FREE STUFF. And the Democratic Party refuses to close the Loophole
4
The free phone program was started long before Obama, in part to help poor people get jobs -- if you can't afford a phone, a prospective employer can't call you back for an interview or offer. For low-paid on-call retail and food service employees, a phone is essential for keeping a job. As to why they are cellular rather than "regular" phones, I'd point out that landlines don't help much if you're homeless or can't afford stable housing. With many job applications going electronic, smartphones may soon become essential tools for job hunting.
If we step away from the instinctive cry of, "No fair!" we can see the phone is an investment in the recipient's earning capacity. It's cheaper in the big picture than leaving many people effectively shut out of the job market because they can't afford a phone to contact employers and make the arrangements necessary to juggle job and family obligations.
If we step away from the instinctive cry of, "No fair!" we can see the phone is an investment in the recipient's earning capacity. It's cheaper in the big picture than leaving many people effectively shut out of the job market because they can't afford a phone to contact employers and make the arrangements necessary to juggle job and family obligations.
1
Free Stuff? I'd love to know how to get free stuff. Very few people get free stuff.
If you work, you pay income taxes, and have deductions for social security and medicare.
If you don't work, whether by choice or because you cannot find a job, you still pay sales tax on at least 50% of whatever you buy. And, go ahead and spend some time taking a look at the long list of taxes and fees on your telephone bill (landline and mobile), and Utilities bill, and, not that it's easy to figure this out, but you pay a ridicluous amount of taxes on your gas purchases for your car.
At the federal tax level, no citizen has the legal right to question, or even know, exactly, how their federal tax money is spent; all you can do is vote for the U.S. House and Senate. And, we all know how well that's worked out for the last two decades.
The whole concept of Free Stuff ignores how much of our personal money goes towards taxes and fees.
If you work, you pay income taxes, and have deductions for social security and medicare.
If you don't work, whether by choice or because you cannot find a job, you still pay sales tax on at least 50% of whatever you buy. And, go ahead and spend some time taking a look at the long list of taxes and fees on your telephone bill (landline and mobile), and Utilities bill, and, not that it's easy to figure this out, but you pay a ridicluous amount of taxes on your gas purchases for your car.
At the federal tax level, no citizen has the legal right to question, or even know, exactly, how their federal tax money is spent; all you can do is vote for the U.S. House and Senate. And, we all know how well that's worked out for the last two decades.
The whole concept of Free Stuff ignores how much of our personal money goes towards taxes and fees.
3
The free stuff you get is all the services you take advantage of that you don't pay for with your taxes. When you get an unfair tax deduction (i.e., a tax deduction that someone poorer than you doesn't get), you're not paying your share of the cost of those services. What services, you ask? Well, do you drive on highways and bridges? Do you rely on those highways and bridges being cleared of snow in the winter? Do you rely on cops to protect you from burglers and murderers? Do you assume firefighters will rush to save you and your family in case of a fire? Do you take advantage of medical advances that would not have been possible without government funding?
The anti-tax crowd are the ones who want Free Stuff. If you are truly against the government, go build a cabin on a mountain and live off the land. If, instead, you choose to continue to take advantage of all the things our society provides you with, stop complaining about having to pay for them.
The anti-tax crowd are the ones who want Free Stuff. If you are truly against the government, go build a cabin on a mountain and live off the land. If, instead, you choose to continue to take advantage of all the things our society provides you with, stop complaining about having to pay for them.
The idea that a tax deduction is a gift (free stuff) to the tax payer is as delusional as advertising that claims you can save money by buying stuff.
A grant or subsidy, a positive transfer of money from the government, is analogous to a gift or a prize.
Although funds are fungible, a tax deduction is not a positive transfer of money from the government. It is a reduction in money flow from the taxpayer to the government.
Semantics are important. We need clarity of definitions to understand each other. Equivocation on words that denote different directions of the flow of funds muddies the politico-economic waters.
A grant or subsidy, a positive transfer of money from the government, is analogous to a gift or a prize.
Although funds are fungible, a tax deduction is not a positive transfer of money from the government. It is a reduction in money flow from the taxpayer to the government.
Semantics are important. We need clarity of definitions to understand each other. Equivocation on words that denote different directions of the flow of funds muddies the politico-economic waters.
3
My goodness, Bryce - where did you come from? What a lovely surprise!
Have you been secretly listening to Sanders? I confess that I have, for years. One of the high points to my life was watching his filibuster. Not once was he so insulting as to read "Green Eggs and Ham".
Thanks for the links and for writing this.
I'll look for more of your work.
Have you been secretly listening to Sanders? I confess that I have, for years. One of the high points to my life was watching his filibuster. Not once was he so insulting as to read "Green Eggs and Ham".
Thanks for the links and for writing this.
I'll look for more of your work.
3
What a bunch of bunk, justifying stealing from the rich (or, really, just the self-sufficient) to give to the poor (i.e. those who are living on the dole)...
Most of the folks "getting free stuff" by "benefiting" from so-called "tax breaks" are middle class families that are often barely living on the edge or barely making it keeping their heads above water. But, the government seems to be perfectly happy to take money from those who can least afford it and give to those who haven't earned it.
In other words, the welfare system in this country is a means of punishing self-sufficiency and hard work.
Keeping what a person has earned isn't "free stuff"; it's "stuff" that hasn't been taken away through government mugging.
Taking what others have earned and giving it away to people who haven't earned it? Well, the recipients of that "stuff" are actually getting something for nothing, i.e. "free stuff."
Those who actually pay taxes and receive government benefits are getting what they've paid for. Those who take without paying are getting free stuff on the backs of those who paid.
Those who take without paying as a lifestyle with no discernible end in sight are career leeches and a burden that is strangling society.
Maybe, in a Robin Hood story or some mid-80s socialist paradise this is considered fair. But, in this country in this century, it is ridiculous and unsustainable.
Blaming the rich too often throws the middle class under the bus. When will the Left realize this?
Most of the folks "getting free stuff" by "benefiting" from so-called "tax breaks" are middle class families that are often barely living on the edge or barely making it keeping their heads above water. But, the government seems to be perfectly happy to take money from those who can least afford it and give to those who haven't earned it.
In other words, the welfare system in this country is a means of punishing self-sufficiency and hard work.
Keeping what a person has earned isn't "free stuff"; it's "stuff" that hasn't been taken away through government mugging.
Taking what others have earned and giving it away to people who haven't earned it? Well, the recipients of that "stuff" are actually getting something for nothing, i.e. "free stuff."
Those who actually pay taxes and receive government benefits are getting what they've paid for. Those who take without paying are getting free stuff on the backs of those who paid.
Those who take without paying as a lifestyle with no discernible end in sight are career leeches and a burden that is strangling society.
Maybe, in a Robin Hood story or some mid-80s socialist paradise this is considered fair. But, in this country in this century, it is ridiculous and unsustainable.
Blaming the rich too often throws the middle class under the bus. When will the Left realize this?
3
Just about everyone gets free parking. The person who parks their car in their garage pays the same taxes as the person who parks their car on the street, and pays property taxes for the land and structure that are not paid by the person parking on the street. Meanwhile, the person who cannot afford a car, or a home for that matter, cannot use that same space on the street to sleep at night. So the poorest person is not getting as much free stuff as the person parking on the street.
That person who cannot afford a car or a home pays the same amount for goods purchased at a store which provides free parking due to zoning regulations. So that person is required to pay for parking someone else's car, even though he or she cannot afford a car.
So here is one example of a direct subsidy that the poorest people may be required to pay to richer people.
That person who cannot afford a car or a home pays the same amount for goods purchased at a store which provides free parking due to zoning regulations. So that person is required to pay for parking someone else's car, even though he or she cannot afford a car.
So here is one example of a direct subsidy that the poorest people may be required to pay to richer people.
2
this article fails to mention the campaign contributors get free stuff. consider the following: the Koch Bros, weither they are good or bad, naughty or nice are members of American for Prosperity which is part of the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage foundation does have it's own health care bill, "saving the American dream". If the Koch Bros would spend million of dollars on they anti "ObamaCare" media campaign, the Koch Bros and probably other campaign contributors would make mega million if not billions with "Heritage Care". The wed site of the heritage Foundation states they want to repeal the current health care bill in it's entiretly, however they have not said they will pay the cost of switching the health care bills. the GOP has never said they will pay for it. so how will it be paid for? by "spending someone else's money" or really through government spending. So campaign contributors do get "free stuff" but no on is ever talking about the fact the campaign contributors are getting "free stuff:. I propose a system that campaign contributors have to pay for their "free stuff". just making campain contributions is not enough.
3
The United States will never be happy until we eliminate the ownership of private property. Once that is completed the government could provide for us according to need.
Worked out well for the USSR.
An excellent argument for the flat tax. BTW, a few years ago there was a study done that interviewed a cross-section of middle-class America. A majority of those who said "I've never rec'd anything from the government, and neither should anybody else!", were people who currently or at some past time, rec'd unemployment benefits, Social Security/disability, Medicare or Medicaid.
Income inequality hurts everyone, even (in the long run) the wealthy. The rich have used their influence to alter the tax code to their advantage. That does not make it right, or fair for the middle class and poor.
Income inequality hurts everyone, even (in the long run) the wealthy. The rich have used their influence to alter the tax code to their advantage. That does not make it right, or fair for the middle class and poor.
2
"There’s a whole treasure trove of government handouts that aren’t dispensed through spending, but rather through the tax code." The recipients of tax breaks will tell you they 'create jobs', even if they are hedge fund managers increasing the cost of every investment by taking a cut while introducing no value to the eventual product someone else makes. They might also say that they pay a lot of money for lobbyists to get them the profitable tax cuts.
6
I'm not an economist, just a small business owning, tax paying citizen.
That said, tax exemptions are not the government GIVING me anything. It is the government not TAKING it in the first place. In other words, the Feds are letting me keep my own money. How is that me getting "free stuff" from the government? That is the same logic used by people who celebrate large tax refund checks. The IRS didn't give you that money, they used YOUR money for a year and then gave it back to you without paying interest.
As another comment here noted, our government is funded by taxes. The taxes I do pay support all government programs from which I benefit. If you don't pay any taxes in the first place and are receiving benefits, then you are receiving that from a pool of money to which you did not contribute. That's the government giving you something. And that's OK, its part of what makes this country work. We SHOULD help those who need a boost. But let's admit that that throwing money at programs isn't always the answer. It's rhetoric that recycles every election. It creates huge administratively complex programs that are just asking to be gamed.
Never believe candidates who dangle any kind of "free stuff" in front of voters - no matter the demographic it's aimed at. It's buying votes on credit and never ends well.
That said, tax exemptions are not the government GIVING me anything. It is the government not TAKING it in the first place. In other words, the Feds are letting me keep my own money. How is that me getting "free stuff" from the government? That is the same logic used by people who celebrate large tax refund checks. The IRS didn't give you that money, they used YOUR money for a year and then gave it back to you without paying interest.
As another comment here noted, our government is funded by taxes. The taxes I do pay support all government programs from which I benefit. If you don't pay any taxes in the first place and are receiving benefits, then you are receiving that from a pool of money to which you did not contribute. That's the government giving you something. And that's OK, its part of what makes this country work. We SHOULD help those who need a boost. But let's admit that that throwing money at programs isn't always the answer. It's rhetoric that recycles every election. It creates huge administratively complex programs that are just asking to be gamed.
Never believe candidates who dangle any kind of "free stuff" in front of voters - no matter the demographic it's aimed at. It's buying votes on credit and never ends well.
6
Jeb Bush and Donald Trump, among other Republicans, propose to abolish the Estate Tax, aka the 'Death Tax'. They propose that a trust fund baby (like the Donald) be able to inherit almost unlimited amounts of money TAX-FREE.
So if UNEARNED MONEY is to be tax-free, then let's eliminate income taxes on investment income, lottery wins, gambling earnings, etc. That money will trickle down to the rest of us anyway.
So if UNEARNED MONEY is to be tax-free, then let's eliminate income taxes on investment income, lottery wins, gambling earnings, etc. That money will trickle down to the rest of us anyway.
3
With every new self-immolating soundbite, Jeb! tries once again to tell us all that he wants out but doesn't have the, er, energy to come out and say it.
4
What garbage. People who pay less than a 100% tax rate are getting "free stuff" from the government. When the government only taxes your income at a 40% rate, you are getting "free stuff" equal to 60% of your income. Even if there were no deductions or exclusions, this guy would tell the taxpayers who pay taxes that they are getting "free stuff" because their tax rate is less than 100%. This is why nobody who pays any significant amount of income taxes trusts progressives to be intellectually honest or to respect the efforts of the working class.
3
There is a massive hole in the authors logic here. Although I agree with the underlying premise that loop holes engendered by capitalists for capitalists is its own form of government patronage, comparing that to resources that are collected by the irs then re-distributed back to certain populations, is a false equivalency. Logic like this, which is not universal at all in the liberal camp (I am a liberal, not a democrat and definitely not a republican), fortifies the mirages of affinity fraud the republican middle lower-class white population has for the upper bourgeois gentry population. The author presupposes that families who make 100,000$ and have a home maybe kids etc, are some how as dependent on the govt as people who collect welfare to eat, somewhere to sleep and healthcare is quite peculiar.
I firmly believe that the urban and rural poor should receive redistribution of resources and it is a shame that is not an agreed upon premise. I also realize that the government can open doors to the actual facilitation of upward mobility but can not force people to walk through the door and take responsibility for their future. The author should solely be focusing on our unsustainable and patronized tax code. Focus on the tax interest loophole for millionaires and lumping families that make 250,000 with every millionaire and billionaire in one tax bracket. Focus on how these oligarchs offshore jobs and buy and insulate their power through our purchased officials.
I firmly believe that the urban and rural poor should receive redistribution of resources and it is a shame that is not an agreed upon premise. I also realize that the government can open doors to the actual facilitation of upward mobility but can not force people to walk through the door and take responsibility for their future. The author should solely be focusing on our unsustainable and patronized tax code. Focus on the tax interest loophole for millionaires and lumping families that make 250,000 with every millionaire and billionaire in one tax bracket. Focus on how these oligarchs offshore jobs and buy and insulate their power through our purchased officials.
3
What your analysis omits is all the services government provides that benefit the upper and middle classes, services without which these people could not earn their high incomes. These high-income earners owe the community for these services. And since they have more to lose than anyone else, they benefit more and justifiably pay more. A tax cut given them increases the burden on those not receiving a cut, or it hurts the community by reducing the services it receives.
1
I have paid well over $100.000 in Federal income taxes every year for over 20 years. Tell me how I am anything but a net loser and source of subsidy money for others.
4
You've paid for military and anti-terrorism efforts that have kept you safe. You've paid for improvements to the country's infrastructure, which benefit you every day unless you don't drive a car on a public road or over a bridge. You've paid the health benefits for Wal-Mart employees who work hard but whose benefits end up in the pockets of the Walton family. There are thousands of ways in which your taxes have helped you. You've probably deducted interest on your home mortgage.You're probably assuming that Medicare and Social Security will be there for you when you hit 65.
If you're in the "Southern USA," the odds are that Federal disaster relief is helping your community right now after Hurricane Joaquin. And don't forget the Federal salaries that are going to Tea Party Congressmen who obstruct any positive legislation.
Yet you begrudge "subsidies" for others who are citizens of this country, and who contribute in countless ways to the society in which we live. Your selfish, self-centered stance is nothing new, but, luckily, you're in the vast minority in this country with your whining and complaints.
If you're in the "Southern USA," the odds are that Federal disaster relief is helping your community right now after Hurricane Joaquin. And don't forget the Federal salaries that are going to Tea Party Congressmen who obstruct any positive legislation.
Yet you begrudge "subsidies" for others who are citizens of this country, and who contribute in countless ways to the society in which we live. Your selfish, self-centered stance is nothing new, but, luckily, you're in the vast minority in this country with your whining and complaints.
11
Actually you didn't answer her question. You will have to admit that she is a net loser, meaning she pays in much more than she gets out. So instead of calling her names while you rake in the benefits she paid for, just say thank you.
I sympathize with this argument, but it will go nowhere. By equating tax breaks and government spending, the writer is making the underlying assumption that our income belongs to the government, and the government decides to allow some people to keep more of it. Conservatives will likely reject this out of hand: the government has no inherent "right" to our income, so "allowing" some to keep a larger share is not a benefit. A stronger argument, I think, is to assert the broad public benefits of government _spending_ (what some reduce to handing out "free stuff"). Much of this spending goes back to large corporations (and impacts job creation) through defense spending, infrastructure building and maintenance (and the benefits it brings), and other forms of public investment. Then, there are those numerous programs that benefit large and diverse sectors of the public (rich and poor), from health spending to national parks, from food safety to flood protection. And, most Americans have, at some time or other, had to avail themselves of those programs that some deride as "free stuff" -- we've all tumbled into the safety net one time or other and climbed out. The best argument against the "free stuff" folks is to remind citizens of how often they actually count on the government to be there: cut programs, but not the ones that I need. Well, in a large and complex society, we all need lots of things that we can't do as "rugged individuals".
1
Since "we" were not all born white crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarchs some of "we" get way more "free stuff" than the rest of "we." And it is our own fault for "we" failing to pick the "right" parents.
4
Not taxing something (such as healthcare benefits) is not the same as wealth transfers from taxes.
But I'm less concerned about people in need getting a helping hand from government, than special interests getting big handouts via government laws and regulations. That cuts across the board for all parties - they lavish their campaign donors with special treatment that leaves the average, unrepresented, citizen on the hook.
Take for instance the Ethanol mandate, supported by members of congress on both sides of the aisle. We get to pay more for fuel that damages engines, so farmers and ethanol processing interests can convert land from food to fuel production. It doesn't help the environment, doesn't help the taxpayer, car owner, or even help with the stated objective of energy independence.
This is just small example of how our politicians are in the hands of a small group, for pennies in campaign contributions for dollars of revenue through legislation.
But I'm less concerned about people in need getting a helping hand from government, than special interests getting big handouts via government laws and regulations. That cuts across the board for all parties - they lavish their campaign donors with special treatment that leaves the average, unrepresented, citizen on the hook.
Take for instance the Ethanol mandate, supported by members of congress on both sides of the aisle. We get to pay more for fuel that damages engines, so farmers and ethanol processing interests can convert land from food to fuel production. It doesn't help the environment, doesn't help the taxpayer, car owner, or even help with the stated objective of energy independence.
This is just small example of how our politicians are in the hands of a small group, for pennies in campaign contributions for dollars of revenue through legislation.
3
One of the arguments against taxes is that you earn the money, therefore it's yours and tax is theft. Following that argument to the end, we should all pay no taxes and live in caves with guns and forage for food. Surely we can do better for each other as a group than that.
4
You don't have to live in a cave in the government doesn't take all your money. You could buy a home and a car with your own money, earned by you.
Hold on hold on hold on.
Free stuff = stuff you get without trading something for value or working, etc.
Getting less of your income taxed in the form of a deduction isn't free stuff. It's more stuff, OK sure. But it ain't free if you work for a living and earned that stuff. That would more technically be called "stuff you worked for".
Compare to someone who doesn't have a job who just gets checks in the mail.
Free stuff = stuff you get without trading something for value or working, etc.
Getting less of your income taxed in the form of a deduction isn't free stuff. It's more stuff, OK sure. But it ain't free if you work for a living and earned that stuff. That would more technically be called "stuff you worked for".
Compare to someone who doesn't have a job who just gets checks in the mail.
57
"Compare to someone who doesn't have a job who just gets checks in the mail."
Most people who get welfare or public assistance have jobs that don't pay enough for them to live on. The benefit is going to their employer as well as to them.
Most people who get welfare or public assistance have jobs that don't pay enough for them to live on. The benefit is going to their employer as well as to them.
6
I hope for your sake you never lose your job, have a catastrophic illness strike, or any other thing that can plunge a person or family into a position where they need help for food or housing.
Don't be so selfish. Not everyone is as fortunate as you apparently are. Are you from a wealthy family? Are you educated? What time period? When college was affordable? When jobs were plentiful?
Check out today's world and find some compassion in your happy little heart.
Don't be so selfish. Not everyone is as fortunate as you apparently are. Are you from a wealthy family? Are you educated? What time period? When college was affordable? When jobs were plentiful?
Check out today's world and find some compassion in your happy little heart.
4
Let's also compare the stress and humiliation and despair felt by the person lacking a job to the person who has one. Do you honestly believe that people enjoy not having a job? Have you ever been unemployed??
3
"There’s a whole treasure trove of government handouts that aren’t dispensed through spending, but rather through the tax code. That doesn’t make them any less “free” than a rent voucher or an Electronic Benefit Transfer card."
So the fact that the government takes less money in taxes means you get free stuff? That's like saying that a mugger who takes your wallet then returns $5.00 to you is giving you free stuff.
So the fact that the government takes less money in taxes means you get free stuff? That's like saying that a mugger who takes your wallet then returns $5.00 to you is giving you free stuff.
5
Every middle class conservative I know spouts this bumper sticker ready slogan. It is the number one thing that riles them about "libruls", and is used constantly by RW media to rouse them. To a person they think they work harder than anyone else and their taxes go to "those people" for a free ride at their expense. Unfortunately, these same conservatives are willing to believe just about anything that bolsters their identity as a "conservative". There is no winning them over with facts or statistics. The media brainwashing re-enforces their feelings, and that's just fine with them.
6
JP - And what is equally appalling to me about these same people is when the majority pretend that they are Christian and go to church regularly but no nothing about living a Christian life.
1
What is your point? What are the facts and statistics and about what? Are you saying that taxpayers are not providing a free ride for others at their own expense? Please supply the facts to support this case.
I wonder if Jeb and fellow republicans consider the right to vote more "Free stuff"? If not, will they call on Alabama to stop its attack on predominately African American voting rights?
The NYTimes editorial today calling out Alabama's plan to close DMVs in every county in which blacks make up more than 75 percent of registered voters" is a clear attack on voter rights in a state where a state issued ID is necessary to vote. So--where is the Republican outcry on this?
The NYTimes editorial today calling out Alabama's plan to close DMVs in every county in which blacks make up more than 75 percent of registered voters" is a clear attack on voter rights in a state where a state issued ID is necessary to vote. So--where is the Republican outcry on this?
2
So, the big question here is why have Democrats allowed this misinformation to penetrate every aspect of the national conversation beginning in the Reagan era? Where is the blue state blogger with facts to present on just who gets what? Where are the columnists addressing these comments as they are made? What upsets me most about the Democratic Party is its silence in the face of these outright misrepresentations.
3
So not taking more money from someone is the same thing as giving him/her money? Funny, it seems like it's just taking less, that it is less harm not help. I guess political perspective can stretch reality to whatever shape one wishes.
3
Mr. Romney, who admitted he paid an effective tax rate of 13% the year prior to running for POTUS, gets plenty of free stuff from the government. On his $ 22 million income, with a 39+% tax rate, his free stuff amounted to nearly $ 6 million dollars IN ONE YEAR. He did not share his returns for other years and some have said he paid nothing several times. Whatever the truth is, his response was that he paid every cent he owed. While technically correct, his free stuff pales in comparison to those getting other "entitlements"
2
Poor Jeb (!). Inarticulately -and often testily- showing that he has nothing to offer.
2
Most of us don't even get the "stuff" we paid for, and in this country, some are more equal than others. Most "free stuff" goes to the wealthy and their sucking corporations. NOBODY whines like the rich.
7
Wrong, oh, extremely wrong. When the government very graciously permits you to keep that which you earn, it is NOT providing you with a handout. “Tax subsidy” is leftspeak for any sums the government permits you to keep. So, for instance, if the state imposes a general sales tax, but exempts clothing, that’s a “tax subsidy”. If it chooses to tax beer, but exempt milk, that’s a “tax subsidy”.
Bush got grief for his proposal to repeal the deduction for state and local taxes, a benefit which goes mainly to rich folks in Blue states. All of a sudden, NY/NJ liberals have found a benefit for the despised “rich” that they think proper.
The failure to tax is simply NOT a handout. While it may be designed to encourage behavior the government deems desirable – purchasing a home; buying health insurance – it is simply NOT the same as being given other people’s money. The government does not spend a dime when it decides not to tax.
One should never trust an author who uses the word “invest” when he means “spend”.
The left is blatant in its appeals: "vote for us, and we’ll give you gobs of other people’s money, things you haven’t earned." That is wholly different from the right, which says, “we’ll let you keep more of what you earn”. Only if one regards one's earnings as presumptively community assets, considers their distribution the proper subject for a plebiscite, and the right to retain one's earnings as a favor from government, does this article make any sense.
Bush got grief for his proposal to repeal the deduction for state and local taxes, a benefit which goes mainly to rich folks in Blue states. All of a sudden, NY/NJ liberals have found a benefit for the despised “rich” that they think proper.
The failure to tax is simply NOT a handout. While it may be designed to encourage behavior the government deems desirable – purchasing a home; buying health insurance – it is simply NOT the same as being given other people’s money. The government does not spend a dime when it decides not to tax.
One should never trust an author who uses the word “invest” when he means “spend”.
The left is blatant in its appeals: "vote for us, and we’ll give you gobs of other people’s money, things you haven’t earned." That is wholly different from the right, which says, “we’ll let you keep more of what you earn”. Only if one regards one's earnings as presumptively community assets, considers their distribution the proper subject for a plebiscite, and the right to retain one's earnings as a favor from government, does this article make any sense.
4
I would suggest everybody "grow up."
Many years ago, the actor Louis Nye appeared in an ad, black and white no less, saying this, "If you hear the word 'free', a bell should go off in your head."
Nothing is "free" folks and since our Congress is made up of millionaires and those wanting to be millionaires, don't expect anything to change soon.
Just keep listening for that old 'bell' to go 'ding' and then hold onto your wallet!
Many years ago, the actor Louis Nye appeared in an ad, black and white no less, saying this, "If you hear the word 'free', a bell should go off in your head."
Nothing is "free" folks and since our Congress is made up of millionaires and those wanting to be millionaires, don't expect anything to change soon.
Just keep listening for that old 'bell' to go 'ding' and then hold onto your wallet!
1
Let’s not forget the “free stuff” companies such as WalMart get by underpaying its employees who then require government assistance to survive. Politicians who stigmatize “free stuff” like food stamps and welfare can have an impact on these things simply by raising the minimum wage.
244
The Tax Expenditure Budget [which most voters have never heard of] is a pernicious concept because it assumes if you've still got it because it wasn't taken from you by taxation, that is the same as if the government gave it to you, i.e., made an 'expenditure' to you.
The assumption is that everything belongs to the government, and the regal fisc only allows you to use some of it for as while.
What perfection for a liberal left winger seeking funding for their 'programs'!
The assumption is that everything belongs to the government, and the regal fisc only allows you to use some of it for as while.
What perfection for a liberal left winger seeking funding for their 'programs'!
2
Well, Hallelujah. Can we just keep publishing this op-ed every day until the election happens? Because when it comes to entitlements, nothing compares with Jeb Bush--a lousy candidate lacking in charisma--thinking he deserves to be president. And this idea, which unites every element of the Republican base with the belief that some lazy person (usually of color) is taking their hard-earned money away from them is the exact opposite of true. It's Jeb and Mitt and wannabe rich guys like Rubio. It's the rich who have stolen your money!
1
Let's just agree that the "free stuff" you describe might actually be perceived differently by people who ACTUALLY PAY TAXES...
1
No "Free Stuff" for you guys, the Free-Stuff is for the Donor-Class
But this isn't a D-vs-R thing, both sides are in an arms race to woo support($) from the wealthy. That doesn't mean it's equal, the Republicans are way, way worse
And sadly, the Dems couldn't simply decline to play, as they would get blown out of the water, mostly with an unstoppable barrage of false/misleading 'messaging' that would be uncritically accepted by a broad swath of our totally ignorant electorate
How can we restore Greatness & Democracy?
Simple answer= We can't
A properly functioning 'Jeffersonian' Democracy depends on an intelligent and informed electorate, not one that can be EASILY swayed by buffoons with empirically impossible promises & delusions that are as transparent as window pane
SOME IDEAs (old)
Sensible Gun Laws: UNIVERSAL background checks, registration, ballistic fingerprinting, jail for straw purchasers
Computer-generated Random redistricting: Pols represent voters, not the party that their district was designed to be a guaranteed winner for
End all PACs, in terms of giving to politicians & parties, back to low individual limits PER-PERSON. In terms of "Speech", the Koch Bros can give as many "speeches" as they want, but what the shouldn't be allowed to do is to purchase loyalty & influence from office-seekers with money
Generally balanced budgets, enforced by honest accounting & mandatory tax increases to cover excessive spending
Our system is broken by ignorant electorate
But this isn't a D-vs-R thing, both sides are in an arms race to woo support($) from the wealthy. That doesn't mean it's equal, the Republicans are way, way worse
And sadly, the Dems couldn't simply decline to play, as they would get blown out of the water, mostly with an unstoppable barrage of false/misleading 'messaging' that would be uncritically accepted by a broad swath of our totally ignorant electorate
How can we restore Greatness & Democracy?
Simple answer= We can't
A properly functioning 'Jeffersonian' Democracy depends on an intelligent and informed electorate, not one that can be EASILY swayed by buffoons with empirically impossible promises & delusions that are as transparent as window pane
SOME IDEAs (old)
Sensible Gun Laws: UNIVERSAL background checks, registration, ballistic fingerprinting, jail for straw purchasers
Computer-generated Random redistricting: Pols represent voters, not the party that their district was designed to be a guaranteed winner for
End all PACs, in terms of giving to politicians & parties, back to low individual limits PER-PERSON. In terms of "Speech", the Koch Bros can give as many "speeches" as they want, but what the shouldn't be allowed to do is to purchase loyalty & influence from office-seekers with money
Generally balanced budgets, enforced by honest accounting & mandatory tax increases to cover excessive spending
Our system is broken by ignorant electorate
1
zzinzel - Try Bernie Sanders for our next President---I bet you will like him. I do.
1
Last time I checked, that is my copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, could not find 'free stuff' mentioned. Yes, there is something in the Preamble about 'happiness', but also nothing about 'free stuff'. So, after reading the article I think it best to change the term to 'poor stuff'. Don't be fooled, as most of the electorate is, politicians are all about giving 'stuff', it never costs them anything, so why not. Seems 'stupidness' rules in America.
7
Better get that seemer looked at, Crumpet. Unless your definition of "America" is the troll version: yourself, your mother, and a third-round troll to be named later.
Absolutely right on. Politicians give so much free stuff to corporations it's an outrage. If they stopped that and made corporations succeed or fail on their own merits rather than on government handouts we'd see a lot more money in our nation's coffers. It would be more fair, too. Why should the mega-corporation get huge tax breaks while the small business owner struggles? That truly is stupid.
95
This is infuriating: "The government loses about $900 billion in revenue every year on just the 10 largest tax expenditures — called expenditures because while they aren’t direct outlays, they come at a cost just like direct spending."
It presumes that everything you have belongs to the government.
Is it an "expenditure" when a burglar refrains from taking your television?
It presumes that everything you have belongs to the government.
Is it an "expenditure" when a burglar refrains from taking your television?
27
This is the most dishonest, tortured analysis of "benefits" I have had the misfortune to read. That something is taxed at a lower rate or is the subject of a deduction that reduced the amount of taxes owed is not equitable to a direct payment to you of someone else's money by a taxing authority. Under that theory, all money belongs to the government, so anything you don't send to the IRS is a "benefit" bestowed on you. That the editorial writers of the NY Times would put forth such rubbish and think that readers would buy into it is an insult.
55
"That something is taxed at a lower rate or is the subject of a deduction that reduced the amount of taxes owed is not equitable to a direct payment to you of someone else's money by a taxing authority."......The concept of money belonging to an individual because they alone worked for it is an interesting one. Suppose you own a grocery store (or work at a grocery store). Who pays for the roads your customers and delivery people use to get to the store? Where does your water come from, where does your sewage go, who picks up your garbage, who pays for your police and fire protection. You could not operate your business, or would there be a business where you could work, were it not for the infrastructure support provided by tax dollars. So if you have a special interest tax break like a mortgage deduction, such that you pay a lesser share of taxes that go to support that infrastructure, who's money is it really. It is not as straight forward as you think.
16
Ok. So quit driving on my highways, freeloader!
11
Where did money come from James?
3
The GOP promotes this myth that the government & the private economy are separate entities at war with each other, that anything the government does is taking money away from the economy. In the modern world this is simply incoherent. Unless we are all going back to living on self-sufficient farms, acquiring the materials to make our tools by barter, the government's job is to structure the economy, set the ground rules, regulate the currency, balance competing interests, define corporations and debt, balance the public interest against large private interests, create the infrastructure that makes private business & wage labor possible. Instead, the GOP pretends to be "getting out of the way," which in practice means letting the largest private interests write the rules for their own advantage. They call it "free market" capitalism but nothing could be farther from the truth. The rules that define that freedom are written and rewritten every day, doling out cash and advantages; the only question is whether the people who can afford lobbyists and candidates write the rules in their interest, or the public gets a voice in the process.
47
Over priced, government insured student loans is free stuff to "Sallie Mae" and private financial industry. Loopholes for "fantasy football" is free stuff to NFL Owners. Farm subsidies. Privatized toll roads. More free stuff.
1
Nothing is "free" but some are bound to the system more than others, some give more than others, and some take more than others. The trick is allotting everyone their fair share. The problem is what is "fair" and who gets to decide?
1
The difference being the tax breaks go to people who actually work, as opposed to those who rely on welfare and the like while never doing an honest day's work in their life.
4
Many people who get welfare do work, but don't make enough to actually live one. Or have health benefits.
1
Don't forget Stepped Up basis, a hugely valuable tax break that primarily benefits those who inherit great wealth.
8
Billions of dollars go to the most important "people" in this country Corproations! Yet corporate welfare doesn't even get a mention. Billionaires don't have to pay 70% to make me feel I'm getting treated fairly. All they have to do is pay their taxes! Most don't because of various loop holes their lawyers and lobbyists have crafted and I don't mean the mortgage interest deduction.
4
What T doesn't seem to under stand is math. Many of the poor who receive "free stuff" are also working but their wages place them in a category that qualifies them for government assistance. I would like to see someone like T live on the minimum wage (let's say $10/per hr) and still be able to put a roof over his head, food on the table, and pay the necessary bills of everyday life (e.g. water, electricity, clothing) not to mention medical benefits that many low wage jobs do not come with. I am assuming the person does not have a family since that would be nearly impossible.
13
It is absurd to compare tax breaks to welfare handouts. A mugger thinks he is losing money when he permits a pedestrian walk by unmolested, but this doesn’t mean he is entitled to the money in the pedestrian’s pocket. If Americans are only entitled to money that the government lets them keep, why bother collecting taxes. Instead, pass a law requiring employers to pay worker wages directly to the government. The government would then pay each workers an allowance as it sees fit. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
17
See Denmark for a successful take on this idea.
This piece seems to make the assumption that I think many liberals make. Everything you earn and ideally everything you have, belongs to the government. Anything you get to keep is a benefit. Work a 40 to 60 hour week, pay a mortgage, and support some children, then the government is giving you a benefit with the associated tax breaks. Drop out of school, be chronically unemployed, have a few children anyway, receive all the associated benefits. Same situation in the eyes of the liberal.
14
I work 60 hours a week but don't make enough to own a house, instead I pay rent. So I don't get mortgage deductions. Thus, mortgage deductions are "free stuff" for some people.
I don't make the assumption that everything I make belongs to the government. But I also think every one in society needs to contribute for society to function.
And everyone benefits from some help as well.
I don't make the assumption that everything I make belongs to the government. But I also think every one in society needs to contribute for society to function.
And everyone benefits from some help as well.
114
The author makes a great argument for a tax code that gets rid of all deductions.
Elitist like Jeb Bush and Hillary Clintons benefactors primary reason for giving them money comes from their desire to control the tax code.
Elitist like Jeb Bush and Hillary Clintons benefactors primary reason for giving them money comes from their desire to control the tax code.
7
I agree 100% with this article. Any time ( and I mean 100% of the time) I engage Republican voters in why they vote Republican- they talk about being angry at giving money to the welfare class- that's it- end of story. They cannot get past this perceived give away to people that they think don't work and just live free on the dole. It upsets them when they think about how hard they work for a living.
I get that- BUT, the welfare checks are only a drop in the bucket when you compare the tax breaks corporations get, farm subsidies, religious organizations ( yes, even the TV millionaire ones who have their own jets), tax breaks for having kids ( no limit), mortgage interest tax breaks, tax rates on investments, corporate health benefits, etc, etc. As the article points out- these are much more costly than welfare programs. Stop calling the kettle black and look at the big picture. Welfare is not perfect and no one loves the fact that there is a need for it- but it certainly is better than homeless families starving in the street- which we already have. If you want social unrest and rioting in the streets- just cut off welfare benefits. At least it provides some help for kids who are born into poverty through no fault of their own. It can use some reform- yes- but lets not forget the big ticket corporate welfare piggies at the trough with no end in sight.
I get that- BUT, the welfare checks are only a drop in the bucket when you compare the tax breaks corporations get, farm subsidies, religious organizations ( yes, even the TV millionaire ones who have their own jets), tax breaks for having kids ( no limit), mortgage interest tax breaks, tax rates on investments, corporate health benefits, etc, etc. As the article points out- these are much more costly than welfare programs. Stop calling the kettle black and look at the big picture. Welfare is not perfect and no one loves the fact that there is a need for it- but it certainly is better than homeless families starving in the street- which we already have. If you want social unrest and rioting in the streets- just cut off welfare benefits. At least it provides some help for kids who are born into poverty through no fault of their own. It can use some reform- yes- but lets not forget the big ticket corporate welfare piggies at the trough with no end in sight.
88
So ... my parents read to me ...
I read to my kids ...
THIS helps do them better in school ...which helps them do better in life.
I don't perceive ANY ACCIDENT of birth here.
I read to my kids ...
THIS helps do them better in school ...which helps them do better in life.
I don't perceive ANY ACCIDENT of birth here.
Imagine, an opinion like this from the editor of ThinkProgress, probably a Bernie voter who advocates free college and healthcare. Nothing is free. Nothing.
6
Public spending ads something to everyone's income. Ideal government ads enough to everyone's income to pay their taxes for them.
2
Try this - never married, 61 yrs old, never owned a home, worked my whole life, paid social security my whole life.
Penalized for not owning a home - no tax deduction for a lifetime.
Penalized for never getting married - social security allows huge benefits to a spouse.
Only people who receive back more than they pay in get :free stuff", the others are subsidizing the freeloaders.
Get you definition of terms correct.
Penalized for not owning a home - no tax deduction for a lifetime.
Penalized for never getting married - social security allows huge benefits to a spouse.
Only people who receive back more than they pay in get :free stuff", the others are subsidizing the freeloaders.
Get you definition of terms correct.
8
This is how you do class warfare: mislead, lie, ignore. Provide people with targets to blame for their economic ills while the real culprits make out like bandits - because that's what they are. They've turned the government into a wealth transfer machine all right, away from the poor and soon to be poor middle class and into the grasping hands of the wealthy.
22
Unfortunately, it's not surprising that affluent people who benefit from government tax policies don't believe they get them. This is counter-intuitive, but generally true. I'm reminded of an article I came across that - generally speaking - the more one benefited from Prop. 13 in California (wealth, property ownership, education level), the more misinformed one tended to be about it. See : https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5jc1x1kk.
John
John
13
I think that the Savings and Loan scandal, now long forgotten, it seems, provided a truckload of "free stuff" to the Bushes. I don't recall getting anything from that, other than the shaft.
65
Bush: "...we'll take care of you with free stuff."
How lovely. Free stuff. Like the right to vote? Let's start there talking about free stuff. Florida, the land of voter ID restriction. It is sickening that 50 years after the voting laws have been passed, that not only Republicans look at "entitlements" as "free stuff" which they include, by the way, Medicare, which many of us have paid directly into for many decades, they seem to look at voting rights as a hand out, and something to be reckoned with.
Does Bush include "free stuff" as the right to vote? It would be very interesting to hear his probably very conservative and probable very "convincing" rhetoric on that kind of "free stuff." Because frankly, it doesn't seem like voting rights are linked to the word "free" much anymore.
Let's hear about it in the next debate.
How lovely. Free stuff. Like the right to vote? Let's start there talking about free stuff. Florida, the land of voter ID restriction. It is sickening that 50 years after the voting laws have been passed, that not only Republicans look at "entitlements" as "free stuff" which they include, by the way, Medicare, which many of us have paid directly into for many decades, they seem to look at voting rights as a hand out, and something to be reckoned with.
Does Bush include "free stuff" as the right to vote? It would be very interesting to hear his probably very conservative and probable very "convincing" rhetoric on that kind of "free stuff." Because frankly, it doesn't seem like voting rights are linked to the word "free" much anymore.
Let's hear about it in the next debate.
21
This gives clarity. Labeling others as welfare queens used to be a great way to demonize those receiving government subsidies. And then we pulled the curtain on corporate, estate and other tax breaks to find we are all welfare queens.
We all enjoy safe drinking water and food, safe highways and roads, hospitals, libraries, schools, universities, parks,... We all must share in paying for them.
We all enjoy safe drinking water and food, safe highways and roads, hospitals, libraries, schools, universities, parks,... We all must share in paying for them.
159
The affluent pay far more for the drinking water, food, highways and roads than anyone else. Comparing a tax break, keeping more of the money you earned, to a direct payment is comical. You are either ideological or intellectually weak.
@ScienceLady - so how do you propose to get those who don't pay taxes to pay their fair share? I propose that they are forced to work for their benefits. Do something, ANYTHING - pick up trash, wash people's cars, whatever. But you show up daily somewhere and WORK for your benefits.
I wonder how many of the Tea Party, hard right wing supporters, and advocates of smaller government and gutting of federal entitlement programs, living in South Carolina, are lining up for federal flood disaster relief assistance right now? No flood insurance? No health insurance? Not my problem, none of the government's business...until something bad happens, then it's time to extend the hand out to FEMA or the local emergency room. Too bad no one down there will make the connection and realize the entire bunch of GOP candidates are in fact not on their side.
41
OK, it was the local government, but from the vantage point of 70, I well recall my kindergarten classroom. All those free toys! A free teacher! Not only the classroom itself, with a piano the teacher could play, but fenced-in playground, just for us, right outside the door!
I recall the fire station in another town, another state. The policemen. No one charged me for those services.
Then again my parents didn't charge me either. Food, clothing, shelter, the whole time I was growing up.
It bears pondering: How is it possible I received all that free stuff and went on to become a wage-earning, tax-paying member of society?
Maybe I'm just an outlier.
I recall the fire station in another town, another state. The policemen. No one charged me for those services.
Then again my parents didn't charge me either. Food, clothing, shelter, the whole time I was growing up.
It bears pondering: How is it possible I received all that free stuff and went on to become a wage-earning, tax-paying member of society?
Maybe I'm just an outlier.
17
Imagine, an opinion like this with the same tax code canard from the editor of ThinkProgress? Shocking. There aren't enough rich people to supply all the taxes needed to cover all of the programs needed to take care of people when no one else carries their weight and hides behind race. As much as these candidates sound like the rich punks they are, the other side better not listen to the likes of this editor because he wants the party of victims and that's not attractive to middle of the road voters.
5
I shouldn't have to explain this, but the issue that bothers people is that the "free stuff" like food stamps and cash benefits from TANF that go to the poor come directly from the taxes that the (mainly) middle class pay in taxes i.e. "wealth redistribution". This is worlds apart, apples and oranges, from provisions of the tax code that allow the middle class to pay LESS taxes that are then redistributed to the poor, many of whom are content to live off food stamps and section 8 housing then to really strive and find better jobs. The real problem is that liberals automatically label the above a "racist" and "anti poor" perspective. Fine, but don't ever expect to win hearts and minds by calling people who don't think like you names, or trying to explain that taking tax money from the middle class and handing it to the poor is no different in any respect from the middle class having to pay less taxes thru the tax code because people with a minimal modicum of intelligence can see the difference.
9
Yes. And they are your airports, highways, submarines,spacecrafts,VA hospitals,I-95,et cetera. It's a shame you don't see the need to pay for these as well as your struggling sister and brother Americans. By the way, it's fewer, not LESS! Charities are deductible. I hope you give plenty if your team wins.
1
What you said -- but please, let's remember that MOST POOR PEOPLE ARE WHITE.
This is not racist at all. I have family in Southern Ohio. I've travelled all over the continental US, and this is as poor an area as anything in Mississippi or Alabama! only it is nearly 100% white. I've seen actual tar paper shacks in this area. A common form of housing is an old, rusted single-wide trailer up on cement blocks. The biggest building in town is the welfare office! and 80% of the residents of my relative's county is on welfare -- 80%!!! Virtually all kids are on the free lunch program.
They have every social problem we associate with the inner cities and black Americans -- unwed motherhood is the norm. Deadbeat dads are the norm. Lots of men are in prison, for drugs, because Southern Ohio is THE EPICENTER of the meth business. People who don't have money to feed their own children, oddly have money to buy meth and pot. (It's rural there, so it is really easy to grow pot without being caught.)
This area has the worst schools in the state, with the lowest graduation rates. And let me repeat: it is 99% white. The problem is poverty AND ignorance AND the welfare mentality. All three feed on each other. It's a cycle that we have failed to break.
This is not racist at all. I have family in Southern Ohio. I've travelled all over the continental US, and this is as poor an area as anything in Mississippi or Alabama! only it is nearly 100% white. I've seen actual tar paper shacks in this area. A common form of housing is an old, rusted single-wide trailer up on cement blocks. The biggest building in town is the welfare office! and 80% of the residents of my relative's county is on welfare -- 80%!!! Virtually all kids are on the free lunch program.
They have every social problem we associate with the inner cities and black Americans -- unwed motherhood is the norm. Deadbeat dads are the norm. Lots of men are in prison, for drugs, because Southern Ohio is THE EPICENTER of the meth business. People who don't have money to feed their own children, oddly have money to buy meth and pot. (It's rural there, so it is really easy to grow pot without being caught.)
This area has the worst schools in the state, with the lowest graduation rates. And let me repeat: it is 99% white. The problem is poverty AND ignorance AND the welfare mentality. All three feed on each other. It's a cycle that we have failed to break.
The average republican is not a member of the 1%. Yet they somehow do not see what is being done to them by the 1% and their GOP minions. They do not see how the economy is skewed against them. The GOP works to destroy Unions which are the last bastions of the eroding middle class. Rather than strive to join and create Unions so that they too can have a decent life, the average Republican enjoys their destruction in order to drag Union members down to their level. Are the Union excess? Of course there are and we should contain that. But Corporations are in a race to the bottom as far as the average workers salaries go. They need that money to pay the bloated salaries of their CEO's.
The GOP is coming for your social security to boost the earnings of wall street. And when those criminals cause the next crash (because the GOP guts any protective regulations) what will the average Republican do when their retirement investments, including their Social Security, are wiped out?
The GOP is coming for your social security to boost the earnings of wall street. And when those criminals cause the next crash (because the GOP guts any protective regulations) what will the average Republican do when their retirement investments, including their Social Security, are wiped out?
2
Bob - You are right but the ignorant people who vote for Republicans against their own financial interests will never listen. At least they won't until all of these things are deleted by Republicans and then it will be too late.
I believe the author is confused by a "tax credit" - basically a check from the gov't. And a "tax deduction" - allowing the payment of less taxes. It almost seems as if we should be thanking the government for not taxing us as much as they could. As an extreme example, if tax rates were 100%, but I was allowed to deduct my mortgage payment - even though I give the gov't 95% of my income, would you consider the 5% I'm allowed to keep from the deduction as "free stuff"? Gee thanks.
Its my money that I give to the gov't through taxes, deductions allow that burden to be lowered. Credit is money given by the gov't to the people. Do you see the difference?
Its my money that I give to the gov't through taxes, deductions allow that burden to be lowered. Credit is money given by the gov't to the people. Do you see the difference?
7
I recently found myself parked next to a giant pickup truck whose bumper sticker read "My Taxes Pay for All the Free Stuff Obama Gives You." The truck's license plate holder identified the driver as a graduate of West Point. So there it was in a nutshell -- somebody who owes his education and, likely, his career to services paid for by other taxpayers, now turning around and berating anyone else who follows his lead.
Sure, you can rationalize the attitude by pointing out that this person probably "served his country" or otherwise repaid the free stuff given to him by other taxpayers. Of course. But that begs the question -- where is that same level of empathy for the people supposedly getting "free stuff" from Obama's government? Why is it only welfare when the other guy gets it? The answer, of course, is that it isn't. A West Point education and a Section 8 voucher are exactly the same thing -- a government program to invest tax dollars with the aim of improving American society.
Sure, you can rationalize the attitude by pointing out that this person probably "served his country" or otherwise repaid the free stuff given to him by other taxpayers. Of course. But that begs the question -- where is that same level of empathy for the people supposedly getting "free stuff" from Obama's government? Why is it only welfare when the other guy gets it? The answer, of course, is that it isn't. A West Point education and a Section 8 voucher are exactly the same thing -- a government program to invest tax dollars with the aim of improving American society.
422
Wow! You think section 8 and a West Point education are the same thing! Unbelievable. The graduate of West Point will go on to serve his or her country, maybe losing their life in the process. The section 8 person will do what? Go to school instead of dropping out? If the West Point graduate leaves the military they will earn money that funds section 8. Again, show me how they are the same? West Point improves the country, section 8 helps people who can't find affordable housing. There are many reasons why someone would need section 8, but you can be pretty sure they are not paying any taXes.
I t is just what the military teaches, self reliance at the public trough. Look no further then their justifications in Afghanistan with the brass allowing child molestation [young boys chained to beds] on our bases by our so-called "allies" and our bombing of a hospital. Those academies especially teach arrogance and Christianity in the fundamentalist sense.
1
That Obama. I can't thank him enough for all that free stuff I get from him every month.
1
Not a good article, as the real obfuscation are the usual democratic-party lies proffered by the leftist writer of the day.
The mortgage deduction is not an "outlay" by the federal government since 1) the AMT eliminates it for many/most people 2) the government should not be "paid" for by people taking out a mortage. This is like the nonsense where because each year a person's home grows in value, their real estate taxes should rise - why is that? Does government become cheaper when housing prices decline?
The democratic party is the one based upon handouts to buy votes; for illegal aliens, for public employee unions, for the poor - all done with funds thefted from the middle class who pay most of the taxes and get little of the benefit. The party is a cancer, led by the worst president ever - obama - and should be disbanded with its lunatic policies like the 1965 immigration act rescinded.
The mortgage deduction is not an "outlay" by the federal government since 1) the AMT eliminates it for many/most people 2) the government should not be "paid" for by people taking out a mortage. This is like the nonsense where because each year a person's home grows in value, their real estate taxes should rise - why is that? Does government become cheaper when housing prices decline?
The democratic party is the one based upon handouts to buy votes; for illegal aliens, for public employee unions, for the poor - all done with funds thefted from the middle class who pay most of the taxes and get little of the benefit. The party is a cancer, led by the worst president ever - obama - and should be disbanded with its lunatic policies like the 1965 immigration act rescinded.
4
I guess industrial and agricultural subsidies don't count as "free stuff." But, of course, these subsidies enable producers to stay in business as their profitability is increased, whereas the other free stuff just enables poor consumers to purchase them.
2
So the "free" stuff that is "given" to people who are not poor is the money they earned to begin with? Following this logic no-one owns any of the money they earn. Nobody. Not one dollar. The government owns everything and doles it out. This is one of most perverse tactics ever conceived by those who want to help people who need help! It is sure to create the opposite sentiment than what is needed among those with the means to help. To this Independent (who strongly supports virtually all of the government efforts to help those who need help) it is a tacit admission that there has been a colossal failure on the part of those devising means of help for the poor to explain their program(s) and convince people with the means to help of the value of those programs. Frankly, it's a disgrace.
5
When Reagan was elected Presidents 20% of Federal revenues came from corporations - today it is 7-8%. You see, we now have 'smaller government' but on borrowed money paid for by middle and low income tax payers to subsidize corporations and the top 1%. That's been the conservative miracle. The GOP controlled congress retains spending on military bases throughout the red states at billions annually - and won't close them. Yes, free stuff for the rich.
9
This article describes the mere tip of the iceberg. States and cities are constantly offering huge tax incentives to sports teams and large businesses that would never be available to small business owners like myself. The US government has for years offered free or low cost leases to the oil companies for drilling on government land. There are thousands of ways for larger companies to find accounting or legal loopholes that are unavailable to individuals or small business owners. In short, most of the billions of dollars in lost taxes (free stuff) goes to those who can easily afford to pay, while the rest of us foot the bill.
Bernie Sanders is the only candidate to is actually interested in leveling the playing field and allowing all working Americans to benefit from the fruits of our labor. Every other candidate from both parties is beholden to large financial interests, and will continue to push for more "free stuff" for the wealthy, paid for by ordinary working stiffs like myself.
Bernie Sanders is the only candidate to is actually interested in leveling the playing field and allowing all working Americans to benefit from the fruits of our labor. Every other candidate from both parties is beholden to large financial interests, and will continue to push for more "free stuff" for the wealthy, paid for by ordinary working stiffs like myself.
7
Reagan "lowered the burden on the wealthiest Americans and did little for everyone else. The top income rate dropped from 70 percent to 28"
Of course Reagan was able to inflict this greatest redistribution of wealth to the top with the help of Democrats, including my Senator Bill Bradley, to my overwhelming dismay to this day.
The argument at the time was that Reagan won the election and deserved to have his major campaign promise passed. Something today's republicans would consider an act of party treason as it relates to Pres Obama.
We are still paying for that costly error more than 30 years ago, in interest payments on Reagan's tripled debt.
And will continue to pay for this gross mistake for many more decades until a fair tax code is re-established.
Of course Reagan was able to inflict this greatest redistribution of wealth to the top with the help of Democrats, including my Senator Bill Bradley, to my overwhelming dismay to this day.
The argument at the time was that Reagan won the election and deserved to have his major campaign promise passed. Something today's republicans would consider an act of party treason as it relates to Pres Obama.
We are still paying for that costly error more than 30 years ago, in interest payments on Reagan's tripled debt.
And will continue to pay for this gross mistake for many more decades until a fair tax code is re-established.
9
No one has been at the public trough as much as the Bush family. It's just incredible how politicians scapegoat the less advantaged, the disabled, the unemployed, the homeless, while they, the politicians reward themselves with benefits and perks not available to non-political citizens. Based on the amount of actual work done by the Republican Party since Barack Obama was elected President, the lawmakers of that party should be required to return the pay and anything else they took while in office, then resign!
4
Correct but vacuous.
It is absolutely not clear that the ultimate distribution of resources achieved via an explicit collection of taxes and spending would not look exactly the same as one where some part of the money does not take a round trip through the government.
Or more crudely put : basically the author argues a system where tax rate is x% on an economy where y% of the economy is excluded can be converted to a system where that y% is put back on the tax rolls and taxes kept at x%, and spending re-allocated. Good luck with getting that revenue, not completely destroying the economy, and good luck taking goodies away from the masses.
It is absolutely not clear that the ultimate distribution of resources achieved via an explicit collection of taxes and spending would not look exactly the same as one where some part of the money does not take a round trip through the government.
Or more crudely put : basically the author argues a system where tax rate is x% on an economy where y% of the economy is excluded can be converted to a system where that y% is put back on the tax rolls and taxes kept at x%, and spending re-allocated. Good luck with getting that revenue, not completely destroying the economy, and good luck taking goodies away from the masses.
1
This is the extremely distortive nature of government. Through the tax code, the state is manipulating market behavior for political gain by establishing rent-seeking. If the fiscal loss to the treasury is $900 billion, the actual cost is probably much higher due to the misallocation of that money and resultant stagnation of capital.
If these construed systems didn’t exist, the market would more efficiently allocate that money, leading to increased standards of living and more jobs created by the entrepreneurs using that capital effectively. Salaries would inevitably be higher and the economy much more dynamic.
Based on the way the system is currently structured, we have unintended consequences, stacked on top of perverse incentives, all wrapped up in red tape. No wonder our economy can no longer grow without 0% interest rates.
Europe? What a terrible comparison. They've had chronically high unemployment for a generation (or longer) and--compared to the US–a minimally innovative economy.
If these construed systems didn’t exist, the market would more efficiently allocate that money, leading to increased standards of living and more jobs created by the entrepreneurs using that capital effectively. Salaries would inevitably be higher and the economy much more dynamic.
Based on the way the system is currently structured, we have unintended consequences, stacked on top of perverse incentives, all wrapped up in red tape. No wonder our economy can no longer grow without 0% interest rates.
Europe? What a terrible comparison. They've had chronically high unemployment for a generation (or longer) and--compared to the US–a minimally innovative economy.
6
Two important caveats to this:
1. To logically conclude that tax 'breaks' or 'expenditures' are equivalent to direct subsidies like food stamps, you need to first believe that all wealth actually belongs to the government. If you believe that (as Bryce Covert apparently does), then a tax deduction or credit is in fact a handout. If you believe that wealth is produced by the private sector, and that government raises all its funds by levying taxes and fees, then a tax deduction (which allows you to keep more of your own money) is not equivalent to a handout).
2. The 'free stuff' terminology is misleading as well as demeaning. A more accurate way to describe the debate, is between 'net taxpayers' (those who pay more in taxes than they receive from the government in benefits) and 'net tax consumers' (those who receive more from the government in payments, than they pay in taxes, including Social Security and Medicare taxes). The ratio of net tax consumers to net taxpayers has been growing steadily for years, which is why the 'free stuff' debate has become so heated.
1. To logically conclude that tax 'breaks' or 'expenditures' are equivalent to direct subsidies like food stamps, you need to first believe that all wealth actually belongs to the government. If you believe that (as Bryce Covert apparently does), then a tax deduction or credit is in fact a handout. If you believe that wealth is produced by the private sector, and that government raises all its funds by levying taxes and fees, then a tax deduction (which allows you to keep more of your own money) is not equivalent to a handout).
2. The 'free stuff' terminology is misleading as well as demeaning. A more accurate way to describe the debate, is between 'net taxpayers' (those who pay more in taxes than they receive from the government in benefits) and 'net tax consumers' (those who receive more from the government in payments, than they pay in taxes, including Social Security and Medicare taxes). The ratio of net tax consumers to net taxpayers has been growing steadily for years, which is why the 'free stuff' debate has become so heated.
4
because so many full time workers now are net consumers because their wages are so low, they can not afford to pay their share.
1
A basic mistake about the tax code is that what the private sector funds with tax breaks would have to be funded anyway. America doesn't give that away, they simply choose to fund it privately rather than through direct government funding as in Europe. That gives the wealthy an inordinate say in the direction of charitable funds in the country. It also gives them naming status. One can make the case that the 33 million dollars David Koch got back from the over a hundred million that he paid for the David Koch Auditorium at the NYState Theater saved the taxpayer money since Koch gave 2/3rd to the American people's 1/3 but Koch probably wouldn't have funded the venture had not the people he terms "socialists" given him a tax write-off and the state would have had to taxed him to get it. The same goes for all charities supported by secular and religious institutions that are funded by governments in Scandinavia and elsewhere. The real question should be whether it is more efficient as in healthcare, to have the private sector (Insurance Companies) provide management services or it be done by public servants in government taking no profit on the venture. I think the answer is obvious. The question is whether the American people are culturally sophisticated enough to understand the dangers of Oligarchy. REH Performing Arts Teacher NYCity
3
This article exposes the sham beautifully. The poor are made to feel ashamed for receiving food stamps, subsidized housing, welfare, and temporary assistance, and in contrast the rich actually pride themselves on their ability to duck taxes through loopholes and clever accounting. Trump, Bush and the other Republican hopefuls occasionally actually brag about paying as little in taxes as possible, and there are so many unfair loopholes, tax forgiveness, etc for the rich. If you want to shame someone, why are we not shaming THEM for receiving even more "free stuff" than the poor from the government, in the form of unfair tax breaks? Perhaps Sanders or Clinton should address the billionaires of the country and warn them their campaigns are not about giving them "free stuff." The double standard is patent: huge tax breaks for the rich are somehow good, while emergency or stopgap funding for the poor is bad. Republican economics.
4
The air we breathe and the water we all drink are both cleaner, the roads we all drive on are safer, the military protects all of us, the FBI tracks down crooks and terrorists for all of us, we all have tax subsidized mortgages, nearly all seniors get Social Security and Medicare, tax subsidies make employer health care plans possible, food stamps and USDA loans support farm incomes. The federal government does a great deal for everyone, and most of it goes to the middle class and wealthy.
The real freeloaders are the states that cut budgets and drop taxes while the other states pay for their programs. The real transfer of wealth is from Northern taxpayers to Southern poor.
The real freeloaders are the states that cut budgets and drop taxes while the other states pay for their programs. The real transfer of wealth is from Northern taxpayers to Southern poor.
10
Citations please. I see that myth a lot, but I don't see anything to back it up.
1
Our systems of taxes and benefits is grossly inequitable and disjointed. It should be trashed and replaced with a national income for every adult who stays out of trouble with the law, say $12000 a year. That would even include those who are working. It may seem odd to give it to working people, but if they had a small stash behind them they could be more independent from their employers. This could result in a more productive, fulfilled and better paid work force.
2
I would also include in the category of "free stuff" "those people" are "taking": roads, infectious disease surveillance and basic medical R&D, fire protection, public education, libraries, protection from outside invaders or local criminals, etc. In short, everything a society cooperatively organizes and provides for "free" to maintain our part of civilization. And yes, we as a group have decided over the years that a small portion of our collective efforts will go to help others down on their luck, be it because of serious health problems, bad local employment conditions, or because they are simply too old or too young to take care of themselves. And yes, there are a very, very few that our communities "gives" a small amount of "free stuff" to who most would agree should be able to make it on their own, and we should keep working on how to fix that. But those who falsely dividing our country by claiming we are being ruined by hoards "those people" who are taking all of this "free stuff", are deliberately trying to divert our attention from the issues that really matter. For the real issues, just look every day at the pages of this newspaper/web site, or the one in your local community.
4
This is a canard. I benefit from the mortgage interest deduction (even after the partial phaseout built into the tax code). And after applying that deduction, I sitll pay half my income as a professional working in New York City in federal, state and local taxes because the rates are so high to begin with. Meanwhile someone benefiting from the Earned Income Tax Credit can have an effective tax rate of minus forty percent. And live in a brand new apartment building in Manhattan for $500 per month under the 80/20 program. Add food stamps, Medicaid, two free meals per day for the kids at school (even during the summer), and plenty of down time to surf the net, smoke dope and sleep. Where do I sign up?
6
Many liberals writing on this issue do not actually know any poor people on welfare. I DO -- I live in a mixed neighborhood in the Rustbelt. We now have lots of people on welfare (thanks, Section 8!). I get to see this upfront all the time.
People on welfare do not work. If they did, they would not get the full welfare package. They might get food stamps, but not TANF. You must be pretty darn poor to get the "full package" of TANF, food stamps, section 8, Medicaid, etc.
To get this, a lot of people (mostly young women with kids -- you really can't get much welfare without minor children) do not do any kind of work. I see them hanging out during the day. I know some of them, as I babysit their kids (they have oodles of time to socialize and date). They are not ashamed of this, they are third generation welfare recipients. In fact, they brag about all their "benefits".
For example: if you have kids on welfare in my county, you get a CHECK for EACH CHILD in August -- for $375 -- for "new clothes & school supplies". This is on top of your EITC and welfare and Section 8. The welfare moms are thrilled when this comes, they can get over $1000 easily with several kids. And they go out on spending sprees, and folks, it is not for children's school supplies. (They don't have to -- many church group, not knowing this, supply poor kids with backpacks filled with school supplies.) They are spending this money to party or get mani-pedis or hair weaves. This is a fact.
People on welfare do not work. If they did, they would not get the full welfare package. They might get food stamps, but not TANF. You must be pretty darn poor to get the "full package" of TANF, food stamps, section 8, Medicaid, etc.
To get this, a lot of people (mostly young women with kids -- you really can't get much welfare without minor children) do not do any kind of work. I see them hanging out during the day. I know some of them, as I babysit their kids (they have oodles of time to socialize and date). They are not ashamed of this, they are third generation welfare recipients. In fact, they brag about all their "benefits".
For example: if you have kids on welfare in my county, you get a CHECK for EACH CHILD in August -- for $375 -- for "new clothes & school supplies". This is on top of your EITC and welfare and Section 8. The welfare moms are thrilled when this comes, they can get over $1000 easily with several kids. And they go out on spending sprees, and folks, it is not for children's school supplies. (They don't have to -- many church group, not knowing this, supply poor kids with backpacks filled with school supplies.) They are spending this money to party or get mani-pedis or hair weaves. This is a fact.
1
Many Republicans, perhaps including Mr. Bush, regard taxes, especially the income tax, as little more than government theft. You'll never convince them that reducing an individual's tax burden through breaks like the mortgage interest deduction is anything like giving out food stamps. In their view it's just giving back some of what the government never should have taken in the first place.
By the way, why no discussion of the billions the government passes out in direct and indirect subsidies to all manner of business owners, from "family" farmers paid price supports to taxpayer money for football stadiums, etc. etc. Somehow that isn't "free stuff," too?
By the way, why no discussion of the billions the government passes out in direct and indirect subsidies to all manner of business owners, from "family" farmers paid price supports to taxpayer money for football stadiums, etc. etc. Somehow that isn't "free stuff," too?
5
Even to a progressive, this argument sounds awkward. Receiving an EBT card is not the same as receiving a mortgage interest deduction. One can be received without ever paying into the system and the other can only be taken if paying into the system. The "free stuff" bogey monster used by GOP politicians to drive taxpaying Americans to the right are things that can be received without ever paying a penny in taxes. To say that those taxpayers receive free stuff in the same way will drive most further to the right.
What needs to be clearly and regularly mentioned is the "stuff" everyone uses that the government provides through taxation. The list is long and impressive, but most Americans do not know even a small fraction. To continue to keep providing this downright critical "stuff" the government needs a more progressive tax schedule (e.g., a new 49.5% echelon for AGI above $500,000). It must also be mentioned that the social program safety net could be needed at any time, even by those who think they may never need it (like grumbling taxpayers).
A strong response to the "free stuff" phantom--one that reaches right-leaning ears--is sorely needed. Unfortunately, this is not that response.
What needs to be clearly and regularly mentioned is the "stuff" everyone uses that the government provides through taxation. The list is long and impressive, but most Americans do not know even a small fraction. To continue to keep providing this downright critical "stuff" the government needs a more progressive tax schedule (e.g., a new 49.5% echelon for AGI above $500,000). It must also be mentioned that the social program safety net could be needed at any time, even by those who think they may never need it (like grumbling taxpayers).
A strong response to the "free stuff" phantom--one that reaches right-leaning ears--is sorely needed. Unfortunately, this is not that response.
6
As comments by T show, the problem is partially one of perception. Many Americans, and not just the wealthy, view the money paid in taxes as their money because they earned it. So, if the government cuts their taxes, it simply returns their own money to them. That is not considered a benefit, while the money or other aid provided to low-income Americans qualifies as welfare, in this view, because the recipients did not earn it.
What this one-dimensional analysis overlooks is the critical importance of the services received in exchange for taxes. That money goes to pay for infrastructure, police and fire protection, enforcement of laws protecting property and contract rights, and a host of other benefits that enable taxpayers to operate businesses and live secure in their assets. In other words, without these government services, workers and owners would not have the opportunity to earn the money they regard as their own. In the broad sense, some of this money belongs to the community, and a tax cut involves a sacrifice by the community in favor of a benefit for the individual.
It could be argued that these services benefit the wealthy more than other income groups, because they have more to lose from a breakdown of law and order. At the very least, the higher rates they tend to pay reflect the reality that any given level of taxes imposes a smaller burden on them than on lower income earners.
What this one-dimensional analysis overlooks is the critical importance of the services received in exchange for taxes. That money goes to pay for infrastructure, police and fire protection, enforcement of laws protecting property and contract rights, and a host of other benefits that enable taxpayers to operate businesses and live secure in their assets. In other words, without these government services, workers and owners would not have the opportunity to earn the money they regard as their own. In the broad sense, some of this money belongs to the community, and a tax cut involves a sacrifice by the community in favor of a benefit for the individual.
It could be argued that these services benefit the wealthy more than other income groups, because they have more to lose from a breakdown of law and order. At the very least, the higher rates they tend to pay reflect the reality that any given level of taxes imposes a smaller burden on them than on lower income earners.
5
No candidate dares attack the mortgage interest deduction.
Yet it's been a giant giveaway to the financial sector and building industry (the lion's share to land speculators who never touch a hammer or nail) while miring families in debt and ever more arduous commutes. And it's hollowed out the cities' tax bases and destroyed millions of acres of productive land.
Now as catastrophic floods cripple cities, comes another evil of suburbanization: loss of the absorptive capacity of land to paved streets, parking lots and nursery-sod lawns on subsoil.
I would propose eliminating the deduction for second homes, capping it at a reasonable middle-class house cost, and limiting it to every 10-15 years. This would discourage sprawl, flipping and "trading up" which results in more suburban slums.
Of course it would never fly. But it behooves any candidate at least to remind people how many of us have availed ourselves of this huge giveaway.
Yet it's been a giant giveaway to the financial sector and building industry (the lion's share to land speculators who never touch a hammer or nail) while miring families in debt and ever more arduous commutes. And it's hollowed out the cities' tax bases and destroyed millions of acres of productive land.
Now as catastrophic floods cripple cities, comes another evil of suburbanization: loss of the absorptive capacity of land to paved streets, parking lots and nursery-sod lawns on subsoil.
I would propose eliminating the deduction for second homes, capping it at a reasonable middle-class house cost, and limiting it to every 10-15 years. This would discourage sprawl, flipping and "trading up" which results in more suburban slums.
Of course it would never fly. But it behooves any candidate at least to remind people how many of us have availed ourselves of this huge giveaway.
123
I wish they would. The mortgage interest deduction does little to help average people. I don't get it AT ALL, because my modest home is mostly paid off. But at it's peak, when I owed most of the value of the mortgage, I got a whopping $1100 or so back from taxes. That was the MOST, and at a time when interest rates were like 14%.
We should be phasing it out, gradually for the middle class but immediately for anyone earning over $250K and any home worth over $500K. And absolutely NOT for any 2nd home.
We should be phasing it out, gradually for the middle class but immediately for anyone earning over $250K and any home worth over $500K. And absolutely NOT for any 2nd home.
3
I don't want to see the mortgage interest deduction taken away.
As a middle-income homeowner (85K income) with no children, the mortgage interest deduction is really the only one I can claim along with property taxes.
I would support capping the amount, limiting it to the primary residence only.
I don't think allowing it only every 10 or 15 years would be fair though.
As a middle-income homeowner (85K income) with no children, the mortgage interest deduction is really the only one I can claim along with property taxes.
I would support capping the amount, limiting it to the primary residence only.
I don't think allowing it only every 10 or 15 years would be fair though.
1
The author is exactly right, but he also supports conservative positions. The conservative position on taxes is that there should no deductions or tax credits (except the EITC which is really a negative income tax for the poor) and overall rates should be lowered to generate the same level of revenue. Similarly, all compensation, whether in cash or company paid benefits such as health insurance should be taxable income. The tax code should be used to raise revenue, period. If you want certain behaviors subsidize them directly.
Of course this won't happen in my lifetime because middle class Americans of all political persuasions don't want to give up their tax benefits for some elusive rate reduction. But look at who is opposing reform: Union members (and many commenters on these pages) oppose the "Cadillac tax" on health benefits. Eliminating the deduction for state/local taxes is opposed rich liberals in NY and CA, who are the ones overwhelmingly benefitting from this deduction. (It's not the conservatives in FL or TX.)
So let's get rid of "free stuff" for the middle and upper classes and give such benefits only to those who really need it. But the best thing we can do for the poor is to give them the opportunities and incentives to move up into the middle class - starting with school reform.
Of course this won't happen in my lifetime because middle class Americans of all political persuasions don't want to give up their tax benefits for some elusive rate reduction. But look at who is opposing reform: Union members (and many commenters on these pages) oppose the "Cadillac tax" on health benefits. Eliminating the deduction for state/local taxes is opposed rich liberals in NY and CA, who are the ones overwhelmingly benefitting from this deduction. (It's not the conservatives in FL or TX.)
So let's get rid of "free stuff" for the middle and upper classes and give such benefits only to those who really need it. But the best thing we can do for the poor is to give them the opportunities and incentives to move up into the middle class - starting with school reform.
2
Yes, and let's not forget corporate welfare - like the $8.7 BILLION DOLLARS Washington State Governor Jay Inslee (D?) gave Boeing to keep jobs in Washington - just before they send thousands of excellent engineering jobs to a southern state. WE lucky average Washingtonians get to pay for that little perk for 10 years.
45
The typical American voter is a hypocrit. And many actually believe- as Bill O'Reilly said the other night - that they have never received government assistance. What a crock.
72
Sorry, this editorial entirely misses the point. We do not "all" get "free stuff".
We all get benefits, yes, but some of us pay in, and others don't.
The editorial talks about how the government "loses" nearly a trillion dollars a year through tax expenditures.
But it doesn't address the fact that 100% of the government's budget comes from--wait for it--taxpayers.
The government isn't a business. It doesn't exchange goods or services for money. It takes money from some people, and spends the money on all people.
I'm not complaining about income redistribution. Nor do I resent paying taxes.
On the contrary, I voluntarily chose to live in one of the highest tax environments in the country (counting city, state, and Federal) because the benefits are huge (public transportation, professional police and fire officers, well-maintained parks, a reasonable safety net for the poor).
But let's get one thing straight: If 47% aren't paying Federal taxes, but they ARE getting Federal benefits--yes, they ARE getting free stuff.
The rest of us get stuff, too, but we pay for it.
We all get benefits, yes, but some of us pay in, and others don't.
The editorial talks about how the government "loses" nearly a trillion dollars a year through tax expenditures.
But it doesn't address the fact that 100% of the government's budget comes from--wait for it--taxpayers.
The government isn't a business. It doesn't exchange goods or services for money. It takes money from some people, and spends the money on all people.
I'm not complaining about income redistribution. Nor do I resent paying taxes.
On the contrary, I voluntarily chose to live in one of the highest tax environments in the country (counting city, state, and Federal) because the benefits are huge (public transportation, professional police and fire officers, well-maintained parks, a reasonable safety net for the poor).
But let's get one thing straight: If 47% aren't paying Federal taxes, but they ARE getting Federal benefits--yes, they ARE getting free stuff.
The rest of us get stuff, too, but we pay for it.
224
If you pay in less than you get out, you're getting "free stuff". And if you earn so little that you can't afford to pay Federal taxes, you're getting "free stuff", too--only not so much of it.
29
If I remember correctly, the 47% includes disabled veterans, who surely have paid, upfront, in blood.
I think the point was that more of your taxes go to make up for revenue lost through deductions used by those wealthier than you than go to those with few resources.
An interesting analysis at this link shows that many of the 47%ers that Romney and Bush seem to dismiss actually are low income people who are Republican voters (so, a lot of tax policy in effect transfers money from the rest of us to both high and low income Republicans)
https://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/economy/news/2012/09/20/38...
I think the point was that more of your taxes go to make up for revenue lost through deductions used by those wealthier than you than go to those with few resources.
An interesting analysis at this link shows that many of the 47%ers that Romney and Bush seem to dismiss actually are low income people who are Republican voters (so, a lot of tax policy in effect transfers money from the rest of us to both high and low income Republicans)
https://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/economy/news/2012/09/20/38...
19
When correctly analyzed we find that those people who supposedly don't pay taxes (federal taxes) often pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than most people. There are many other taxes. They are spending 100% of their income and are clobbered by sales taxes. So, in a sense, they are paying for you.
Then we have the red states, all those good deserving evangelicals who definitely are getting a free ride They get more from the federal government than the pay. They keep taxes low to draw industry and we in the blue states are paying for it. But that's all right because they are white.
Then we have the red states, all those good deserving evangelicals who definitely are getting a free ride They get more from the federal government than the pay. They keep taxes low to draw industry and we in the blue states are paying for it. But that's all right because they are white.
44
Demoscrats need to make these points in their public statements, early and often. The more wealth you have, the more "free stuff" the government gives you in the form of tax breaks.
It is time to put the kibosh on the misinformation that the Republicans use as their standard talking points. Bernie Sanders, are you listening? (You too, Hillary and Joe and Martin.)
It is time to put the kibosh on the misinformation that the Republicans use as their standard talking points. Bernie Sanders, are you listening? (You too, Hillary and Joe and Martin.)
112
Indeed. It is not all tax expenditures, but the "upside-down" tax expenditures whereby the riches among us benefit hugely more than does the average taxpayer, who gets a mere pittance and then has to endure rich people's taunts that they get "free stuff," too. I get tax expenditures worth about $600 and the rich guy gets 1,000 times that! This is not fair and equitable distribution of taxpayer largess. I will give one example of reform that might illustrate this principle: home mortgages.
The intent of the deduction of interest paid on home mortgages was intended to stimulate the housing market, and as such it had a good purpose and is a responsible use of tax payer money. But then comes along a person like Gov. Bruce Rauner of Illinois, who not only is a billionaire several times over, but has at least 11 or 12 mansions in various places. I am sure that he gets thousands of times more write off benefit than do I, and it all goes to a single person who does not even need to be "stimulated" to buy a house! It is stupid tax policy.
How about this? Each person gets a lifetime exemption from home mortgage interest to the maximum of $100,000 dollars, after which they have to go it on their own. And why not? They have their home now, which gives them a leg up on the next purchase. The program has worked. Why should I a taxpayer subsidize a rich dude again and again, at at rates double or triple what I get? Put caps on it, period.
Did I mention "carried interest?"
The intent of the deduction of interest paid on home mortgages was intended to stimulate the housing market, and as such it had a good purpose and is a responsible use of tax payer money. But then comes along a person like Gov. Bruce Rauner of Illinois, who not only is a billionaire several times over, but has at least 11 or 12 mansions in various places. I am sure that he gets thousands of times more write off benefit than do I, and it all goes to a single person who does not even need to be "stimulated" to buy a house! It is stupid tax policy.
How about this? Each person gets a lifetime exemption from home mortgage interest to the maximum of $100,000 dollars, after which they have to go it on their own. And why not? They have their home now, which gives them a leg up on the next purchase. The program has worked. Why should I a taxpayer subsidize a rich dude again and again, at at rates double or triple what I get? Put caps on it, period.
Did I mention "carried interest?"
6
If I make $1 million a year, and have an income tax burden of $400,000...but because of deductions, only pay in $300,000....do you view that $100,000 difference as "free stuff"? I still net paid into the gov't $300,000. I had $1 million, now I only have $700,000...what about that is free?!?!
4
I agree. If the Democrats would just do a better job of explaining some very, very basic stuff to the American people, voting would go entirely differently. I don't know why the Democrats are so quiet about stuff. They have so much "ammunition" (a metaphor here for economic facts and figures) against the Republicans. It's beyond me why they don't use it.
4
JEB...is looking at the USA....from eyes of old timey GOP voters.
and
"FREE STUFF"......is much too casual a remark...and makes JEB seem
so privileged...which he has been....and so this Free Stuff should be
translated by JEB...because FREE STUFF...is what the we now hope
for...to save lives.
JEB...should ....not be so casual...with words....sounds too elitist...like
Romney...
and
"FREE STUFF"......is much too casual a remark...and makes JEB seem
so privileged...which he has been....and so this Free Stuff should be
translated by JEB...because FREE STUFF...is what the we now hope
for...to save lives.
JEB...should ....not be so casual...with words....sounds too elitist...like
Romney...
13
Let me just remark that tax policy is one of the main reason inequality has soared since 1973. The Gini index has gone from about 0.25 in 1946 - 1973 to about 0,50 today. The compensation of CEO's has gone from 20 - 50 times what their average workers earns to 300 - 500 times.
Forget about fairness or morality. Let's just look at economics to see why inequality is bad.
Look at history. When inequality was high in the 1920's and the 2000's, the economy fell off a cliff. When it was lo in 1946 - 1973, we had the Great Prosperity when median household income surged 74%
Why did this happen?
1. Inequality depresses demand. A non-rich person must spend a greater percentage of his income to live than a Rich one. When many people are out of work, or are underpaid, when inequality is high, the non-rich do not have enough money to buy the stuff they need or want. They may want a new car, but they cannot afford it. This means businesses are not expanding because they do not have enough customers. You cannot create demand out of thin air. It requires getting money to people to spend it.
2. Inequality encourages financial speculation. What do the Rich do when they have so much money they cannot remember how many houses they own? They speculate with it. There is a definite correlation.. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1661746
What does wild speculation do? See 1929 & 2008.
Forget about fairness or morality. Let's just look at economics to see why inequality is bad.
Look at history. When inequality was high in the 1920's and the 2000's, the economy fell off a cliff. When it was lo in 1946 - 1973, we had the Great Prosperity when median household income surged 74%
Why did this happen?
1. Inequality depresses demand. A non-rich person must spend a greater percentage of his income to live than a Rich one. When many people are out of work, or are underpaid, when inequality is high, the non-rich do not have enough money to buy the stuff they need or want. They may want a new car, but they cannot afford it. This means businesses are not expanding because they do not have enough customers. You cannot create demand out of thin air. It requires getting money to people to spend it.
2. Inequality encourages financial speculation. What do the Rich do when they have so much money they cannot remember how many houses they own? They speculate with it. There is a definite correlation.. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1661746
What does wild speculation do? See 1929 & 2008.
156
Right, it's actually the poor and middle class who pay for everything. The old saying of the wealthy: there's a lot of money in poverty. Ask any landlord or corporation.
11
"Inequality encourages financial speculation. What do the Rich do when they have so much money they cannot remember how many houses they own? "
Actually the wild speculation is in your post. Wealthy people invest money that isn't taxed and these investments help in a myriad of ways:
- money invested in small businesses and startups through venture capital
- money invested in large businesses through the stock market
- money put in municipal bonds that help fund projects for local governments
- money put in banks which is made available for loans for mortgages and other items
- money kept inside the US rather than moved to lower tax havens
Raise tax rates to 90% and the reality is nobody pays it. They will just shift their cash overseas or work less.
Actually the wild speculation is in your post. Wealthy people invest money that isn't taxed and these investments help in a myriad of ways:
- money invested in small businesses and startups through venture capital
- money invested in large businesses through the stock market
- money put in municipal bonds that help fund projects for local governments
- money put in banks which is made available for loans for mortgages and other items
- money kept inside the US rather than moved to lower tax havens
Raise tax rates to 90% and the reality is nobody pays it. They will just shift their cash overseas or work less.
Dave, it is easy to see that the wealth of the Rich is not being invested. After all, why should they invest it in businesses when the non-rich do not have enough money to buy stuff.
The stock market is simply speculation. When Joe buys GM stock from Harry, you thinjk that helps GM?
Where are all these local projects gov projects? In fact spending by state and local gos is way, way down.
Money in banks is just sitting there. Banks are too gun shy to give mortgages to anybody but the Rich. What the Banks do with their money is just more speculation.
Read what I wrote. When tax rates were 90% Rich people took lower compensation and the money went to pay workers in line with their productivity so people had money to buy stuff.
And we had prosperity,
The stock market is simply speculation. When Joe buys GM stock from Harry, you thinjk that helps GM?
Where are all these local projects gov projects? In fact spending by state and local gos is way, way down.
Money in banks is just sitting there. Banks are too gun shy to give mortgages to anybody but the Rich. What the Banks do with their money is just more speculation.
Read what I wrote. When tax rates were 90% Rich people took lower compensation and the money went to pay workers in line with their productivity so people had money to buy stuff.
And we had prosperity,
8
Middle class Americans typically do not itemize their income taxes so they do not benefit from charitable gifts or mortgage interest deductions. They may have investments in the stock market but most likely their money is in an IRA account of some sort, which are poor substitutes for retirement pensions. Some on the lower-middle income brackets may not have employer-subsidized health insurance. They see that low income people are getting rent and childcare assistance, food stamps, and medicaid. The tragedy is that the economic spread between low and middle class has diminished with more middle class families falling toward the bottom with both lower income and fewer job benefits as well as increasing costs for food, health insurance, and higher education. Our tax policy must become more progressive, decreasing the widening income gap between the rich and middle class while providing more opportunities for the poor and middle class to improve their lives. People complain that the top 10% income brackets already pay 70% of the taxes. My answer is that when their pay approaches 90% of income paid, they will be paying 100% because no one else will have any money to pay.
21
If you own a home, you DO benefit from Mortgage Interest Deductions.
1
Dectra, njw is correct that most middle-class filers take the standard deduction, rather than itemizing, so how do they benefit from any particular deduction?
5
The "free stuff" canard that the GOP tries to hijack conversations with is never taken truly seriously by those of us who engage in critical thinking.
The folly of a foolish man is that he will believe rather than think; he will agree with positions that does him harm, just to be in disagreement with those who are not of his ilk.
The folly of a foolish man is that he will believe rather than think; he will agree with positions that does him harm, just to be in disagreement with those who are not of his ilk.
61
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury.
3
So keeping more of the money you EARNED, is now equal to receiving money for nothing from someone else who EARNED it. Comical.
4