| Submit your comments on this article |
| Government |
| Top 40% Paid 106.2% of Income Taxes; Bottom 40% Paid -9.1% |
| 2013-12-10 |
| [CNSNEWS] The top 40 percent of households by before-tax income actually paid 106.2 percent of the nation's net income taxes in 2010, according to a new study by the Congressional Budget Office. At the same time, households in the bottom 40 percent took in an average of $18,950 in what the CBO called "government transfers" in 2010. Taxpayers in the top 40 percent of households were able to pay more than 100 percent of net federal income taxes in 2010 because Americans in the bottom 40 percent actually paid negative income taxes, according to the CBO study entitled, "The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2010." "When refundable tax credits, such as the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit, exceed the other federal tax liabilities of the households in an income group, those households are said to have a negative average tax rate," said the CBO study. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #10 If you dropped the 2000 dollars per year the land cost would rise by approximately that annualised gain per year, so only the bank would be better off. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2013-12-10 23:38 |
| #9 I theoretically own the house I live in, but pay about $2000 for the privilege of continued ownership. Should I not pay that long enough, armed government employees will eventually evict me. I call that a negative value. I theoretically can convert that negative to positive by selling out & living in a hollow log for nuthin' |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2013-12-10 21:54 |
| #8 >Will there be negative land values? No. But Zero tax is possible. Also most citizens getting a equal dividend means in effect most get to live on median value land in the country for free (which is the idea). Non productive land? Zero if truly non-productive. Where does farm ground and grass land fit in? VASTLY cheaper than city land. It's much more like a tithe. Rural vs. Urban? Tax would be 1000+s of times cheaper rurally. Flyover country would gain. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2013-12-10 21:37 |
| #7 So... who has the best accountant if they could be running in the black? |
| Posted by: Devilstoenail 2013-12-10 17:14 |
| #6 In the abstract, it's kind of impressive that Congress has found a way to exceed 100% tax rates. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2013-12-10 11:15 |
| #5 Will there be negative land values? Non productive land? Where does farm ground and grass land fit in? Rural vs. Urban? |
| Posted by: bman 2013-12-10 10:49 |
| #4 But, but, we have to help the poor and the weak That should never be part of the Government's responsibility - particularly at the federal level. And I think you forgot the SARC tag. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2013-12-10 09:37 |
| #3 Easier solution.... Don't tax incomes it's harmful to the economy. Tax land values instead. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2013-12-10 09:21 |
| #2 But, but, we have to help the poor and the weak---plus pay the salaries of all the people in redistribution business! |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2013-12-10 05:10 |
| #1 Easy Solution: Flat tax - and *everyone* pays! A certain percentage for everybody: no exceptions. That welfare queen has to pay the same X% of that welfare check in taxes that a millionaire has to pay on his income. No exemptions - because you know the politicians would stretch any exemption all out of proportion. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2013-12-10 01:19 |