What would be the downside of everyone paying taxes?

We've all heard the statistics that nearly 50% of the population pays absolutely ZERO in federal income taxes. As a country, we seem to have a shortage of cash so my question is: What is the downside of everyone paying something?
If everyone is contributing an equalpercentage of their income how is that the least bit unfair?

 

What about the people who require financial aid? Why tax them with one arm of the government just to give it back with another arm of government? Seems kind of needlessly bureaucratic and wasteful.

 

Sooooo...everyone contributes a little, huh? Again, downside?

 

It's great in theory but there are a few glitches and StuJoe has pointed out one of the many.

First we need to get employment up to 100% and close a sheet load of loopholes that only the real rich can afford to exploit by having the means to actually use them by having the money to employ staff just to do that. This should be easy. NOT!!!

Believe it or not I kind of agree with David here. Perot had the idea many years ago. Would have voted for him if I didn't see his VP as basically senile. I've stated this in the past.

 

If you owe me 10 dollars for a bet you lost and I owe you 10 dollars for a bet I lost, should I give you 10 dollars only to have you hand it right back? Seems like a waste of time to only come out to exactly where we were before we did the exchange. And with government, a waste of time is actually a bigger bureaucracy and more money spent.

Unless you are proposing an elimination of all government benefits, subsidies, safety nets, etc.

 

Federal income taxes are only one type of tax. The federal government is smart enough to know that using a progressive tax system to financially help the poor makes perfect sense. Therefore, the elderly on fixed incomes, single mothers, and the working poor, (because they are the people that make up the vast majority of the 50% you are talking about) already pay sales taxes, state taxes, property taxes, and any number of other local taxes would have to pay even more in taxes. Here are some facts so break out the Benadryl, your allergies are about to flare up.

Low incomes (or, if you prefer, the standard deduction and personal exemptions) account for fully half of the people who pay no federal income tax.

The second reason is that for many senior citizens, Social Security benefits are exempt from federal income taxes. That accounts for about 22% of the people who pay no federal income tax.

About 46 percent of American households will pay no federal individual income tax in 2011, roughly half of them because of structural features of the income tax that provide basic exemptions for subsistence level income and for dependents. The other half are nontaxable because tax expenditures— special provisions of the tax code that benefit selected taxpayers or activities—wipe out tax liabilities and, in the case of refundable credits, result in net payments from the government. Most important of those tax expenditures are provisions that benefit senior citizens and low-income working families with children. While those factors particularly affect lower-income households, different provisions eliminate taxes for other households. Itemized deductions and credits for children and education are more important for middle-income households, while the relatively few high-income nontaxable households benefit most from above-the-line and itemized deductions and reduced tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

So, while people scraping by on subsistence living drive you nuts because they don't pay one type of tax, you have yet to start a thread about why GE pays nothing, why Willard Romney gets to pay 13%, why we subsidize the most profitable industry on the planet with our tax dollars, and give the wealthiest a complete pass while the poor must be scrutinized for every possible dime. Typical RW'er! Can't see the forest for the trees.

 

...or if someone is taking X amount of dollars out of the system but pay Y amount of dollars into the system our country's revenue will be increased by Y amount of dollars resulting in a bit more revenue for the good of the country...

 

I'm for total tax reform, as I've said many many times.

 

I see the overdose of Benadryl has started to dull your already vacant thought process because you just keep spouting the same crap in spite of the facts presented. Right-wing lemming.

 

If the government gives someone $100 to pay their $100 rent (medicine, food, whatever) and then takes back $25 in taxes, that person then does not have enough to pay their rent (medicine, food, whatever) that the government was giving them the money to pay for in the first place.

What would actually happen (in the real world) is that the government would end up giving them $125 to pay their rent (medicine, food, whatever) and then take back $25 in taxes leaving them with the $100 to pay their rent (medicine, food, whatever).

Or if someone already had the $100 for rent (medicine, food, whatever) and the government took $25 in taxes leaving them $25 short for their rent (medicine, food, whatever), the government would end up giving them $25 in assistance so they could pay their rent (medicine, food, whatever).

And then the government would hire extra people to make sure they collect that $25 that they are going to give back anyway. In reality, this is what already happens and why our tax system is overly complicated and costly to manage.

Tax simplification reform is needed but I think there will always have to be a certain standard deduction or tax free income involved that is taken off before taxes are figured.Otherwise, you are just going to have to increase the 'safety net' that most people believe we need to have...if for no other reason than to keep truly desperate poor people from rising up and smiting the rest of us.

 

There will be one minor difference Stujoe. The chap who gets $100 and pays $100 has the sole objective of getting $125 from the government. But the chap who gets $125 and has to pay taxes has at least a bit of an impetus to see that his $25 tax is spent reasonably in an effort to keep his $25 from rising to $35. (I would not dare suggest his taxes actually decrease.) That may include reporting fraud, voting for financially sound projects, actually caring what a candidate stands for (as opposed to looks better or promises the world), etc.

 

Legislating your own values has such a long history of success. Oh wait a minute, no it doesn't.