The producers pay all the taxes, the parasites pay nothing. It's straight out of Atlas Shrugged.

I don't think they're saying that the 47% should start paying taxes, I think they want the 53% to not pay taxes either. And we should also balance the budget! Clearly mathematics has a liberal bias.

I'd like to know what percentage of Teabaggers fall into that 'Pay No Tax' 47%. . .

No, I think you miss the point.

What they are implying is that it is the lower classes (i.e. lie-berals) who are skating on doing 'their fair share'.

However it should be obvious that it is the wealthy who are able to hire professionals to make sure there is a steady flow of credits, deductions and exemptions to offset any taxes due.

Just like how the corporations got out of taxes through offshore entities.

But that would be too tough for Fox News watchers to understand. Nor will millionaire Beck be eager to tell them.

It's about the redistribution of income. Those who don't work are freeloading off those who do. So if the former were to get a job, then the latter wouldn't need to pay taxes. (I'm just translating for you).

Just wait until you see how many of that 47% is seniors who depend on SS. The rant may change a little.

Next, ask them to find someone who paid no federal income taxes and ask if they want to change places with them. Any takers? Bueller? Anyone?

It shows that contemporary conservatism is really about class warfare instead of "small government". They don't like the idea that the wealthy and powerful get an undue portion of the tax bill, while society's "losers" get a break.

The Fox News types believe the earned income tax credit is nothing but welfare. Those struggling poor people who work hard for their money shouldn't get any extra to help their kids.

This fits in with the entire Fox news scheme. They want us to hate low income people too. Along with Gays, illegal immigrants etc.
Meanwhile!
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html
I tell people to follow the money!

This is not inconsistent. They are always making the argument that the tax structure is skewed against the common person and the rich, and there are some slobs out there getting by on *your* dollars. This is how they justify cutting taxes on the rich. And they create resentment on the part of regular folk who pay taxes because they assume that most around them are getting by on a free ride.

Canny, maybe. Inconsistent it is not. Taxes are too high for the working Joe and the rich folks, so we have to tax poor people more. Come now, doesn't that sound like standard republican fare?

You're missing the dog whistle. The black people are the ones not paying taxes and thus they want a lot of government services ie handouts. Also, ever notice when we discuss taxes, payroll taxes are never mentioned just the taxes rich people pay- estate tax, capital gains etc.

Both Exxon and GE are not paying Federal income taxes as well according to Forbes. Nice free riders!!

What - you don't remember the WSJ "Lucky Duckies" editorial from back in 2002? The GOP is just starting that meme up again in hopes that they can justify a tax break for the top 1% of earners by covering the loss of revenue with more taxes from the bottom two quintiles.

I mean is it fair that some poor, hard working, rich people are paying 35% income tax while some lazy slob who is just doing dangerous, back-breaking, physical labor, trying to support his family on 20K/year gets away paying nothing?

Nevermind that the schmoe getting 20K/year is paying about 7.5% for SS and Medicare, not to mention other taxes such as sales and property taxes if he/she is lucky enough to have any. And really forget the fact that, for those Rico ricos in the top 1%, there is a world of difference between their marginal tax rate of 35% and the overall average they pay, which is usually under 20%.

Remember, Don Blankenship probably pays well over 5 million a year in income tax compare to one of the dead miners in the Upper Big Branch Mine, who probably paid less than 5 thousand this past year. Why should the tax burden lie so heavily on the rich? Poor people wouldn't clamor so much for government financed social services if they had to bear the true costs of those services, right?

I had some comments about Fox only caring about rich people's taxes, racist dog-whistles, class warfare etc., but I see others have already made all of them for me.

This is a reprise of the famous Wall Street Journal editorial lament about "Those lucky duckies!" in November, 2002.

Pure Club for Growth nonsense. Their nirvana is a world with a consumption tax or at worst a flat income tax, with 0% tax rates for interest, dividends, capital gains and estates. Where their maids and gardeners pay a higher rate of tax than they do.

KevinMc has it. Cue Steverino "Flat Tax" Forbes's entrance in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

Riddle me this, you dog-whistling Foxist dolts: What percentage of that 47% is part of the 47% because of the Bushylvanianized piece of bovine excrement that the economy of these United States was converted to by the Party of Limbaugh between January 2001 and January 2009?

Could somebody tell me how they define 47% of Americans. Does that percentage include children, retired seniors or disabled individuals.

If you are, or speak for, only the wealthy, particularly the wealthy 'white people', then the fact that low and moderate income people are receiving some sort of governmental benefit, even if it is justified, is 'bad'. The right wing has never believed in the fundamental fairness of a progressive income tax and although the Federal Income Tax is far less progressive than it once was, any element of 'tax the rich' is antithetical to the belief system of most of the rich and their ass-kissing apologists. This nonsensical position- that not enough low and moderate income people are paying income taxes - is just an updated version of the "welfare queen" that Reagan invented. For the wealthy conservative, nativist class there always must be the "other"; those who are the source of all society's problems who they must hate and cast out. For the wealthy right, the only poor people who are marginally admirable are those in uniform, dying for "their country".

The other aspect to this issue is Social Security. One argument for abolishing Social Security is that the trust fund doesn't have sufficient resources to cover its obligations (i.e. its resources are "worthless" government bonds). All legally employed Americans pay Social Security tax. That 47% that isn't paying income tax is still paying a significant fraction of their annual salaries in Social Security taxes. The Reagan economic plan cut taxes on the rich and raised Social Security taxes on the poor and middle class. So those 47% are still helping to "pull the wagon" and they deserve the benefits that they have been paying for.

i'm at the other end...a single guy with no dependents and no mortgage..by the time my income hits 10k there's tax...not that i'm complaining...i'm glad struggling families with kids get the eic...obviously, i don't watch faux

So who is going to make the argument that the working are simply not paid enough i.e. they do not share in enough of the pie? Because the rich are positioned to take more and more of it.
The people are not under-taxed they are underpaid.

Limbaugh was spreading the talking points today.

Conservatives, unlike libertarians, aren't opposed to taxation per se. It's *progressive* taxation that really grinds their gears.

Ah, but they think it's wrong that poor people don't pay taxes.

I recall seeing an analysis last year that showed that when SSI, Medicare, and all state and local taxes are included, low income people actually pay more taxes as a percentage of their income than those at the higher end of the income scale. Also, though the right wing will blame Obama for failing to "tax the parasites," Bush also cut taxes for low income people. Somehow, I doubt you'll hear that on Fox. What you will hear is what I hear from right wing tools all the time: that people who pay no federal income taxes should not be allowed to vote in national elections.

c'mon, Steve, you debase your own credibility when you deliberately misrepresent the other side. Argue all you want with their philosophy, morality, etc, but you know full well that their argument is that those who take the EITC and other credits, etc are not paying their fair share, making others carry their burden.

The poor and middle class pay their payroll taxes for those "free" programs. Entitlements benefit all of us, including the rich. The obscenely bloated defense budget rivals entitlements in size, yet benefits primarily Republican defense contractors and politicians (I'm talking about the vast amount not actually necessary for national defense). That's why you pay higher taxes, rich asshats. To feed your corrupt politicians and your small-penis Rambo fantasies.

"It is as hard for a rich man to enter heaven as it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle." Sound familiar?

Argue all you want with their philosophy, morality, etc, but you know full well that their argument is that those who take the EITC and other credits, etc are not paying their fair share, making others carry their burden.

In what way is Steve disagreeing with that? However, if taxes are simply the government robbing people of their hard-earned cash, there is no such thing as a "fair share."

And, of course, the talking point skips the two important points: first, that these people actually spend more of their income on taxes than the rest of us, just less direct income taxes, and, second, the reason they aren't paying taxes is that they don't have any money! The nation's wealth has been flowing uphill for so long a sizable chunk of the population is barely making enough to cover food and shelter, let alone pay for the wars Bush put on our national credit cards.

They're testing the waters for 2010 GOP platform: a tax revolt.

It's how they're going to repeal Health Care Reform.

They establish in the minds of their followers that half of the country doesn't pay taxes. Then all you have to do is call the HCR insurance mandate the biggest tax ever.

It plays directly to the "us" vs. "them" mentality of hate and resentment. It reinforces the notion that they are the only good, honest, hard working, tax-paying Americans and the other half not paying taxes are lazy, worthless, freeloading drags on society.

Unfortunately Democratic bloggers and pundits are still stuck on auto-pilot and respond the way they have for the last nine or so years: fact checking and logical demonstrations of Republican hypocrisy. But Republicans don't know or don't care about that.

Quite the contrary. A cornerstone of contemporary GOP politics is to create negative emotions in their followers (anger, fear, hatred, jealousy, resentment, etc.). Strong emotion not only trumps logic but also makes people more amenable to blindly following a leader (this isn't supposition, it's a proven reality of clinical psychology that marketing people like Frank Luntz are acutely aware of).

For there to be any chance at winning the hearts and minds of Republicans, progressives have to fight fire with fire and put the GOP on the defensive with similar types of appeals to emotionalism.

For example, don't hem and haw about the logical implication of these complaints... just jump straight to accusing Republicans of wanting to increase taxes on the working poor. Flat out accuse Republicans of caring more about corporations (big banks, abusive insurance companies) than the working poor.

Sadly the Democrats haven't done anywhere near as good of a job as Republicans in cultivating a wide range of nationally recognized talking heads to help push Democratic platforms and push back at Republicans. That takes years, and but for some progress by Howard Dean (who is now gone) to pursue a nation wide strategy, there hasn't been a concerted, consistent, and serious effort by Democrats to do so.

You know, I hear this same meme every year, and yet not one of these guys can explain why it is that my frickin' W-2 form says "FEDERAL INCOME TAX WITHHELD" on it even though I supposedly don't make enough to be paying federal income tax. (I make well under $50K a year, which is the supposed threshold.)

I swear, next year I'm going to make a t-shirt out of my W-2 and insist they explain to me how FEDERAL INCOME TAX WITHHELD doesn't really mean that federal income tax was withheld from my paycheck.

Mnemosyne @ 3:13pm :
I was reading yesterday that if you get a refund of your withholding, that equates to not paying federal taxes.
Since most wage slaves work it this way, rather than have less witholding ( not smart, but whatever) you are more right than you know - or they are more wrong. The misinformation runs deep.

Also heard that
the only people who matter are those who pay quarterly.

Steve,
The GOP is being very smart here for two reasons. First, as more people pay taxes as an active process, as opposed to federal with-holding, there will be greater public support for the concept of "tax cuts", even as such cuts disproportionately benefit the rich.
Second, poorer people paying more taxes would mean greater ability to cut such taxes or cut the taxes of rich, letting the GOP claim credit for such.

"Looky there! A whole bunch of people don't pay taxes! I have to pay taxes! I'm a victim! Help! I'm a victim!"

Such a problem to have enough money to pay taxes.

Has it occurred to them that they could give up all their worldly goods and then they, too, could no longer be 'victims'? That would solve a bunch of problems. And create others.

Mnemosyne: don't confuse the amount your employer withheld (box 2 on your W-2) with your actual tax liability, which is based on your taxable income (which is calculated when you fill out your 1040) less any tax credits. Your liability is the actual amt of tax owed Uncle Sam, if it's less than what was withheld, you get a refund, if it's more, you'll have to write a check.

I'd also like to know who is included in this 47%. I'm tired of wingers saying that folks who make under $40K a year pay no taxes. Not true if you don't have kids, or a mortgage (see dj's comment above) as is the case with my married son. Or like us, with a dependent child over the age of 17 living with us, who has no job (is he included in the 47%?) but is in school, but no prospects for a job even if he weren't? We can't get the $1K child tax credit for him (since he's over 17)... even though we're supporting him 100%.

The real issue here, as I see it, is that real income has been stagnant for the last decade, in large part to increasing health care costs, the recession, etc. If the rich rightwing talking heads like Limbaugh, Beck, etc. want to whine about taxes, I'll gladly trade places with them. They can come live in my decent but basic house and try to live on our income while working and trying to save just a little for the future or maybe even take a vacation that doesn't involve camping. (Heck, if they'd like to "camp", perhaps they'd like to try being homeless for a week or two. That would shut them up fast.)

I knew this Con meme would take hold...

But the real 'take away' from this data is that 47% of Americans are simply insuffeciently well-off enough to pay taxes. Wages have been stagnant for 30 years. That is the simple explanation that many seem to be missing.

It is amazing that Fox and Drudge mentioned the ap story. If the people noticed, then they would be doomed. It is also odd that you noted that most people in the US pay positive net taxes. This is true, it is also true that 137+137= 274, yet you didn't note that fact.

Let me spell it out -- when most US citizens figure out that the Federal income tax is no big problem for them then the Republican party will be doomed, irrelevant, like the Whigs and the know nothings.

I think that would be a good thing.

So why the hell are you noting the taxes the ap didn't mention ? They exist. so does Pluto. You didn't feel the need to mention Pluto in this post so why the hell are you trying to save the Republican party ?

I would note that yes this means most people should ignore the income tax, as it is no big problem for them, assume that a party focused on the income tax doesn't give a damn about them and vote accordingly.

They are screaming in panic, they know we can destroy them any time we want, and yet, somehow, Democrats don't notice. A liberal really is someone too fair minded to take his or her own side in an argument. Isn't it about time that changed ?

â–ºFOX NEWS, GOP THINK AMERICANS DON'T PAY ENOUGH TAXES....â—„

Misleading headline. They think too many--and the wrong kind of--people are skating on their taxes, thereby making the Good Merkins have to pay more, and then stand way in the back of the line for government goodies. See, all that money in the Treasury came from hard-working (white) folks, and they should be the ones who benefit. Like that "break all their winders!" militia guy, whatsisass, om SSI...

"Fox Nation's headline reads, 'Fair? Half the Country Doesn't Pay Income Tax'."

So what ?

Originally, the federal income tax only applied to incomes over $500,000.

"I'd like to know what percentage of Teabaggers fall into that 'Pay No Tax' 47%. . ."

that would be 100%
The "Tea Party" is the party of the white welfare bum ... "a faceless mass, waiting for handouts"

Robert Waldmann is right. The deal is, Republicans want desperately to get rid of all social programs for two reasons. 1] Most social programs actually work pretty well without having a profit motive. Meanwhile, rich people's tax money pays for social programs and Goddammit! that keeps them from being richer. 2] If government run programs disappeared, then private industry could take over, like supplying food to the poor in an altruistic way only a heartless profit-driven corporation can.

The fact is, most American's taxes are not overwhelming. Most government programs run as well as can be expected and better than privatized ones do. Most people like the government programs that directly effect them. It's why we're the only modern country in the world without socialized health care.

But by God if you can keep the white people suspicious of the black people, make the white people feel like the black people are stealing from them, then there's your voting base.

"Freedom Isn't Free!" they say. But they're talking about death, not taxes.

If alive back then would Steve have referred to the slavers as scamps?

... complaining about Americans paying too little in tax?

It's not that the government collects too little of the people's earnings and wealth, but that not enough people have a stake in how their earnings and wealth are taken and spent.

Don't you understand, the 47% includes undeserving Negroes. Tea Partiers who don't have income tax deserve it.

this highlights the reality that the republican/conservatives are not anti-tax or anti-government - they're anti-poor. Every policy, every position, every argument is founded in one and only one thing: class warfare - rich against poor.

"Don't you understand, the 47% includes undeserving Negroes. Tea Partiers who don't have income tax deserve it."

yep,
and when a 10 yr old black kid gets medicaid to pay for Lukemia treament they scream "its MY money"

they arent saying its thier tax money, theyre saying that the hand out should have gone to them instead

after all, if they had fat asses off the couch and go to work, theyd miss hearing Rush

You know what I think, instead of listening to talking heads and so forth. Maybe people oughta go to the IRS Website and read.

Lots of information on there....in todays day and age with information at your finger tips {internet} there is not excuse not to.

This is the latest dis-information that the Reichwing has come up with just to get people riled up. Then those talking heads for fox news, which btw, Glenn Beck has already called it entertainment news, i.e fake news!

If one were to use data showing median incomes for state populations, I believe one could easily show the red states are the ones with a larger proportion of those not paying taxes. Once again this would show the thugs going against their own self interests.

I don't have an excel viewer on my PC, but I think this IRS statistical page may be what could be shown as stated in my previous comments.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=171535,00.html

The problem with nearly half of Americans paying no federal income tax is that they have no "skin in the game". If you?re not paying for any of the benefits funded by tax dollars, do you have any incentive to curb government spending? To the extent that additional government spending benefits those who pay no federal taxes, wouldn't they just keep voting for representatives who are doing the spending? Who do you think these folks are voting for... liberals or conservatives? This can't end well!

No income taxes? Try this: First, take the 7.65% that the lowest of the low (even illegal aliens on min wage jobs) pay in payroll taxes. Next, multiply that by two (employer matching contributions). That comes out to an actual tax rate on all income (EVEN MINIMUM WAGE JOBS) of 15.3%. Now, compare that to the maximum capital gains and dividend rates of 15% and we find that all of those freeloaders who pay no income taxes are actually contributing a higher portion of their incomes to the tax pool than the super rich who derive their income from passive sources of income such as dividends and capital gains. Now, ask yourself: Who are the real freeloaders????

SSSssshh... Sparky!
Don't say such things out loud.
You'll be branded a leftist heretic marked for death in the U.S.

"The producers pay all the taxes, the parasites pay nothing. It's straight out of Atlas Shrugged.
Posted by: dr sardonicus on April 8, 2010 at 1:42 PM".

I hope you're stating this with ample sarcasm,
since only sociopaths born on third, or super-self-absorbed seventeen-year-olds, regard Rand and her "works" as anything but terrible boring prose and insanity.

"The producers pay all the taxes, the parasites pay nothing. It's straight out of Atlas Shrugged.
Posted by: dr sardonicus on April 8, 2010 at 1:42 PM".

I hope you're stating this with ample sarcasm,
since only sociopaths born on third, or super-self-absorbed seventeen-year-olds, regard Rand and her "works" as anything but terrible boring prose and insanity.
The exception, of course, being Ayn-acolyte Greenspan, who just threw up his arms and lamented that he could never have foreseen that greedy assholes with almost unchecked powers would decide to enrich themselves.

"It's straight out of Atlas Shrugged."

Only if you subscribe to that childish sort of drivel. Wake up, the world is not made of the cardboard butthead characters in those novels.

"skin in the game". If you're not paying for any of the benefits funded by tax dollars, do you have any incentive to curb government spending?

Well DUH if you are a teacher, you are paying VERY LITTLE in taxes, but you have PLENTY of incentive to keep your school from wasting money, because that money could go toward educating the children in your care.

And you show ZERO respect for the fact that people do NOT just give up their hard-earned money for their country, they sacrifice their lives, they volunteer their time, they raise their children well. All of these things are JUST as important as tax revenue to a healthy society, and you just want to pretend that they don't exist.

Hey if you want more people to pay taxes, then maybe you should push for more JOBS so those people can earn some money and then pay taxes.

But oh no it is much easier to accuse people of sloth.

Fox and Pals are incensed that the IRS is going to go after wealthy people who escape income taxes by offshoring accounts. Conservatives also push for doing away with the capital gains and inheritance tax so that the uber wealthy who live off money they got from someone else can live tax free. Meanwhile I have heard people on Fox explicitly calling for higher taxes and on the middle class coupled with cuts in benefits.

This appears to be their new talking points. If the Democrats choose to, they could crucify them with this. It is exactly the opposite of what the tea bag party folks want. Of course the odds that Democrats or the mainstream media will bother to bring this losing strategy to the attention of the public are slim to none. How hard can it be to point out that conservatives want to raise taxes on the middle class and protect wealthy tax cheats or ensure they don't have to pay taxes at all.

Basically Glenn Beck is saying: "the poor must be taxed".

It would be interesting to make a survey on the percentage of people in the Tea Party movement who don't pay taxes at all because they are too poor or unemployed.

I realize I'm really late on this, but I just have to add the following, in case anyone else looks through this.

Mark Thoma had a piece on this a week oe so back.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/03/red-states-blue-states-and-the-distribution-of-federal-spending.html

But what was really interesting was the commaent from Anna Hernez at 7:32 pm. It has a link to a Tax Foundation table that shows which states have the highest percentage of people paying zero or negative tax.

Guess what? 8 of the ten with the highest percentage voted Bush twice, and 7 of them voted for Bush twice and McCain in 08.+

IOW, more Red States swilling at the public trough.

Equating Social Security and Medicare taxes with Income tax is flat wrong. Those "taxes" are federally controlled insurance program premiums, which those people get back many times over. To claim that lower income people's payroll taxes means they are contributing is nonsense. The only ones (of the 47%) that make a net contribution there are those that die before getting all their money back and more at retirement.

General fund taxes, which pay for everything else, are progressive, and justifiably so, but there is something to be said for the argument that everyone should contribute something, however little, to the running of government. Contrary to a previous comment, the Bush tax cuts made the code MORE progressive in effect, not less, despite a less progressive marginal tax rate schedule.

Refundable tax credits, which allow people to get free money on tax day, not just get out of contributing, are not something that motivates people to vote for fiscally responsible politicians. On the contrary, it motivates them to vote for those who give them the most free stuff out of the kitty supplied by the taxes of others.