How Could Anyone be Both Christian & Republican?

[jem]

if 47% of the country does not pay income tax now. the tax code has gotten far more progressive.

47 percent pays zero. Then the next group pays sum. Then the next group pays more.
That is very progressive.

Which should make you happy as a lefty. It should drive you nuts if you are a libertarian.

can you support this? At some point, was it in tax year 1987?, Reagan's administration, with help from the Congress did raise the rate of the lowest bracket... But doubling the rates in 1982 for anyone making less than 70K ???

There was an 1981 (or '82) bill, and a 1986 Bill, and maybe some others. And I admit I get these confused. What Reagan did for sure, at one point, is wring most of the progressiveness out of the tax brackets. And it has never completely returned. It was the start of accelerated growth in wealth disparity. The data is pretty clear on that.

 

[jem]

its actually more progressive than that...

note... this is for those who filed.

https://taxfoundation.org/new-irs-data-wealthy-paid-55-percent-income-taxes-2014/

The IRS recently released preliminary data for Tax Year 2014. The data shows that the U.S. income tax system remains very progressive, with high-income taxpayers paying a disproportionate share of the tax burden relative to their share of the nation’s income, while the majority of taxpayers pay a considerably smaller share relative to their share of total income.

Overall, nearly 149 million taxpayers filed a tax return in 2014. After adjusting for credits and deductions, 52 million filers (35 percent of the total) had no income tax liability, while the remaining 97 million filers paid nearly $1.3 trillion in income taxes.

...

Another way of looking at the progressivity of the income tax is to compare effective income tax rates for taxpayers at different income levels. Effective tax rates measure how much of a taxpayer’s income is paid in taxes after accounting for all of the credits and deductions they may benefit from. The national average for all taxpayers is 13 percent, but the story is far more complicated.

The next chart shows that because of the very generous refundable tax credits aimed at low-income taxpayers, families earning under about $30,000 have a negative effective tax rate. What this means is that these refundable tax credits work to either supplement their income or offset their payroll taxes.



Many of these tax credit programs, such as the child tax credit, also benefit middle-income taxpayers but typically don’t erase their tax liability. However, as is evident in the chart, taxpayers in the $30,000 to $100,000 range have effective tax rates in the single digits.

Taxpayers in the $100,000 to $200,000 range tend to have an effective tax rate at the national average of 13 percent. Meanwhile, taxpayers earning more than $250,000 have an effective tax rate more than twice the national average, or 26 percent.

So while many politicians may argue that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share of income taxes, the data simply does not support that opinion.

 

[piezoe]

if 47% of the country does not pay income tax now. the tax code has gotten far more progressive.

This has nothing to do with progressiveness in the tax code. It's caused by 47% of the population not making enough money to pay income taxes!

 

[peilthetraveler]

The lowest poverty rates in the world are in Social Democracies. Before Reagan doubled the tax rates in 1982 for anyone making less than $70,000, the USA was in the top five in fighting poverty. Today we are one of the worst.

How do Christians justify being republicans?

9:30 minutes

Median Household income world wide is $9,733.

You're considered in poverty in the US if you make 2.5 times that. Think about that for a minute...living in the US, the poor here have a higher household income than the average human on Earth.

I think we've done a pretty good job of fighting poverty in our own country.

 

[jem]

so at least you learned its not Ronald Reagan's fault for taxing them.
but I am going to help you be the first lefty in america who actually knows something about Reagan and taxes and the poor. You will never denigrate your uncle Ronnie again.

so please stop lying... and read this..


"So, who are these people and why are they getting a pass?

Overwhelmingly, these are the people who go to work each and every day but earn so little money that policymakers have determined it counterproductive to force them to pay income taxes. These are the people who mow your lawn, flip your burgers and, generally, fill any number of jobs that provide an income that walks the line between the ability to support a family and having insufficient money to keep it all together.

I recognize that using the word "policymakers" in the preceding paragraph is likely to encourage some negative reaction from those who suspect that the definition of ‘policymaker’ is a politician who purchases fealty to a particular political party by allowing these people to avoid paying income taxes. Certainly, this was the point Governor Romney was making in his speech to the small group of contributors that was captured by a hidden video recorder.

However, this is the point where it becomes critical to understand the mechanism that allows these folks to get off the hook when it comes to paying federal income taxes—a mechanism that comes in the guise of two, specific government policies—the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC). It is through these laws that virtually all of the low-income workers who avoid paying income taxes are enabled to do so. These are the laws that not only dismiss the obligation to pay income taxes if your earnings are low enough but may also result in receiving a government refund in the process.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickun...e-paying-federal-income-taxes/3/#56c69f9814b0

...
What many may not realize is that the EITC is the brainchild of conservative economics—specifically conservative economist Milton Friedman—and not the conceptualization of bleeding heart liberals.


Passed in 1975 by a Democratically controlled Congress and signed into law by a Republican president, the Earned Income Tax Credit was borne out of welfare reform efforts of the early 1970s. The credit was expanded during the decades that followed and was heavily supported by President Ronald Reagan who called the EITC, “the best antipoverty, the best pro- family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.”

Indeed, it may surprise you that some of the greatest increases in the number of Americans not paying federal income tax took place during the Reagan-Bush I years as demonstrated by this graph prepared by the uber-conservative Heritage Foundation:

This has nothing to do with progressiveness in the tax code. It's caused by 47% of the population not making enough money to pay income taxes!

 

[jem]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickun...e-paying-federal-income-taxes/3/#2c9e385c14b0


Nobel laureate (and noted conservative economist) Gary S. Becker has written, “Empirical studies confirm . . . that the EITC increases the labor force participation and employment of people with low wages because they need to work in order to receive this credit.” (Becker also has applauded the EITC for being “fully available to families with both parents present, even where only one works and the other cares for their children [i.e., for being available to low-income working families with stay-at-home mothers].”)

Studies of the EITC expansions enacted in the 1980s and 1990s found those expansions induced more than half a million people to enter the labor force. One prominent study identified the EITC as “a particularly important contributor to both the recent decrease in welfare use and the recent increase in employment, labor supply, and earnings” among female-headed families. The creation of the refundable component of the Child Tax Credit, which like the EITC is available only to families that work, has complemented the EITC’s pro-work efforts. Moreover, the EITC and CTC lifted 8.9 million people — including 4.7 million children — out of poverty in 2010. These refundable credits lift more children out of poverty than any other program or category of programs at any level of government.

And therein lies the irony of Governor Romney’s remarks.

In taking to task those who do not pay federal income taxes, Romney is criticizing the very policies favored by those he claims to be his intellectual forbearers along with results that would very much appear to further Romney's own commitment to the family unit and hard work.

And that, in turn, leads us to the truly relevant questions-

 

[piezoe]

What many may not realize is that the EITC is the brainchild of conservative economics

Isn't that obvious. It is the Republicans who want to use tax money to indirectly subsidize business; not the liberals who believe in transparency and an honest days pay for an honest days work.

It makes sense if you have capital, Then you may prefer not to pay taxes directly but pay indirectly via the inflation tax instead. You have assets that provide a hedge against inflation. Whereas if you are a hand to mouth worker, and are lucky you may own a home whose value may increase in pace with inflation. Otherwise you rent, and you have virtually no assets to provide much if any inflation protection. If your wages have lagged inflation for the past 40 years, you're more or less a modern day slave to the Capital Class, and trapped in Romney's 47% for eternity.

There is probably not one Republican voter in fifty that understands the relationship between deficits and inflation, but Rubin, Summers and Mnuchin certainly do. There has got to be a reason why Republican administrations, by and large, have favored deficits over direct taxation. The Government isn't going to go bankrupt either way, but the balance of money between the government and private sectors, and the distribution within the private sector, are sensitive to tax policy.

 

[jem]

baloney.

1.we have been talking about the stealth tax caused by inflation in conservative circles for decades.

2. Govt spending does not cause systemic inflation. Maybe some spot inflation in some goods the govt purchases in larger quantity... but we have had 700 percent inflation the last 40 to 50 years. I have been telling this to you for 2 years or so.

Systemic inflation is caused by massive increases in the money supply. Which is caused by the Federal Reserved creating money and digital dollars. It should not be caused by govt borrowing the extra money it spends. because they money is being borrowed not created. Someone else is supposed to be saving the money and transferring it to the govt. (except when the FED monetizes it. Which was a policy you favored.)

3. I agree the problems caused by inflation are very serious. That is why we should cap spending and make sure the FED stops creating trillions of dollars and stealing the benefit of money creation from the American tax payers. At least until we eliminate income taxes and have a balanced budget.

Isn't that obvious. It is the Republicans who want to use tax money to indirectly subsidize business; not the liberals who believe in transparency and an honest days pay for an honest days work.

It makes sense if you have capital, Then you may prefer not to pay taxes directly but pay indirectly via the inflation tax instead. You have assets that provide a hedge against inflation. Whereas if you are a hand to mouth worker, and are lucky you may own a home whose value may increase in pace with inflation. Otherwise you rent, and you have virtually no assets to provide much if any inflation protection. If your wages have lagged inflation for the past 40 years, you're more or less a modern day slave to the Capital Class, and trapped in Romney's 47% for eternity.

There is probably not one Republican voter in fifty that understands the relationship between deficits and inflation, but Rubin, Summers and Mnuchin certainly do. There has got to be a reason why Republican administrations, by and large, have favored deficits over direct taxation. The Government isn't going to go bankrupt either way, but the balance of money between the government and private sectors, and the distribution within the private sector, are sensitive to tax policy.

 

[piezoe]

baloney.

1.we have been talking about the stealth tax caused by inflation in conservative circles for decades.

2. Govt spending does not cause systemic inflation. Maybe some spot inflation in some goods the govt purchases in larger quantity... but we have had 700 percent inflation the last 40 to 50 years. I have been telling this to you for 2 years or so.

Systemic inflation is caused by massive increases in the money supply. Which is caused by the Federal Reserved creating money and digital dollars. It should not be caused by govt borrowing the extra money it spends. because they money is being borrowed not created. Someone else is supposed to be saving the money and transferring it to the govt. (except when the FED monetizes it. Which was a policy you favored.)

3. I agree the problems caused by inflation are very serious. That is why we should cap spending and make sure the FED stops creating trillions of dollars and stealing the benefit of money creation from the American tax payers. At least until we eliminate income taxes and have a balanced budget.

I could hardly agree less with any of this.

While it is absolutely true that some fraction of the Republican voter base has been 'talking about the stealth tax caused by inflation in conservative circles for decades,' it's an unfortunate fact that this misinformed, Republican voter base is as ignorant today as they were decades ago. Sad to think of all that talk wasted. All they have ever had to do is look at how Republican administrations managed the economy to understand instantly that their Treasury secretaries and their Fed Chairmen obviously had a far different perspective of money and central banking then they did.. The Republican administrations have had, and will have, the welfare of the Capital class in mind; not that of their ignorant voter base. ..

 

[jem]

considering for decades until we drove out our manufacturing base... republican administrations were staffed by manufacturers and oil men and democrats were stuffed with bankers... although you lied about history...you were correct on accident.

Republicans politicians used to favor or business base and democrat politicians were bankers.
now both sides are with the FED bankers.

If you mean republicans and libertarians are ignorant as to why you would favor massive electronic printing of dollars by the fed (causing massive inflation ) and more taxes... you are correct.

Nobody who cared about americans welfare would favor the creation of massive inflation by the Federal Reserve. that is nobody but a paid soros poster or a sellout.

I note was really funny is your acting like the republican base does not understand finance. We are the ones who have jobs and pay taxes.

50 to 70 percent of lefties like you don't even pay income taxes.

I could hardly agree less with any of this.

While it is absolutely true that some fraction of the Republican voter base has been 'talking about the stealth tax caused by inflation in conservative circles for decades,' it's an unfortunate fact that this misinformed, Republican voter base is as ignorant today as they were decades ago. Sad to think of all that talk wasted. All they have ever had to do is look at how Republican administrations managed the economy to understand instantly that their Treasury secretaries and their Fed Chairmen obviously had a far different perspective of money and central banking then they did.. The Republican administrations have had, and will have, the welfare of the Capital class in mind; not that of their ignorant voter base. ..