Active Users:763 Time:17/03/2026 03:22:37 AM
what does it mean to "pay no federal income tax"? moondog Send a noteboard - 18/09/2012 06:30:28 PM
this 46 or 47% number of americans who supposedly pay no income tax keeps getting thrown around, especially by the political right in the US. we are supposed to be outraged that almost half of americans pay no income tax. in reality, the actual number of americans who "pay no income tax" is actually americans who "pay zero or negative income tax".

as a personal example, i got a tax refund last year. therefore, i qualify for the 46-47% who "paid no income tax". but, how did i get a refund if i paid no tax? the answer is that i *DID* pay income tax, but i overpaid my share based on my income and deductions. as a result, i got a refund of the amount i OVERPAID in taxes but i hardly paid zero income tax last year.

i realize that we will never stop having political candidates who are willing to stretch any amount of data to fit their narrative for re-election, but it completely frustrates the hell out of me to hear this particular stat being used to drum up republican support when the reality is that the vast majority of americans *do* pay income tax, but those of us who overpay our income taxes are somehow cheating the system or something :rolleyes:
"The RIAA has shown a certain disregard for the creative people of the industry in their eagerness to protect the revenues of the record companies." -- Frank Zappa

"That's the trouble with political jokes in this country... they get elected!" -- Dave Lippman
the actual tax study where this stat comes from
Reply to message
what does it mean to "pay no federal income tax"? - 18/09/2012 06:30:28 PM 1131 Views
Wrong - 18/09/2012 06:37:07 PM 690 Views
Additional categories - 18/09/2012 06:51:46 PM 812 Views
SS income is very much taxed, my friend - 18/09/2012 06:59:28 PM 678 Views
Re: SS income is very much taxed, my friend - 18/09/2012 07:22:35 PM 680 Views
The wealthy get their income from investments - 18/09/2012 07:33:55 PM 735 Views
ok - 19/09/2012 05:46:49 AM 773 Views
Is that true? - 18/09/2012 06:54:33 PM 707 Views
No, it's not. See my post (you should really have read it first ) *NM* - 18/09/2012 07:00:07 PM 288 Views
No - 18/09/2012 06:56:43 PM 691 Views
While we're talking about taxes, am I the only one who doesn't give a rat's ass about Romney's? - 18/09/2012 10:37:12 PM 652 Views
That sort of thing does matter to me - 18/09/2012 10:48:30 PM 616 Views
Ah, yeah, not so much for me. - 18/09/2012 11:16:56 PM 594 Views
You gave that away with your first post - 18/09/2012 11:49:28 PM 587 Views
No way! - 19/09/2012 01:41:04 PM 615 Views
Yuh huh! - 19/09/2012 08:56:01 PM 654 Views
As an outside observer ... - 19/09/2012 01:28:13 AM 659 Views
Re: As an outside observer ... - 19/09/2012 04:45:11 AM 618 Views
the question of legality has already been covered by the offshore accounts though.... - 19/09/2012 05:44:28 AM 641 Views
Different situation then the Birther stuff - 19/09/2012 07:02:09 AM 595 Views
It's a conflict of interest. - 21/09/2012 09:52:58 PM 596 Views
I think you got it wrong: - 19/09/2012 01:52:30 AM 610 Views
+1 - you are correct, moondog screwed the pooch with this post. *NM* - 19/09/2012 05:18:19 AM 267 Views
Easier to read/understand - WSJ data on the 47% - 19/09/2012 05:25:01 AM 777 Views

Reply to Message