Active Users:584 Time:29/10/2026 12:40:13 PM
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 1234 Views
Wrong - 18/09/2012 06:37:07 PM 782 Views
Additional categories - 18/09/2012 06:51:46 PM 910 Views
SS income is very much taxed, my friend - 18/09/2012 06:59:28 PM 776 Views
Re: SS income is very much taxed, my friend - 18/09/2012 07:22:35 PM 778 Views
The wealthy get their income from investments - 18/09/2012 07:33:55 PM 825 Views
ok - 19/09/2012 05:46:49 AM 889 Views
Is that true? - 18/09/2012 06:54:33 PM 797 Views
No, it's not. See my post (you should really have read it first ) *NM* - 18/09/2012 07:00:07 PM 332 Views
No - 18/09/2012 06:56:43 PM 801 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 765 Views
That sort of thing does matter to me - 18/09/2012 10:48:30 PM 721 Views
Ah, yeah, not so much for me. - 18/09/2012 11:16:56 PM 688 Views
You gave that away with your first post - 18/09/2012 11:49:28 PM 696 Views
No way! - 19/09/2012 01:41:04 PM 711 Views
Yuh huh! - 19/09/2012 08:56:01 PM 761 Views
As an outside observer ... - 19/09/2012 01:28:13 AM 752 Views
Re: As an outside observer ... - 19/09/2012 04:45:11 AM 718 Views
the question of legality has already been covered by the offshore accounts though.... - 19/09/2012 05:44:28 AM 737 Views
Different situation then the Birther stuff - 19/09/2012 07:02:09 AM 687 Views
It's a conflict of interest. - 21/09/2012 09:52:58 PM 701 Views
I think you got it wrong: - 19/09/2012 01:52:30 AM 699 Views
+1 - you are correct, moondog screwed the pooch with this post. *NM* - 19/09/2012 05:18:19 AM 314 Views
Easier to read/understand - WSJ data on the 47% - 19/09/2012 05:25:01 AM 883 Views

Reply to Message