No Tax on Minimum Wage

[Back]

I don't know who these Ukip blokes/blokettes are... but they have an interesting idea. No taxes for low wage earners. Sounds like a good idea.

With income inequality what it is why not drop taxes on the lower income?

Can a person get a break in this crazy world????


Ukip Manifesto Will Pledge To Abolish Income Tax For 'Blue Collar' Low Earners

[Gelston]

I would say no. If they did, taxes on goods would raise up.
The money would be made back some how. Something that would affect everyone.

[JackWhisper]

Gelston is right.

The city of Sacramento, California, tried something like this a few years ago.

Want to know how they recouped the cost?

Policemen, meter maids, all forms of law enforcement received a higher ticket quota number by over 40% what their old ticket quota was. Milk went from 2.50 dollars a gallon, to 4.50 a gallon almost overnight. Other goods were nearly doubled. It was ridiculous. It lasted like 6 months. Then people charged the city council meetings and picketed. It was pandemonium. For Sacramento, at least.

[Wrathbringer]

I don't know who these Ukip blokes/blokettes are... but they have an interesting idea. No taxes for low wage earners. Sounds like a good idea.

With income inequality what it is why not drop taxes on the lower income?

Can a person get a break in this crazy world????


Ukip Manifesto Will Pledge To Abolish Income Tax For 'Blue Collar' Low Earners

If one is willing to think for themselves, one can find work under the table making several times minimum wage. All it takes is the realization that it doesn't take legislation to fix one's situation. Can't afford taxes? Don't pay them. Novel concept, eh?

[Cuin]

So, does this mean if you are making a penny over minimum wage that you'll take home less money than the minimum wage earner?

[Back]

If one is willing to think for themselves, one can find work under the table making several times minimum wage. All it takes is the realization that it doesn't take legislation to fix one's situation. Can't afford taxes? Don't pay them. Novel concept, eh?

How is that not real welfare? Taxes pay for roads, bridges, traffic lights, departments that deal with all of that, police, firemen (though most are volunteer), and national defense to name just a few things we all benefit from.

Unless you are willing to live by yourself, and pay for all of that yourself, you're just leeching off of everyone else if you refuse to pay taxes.

[Taernath]

WHERE IS THE ARTICLE BACK

YOU SAID THERE WOULD BE AN ARTICLE

[Back]

WHERE IS THE ARTICLE BACK

YOU SAID THERE WOULD BE AN ARTICLE

Sorry. I thought I pasted it in the first post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/21/ukip-manifesto-will-abolish-income-tax_n_5697018.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

[Androidpk]

How is that not real welfare? Taxes pay for roads, bridges, traffic lights, departments that deal with all of that, police, firemen (though most are volunteer), and national defense to name just a few things we all benefit from.

Unless you are willing to live by yourself, and pay for all of that yourself, you're just leeching off of everyone else if you refuse to pay taxes.

If taxes pay for roads and bridges then why are roads so bad and why are so many bridges in the US at risk of failure?

[Wrathbringer]

How is that not real welfare? Taxes pay for roads, bridges, traffic lights, departments that deal with all of that, police, firemen (though most are volunteer), and national defense to name just a few things we all benefit from.

Unless you are willing to live by yourself, and pay for all of that yourself, you're just leeching off of everyone else if you refuse to pay taxes.

So if it's legislated, you're fine with it, but if one does it on their own, they're leeches. Got it.

[Back]

Oddly, the only reason I read this is because I was reading Russel Brand's post about anti-semitism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/russell-brand/why-i-oppose-anti-semitism_b_5694864.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

[Back]

If taxes pay for roads and bridges then why are roads so bad and why are so many bridges in the US at risk of failure?

Fuck if I know. The ones around me are fine.

Ask your congresspersons.

[Back]

So if it's legislated, you're fine with it, but if one does it on their own, they're leeches. Got it.

Yeah, when was the last time you paved a road to the grocery store?

[Wrathbringer]

Yeah, when was the last time you paved a road to the grocery store?

Never. I let suckers- I mean, people who can afford it pay for that stuff.

[Back]

Never. I let suckers- I mean, people who can afford it pay for that stuff.

Nice.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGzkQAIHTTY

[Androidpk]

I'd say the corporations that dodge taxes or get stupid amounts of subsidy from the government are a far larger problem than people who work under the table for cash.

[Wrathbringer]

Nice.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGzkQAIHTTY

Wait, you said this legislation was a good idea. Now it's not? Make up your mind, Back.

[Jarvan]

I don't know who these Ukip blokes/blokettes are... but they have an interesting idea. No taxes for low wage earners. Sounds like a good idea.

With income inequality what it is why not drop taxes on the lower income?

Can a person get a break in this crazy world????


Ukip Manifesto Will Pledge To Abolish Income Tax For 'Blue Collar' Low Earners

I would say almost ALL minimum wage earners pay no federal income tax. I wouldn't be surprised if in the end, they get more out then they put in. Not including entitlement programs.

So it's kinda stupid.

Now if they also wanted them to pay no medicare or SS taxes either, and no state taxes... wait.. don't Liberals LOVE taxes?

[Gelston]

Gelston is right.

The city of Sacramento, California, tried something like this a few years ago.

Want to know how they recouped the cost?

Policemen, meter maids, all forms of law enforcement received a higher ticket quota number by over 40% what their old ticket quota was. Milk went from 2.50 dollars a gallon, to 4.50 a gallon almost overnight. Other goods were nearly doubled. It was ridiculous. It lasted like 6 months. Then people charged the city council meetings and picketed. It was pandemonium. For Sacramento, at least.
Didn't even think of higher infraction costs. I was more thinking of higher state/federal taxes. When you buy a high dollar item, like a car, it adds up quick.

[Jarvan]

I'd say the corporations that dodge taxes or get stupid amounts of subsidy from the government are a far larger problem than people who work under the table for cash.

man.. I really hate it when I even have to partially agree with you..

I get this metallic taste in my mouth...

There should be no loopholes or deductions for taxes. Do away with them all, then lower the rate slightly. More overall revenue.

This should apply to people as well as corporations. There is ZERO reason to give a tax advantage to married people. I have a few friends that got married simply for that reason. It's just stupid.

[Wrathbringer]

I would say almost ALL minimum wage earners pay no federal income tax. I wouldn't be surprised if in the end, they get more out then they put in. Not including entitlement programs.

So it's kinda stupid.

Now if they also wanted them to pay no medicare or SS taxes either, and no state taxes... wait.. don't Liberals LOVE taxes?

Yes, but they also hate logic, consistency and math.

[Back]

Yes, but they also hate logic, consistency and math.

Lets all stop paying taxes? You know what that would be?

[Androidpk]

man.. I really hate it when I even have to partially agree with you..

I get this metallic taste in my mouth...

There should be no loopholes or deductions for taxes. Do away with them all, then lower the rate slightly. More overall revenue.

This should apply to people as well as corporations. There is ZERO reason to give a tax advantage to married people. I have a few friends that got married simply for that reason. It's just stupid.

http://www.medicinenet.com/metallic_taste_in_the_mouth/symptoms.htm

[Androidpk]

You know what that would be?

The start of a revolution?

[Back]

The start of a revolution?

Wrong. If you don't want to or don't pay taxes you should live on an island of anarchy.

[Jarvan]

Wrong. If you don't want to or don't pay taxes you should live on an island of anarchy.

So.. all the poor people that don't pay federal income taxes (and some of them state) should be forced out of America?

Back, how could you!!

I thought you were a decent caring person... my world is shattered.

[Androidpk]

I don't think anyone wants ​to pay taxes, back.

[Parkbandit]

We should just let the one percenters pay all the taxes... that way everyone would have more and we could finally close the income gap in this country!

I'm running out of clown gifs for you Packlash...

[Seran]

Hell, I'd be all for this so long as they didn't get to claim any refundable tax credits. The tax system should have been changed years ago to where you couldn't get refunded more than you pay in. There are entirely too many people who are being paid to procreate via the child tax credits and earned income credit.

[Wrathbringer]

Hell, I'd be all for this so long as they didn't get to claim any refundable tax credits. The tax system should have been changed years ago to where you couldn't get refunded more than you pay in. There are entirely too many people who are being paid to procreate via the child tax credits and earned income credit.

Here here. Hated this before I had kids.

[Khariz]

I would say almost ALL minimum wage earners pay no federal income tax. I wouldn't be surprised if in the end, they get more out then they put in. Not including entitlement programs.

So it's kinda stupid.

Now if they also wanted them to pay no medicare or SS taxes either, and no state taxes... wait.. don't Liberals LOVE taxes?

I was hoping someone was going to point this out. Minimum wage owners ALREADY pay zero net taxes as it is. When you pay in the money, and get ALL or MORE of it back, that's not "paying taxes". It's letting the government borrow some money before they give it back with extra goodies, courtesy of the people who ACTUALLY pay taxes.

[Wrathbringer]

I was hoping someone was going to point this out. Minimum wage owners ALREADY pay zero net taxes as it is. When you pay in the money, and get ALL or MORE of it back, that's not "paying taxes". It's letting the government borrow some money before they give it back with extra goodies, courtesy of the people who ACTUALLY pay taxes.

And we thank you for buying our bullion. Back is always glad to help until he finds out that he's helping at which point he derides those being helped.

[Gnome Rage]

Taxes are my spring "oh shit" money or they were in college cause you get the tax credit for being in school.

[Buckwheet]

Flat tax. Since corporations are people my friend there should no longer be a corporate tax and a personal tax. Just one tax. About 12%.

[Parkbandit]

Flat tax. Since corporations are people my friend there should no longer be a corporate tax and a personal tax. Just one tax. About 12%.

^^

It will never happen though.. the current tax code is ripe with kickbacks, special interests and power for politicians. A flat tax would remove all of that.. and you know how politicians love their power.

[Buckwheet]

^^

It will never happen though.. the current tax code is ripe with kickbacks, special interests and power for politicians. A flat tax would remove all of that.. and you know how politicians love their power.

Those should just move to "incentives" otherwise known as Government Grants. They could then be on the committees to award the grants.

[kutter]

This is a silly argument, a min wager earner with no exemptions only pays 3.8% income tax or $613 on 16120/year. I would be thrilled to pay 3 times that since my burden last year was about 7 times that.

And for whoever it was saying that getting married is beneficial, you got that wrong, the marriage penalty makes it less beneficial to be married, to the point that my wife and I have discussed getting divorced on paper just to ease our tax burden.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

^^

It will never happen though.. the current tax code is ripe with kickbacks, special interests and power for politicians. A flat tax would remove all of that.. and you know how politicians love their power.

I think a flat tax, while easy to understand, would quickly be burdened with exceptions/loopholes if it ever even made it to a law, making it useless. Imagine the uproar when those who never paid taxes or paid an exceptionally small tax suddenly had to make up for the lack of income from the "1%" who now had the same flat tax. We have an ever growing class of people today who aren't required to file/pay taxes, and a shrinking population who truly bear the tax burden.

That's why we'll never have a flat tax, because the people who make laws will always pander to the 1/3 of America (and growing!) who don't pay taxes - but can vote. My opinion on it, anyway.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

This is a silly argument, a min wager earner with no exemptions only pays 3.8% income tax or $613 on 16120/year. I would be thrilled to pay 3 times that since my burden last year was about 7 times that.

And for whoever it was saying that getting married is beneficial, you got that wrong, the marriage penalty makes it less beneficial to be married, to the point that my wife and I have discussed getting divorced on paper just to ease our tax burden.

You should probably talk to a tax advisor if you believe what you wrote, as you are incredibly wrong.

[crb]

Whoever wrote this doesn't understand how our progressive income tax system works.

Minimum wage workers, on average, pay negative income tax rates.

Minimum wage at 40 hours equates to about 18k a year. The IRS says 11.8 million returns were filed with income between 15 and 20k. Of these almost 12 million returns, only 80,000 had any taxable income, and the amount owed on that fraction was itself ti

Here are some images from the center-left tax policy center

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/images/Share-of-federal-taxes-by-income-quintile-2012_4.gif

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/images/Avg-eff-tax-rate-by-S-and-IQ-2012_4.gif

Here is from the center-right Tax Foundation

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/tqpit_725_large.png

While making minimum wage earning income tax free might help the well to do teenage children of suburban professional families, it is already tax free for people in poverty.

Yes, they have to pay payroll taxes, but payroll taxes aren't income taxes. Payroll taxes specifically fund Social Security and Medicaid, theoretically you get out more than what you pay in (so long as you don't die young). Removing any payers from the Payroll tax system would put those programs into even more jeopardy than they are currently. Of course, to make it even more transparently not a tax and merely government mandated retirement savings, I would be totally fine with allowing private accounts for social security.

[Buckwheet]

I think a flat tax, while easy to understand, would quickly be burdened with exceptions/loopholes if it ever even made it to a law, making it useless. Imagine the uproar when those who never paid taxes or paid an exceptionally small tax suddenly had to make up for the lack of income from the "1%" who now had the same flat tax. We have an ever growing class of people today who aren't required to file/pay taxes, and a shrinking population who truly bear the tax burden.

That's why we'll never have a flat tax, because the people who make laws will always pander to the 1/3 of America (and growing!) who don't pay taxes - but can vote. My opinion on it, anyway.

When the republicans take over this is one thing they should do since they pander to the 1% more than the bottom tier. They should also add a rider that says no credits, no loopholes, no exceptions. We get 12% of every dollar you get. Then they should just force it through like obamacare was and then fillibuster it for ever if it comes up for a vote.

[Latrinsorm]

If taxes pay for roads and bridges then why are roads so bad and why are so many bridges in the US at risk of failure?Suppose you wrap one strip of duct tape around a broken bucket. This is not very effective, but if you use a hundred strips it is very effective. In the same way, American taxes are at a historic low and we see the suffering in areas like infrastructure.
There is ZERO reason to give a tax advantage to married people.It turns out to be a bad thing if a country's population decreases. It could be some other way, but empirically that's the way it is. Incentivizing marriage indirectly incentivizes childbirth and child rearing, which all governments with long term vision want. We are already birth rate net negative in this country, but immigration is covering us (for now).
^^

It will never happen though.. the current tax code is ripe with kickbacks, special interests and power for politicians. A flat tax would remove all of that.. and you know how politicians love their power.
I think a flat tax, while easy to understand, would quickly be burdened with exceptions/loopholes if it ever even made it to a law, making it useless. Imagine the uproar when those who never paid taxes or paid an exceptionally small tax suddenly had to make up for the lack of income from the "1%" who now had the same flat tax. We have an ever growing class of people today who aren't required to file/pay taxes, and a shrinking population who truly bear the tax burden.

That's why we'll never have a flat tax, because the people who make laws will always pander to the 1/3 of America (and growing!) who don't pay taxes - but can vote. My opinion on it, anyway.Have you considered the possibility that is actually the case that a flat tax would negatively impact the overall economy? Notice how it could still be the case that politicians are corrupt or panderers or whatever other allegation you'd like to make, but in their corruption they happen to have stumbled on the correct answer.

This is why it's important to look at the facts of a proposal rather than the person doing the proposing. Dumb people can do smart things, smart people can do dumb things. "Well, what are the facts then, Mr. Dumb Smart Guy?" you may be asking. It's called the Laffer curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve), and it states that government will continue to net revenue by increasing tax rates until it reaches some optimal tax rate. How do we determine this optimal tax rate? A simple look at history: the tax burden on the highest bracket was never higher than in the 50s and was only somewhat lower in the 60s, yet government tax revenue grew at a much faster rate than it does today. Therefore we can increase tax rates up to the 70% millionaire bracket scheme they had in the 60s without reaching the optimal tax rate of the Laffer curve. (It's possible that the 90% bracket scheme is also lower than the optimal tax rate, but without a higher point we can't tell either way.)

Meanwhile, there is also plenty of evidence that poor people literally can't handle having less money, which a flat tax would cause.

Thus, a flat tax is needlessly giving away money to the rich and won't be able to take money from the poor. It's just a bad plan - not everything simple is correct.

[kutter]

You should probably talk to a tax advisor if you believe what you wrote, as you are incredibly wrong.

Well, lets see, my CPA was the one that first brought it up and he crunches the numbers so I will go with his 25+ years of experience.

[Buckwheet]

I didn't want to quote all of latrin's post, but I am sure there are things they can do to help the poor with having less money. And there is nothing that says a flat tax means the poor get less money automatically or that they get less services. But you can't have a society without poor. Poor is just relative. If you make the least and make a million dollars while everyone else makes 1 billion dollars you are still the poorest.

Think quality of life vs money.

[Whirlin]

Well, lets see, my CPA was the one that first brought it up and he crunches the numbers so I will go with his 25+ years of experience.
I have a master's in accountancy...

If your CPA has 25 years of experience, there was a marriage penalty up to the early 90s or so. After that, the numbers were aligned so that the standard deduction for married filing jointly is exactly 2x of the single taxpayer.

The only big concern would be if one of the couple historically itemized deductions, and the other did not. The values for most phaseouts, ceilings, and floors end up being simply double what they are for filing single.

[Warriorbird]

Best scheme to get an easy divorce ever.

"There's a marriage penalty Republican honey! We have to do it to fight the tax and spend liberals!"
"Sure baby!"

[Latrinsorm]

I didn't want to quote all of latrin's post, but I am sure there are things they can do to help the poor with having less money.You mean like loopholes, credits, exceptions? :)
And there is nothing that says a flat tax means the poor get less money automatically or that they get less services. But you can't have a society without poor. Poor is just relative. If you make the least and make a million dollars while everyone else makes 1 billion dollars you are still the poorest.

Think quality of life vs money.In fairness to me, I never said that higher taxes on the rich were designed to eliminate poverty. I merely claimed that a more progressive tax structure than we currently have has been wildly successful in the past, and that a less progressive tax structure (the extreme of which is a flat tax) would therefore be less successful. That this result happens to cohere with that produced by the unsound reasoning an absolute socialist is not evidence that the result is wrong, because I specifically cited the reasoning I used.

[kutter]

Not entirely accurate, if you really want to delve into it, this website is not to bad.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Marriage-Penalties.cfm

[Latrinsorm]

Not entirely accurate, if you really want to delve into it, this website is not to bad.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Marriage-Penalties.cfm"Couples with marriage bonuses far outnumber those incurring marriage penalties but precise estimates are not available."

This makes it sound like even those with marriage penalties will only incur small ones, and I would think the various non-tax benefits of being married (visitation rights, his and hers towels, etc.) would outweigh it.

[kutter]

We would not really get divorced, we have a great relationship, it would only be for tax purposes, since I retired from the military, between my retirement and new job, our reportable income went up markedly, small amount, I suppose something in me thinks that even a small amount is worth it since it is just a piece of paper. Oh, we do not have kids either so it really is not very complicated for us.

[crb]

Suppose you wrap one strip of duct tape around a broken bucket. This is not very effective, but if you use a hundred strips it is very effective. In the same way, American taxes are at a historic low and we see the suffering in areas like infrastructure.It turns out to be a bad thing if a country's population decreases. It could be some other way, but empirically that's the way it is. Incentivizing marriage indirectly incentivizes childbirth and child rearing, which all governments with long term vision want. We are already birth rate net negative in this country, but immigration is covering us (for now).Have you considered the possibility that is actually the case that a flat tax would negatively impact the overall economy? Notice how it could still be the case that politicians are corrupt or panderers or whatever other allegation you'd like to make, but in their corruption they happen to have stumbled on the correct answer.

This is why it's important to look at the facts of a proposal rather than the person doing the proposing. Dumb people can do smart things, smart people can do dumb things. "Well, what are the facts then, Mr. Dumb Smart Guy?" you may be asking. It's called the Laffer curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve), and it states that government will continue to net revenue by increasing tax rates until it reaches some optimal tax rate. How do we determine this optimal tax rate? A simple look at history: the tax burden on the highest bracket was never higher than in the 50s and was only somewhat lower in the 60s, yet government tax revenue grew at a much faster rate than it does today. Therefore we can increase tax rates up to the 70% millionaire bracket scheme they had in the 60s without reaching the optimal tax rate of the Laffer curve. (It's possible that the 90% bracket scheme is also lower than the optimal tax rate, but without a higher point we can't tell either way.)

Meanwhile, there is also plenty of evidence that poor people literally can't handle having less money, which a flat tax would cause.

Thus, a flat tax is needlessly giving away money to the rich and won't be able to take money from the poor. It's just a bad plan - not everything simple is correct.

While you quoting the laffer curve warms my heart. I must say that you cannot look at the mere nominal tax rate and say "hey look, that'll be okay because people used to be willing to pay it." You have to consider that effective tax rates are not the same thing as nominal tax rates. There were a ton more tax shelters in the 1950s (such as depreciation of real estate). You also can't take it as a matter of truth that the rate was indeed accepted, you need to in some way quantify the level of tax avoidance or noncompliance, which is of course, hard to do considering people don't report that to the government on a form.

I would also say that the goal of tax policy should not be to provide the government with the maximum possible amount of revenue, but rather the minimum possible amount of revenue while instead maximizing economic growth. But that is an ideological difference between the left and the right. You could say "Well GDP grew more back then so taxes are good" but like people attributing the growth rate during Clinton's years to his slightly higher tax rates instead of to the secular explosion of productivity from the computer industry and the birth of the Internet, it'd be pretty speculative to take one attribute from the 1950s, the tax rate, and say that that single variable was the cause of the growth, and not instead that the growth occurred in spite of that variable.

Economics is shitty like that, nary a controlled experiment to be seen. The best you can ever hope for is a Haiti/Domican Republic type situation where you can really study differences between two different systems, but even then it is a myriad of variables to wade through.

[crb]

I didn't want to quote all of latrin's post, but I am sure there are things they can do to help the poor with having less money. And there is nothing that says a flat tax means the poor get less money automatically or that they get less services. But you can't have a society without poor. Poor is just relative. If you make the least and make a million dollars while everyone else makes 1 billion dollars you are still the poorest.

Think quality of life vs money.

And how are all those antipoverty programs working out for us? How many trillions spent since LBJ launched that war and what are the poverty rates today compared to then. Einstein would call that insanity.

[Methais]

I don't know who these Ukip blokes/blokettes are... but they have an interesting idea. No taxes for low wage earners. Sounds like a good idea.

With income inequality what it is why not drop taxes on the lower income?

Can a person get a break in this crazy world????


Ukip Manifesto Will Pledge To Abolish Income Tax For 'Blue Collar' Low Earners

Don't people under a certain income threshold already get back more money on their tax returns than they paid in income taxes for the year?

[Latrinsorm]

While you quoting the laffer curve warms my heart. I must say that you cannot look at the mere nominal tax rate and say "hey look, that'll be okay because people used to be willing to pay it." You have to consider that effective tax rates are not the same thing as nominal tax rates. There were a ton more tax shelters in the 1950s (such as depreciation of real estate). You also can't take it as a matter of truth that the rate was indeed accepted, you need to in some way quantify the level of tax avoidance or noncompliance, which is of course, hard to do considering people don't report that to the government on a form.I don't take any position on acceptance or compliance. If compliance goes down but receipts goes up, who cares? As a noted economist once said, "Show me the money!" When we implement universal surveillance we should keep tax rates constant to see what happens, obviously, and then we can adjust them as need be.
I would also say that the goal of tax policy should not be to provide the government with the maximum possible amount of revenue, but rather the minimum possible amount of revenue while instead maximizing economic growth. But that is an ideological difference between the left and the right. You could say "Well GDP grew more back then so taxes are good" but like people attributing the growth rate during Clinton's years to his slightly higher tax rates instead of to the secular explosion of productivity from the computer industry and the birth of the Internet, it'd be pretty speculative to take one attribute from the 1950s, the tax rate, and say that that single variable was the cause of the growth, and not instead that the growth occurred in spite of that variable.Well, how else should we determine the optimal tax rate? It's not just the 50s, it's the 50s - present.

[Buckwheet]

You mean like loopholes, credits, exceptions? :)In fairness to me, I never said that higher taxes on the rich were designed to eliminate poverty. I merely claimed that a more progressive tax structure than we currently have has been wildly successful in the past, and that a less progressive tax structure (the extreme of which is a flat tax) would therefore be less successful. That this result happens to cohere with that produced by the unsound reasoning an absolute socialist is not evidence that the result is wrong, because I specifically cited the reasoning I used.

In fairness I didn't say loopholes, credits or exceptions. I mean how about grants for education to poor people to help them rise above poverty, or bring back the food program and instead of welfare going on a credit card it actually provides nutritional food directly to families so they can't use it to by doritos? How about grants for poor people to fix up their homes and encourage home ownership, or hell just getting into a home. The point I am trying to make is that you could expand programs to help with poverty stricken areas/people without putting in all the complex tax code.

The difference is that people(corporations too my friend) who previously paid nothing in taxes would now be paying something in taxes. Grants can be made available to be awarded to people for housing and to a housing builder for building green houses as long as they are considered first time home buyer priced homes for example. Those aren't complicated tax code programs just money that could be handed down to states to give out. The builder uses the grant to build a $200,000 green home and saves...$20,000 for the green tech because they got a 20k grant. They still charge $200,000 for the home and then pay $24,000 in taxes on that home. Their effective tax rate on that home was 2% due to the grant.

Building out infrastructure through government grants seems like just a investment in our country. Without saying it was a good program I look at it like Cash for Clunkers. X amount of "grant" money becomes available and when its gone its gone for the year. In order to get that money you have to meet certain criteria to get the extra discount on your car. If the criteria for the grants is based on income it prevents the upper tiers of wealth from taking advantage. I am aware that cash to cars is a bad program but cash for doing something that improves the power grid doesn't seem as bad.

I was trying to think of a goal that most republicans and democrats could agree on, and the closest one I could come up with is basic emergency services. I think most people can agree that some basic form of fire and police services is something no city should be without. So if a city like Detroit is too poor to have basic needs met with emergency services there should be Federal grants available to them where if they meet certain criteria(what I don't know) the Feds sign off and money flows into emergency services.

Raising taxes on the remaining citizens and business in Detroit isn't going to raise the revenue needed to pay for proper emergency services, it would just push more people out.

I know its not apples to apples comparisons but it was the only straw I could grasp at.

[Buckwheet]

And how are all those antipoverty programs working out for us? How many trillions spent since LBJ launched that war and what are the poverty rates today compared to then. Einstein would call that insanity.

Depends which program you are talking about. From my own personal experience I have two family members who used public assistance to better themselves and graduate college and in turn used their better jobs, which would have been unavailable without the public assistance to put their three kids through college who are now much higher contributing members to society than they otherwise would have been if they were stuck in poverty.

My story is just one and you can probably point to two or more to just discount my story. But in truth I have no idea how they are working and the thing is maybe they are the wrong programs and the wrong approach? I don't know. In terms of programs why did MS Works not solve the problem while MS Office did? Similar programs, just different approaches.

[Furryrat]

Don't people under a certain income threshold already get back more money on their tax returns than they paid in income taxes for the year?

It's called the Earned Income Credit. Take from the rich, give to the poor. It's already there.

[Methais]

It's called the Earned Income Credit. Take from the rich, give to the poor. It's already there.

WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT BACKLASH?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??!!?¿i¿i¿i¿i¿i¿i¿i¿i¿i¿i ¿i¿i