63 million Americans will soon pay no net income taxes

Brad, you know as well as I that the problem isn't really who is paying taxes and who isn't.  The problem is that the government spends the money like it came to them off some government money tree.  Then they need to get more money from people in order to pay for their spending, instead of spending only what they have.  And now it all goes to interest anyway.

The other problem is that people will continue to vote for the spenders because it benefits them and they don't have to pay for it.

I might be one of them soon if things keep going the way they are. The wifes place in China is looking real good now.

I don't think this is right.

Of course government has to spend more than it has, if necessary. There are certain things that have to be paid by the government, regardless of tax income. And then taxes must rise (sooner or later to pay off debt).

This is not the problem here. It's a strategic problem with the concept of a "government", not a specific tactical problem we currently see.

The current problem is that government pays for things that do not have to be paid by governments

There are three different entities at play here:

Individuals must spend only as much as they make, with the exception of basic necessities. (And by "basic necessities" I don't mean a car and a television set. I only think government must provide what is necessary to prevent spread of disease and mass starvation. And doing so does not involve giving tax money to people.)

Corporations must spend only as much as they make, and go bankcrupt if they find themselves in situations where they would have to spend more to survive.

But governments must spend as much as it takes to perform their duties. And if government doesn't have the money, it must (and should) raise taxes.

The old point about individuals modifying their spending to match their income and governments modifying their income to match their spending is not a joke, it's a basic truth and there is nothing wrong with it.

Yes. And the reason they feel free to spend the money like it comes from a money tree is because nearly half the population has no skin in the game. Why should they care how the government spends money?

And they have. But only on half the population. One half votes for goodies and the other half pays.

Exactly. And that is the problem.

Government spending too much is not a problem. But government spending money on the wrong things and government only taxing some people is a problem.

There are more sources of revenue than just income taxes though - in theory, the government could function (albeit with greatly reduced services) without any income tax - people would still be paying other taxes though, and hence would still have 'skin in the game' and an interest in how the money was spent.

Assuming it's accurate the %s on income payed by the top 1% and bottom 95% were interesting though.

The more people working the more money the government takes in. This administration seems to disregard that simple concept, with their anti-business stance and out of control spending wish list.

The bulk of the money is coming from income taxes. Nearly all the income of the federal government used in the general fund comes from income taxes.

The majority of the income for the federal government is not from income taxes (although they are the biggest single source)

well hot damn... I better get on the bandwagon and start claiming "free money". Why should I be the one to work?

Also, screw med school. (no sarcasm here, I mean it... I see no reason aiming to be a doctor right now. Which leaves me trying to figure out what that molecular bio degree is gonna be good for when i finish it next yaer)

Since "Green Jobs" are the new buzz words, you could probably get on with one of those companies using algae as carbon scrubbers and bio fuels. Just putting GREEN on your resume could add another 10 -20K of GREEN to your salary.

Aerotar: The general fund revenue is almost completely from income taxes.

If you're thinking of payroll taxes, that money is literally money that those people are going to get back (and then some) in the form of social security and medicare.

See http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

The Federalist papers (high 20's and early 30's, if I recall correctly) have some really interesting views on taxation.  The groups who advocated for the Constitution of 1787 believed the federal government should--and would--focus on taxes of consumption.  The natural virtue of such taxes, they argued, is that there were self-regulating.  If the taxes became too high, it would drive down demand for the goods or services being taxed, and would thus naturally reduce the revenue.

Interestingly, they believed that unequal taxation could not last: representatives of the heavier taxed would advocate for their constituents, and so over time the tax burden would be roughly equal to the means of those taxed.  Unfortunately, they didn't account for stratification within representative's constituencies.  Which brings us to the present, where the poorer Americans pay very little if any taxes, and reap enormous subidies on everything from education to heating oil, the very wealthy have a high nominal tax, but enough ways to move it around their effective tax rate can be between 20-30%, and the middle class, which has it's tax rate between 25-35%.  The middle class gets exactly three subsidies:

1. Interest payments on a home

2. Child tax credit (nominal in effect - doesn't drive behavior or influence things, really)

3, Health insurance (if they have it)

I don't buy the argument that union benefits as a subsidized tax break.  Love 'em or hate 'em, union benefits are paid for in the form of dues, which generally are higher than the cost of services provided.  Otherwise unions would all be insolvent.  Therefore they're not income, and taxing them (as in a current proposal) amounts to a new consumption tax on a particular service.

Just my 2 cents, of course.

the government is spending money like it came off an "evil greasy no good greedy capitalist scum who aquired it by cheating" (their view, not mine)... and spending it is somehow giving back. The government is a collection of people, most of which are communists (democrats). They consider themselves robin hoods of today. They couldn't be further from the truth. Money shows your contribution to society, and they are punishing those that contribute and reward those that don't. Unless you are a sucker, you stop contributing and start consuming.

And they were right.

That's also the fair and, surprisingly enough, ecological solution.

Has anyone considered each according to his/her needs?

People have stopped dreaming and are actively TAKING doctor's "good fortune" for themselves (which, I don't actually have yet :P)... years more of med school where you study and work 16-20 hours a day and sleep 4 only to be labeled a rich parasite and be taxed into oblivion? No thanks. (after all, sleep deprivation is "torture" now).

What ever happened to you get what you pay for?

 Only if you're Al Quida.

Thats dirty capitalism talk! From each according to his means, to each according to his needs! [/sarcasm]

I'm all for buying American (and do when I can). The problem now is that the politicians and lawyers have us neck deep in trade agreements and free market principles. Playing fair is all nice and everything, but when the competition is paying its workers 2 dollars a day, fair is just a term they use to get into our markets. The US used these tactics to help the developing world, now the world is using it to drain us dry. We always assume the rest of the world shares our value of fair play... big mistake.

So, you are a Marxist, been listening to Hannity a lot haven't you?

Something tells me Bettyinlove will be losing her (?) account soon.