Submitted by Existing-Papaya-8643 t3_10odek9 in Pennsylvania
drxdrg08 t1_j6faria wrote
Reply to comment by cabinetsnotnow in Universal Childcare for Pennsylvanians— and everyone in the US by Existing-Papaya-8643
Because contrary to popular opinion on Reddit, the federal tax system in this country is highly progressive, and highly re-distributive.
The top 20% of income earners pay 75% of federal taxes. And roughly the bottom 50% of income earners pay no federal taxes at all.
Almost 60% of households paid no federal taxes in the last 2 tax filing cycles when the economy was going through the pandemic.
Muscadine76 t1_j6fgk5g wrote
The estimate this year of nonpayers for federal income tax is closer to 40% and 1/3 of those households are retired people who mostly live on Social Security. Most of the rest are households with low or no income, especially those raising children, or else that have things like short term major business losses or medical bills. It doesn’t particularly make sense for people to be paying income tax in those situations.
Also, most everyone is paying some form of taxes: sales, excise, property, payroll. Those taxes are generally regressive in that they’re a much greater burden for low to moderate income households. Federal taxes offsetting that somewhat is a good thing.
drxdrg08 t1_j6g7djn wrote
> The estimate this year of nonpayers for federal income tax is closer to 40%
The figure is over 50% any year if you factor in redistribution that happens after taxes. If you pay $3000 in federal taxes but receive $30,000 in Medicaid coverage, SNAP and housing assistance, then that doesn't mean you are a "taxpayer" in the context of paying for new government programs.
Muscadine76 t1_j6gbkn8 wrote
The position that people who receive valuable taxpayer services aren’t taxpayers is incredibly disingenuous.
drxdrg08 t1_j6gtlsx wrote
It's not a position. It's a simple mathematical fact.
Muscadine76 t1_j6i5bh9 wrote
Now you’re either doubling down on disingenuousness or just aren’t familiar with what a “fact” actually is. If I pay $100 a month for house insurance for a year and at the end of that year my house burns down and I’m given $250,000 to rebuild, that doesn’t mean I was never an “insurance payer”. If I donate $10 to my local food bank every few months, then lose my job for a year and get $100s of dollars in food support from the pantry, that doesn’t mean I’m not a donor.
drxdrg08 t1_j6ic2g6 wrote
> If I pay $100 a month for house insurance for a year and at the end of that year my house burns down and I’m given $250,000 to rebuild, that doesn’t mean I was never an “insurance payer”.
Your analogy does not make sense. Government means tested benefits are not one time payments.
If your house burns down every year, and you get $250,000 every year while you only pay $1200 every year into the insurance pool... that's an accurate analogy.
If you give $1 to the government in taxes, and the government gives you $10 right back, that doesn't mean you can be counted on as a source of taxes for the next redistribution program that the government comes up with. This isn't rocket science to understand. This is basic math.
But I highly suspect that it's not that you don't understand, you just want to ignore inconvenient facts. That's what Reddit does, come up with a false narrative and ignore basic facts.
69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j6i7qvs wrote
"Half of all Americans are too poor to pay federal taxes" is not the glowing endorsement of our tax system that you think it is.
bushwhack227 t1_j6ffnlz wrote
>roughly the bottom 50% of income earners pay no federal taxes at all.
No federal income tax. They absolutely do pay Medicare and FICA
drxdrg08 t1_j6fgnsl wrote
They do. And state and local taxes, which are less progressive. But the major difference between federal income taxes and Medicare/FICA taxes is that they are generally paid back when someone retires.
It's more of a mandatory government savings plan than a tax that goes who knows where.
bushwhack227 t1_j6fok9w wrote
>they are generally paid back when someone retires.
That depends how long you live. Wealthier people benefit much more from those puritans because they tend to live longer.
drxdrg08 t1_j6g5zek wrote
That's not true. Social Security is a re-distributive system.
Lower income people get more benefit out of it than they paid into it. In other words, the system skews payments towards the lower end at the expense of the upper end.
[deleted] t1_j6fbg54 wrote
[deleted]
TacoNomad t1_j6i8vrx wrote
Oh no. People earning minimum wage aren't paying enough taxes!
Maybe we should fix the income problems in our country?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments