Need strong responses to new RW meme: The 47% who don't pay income tax are making a PROFIT from EITC

And another meme: Yes, the 47% do pay payroll taxes but they get that money back in SS and Medicare. I heard some idiot on Tweety say that last night.

Give me your best comebacks on both...need some ammo to counter the RW propaganda machine...

It was intended to help WORKING families stay off of welfare. The main gripe of the Republicans about welfare was that people could receive it and then sit around at home without working. They said, "We want to help the DESERVING poor, but we don't like helping people avoid work!" Of course their excuses were utter bullshit, but in order to cut them off at the knees, the EITC was created. It gives a refundable tax credit to people who WORKED during the year--presumably rewarding people for WORK, which is exactly what the Republicans claimed that they wanted.

Now they're attacking the EITC? Let's face it--they just hate helping people, period. They want to be free to discriminate. They want to be free to either refuse to help the poor AT ALL, or to at least choose who THEY think is "worthy" of help (sinners and black people need not apply unless they get themselves into a proper Christian church pronto).

Welfare and the EITC are incredibly useful and important because they don't discriminate so blatantly based on things like religious activity and subjective ideas of "worthiness". Those are the exact reasons why conservatives HATE them so much. It's time to stop listening to conservative viewpoints about public assistance and the EITC. These people are obviously mentally ill with some kind of weird hate-obsession disorder, and cannot be trusted to be rational in regard to these programs.

come out with this argument, propounded by well dressed people in suits, they are appealing to the mushy middle. We are forced to respond, otherwise they win with the very people we need to win over to our side. I'd love to sit back and ridicule these wingers and I agree that they are vile. But we ignore their arguments at our own peril...we've been losing the PR battle on these fronts for a long time...that's why we must join the debate...

The one thing that drives me craziest about "our" side is that we are SO terrified of offending people that we allow the right-wing to constantly frame the debate, time and time again. When we debate them on their terms, we lose, because we seem to think that there's something wrong with using an appeal to emotion, like they do. We always take the logos route...and we lose, because when presented with a logical argument and an appeal to emotion, average people will generally respond to emotion. It's easier. They don't really have to think about it.

Typical argument between a smart progressive thinker and an ignorant conservative idiot:



And that's where we lose the argument, because although the Liberal makes reasoned, intelligent responses, most average people listening to this conversation will walk away with these terms in their memories:

-welfare queens
-sit at home and do nothing
-liberals are ivory-tower wimps
-waste the money of hard-working Americans
-fifteen kids and an iPhone
-handouts to the lazy

Those heavily pathos-laden terms stick in the minds of average people FAR more easily than a nuanced, reasonable argument from a progressive. Worse still, the Freeper was allowed to frame the debate in the conversation above. When we argue with Freepers, we should argue like this:



Walking away from listening to THIS conversation, the average person would remember:

-Welfare exists to save the lives of children
-Welfare recipients are no different than you
-Most single Moms on welfare used to be married
-Domestic abuse is common in poor families
-Abstinence-only education leads to bigger poor families
-Welfare is temporary and restricted
-Welfare saves the lives of innocent children
-Conservatives don't care about children unless they're fetuses

We need to start using their own tactics against them. We can't change the minds of Freepers, because they are pathologically fixated on their preconceived notions. However, we CAN change the minds of the swing voters who are often LISTENING to these debates between Liberals and Freepers. Try tempering logos with pathos--make the appeal to emotion, just like the Freepers do, except do it BETTER. It's entirely possible to argue a progressive viewpoint with conviction and emotion. When I say "ignore their arguments", I don't mean refuse to argue. I mean refuse to validate THEIR arguments. For example, look at the second fictional debate above. See how the Liberal completely ignored the "welfare queens" comment and refused to validate it by arguing with it? That's the kind of thing we need to do more often. When we constantly repeat THEIR talking points in order to argue with them, we just end up validating them. That never works out well for us.

He looked astonished. He said, "What do you mean? I have a house with a mortgage that I'm paying!" and I replied, "Well, you are getting a break from the U.S. government on your income taxes because you can deduct your mortgage interest!"

I have a former co-worker who believes the RW crap. I know that she has received SS benefits for her kids when their father was disabled. I did feel like saying, "Why should I pay for your kids? I never had to take a government handout for MY kids." But that would have been considered cruel and rude in my workplace so I couldn't really say that...

for exactly the reasons you state. It rewards people who work for a living, but work at jobs that don't pay enough to make ends meet.

That being said, let's talk about a Living Wage, shall we?

The conservatives say we can raise the minimum wage, much less pay a Living Wage. But the fact is that we are paying a Living Wage, just in the most bass-ackwards manner imagineable.

Single Mom, Two Kids, Fulltime at Current Minimum Wage of $7.25

She earned $15,000, but she doesn't pay taxes because the Standard Deduction for Head of Household (8,350) and three exemptions (10,980) are MORE than her income for the year. No Federal Income Tax liabilities here.

So in addition to a refund of whatever she had withheld from her paycheck, she's going to get the following refundable credits:

Additional Child Tax Credit - $1,812
Earned Income Credit - $5,028

Expressed at an hourly rate, that comes to $3.29 per hour that our Single Mom is getting in federal tax credits. But that's not all, here in Wisconsin, Mom would also quality for:

Food Assistance - $5,400
Child Care Assistance - $900
Heating Assistance - $2,400
Subsidized School Lunches - $700

Expressed as an hourly wage, that means our Single Mom is getting an additional $4.52 per hour in services and support. And it would be more than that because she would also qualify for BadgerCare, but I'm not sure what the actual cost of that benefit is, so I'm not including it here.

So combine her actual wage ($7.25) with her Tax Credits ($3.29) and her state support ($4.52) and our Single Mom is getting $15.06 per hour. She makes MORE in taxpayer support than she does from her employer's wages!

So why not just pay her $15 per hour and eliminate the army of bureaucrats and the mountains of paperwork? She'd be getting no more from her employer than she's getting now from her employer and the taxpayers. If the money has to come from somewhere, let it come from her paycheck and not from a combination of paychecks and government largesse.

Let me restate the point: We are CURRENTLY paying a Living Wage to low-income workers - but it's being paid through a cobbled-together system of government benefits. There's a more efficient way to do this!

Too strong a response? Feels right.

to keep the poor from "robbing" them...they are so far gone they don't even care how they sound...

did these people pay any income taxes. To RepubliCONS it's as if these people were born today, fully grown and working, and nothing in the past matters. To RepubliCONS they aren't people who have fallen on hard times, they are perpetual tax freeloaders who have never paid any taxes ever in their lives.

The right-wing nuts always present the argument as if the past 30 years of give aways to the uber rich never happened, as if this 2nd RepubliCON Great Depression does not exist and didn't suddenly throw out 10% of the population into joblessness, as if GE's not paying federal taxes is somehow A OK but don't give the same help to the little guy.

By the way, the vast majority of people on Medicare and Social Security DO NOT get EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) because they have NO income. If you are paying payroll taxes you are NOT getting Social Security or Medicare. Eventually when they reach the FULL retirement age of 70 years old, they may get some of what they paid into Social Security and Medicare back....maybe (if they don't die from lack of medical care before they reach 70).

But starting under Raygun, people pay double Social Security and Medicare taxes (except for those making over $100,000 a year) to cover both their parents' AND their own retirements. So the Social Security trust fund system we are under today, designed by Raygun and Greenspan, is simply another tax on the poor and middle class. Not counting it as a tax is like pretending President Obama was not born in the US.

I think Clinton made it possible to work in retirement and not have your SS benefits reduced...not too sure if there was a cutoff level of how much you could earn, tho.

Also, doesn't EITC apply only to people supporting children? I may be wrong here, don't know...

And believe me, damn near all of us (I'm one of this group) would much rather earn more money, and pay taxes. This is a product of two things: one, George Bush's recession, because incomes were down for everyone; and two, the stimulus bill of 2009. Some 1/3 of that multi-billion-dollar stimulus package is coming in the form of tax breaks and bigger refunds in this year's tax return.

So it's a result of the recession, either way. And it's pretty disingenuous to bring it up now; the GOP insisted that tax breaks had to be a huge part of the stimulus package. Recall tax breaks are the Republican method of choice when it comes to economic stimulus of any kind.

Raise the floor. Help more Americans to make more income, instead of taking pride in cutting staff and cutting wages, and more people will be able to pay taxes.

Further, originally income taxes were levied only on the top wage-earners. It's far better for government to tax luxuries than necessities, and I for one WILL NOT ALLOW taxation to take food from the mouths of children so the wealthy can drive nicer cars!

Even the rich has income that is taxed at the lowest level as everyone else.

If people don't like paying taxes or think their taxes are too high then they should either stop working or ask that their wages be reduced.

They just say crap, without any proof. Ask for specific, documented examples that can be checked against a simulated tax form. They can't.

Reduces entitlement spending because EITC qualified are lifted out of poverty
It generates spending that keeps the economy going and generates additional tax revenue

I am not rich and I have no deductions for kids nor a mortgage. I'm footing everyone else. How is that fair?

I don't see that half the people live worse than me. They all have cable, cell phones, cars, clothes, they eat, they go out to movies, they buy clothes.

Social security is only a tax if we expect nothing back. It's not going to return as much as if you invested it yourself.

I believe in helping people who are truly suffering but I can't believe half this country falls into that category.

stop being such a sucker and join them. I'm sure you'll realize that being poor isn't the free ride gravy train it's cracked up to be.

As far as the "not paying taxes meme," that's bullshit. So how do they get out of paying state and local income taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes, etc. And if they are spending all of this money on cable, cell phones, restaurants, etc. -- each of these bills have various added taxes on each monthly bill.

I'm not sure exactly who we are talking about anyway. I'd like to know the life circumstance of people who fall into this category.

With Standard Deductions, Exemptions, and Child Tax Credits, this family would need an Adjusted Gross Income of more than 42,600 to have any tax liability. I believe the median household income in the United States is $46K (give or take), so it would not take a lot in terms of deductions (student loan interest, etc.) to drop one's income to below the $42.6K AGI.

And if you've tried to feed, house, and clothe a family of four on $42K per year, you know that's not an easy thing to do.

As it was I prepared myself before retirement by having a substantial amount of my income put into my 401k. When I started my retirement I was receiving more income than I was before retirement.

So if I was a family of 4 I would have difficulties managing with $42k. I would need to move to a neighborhood with lower costing housing and need a bit more space. And I haven't bought a car since 1998.

and are permitted to file jointly. Unlike other couples that have to file as single people. This is the time of year where the discrimination has a dollar figure attached to it.

So you're a gay working couple with two kids. Can't file married, which would have sheltered basically your first 42K of income from taxation.

Depending on the status of the two kids (adopted or biological). Each partner could file head of household and claim one of the children. Between the Standard Deduction for Head of Household (8,350) and two Exemptions (7,300) and the taxable income that issheltered by the Child Tax Credit (10,000), a single person with one child needs more than 25,650 in income to have a tax liability. Multiply that times two for the partner and the other child and you've got $51,300 in joint income before the tax man comes knocking.

Granted, this is a freakish scenario and it would be a helluva lot easier to just recognize gay marriage and be done with it, but then all of us number nerds would be left with nothing but Sudoku to fill our idle hours.

And that would be tragic and probably lead to man-on-dog sex.

$12 and hour to support a family of 6. He has to drive 1/2 hour to work then 1/2 hour back. This year he used his "extra" money from EIC to buy new tires for his car, replace a wind-shield on said car that got cracked when a tree limb fell on it over the winter. Bought new mattresses for his kids beds. I don't know if that covers it all, but that's what I know about. Without this little extra, he would not have been able to do any of it.

and spent 68% of my benefits to keep coverage through COBRA and pay medical costs. If I hadn't built up a decent savings cushion when I was working a full and part-time job, I would have lost my house by now and am just barely hanging on as it is since the savings are now gone. I am now uninsured and uninsurable. I have dug up half my back yard to grow my own food and I can't even afford to replace my broken vacuum cleaner. The only *new* things I've gotten are at half-price days at Goodwill and what I've scavenged from the neighbor's trash.

And, yes, I *am* actively seeking unemployment, but nobody wants to hire a middle-aged middle manager, even at entry level professional wages. Next stop, Walmart and my dad's basement!

Don't you just envy me? Am I worthy of getting a break? Want to trade lives since I apparently have it so good?

What concerns me is a new normal where a significant part of the population never contributes. How can you be sensitive to spending if you never had skin in the game?

If voting simply becomes about electing the guy who gives you money how does that further sound governance?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002548-503544.html

If your income is more than $250,000, lucky you.

You also don't know that they all have cable, cell phones, cars, clothes, eat, and go out to movies.

Even if they had any of it it is not the same level as those better off. Cable television does not come in one level of service. There is basic service. So they all buy very expensive new cars? How many of them buy clunkers? They all buy brand new clothes and sometimes special brand names. How many of them buy from Goodwill or have hand me downs? They all eat steak and lobster every nite or weekly. How many of them eat mac and cheese? They all go to the movies and end up paying ridiculous prices for refreshments. How many of them stay home and watch the movie on tv or use NetFlix?

Are you serious about investing Social Security? Haven't you been paying attention? It would had gone broke if it had been invested. And most everyone else would had lost close to 50% if they had invested it themselves. Or they would had spent it on other goods and then the government would had to step in when you retired to care for you.

And I guess if I bought a house that was too big and quit my job I could fall into this category too. And I could adopt a child. So you recommend that as a good life strategy do you?

And you think that they are encouraged to buy big houses and quit their jobs?

I'm getting the feeling that you just hate all those people that don't make much and yet supposedly do better than you. I don't know where you get the idea that they do better than you. How many of them do you know personally that don't make as much as you. And how many of them do better than you? And do you know their finances as well as you know your own? I doubt it. Unless they blab about everything you won't know how they file for their tax returns or what they receive back and how they did it.

very small 2 bedroom apartment(for 6 people). Her has 4 daughters, one step, since they are all girls they share a bedroom. The car he drives WAS mine, I gave it to him when I retired, it's a "97 Jeep. He carries only liability insurance, so all repairs cost money. He DOES have internet though, because he takes on-line classes from a near-by university hopefully will help with a better paying job soon. He did NOT quit any job, he would work get laid off, work another job, get laid off and so on. So do you recommend that as a good enough scenario to warrant a little extra help?
Also wanted to add, he is NOT a dumb person, he graduated in the top 5% of his class, very mathematically inclined, it's just good paying jobs are few and far between.

House that was too big? In overheated housing markets (caused by banking and mortgage companies gaming the system) like California, STARTER homes were going for more than $250,000. In most states, if you quit your job, you are *not* eligible to collect benefits. You can't qualify to adopt a child with no demonstrable means of support.

All you are doing is spewing a bunch of RW bullshit that *all* people facing difficult times are fully responsible for the current economic mess and the resulting fallout.

If you truly believe your B.S., why don't you just quit your job and join all us scammers out here living such lavish lifestyles?

Remember that the FICA tax was increased to pay for the future outlays in the 1980s (SS trust fund) and this was raided during *. Remember the Lock-Box? So the people paying FICA taxes were actually funding the general revenues for the last 25 years and now we will have to come up with a way to fund the deficit in Social Security since * raided the lock-box.


This is a good article regarding the issues:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

I'm inclined to believe we have been duped Into thinking this is some sort of investment and a rock solid obligation. But until this board understands this and accepts it is a tax like any other that argument doesn't fly.

The first year my income exceeded that, I thought I had gotten an unannounced pay raise.

It is a mystery to me why it would be the end of the world to get rid of that cap.

You want the other half paying taxes, find a way to pay 'em more.

people who are "making a profit" on government.

As mentioned above, all who work pay payroll taxes, sales taxes and so forth.

Let's do some math. Let's take a hypothetical family of four who are doing all right at an income of about $600 a week, which is $2500 a month. They have a mortgage which with insurance and property taxes comes to $1100 a month... because they were smart and made sure they had sufficient equity to buy a home. Now they have $1400 left. It costs the breadwinner $300 a month in transportation costs. Down to $1100. Between electric, gas, water, telephone (which, unlike cable TV, is not a luxury) and auto insurance, that's a reliable $400 a month. There are kids in this scenario; recall it's a family of four. So you can count on $200 a month for clothing needs and education emergencies; now that family of four is down to $500. No health insurance and no one's had a bite to eat yet. The family is taking advantage of state-sponsored kid health insurance which is costing about $100 a month, which leaves $100 a week for food.

Now you want to raise their taxes so they're paying an extra ten percent, that reduces the income to $2250. What's going to go? The state sponsored insurance is only a hundred; now the family has to eat on $250 a month. They skip meat a few times a week.

Do you see? When people are living at the margins, even small income tax rates take food from the mouths of the kids. So there's a floor, below which ANY tax is usurious - usurious taxes being taxes which deny people the necessities of life. That floor has to be there; there must be a point below which you cannot tax.

Then, above this floor, the same level of taxation affects people differently. When a family's take-home is $6000, the taxes they pay mean they enjoy fewer luxuries. When it's half that, the very same rate means forget about health insurance.

The scenario above plays out for millions and millions of Americans, with different variables inserted. Are there people enjoying luxuries they can't afford? No doubt. But the price of the necessities of life have risen so high that people can barely afford to maintain their home. Car payments may be easy to scoff at, but how's a working man supposed to get back and forth to work and get groceries and suchlike? For most of us, a car is a necessity and the only way to get a reliable car is to either have tens of thousands of dollars in savings or take on payments.

A graduated income tax is in fact the fairest possible tax. Raise the floor; increase the base wage, and the economy will surge. Because milk and honey doesn't trickle down the chins of the high and mighty, but if the common man has a buck to spend the high and mighty will figure out a way to get it from them. Trust capitalism; trust free enterprise; try demand-side economics for once.

but does that make it BAD?

You can't get EITC unless you're working.