3 ms·
In the U.S., it's about 28% of the populace which pays no taxes (or ends up netting to zero or negative taxation; for example, working families with children ar
by trollbridge 3mo ago
In the U.S., it's about 28% of the populace which pays no taxes (or ends up netting to zero or negative taxation; for example, working families with children are often in a situation where they might owe $2,000 in taxes but also get a credit of $5,000, for a net refund of $3,000.) My 28% figure includes property, sales taxes, etc. but does not include taxes that employers, landlords, and so on pay.
This is all very beneficial for big business including Shopify: businesses can pay lower wages since the government steps in with benefits, including food, cash, housing, energy, medical care, and so on, for people with lower incomes, and then that means they have more money to spend as consumers (relevant to Shopify).
- lemonlimesoda 3mo ago[dead]
- mingus88 3mo agoSo the federal government can disenfranchise anyone they want by issuing that class of taxpayer a refund?
- Redoubts 3mo agoThis would be pointless to do for one person, and it would be very curious to see a government reject a massive funding stream from a swath of people like this.
- AnimalMuppet 3mo agoA total refund, that is, $0 in income tax. Even more interesting (and less deliberately manipulative): The government could make it voluntary. Below $X tax liability, you can choose a total refund - but you can't vote. That would be voting by those who actually care about the vote (or who owe more than $X).
- mae3x 3mo agowhen you say "pays no taxes" do you mean income taxes or any taxes altogether? What about FICA/SECA 15.3% tax? Sales tax? Property tax? Individual income tax only makes up 53% of federal revenues as per https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/government-revenue/ https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/gover....
- dd8601fn 3mo agoIntroducing the shitshow of those state level taxes makes it unworkable, for sure.
- trollbridge 3mo agoThe 28% included payroll taxes, sales tax, property tax and so forth. If you don’t include those, it’s closer to 60%. Someone with 3 kids earning $26k gets about $10,000 in cash back per year (wiping out $2k in payroll taxes) and $12k of food stamps. Assuming they spend 100% of their cash on either taxable items with 8% sales tax or rent with comparable property tax, that’s still net minus -$5,280. If we include food stamps and the value of Medicaid at $500 per head per month it’s net minus -$40k. And that doesn’t include things like housing assistance and energy assistance. Such a person DOES pay gross taxes… they just don’t owe on net.
- UncleMeat 3mo agoSomebody with three kids earning 26k is in extreme poverty. If them being a net receiver of government funds is considered a bad thing.... Christ.
- trollbridge 3mo agoDid anyone say it’s a bad thing? About 15-18% earn at that threshold of under. With the assistance, though, the amount of net is about the same as someone earning $80k-$100k but gets no assistance at all.
- UncleMeat 3mo agoThis sounds like you are saying it is a bad thing.
- Ferret7446 3mo agoIs it not a bad thing in the general case? People who produce net positive value for society subsidize the unsustainable reproduction of those who are a net drain. It is a very sterile perspective, but reality doesn't care about empathy, and you can't feed people with good feelings.