Half the public wil pay no federal income taxes.

Make that case if you can.

Of course I would, for I have this bad habit: I'm intellectually honest. What you say is simple arithmetic - but of course now you are changing the argument.

Good, you'd never change the argument!

There can be no case made that a small minority of Americans do not pay the majority of the tax load. Its simply in the figures.

Holy ... you just totally changed the argument!

Of course I would, for I have this bad habit: I'm intellectually honest. What you say is simple arithmetic - but of course now you are changing the argument.

There can be no case made that a small minority of Americans do not pay the majority of the tax load. Its simply in the figures.

Now, you make the observation that as a percentage of income, the result is different.
True enough, but as beurmann's figures show (if we just take the upper 60% vs the lower 40%, just for grins) the ratio is still 2 to 1, as a percentage. And we see that the lower 40% pay 10% of their income. Do you want to make the case that 10% is far too high? Just what is the right number? 5%? Zero?

Should 1% - 10% - 30% of Americans just give the balance a complete free ride? Can you give me some argument in equity that this makes sense? Can you give me an economic argument that this makes sense?

Are you one of these guys who think the Boston Celtics should play with 3 guys on 5 just to make it fair?

I think the 50% "don't pay taxes" argument (above) is about percent of household income paid.

Here's the original quote:

My apologies Alex. Half the public wil pay no federal income taxes.

Can anyone actually prove that? Or failing that to even suggest a mechanism by which we might come close?

Your literal interpretation of income tax incidence can only be described as child-like.

Here are the figures: Share of income taxes paid (Source: IRS Tables) Top 10%: 71% Top 25%: 86% Top 50%: 97%.

So I guess you got us....the bottom 50% pay 3%, not zero.

C'mon odo. I'm not trying to be a prick. But your literalist protestations are just silly on their face.

Any rational interpretation is that the current tax code is incredibly progressive, and that the "rich" are carrying the load.

It is what it is. And we can go from there.

"You guys do realize that we're bailing out rich people, right? The people who are paying those high taxes you seem to find so awful..."

There is actually truth in what you say, but your logic error is in homogenizing groups. To the degree we are bailing out "rich" shareholders and senior execs of Wall Street firms or auto companies I am in total league with you. Bailing them out of their errors is a travesty.

The fact of the matter is that I'm "rich," but I am not a Goldman or Citi exec, nor a GM exec. I didn't create their mess, but I am asked to pay for it? Whutup with that?

Your invective should be more focused. The "rich" are not evil. The poor managers of the firms being bailed out are the baddies.

It is not something I have sorted out in my mind yet. Did Nixon sign the EITC into law? And did Reagan expand it? I can see it, in the abstract, as a market-friendly compassionate conservatism ... but how broad should it be?

"Almost 21 million American families" seems like a lot, though not enough to make 50% of families income tax free.

And of course there would be something a little strange, if the EITC were the mechanism, about blaming Democrats for people not paying taxes.

Alex, WTF? I am supposedly one of those "rich" people who is going to get a lot of debt, a lot of taxes and zero bailout dollars. Whether it is on principle, selfish interest, or both, I am vehemently opposed to these bailouts. Has that not been clear?

I read somewhere else that this minor economic downturn looks as though it is going to be used to overturn 200 years of something that has worked rather well by any historical measure.

Ack.

We are a graying society but I don't think we are that many retired yet, nor that we should have that many at the other end, just starting out.

I was off reading about Refundable Credits. Wikipedia says: "Almost 21 million American families received more than $36 billion in refunds through the EITC in 2004"

Not enough there to make 50%. Is there another Refundable Credit as big as EITC?

Do 50% make less that that? If so we have a real problem.