I work with a couple of babies mommas (unmarried mothers) and they are all a-twitter about getting their tax refund this year. It seems they pay in only about 10% of their income in taxes, (in these cases, about $1,600), yet their anticipated refund will be nearly $5000. Both of these skanks qualify for FREE taxpayer funded college education, and one of them gets food stamps, but that is unrelated.
This is crap! No one should get more back in tax refunds than they pay out. This is just another form of welfare, albeit cleverly disguised as an "earned income tax credit" This goes for married couples as well, and begs another question: Should the taxpayers of America subsidize your kids? (tax credits for children) Singles pay out more in taxes and get less back than their married co-workers, this is unfair.
Secondly, the proposed tax rebates Congress is trying to get approved to jumpstart the economy. Get this you Bush Haters.
Bush's propsal would have given tax breaks of about $800 to single adults bringing home a paycheck (ie paying taxes) and about $1200 to families of two adults +kids. Sounds fair so far to me. You pay out taxes, you get taxes back.
But NOOOOOOOOOOO.....instead of something fair like that we now are looking at this: $300 for EVERYONE bringing home a paycheck INCLUDING those who don't make enough to pay federal taxes. (part time workers probably working 5-10 hours a week) And of course to woo the "working families" vote, married couples with kids get the big bucks...Not $600 for two taxpaying workers, but I think about $1500 for families with kids.
Also, if you make more than 75k as a single you don't qualify. If the married joint income exceeds 150k you don't qualify. Now, I understand they might not need it, don't you think they should get back a protion of the taxes they paid in as well? Or is this a xcrew the rich because.....welll.....cuz they have more than I dol, and I don't like it?
.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Anyway you slice it, those tax rebates are going to come back to bite us.
You don't do tax cuts while your at war, with a spirally deficit and have it come out in the wash. You just don't.
People should just not over extend themselves.
It's not rocket science.
Yeah it bull@!#$. People like my wife and I wait to have kids because we are not ready financially. Meanwhile the irresponsible get their tax return and go on shopping spree. Of course almost none of it goes towards the kids. It really pisses me off. I don't think the goverment should be giving money that I paid in in taxes to those who can not afford to have kids and did anyway. It is BS. I don't feel it is my responsibility to pay for others kids.
The goverment should not pay or provide for people from cradle to grave. America is a land of oppertunity! If people are poor they have nobody to blame but themselves.
I totally agree. @!#$ this take from the rich give to the poor idea. The poor are poor for a reason and that reason is because of lack of effort and poor choices they continue to make.
FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!
Emor8t wrote:Anyway you slice it, those tax rebates are going to come back to bite us.
You don't do tax cuts while your at war, with a spirally deficit and have it come out in the wash. You just don't.
People should just not over extend themselves.
It's not rocket science.
I am saying the exact same thing. I do not think it is a good idea that the goverment give out money wheen it is already so far in debt.
FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!
If the money goes to the kids (ie, paying for clothes, food, future school endeavours etc) I wouldn't have a problem, but I'm also of the mind that the poor and middle-class may not need a tax-cut, but the high-income earners and corporations need to start ponying up, and Government needs to make sure they have their house in order.
Social programs don't concern me much, as long as they're audited at least bi-annually.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Wade Jarvis wrote:@!#$ this take from the rich give to the poor idea. The poor are poor for a reason and that reason is because of lack of effort and poor choices they continue to make.
im with ya up until there. we dont need a welfare state....but you cant say that just because someone is poor that makes them lazy or stupid. time and chance happen to us all
but i say this is just another reason to do away with the income tax. let everyone pay for their own stuff. if you make money, its yours.
i kinda think its BS that people with kids are getting extra $ on this upcoming rebate when they already get more of a refund for the ssame kids to begin with. granted (most) people spend alot on everyday things for their kids, and i know daycare is crazy expensive, but why should they get 2 breaks?
on a side note, I also read somewhere that these upcoming rebates could just be an advance on our 2009 tax rebates, and will get taken out of your 2009 taxes.
how true that is I cant say, but it could definately sdee it happening. they dont just hand out free money with no recourse
Joey Baggs (JCE Designs) wrote:i kinda think its BS that people with kids are getting extra $ on this upcoming rebate when they already get more of a refund for the ssame kids to begin with. granted (most) people spend alot on everyday things for their kids, and i know daycare is crazy expensive, but why should they get 2 breaks?
on a side note, I also read somewhere that these upcoming rebates could just be an advance on our 2009 tax rebates, and will get taken out of your 2009 taxes.
how true that is I cant say, but it could definately sdee it happening. they dont just hand out free money with no recourse
im pretty sure thats how the old one was. you had to at least claim that money you supposedly got for free so something that is a "tax break" is getting taxed in the end.
last time this came out i thought the dems were bashing it big time. this time they seem to be all for it, i wonder if thats because this is an election year. either way i think its just going to hurt us in the end.
and on a side note. some of us parents do appreciate the extra cash. paying 10grand a year for daycare sucks lol.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Last time around in 2001, the Demoncrats were against it because it was one of Presiden't Bush's central campaign promises. They didn't want to conced as it would look like he was coming through on a major promise. See they were still all flustered at the Supreme Court, Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, and the rest of the right wing conspiracy. I even had many of my customers come into work talking about how they weren't going to spend theirs, that they were going to do everything they could to screw the economy up to make Bush look bad. lol.
And my favorite post so far by GAM "but the high-income earners and corporations need to start ponying up," I'm not sure where you are from, and it doesnt' really matter, but last time I checked my college economics book, it read something like the richest 10% pay about 40% of all federal taxes. Sounds like they are paying their fair share. Now I may be wrong on this one....maybe my millionaire neighbor down the street steals from the homeless, oppresses the immigrants, drives two Ferraris at the same time, and only pays 37cents a year in income taxes....yep.
.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
ScottaWhite wrote:And my favorite post so far by GAM "but the high-income earners and corporations need to start ponying up," I'm not sure where you are from, and it doesnt' really matter, but last time I checked my college economics book, it read something like the richest 10% pay about 40% of all federal taxes. Sounds like they are paying their fair share.
10% paying 40% of taxes sounds great... until you consider what % of the national income they get.
Warren Buffet(a very rich man himself) a while back issued a challenge to any CEO of any corporation to prove that he/she pays a higher % of their income than does their secretary - and to the first one who does
he will give 1 million dollars free and clear. So far no one has took him up on that... Wonder why? I'm sure it isn't because the CEOs are "too busy" to claim an easy extra $1,000,000. Its because that isn't happening. As much as some(certainly not all) wealthy folk like to complain about the taxes they pay and how "unfair" it all is, they're really full of crap. Sometimes too much still isn't enough.
I found this easily with a quick google search - its from 2004 but I doubt things have changed much from this.
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm
Do the math. The top 10% had 71.2% of the wealth and you say its unfair for them to pay a mere 40 percent?! To me - someone with 71.2% of the money should be paying 71.2% of the taxes... but that's just me. Just try to get that "fair tax" passed...
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
ScottaWhite wrote:And my favorite post so far by GAM "but the high-income earners and corporations need to start ponying up," I'm not sure where you are from, and it doesnt' really matter, but last time I checked my college economics book, it read something like the richest 10% pay about 40% of all federal taxes. Sounds like they are paying their fair share. Now I may be wrong on this one....maybe my millionaire neighbor down the street steals from the homeless, oppresses the immigrants, drives two Ferraris at the same time, and only pays 37cents a year in income taxes....yep.
.
You realize of course that the 40% of total taxes collected that they pay is not even CLOSE to amount they ought to pay right? You also need to put down the text book that tells you the theoretical, and pick up the data sheets that tell you the actual. Your text book hasn't told you much about tax shelters, breaks or corporate welfare.
Okay, I gotta remember who I'm dealing with here... Sorry, I'll break it down:
- Corporations earn out of roughly
$13.9 Trillion from the US GDP over 12 trillion. If they were to have paid the same amount that the middle class, then this budget deficit would just be a memory.
Anyhow, just for @!#$s and giggles:
http://www.cbpp.org/10-16-03tax.htm (haven't found 04/05 data yet... either way, you're talking about stealing from Peter to pay Paul)
Quote:
- Corporate revenues represented only 7.4 percent of all federal tax receipts in 2003. With the exception of 1983, this represents the lowest level on record (these data go back to 1934).
So, to burst your bubble, that 40% from top-income earners and corporations is about 33.6% short, and even more short with the "stimulus package." They're not returning the favours, especially when they're also exporting JOBS to other countries: which means the middle class (or people that make too much money for significant tax relief, but not enough to afford yearly tax package preparation from an accountant or lawyer in order to save them money) gets squeezed for the rest. Bare in mind that if you can afford it, you can deduct a helluva lot out of your base tax rated income and make it much lower than it seems: it's part of the reason why the rich STAY rich.
http://www.usa-federal-state-individual-tax.com/income_tax_rates.asp
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
This "distribution of wealth" chart is missing one important piece of information. What is defined as "wealth"? If it isn't income, then it is irrelevant to the topic I mentioned. If you are claiming pastureland, houses, and most importantly, bank, stock holdings, well...that is confusing the point.
And I love the teensy weensy little bottom earners (40% of the population) I don't think its fair (sniff sniff) that 4 out of ten people in this country only possess a fraction of the total wealth. I'm voting to take away Mr. Howell's yacht and beach home and give it to Bubba and Boomsheeka living in the trailers and the 'hood.
Dollars earned and dollars out....nothing else. INCOME. Not he has a bigger boat, so that means he has a bigger distribution of wealth.
Everyone wants an equal share of the pie...but if mom invested the money to buy the ingredients, rolled the dough and built the pie, I think she should have the biggest slice.
Tax shelters? Go for it. Claimed business "losses" Boo friggin hoo. There are self-employed middle class stiffs all over that claim these so-called shelters. Anyone ever seen a $40,000 "work" truck go driving by with a magnetic sign on the sign advertising
"J & J General Contracting" ? That's a write-off. Those so-called business lunches that one claims as an expense? Yep that's a write-off too. Of course the average stiff doesn't have 500k to hide in the canary islands, but the deed is still the same.
Why do people really hate the rich? Because they aren't. And that my communist/ socialist neighbors is the bottom line. (unless you google and paste a story from Readers Digest about a rich man who deliberately ran over a poor little black...er....African boy who was out sprinkling daisy petals in the wind)
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Stop putting words into other people's mouths.
I was talking about Corporations. People hate the rich not because they are not, because they're getting screwed while the rich make more money off their backs. There's nothing communist about that, fair work for fair pay. Sorry, but if you're here talking about it, kissing the ass of the rich here means you're pretty obviously blind to the fact that you're getting screwed too.
Dude, you're seriously making yourself look like a twit: Read the full text of what was posted.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
ScottaWhite wrote:This "distribution of wealth" chart is missing one important piece of information. What is defined as "wealth"? If it isn't income, then it is irrelevant to the topic I mentioned. If you are claiming pastureland, houses, and most importantly, bank, stock holdings, well...that is confusing the point.
And I love the teensy weensy little bottom earners (40% of the population) I don't think its fair (sniff sniff) that 4 out of ten people in this country only possess a fraction of the total wealth. I'm voting to take away Mr. Howell's yacht and beach home and give it to Bubba and Boomsheeka living in the trailers and the 'hood.
Dollars earned and dollars out....nothing else. INCOME. Not he has a bigger boat, so that means he has a bigger distribution of wealth.
Everyone wants an equal share of the pie...but if mom invested the money to buy the ingredients, rolled the dough and built the pie, I think she should have the biggest slice.
That link I provided HAS an income chart in it. I'd bet you didn't bother clicking on it or you'd know that, huh? However it doesn't break thing down in 10% increments(top 5% and 20
. So how about this one -
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
In 2003, the top 10% had a mere 79.4% of total income - that's even slightly more lopsided than the distribution of wealth. So tell me what's so unfair about someone making 79.4% of the money and actually having to pay 79.4% of the tax? What's so "unfair" about paying an their fair share? As much as I've heard people claim that the "poor oppressed wealthy people" pay a higher % of tax and how unfair that is - their points aren't incorrect aside from having their facts completely backwards.
Just why do you think no CEO has taken up that easy $1,000,000 challenge I mentioned earlier?
Quote:
Why do people really hate the rich? Because they aren't. And that my communist/ socialist neighbors is the bottom line. (unless you google and paste a story from Readers Digest about a rich man who deliberately ran over a poor little black...er....African boy who was out sprinkling daisy petals in the wind)
Don't assume @!#$. I don't hate the rich. I'd like to be one of them as a matter of fact. And why are you referencing a basically dead system like communism? Communism lost - get over it. It doesn't work. The communist boogyman went home. Take off the tin-foil hat because Karl Marx isn't trying to "get you."
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
ScottaWhite wrote:Should the taxpayers of America subsidize your kids? (tax credits for children) Singles pay out more in taxes and get less back than their married co-workers, this is unfair.
.
This is amusing in light of your marriage thread. The government WANTS you to procreate. The government gives out tax breaks to kids so people won't sit on their money and spend that money on kids. The federal government, under both Democrats and Republicans, have always favored targeted tax breaks for families.
We need children to maintain the workforce. Otherwise, we must have more immigration. Now, immigration is fine but by and large they are uneducated, or not as well educated, as home-grown American children. And these immigrants will not generate as much wealth for the country as they are usually in service industries and/or their wages are much lower.
To be and stay competitive, we need good schools and good familes putting kids in those skills. That *IS* how we go where we are today.
If you look at some European nations and Russia, the governments there are facing declining populations and in some regions it's become a crisis. One big reasons is that most western goverments have borrowed heavily against the youth. You can read all about the economic consequences here..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline#Economic_consequences
You may think it is unfair only because you can't see the bigger picture.
------------
On a side note, I'm a millionaire and I only paid 12,000 in taxes last year, and plan to get 3,500-4,500 back. It's easy to do, as the government gives mas breaks and op to reinvest your money in the economy to keep it strong. And in the long run, it only makes me more money. On the downside, I don't have a million just sitting in checking. I live like most anyone else...mostly.
---
I don't see why the rich need to be so rich. If I made as much money as some of those people, and had to pay 70 whatever percent in tax, I don't see the problem, my net pay is still going to be much more than anyone needs to live comfortably. How spoiled must these people be?
wysiwyg wrote:i would say they bang, they don't really pound so much. but if
you want to bump, then they will bump and hit real hard and a lot good. 
LOL
Whatever wrote:I don't see why the rich need to be so rich. If I made as much money as some of those people, and had to pay 70 whatever percent in tax, I don't see the problem, my net pay is still going to be much more than anyone needs to live comfortably. How spoiled must these people be?
Maybe because that is what they want. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed to us and if making more money is what drives these people then so be it. Why should I pay a higher percentage of my income because I've worked hard and made good decisions to achieve my current income level and will continue to strive to make more. My tax burden on society is no more than someone making half my wages, but they don't pay the amount of taxes that I do.
How about if we charge double the price of goods and services to people who make more money than others. Is that fair? It's basically what's happening. I pay more even though I receive the same services.
I think a better answer would be to cut the BS government spending on worthless projects and grants for studying the mating habits of the african ground squirrel.
Labotomi wrote:I think a better answer would be to cut the BS government spending on worthless projects and grants for studying the mating habits of the african ground squirrel.
Or.. say... wars of aggression on middle-eastern countries?
Scientific exploration (earth, space, deep-water, extra-terrestrial) never nets us anything other than the potential to learn something new. Nothing is more valuable than knowledge.
As far as the Rich earning their money: Sure, but don't make it harder on someone else just to line your own pockets. I'm not against people that are legitimately rich or use their wealth to better everyone's lives (like Bill Gates as much as a lot of people hate to hear that, but he's giving away over a billion a year), I'm against the pseudo-criminals that use illegal techniques and out and out fraud to fatten their bottom line, and serve next to no time and have to pay nothing in restitution if they're caught (see also
Michael Milken (mitigated marginally due to his philanthropic endeavors),
Kenneth Lay, and
Bernie Ebbers,
etc...). No people like that are thieves with a business license, and they make life harder for everyone and give legitimate businesses a bad name.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Labotomi wrote:I think a better answer would be to cut the BS government spending on worthless projects and grants for studying the mating habits of the african ground squirrel.
Or.. say... wars of aggression on middle-eastern countries?
Scientific exploration (earth, space, deep-water, extra-terrestrial) never nets us anything other than the potential to learn something new. Nothing is more valuable than knowledge.
As far as the Rich earning their money: Sure, but don't make it harder on someone else just to line your own pockets. I'm not against people that are legitimately rich or use their wealth to better everyone's lives (like Bill Gates as much as a lot of people hate to hear that, but he's giving away over a billion a year), I'm against the pseudo-criminals that use illegal techniques and out and out fraud to fatten their bottom line, and serve next to no time and have to pay nothing in restitution if they're caught (see also Michael Milken (mitigated marginally due to his philanthropic endeavors), Kenneth Lay, and Bernie Ebbers, etc...). No people like that are thieves with a business license, and they make life harder for everyone and give legitimate businesses a bad name.
Government spending has been out of control for far longer than the war with Iraq, but I should've known that you'd use whatever chance you had to bring it up again and I'll actually agree that things there need to change.
I don't believe I ever endorsed or even mentioned anyone lining their pockets by making it harder on others. I also never mentioned any illegal actions, so I'm not sure why this response is included in your reply.
It's easy to say that knowledge is valuable and I'd tend to agree, but there are times when the point of diminishing returns has long been crossed.
I probably average about 50 hours a week working. After federal, state, SS, and Medicare taxes I get to give the pay for about 15 of those to the government. I'm a little sore about not only having to pay more for my share of the pie, but also having to pay for the pies of people who won't work. Tax time is not a happy time for me in any year. The only mitigating factor I have is that my bonus is paid in March and it helps take the sting off somewhat.
Whatever wrote:I don't see why the rich need to be so rich. If I made as much money as some of those people, and had to pay 70 whatever percent in tax, I don't see the problem, my net pay is still going to be much more than anyone needs to live comfortably. How spoiled must these people be?
theres guys living in cardboard boxes out there while you have a car and a home and a playstation, how spoied can you be. go give some of your stuff to them so they can live like you. its easy to go hey your richer them me, your spoiled. but if they worked for it, they earned it, it should be theirs to spend. people call them greedy but for allot of people who are rich im betting they are also out there donating a @!#$load back as well.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Labotomi wrote:Whatever wrote:I don't see why the rich need to be so rich. If I made as much money as some of those people, and had to pay 70 whatever percent in tax, I don't see the problem, my net pay is still going to be much more than anyone needs to live comfortably. How spoiled must these people be?
Maybe because that is what they want. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed to us and if making more money is what drives these people then so be it. Why should I pay a higher percentage of my income because I've worked hard and made good decisions to achieve my current income level and will continue to strive to make more. My tax burden on society is no more than someone making half my wages, but they don't pay the amount of taxes that I do.
How about if we charge double the price of goods and services to people who make more money than others. Is that fair? It's basically what's happening. I pay more even though I receive the same services.
I think a better answer would be to cut the BS government spending on worthless projects and grants for studying the mating habits of the african ground squirrel.
That's not what I meant. They DON'T pay the same percentage of tax everyone else does. THEY GET CUT BREAKS even though they HAVE ENOUGH MONEY THAT THEY DON'T NEED THESE BREAKS. Or maybe I'm missing something? But that's what it sure sounds like.
You too sndsgood.
I'm not saying they don't deserve what they make. I'm saying, why are they taxed less?
I guess where it went wrong was where I said 70% in tax eh... I didn't mean 70% of what I make should go to the government. I meant more like, since the top whatever % of people holding the most money, they should have to fork over their share instead of getting cut all these breaks they don't need.
wysiwyg wrote:i would say they bang, they don't really pound so much. but if
you want to bump, then they will bump and hit real hard and a lot good.
LOL
Labotomi wrote:Whatever wrote:I don't see why the rich need to be so rich. If I made as much money as some of those people, and had to pay 70 whatever percent in tax, I don't see the problem, my net pay is still going to be much more than anyone needs to live comfortably. How spoiled must these people be?
Maybe because that is what they want. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed to us and if making more money is what drives these people then so be it. Why should I pay a higher percentage of my income because I've worked hard and made good decisions to achieve my current income level and will continue to strive to make more. My tax burden on society is no more than someone making half my wages, but they don't pay the amount of taxes that I do.
You are right that High income earners shouldn't necessarily pay a greater percentage than the rest of us - problem is that THEY PAY LESS(percentage wise that is). So what the hell are well-to-do people complaining about?!
Quote:
How about if we charge double the price of goods and services to people who make more money than others. Is that fair? It's basically what's happening. I pay more even though I receive the same services.
No that is pretty much the OPPOSITE of what is happening. Facts are irritating, persistent things, huh? Read what I posted previously.
The funny thing is that while wealthier people COULD afford to pay a higher percentage of their income into tax with a minimal impact to their standard of living(not saying they should have to - just that they COULD easily), the opposite is actually true. And yet... there are no shortage of people whining about how bad off the "poor" wealthy folk are. Pointing out that most of them actually earned their money does nothing to subtract from the point that they ALREADY pay a lower percentage tax... and apparently that isn't good enough.
They want to pay an even LOWER percentage than they already do. So they wanna pass the "fair tax." "Fair tax" tax is a joke. It just effectively moves the tax burden to the middle class.
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
Bastardking3000 wrote:Labotomi wrote:
How about if we charge double the price of goods and services to people who make more money than others. Is that fair? It's basically what's happening. I pay more even though I receive the same services.
No that is pretty much the OPPOSITE of what is happening. Facts are irritating, persistent things, huh? Read what I posted previously.
Actually those are the facts. Try and understand that I pay more than double the taxes that low income earners do, but they get the same benefits. They drive on the same roads, their kids go to the same schools, they get the same city services, but I'm still paying more than they are. What makes it right to charge me more because I earn more? If it's because I earn more then it's the same as charging me more for goods and services because I make more money.
Exactly what I stated.
Bastardking3000 wrote:Do the math. The top 10% had 71.2% of the wealth and you say its unfair for them to pay a mere 40 percent?! To me - someone with 71.2% of the money should be paying 71.2% of the taxes... but that's just me. Just try to get that "fair tax" passed...
The chart is looking at wealth vs taxes, not income. Look at this one which breaks down income vs taxes
ClickityClick
Looks to me like the top 10% paid 70% of the taxes.
x
