Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The United States, is a consumer economy. The more money the consumers have, the more goods are produced, the more money the wealthy make.
Thats why its good for them, for the 47% to not pay taxes.
We are in the battle ground of conservative vs. liberal here now though.
The conservative answer is, trickle down. That if the rich have more money, they'll open more businesses, which makes more jobs, and gives the working class more money to spend.
The liberal answer is, give the working class their basic needs, or less taxes, which gives them more money, which causes an increase in consumerism, which creates the need for more jobs, and since the wealthy are getting money for services they offer, they'll create more services, which creates more jobs.
Both ways seem to make sense, its just in how you like your money spent. Trouble is, we've tried trickle down, and it doesn't work. It was tried under Bush II, didn't work. Reagan tried it, didn't work. Hoover tried it, didn't work.
Trickle up does work, sometimes, but can get a bit over done.
As usual, the answer is somewhere in the middle. We can go back and forth all day on who is right. But hey, thats what our politicians are supposed to do, then compromise, and have the best decision. Trouble is, right now, there is no compromise right now in Washington. Which means conservatives are doing to little, and liberals are doing to much.
Ah but the sticker is not to get suckered into the charade that there is a real "conservative" (what the hell is conservative about lunatics like Beck) or "liberal" (forcing people into the hands of one of the most corrupt oligopolies) magic pill.
It is to choose: do we want to follow the path that leads to being a producing (rather than a debt consuming) middle class nation OR a pseudo-Christian fundamentalist theocratic state with multi-nationals running large swaths of the land as their own personal fiefdoms.
While everybody is fixated on income taxes as if those are the only burden anybody carries (and imposed by a government), this website provides a pretty good idea of taxes and contribution, by state, we don't talk about (all a burden on people, poor or rich).
I read the link & once again I understood how slimy & sleazy snakes the socialists are...
And also how stupid they are & how stupid their followers are...
Those...Einsteins say,no more,no less that the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in total taxes.
Correct.
But what really matters is the AMOUNT of money each group pays.
The percentage is misleading.
Is like saying that a poor pays 10% ,of what ? 30K = 3k
& Bloomberg pays 5% of what..? 50 million..? = 2.5 million...
Who pays the bigger AMOUNT..?
U see,how slimy deceivers the socialist punks are...
Like the well known joke...
USA President & Soviet dictator run together...USA Prez wins...
The Soviets report :
The USA Prez finished one place before last , Soviet dictator finished...2nd...
I read the link & once again I understood how slimy & sleazy snakes the socialists are...
And also how stupid they are & how stupid their followers are...
Those...Einsteins say,no more,no less that the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in total taxes.
Correct.
But what really matters is the AMOUNT of money each group pays.
The percentage is misleading.
Is like saying that a poor pays 10% ,of what ? 30K = 3k
& Bloomberg pays 5% of what..? 50 million..? = 2.5 million...
Who pays the bigger AMOUNT..?
U see,how slimy deceivers the socialist punks are...
Like the well known joke...
USA President & Soviet dictator run together...USA Prez wins...
The Soviets report :
The USA Prez finished one place before last , Soviet dictator finished...2nd...
Everyone should pay an equal percentage.
How can someone making 50K a year, pay 75000 in taxes a year? They can't.
A flat tax is one flat percentage, on everyones income, period. You don't need a big government agency, and new tax laws every year. This would create stability, which is good for the market.
However, the rich and powerful in this country, don't want to pay 20% of their income into taxes, as I do as a middle class person. I'm not in the bottom 50% who don't pay taxes, I'm well above that mark. I pay about 20 to 21% of my income into taxes, yearly.
I just want Forbes, Gates, and everyone else who is in the top 10%, to pay the EXACT SAME TAX RATE AS ME.
Taxes aren't based on what you make, they should be based on, this is your percentage, thats it.
You're thinking would make someone like me, bankrupt, giving the richest Americans more of the money, and shutting down the economy.
The tax structure is now heavily skewed against the childless. Upper middle class households with children now pay no income tax due to child credits while childless households with lower income will likely be taxed. This is unfair and wrong. The only reason I am not more upset about it is that childless singles were more lkely to vote for Obama than those who are married with children.
We need a flat tax or total abolisment of income taxes in favor of a national sales tax. Only when everyone is paying the same percent will everyone have the same incentive to keep the growth of federal government in check. Right now 47%, according to the article, have no reason to limit the size of government since they are not paying for it. Once that number reaches 51% there is no turning back and America will be lost.
We don't need a government, so we don't need taxes to pay for one.
Obama held true to his word. God bless the man. Can't wait to hear how the teaparty advocates react to this.
God bless the man? for what? for being "true to his word", just for once, according to you? He's growing the class to feather his own nest with votes for his party. It's called bribing. Can you be that easily bought?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu
We reward short comings and penalize success. Awesome plan.
Liberals like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneftp
That is the ultimate Democratic congressman/woman's goal. Once they achieve 51% of citizens owing no federal income taxes, they assure themselves of almost certain victory in most elections.
You said it! that is the goal. Notice that they are raising the poverty level to $80K annual income, to add more people to that class. I don't know about others, but in my book $80K is not poverty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay F
The tax structure is now heavily skewed against the childless. Upper middle class households with children now pay no income tax due to child credits while childless households with lower income will likely be taxed. This is unfair and wrong. The only reason I am not more upset about it is that childless singles were more lkely to vote for Obama than those who are married with children.
It's also skewed against married couples with the marriage penalty.
I just looked up at what income level you start paying taxes and it is between $5 & $15.
Which basically means, for a typical family of four (the nuclear family of today), the following math is applicable:
Standard deduction: $11,400
Exemptions: $14,600
Total deductions: $26,000
This basically means that a family of 4, making an income of less than $26,000 has no tax liability. The figure is actually higher than this because of the child tax credit and assuming both children in this scenario meet the definition to qualify for the child tax credit, the result is no actual taxes would be paid until they reach an income of $36,000.
Now that is slightly higher this year due to "making work pay" tax credit.
In the end, a family of 4 will start to have an actual tax liability, somewhere in the 39-42K range.
So the true problem you have pointed out here is not covered in this thread, and it is:
How can the richest most prosperous nation in the world have 47% of it families, below such modest income levels?
If you look at it that way, it kinda takes the wind out most of the arguments on this thread in my opinion.
I just looked up at what income level you start paying taxes and it is between $5 & $15.
Which basically means, for a typical family of four (the nuclear family of today), the following math is applicable:
Standard deduction: $11,400
Exemptions: $14,600
Total deductions: $26,000
This basically means that a family of 4, making an income of less than $26,000 has no tax liability. The figure is actually higher than this because of the child tax credit and assuming both children in this scenario meet the definition to qualify for the child tax credit, the result is no actual taxes would be paid until they reach an income of $36,000.
Now that is slightly higher this year due to "making work pay" tax credit.
In the end, a family of 4 will start to have an actual tax liability, somewhere in the 39-42K range.
So the true problem you have pointed out here is not covered in this thread, and it is:
How can the richest most prosperous nation in the world have 47% of it families, below such modest income levels?
If you look at it that way, it kinda takes the wind out most of the arguments on this thread in my opinion.
Memphis1979, thanks for calling like it is
That means that more than half of the nation's citizens are making a decent-to-good-to-great income. Not bad, especially since this is the group that will have to pay the taxes for the rest of the country, with the eventual result being that the lower income group will grow and the middle class will disappear, and the truly wealthy will go offshore. Nice prospect, isn't it.
The tax structure is now heavily skewed against the childless. Upper middle class households with children now pay no income tax due to child credits while childless households with lower income will likely be taxed. This is unfair and wrong. The only reason I am not more upset about it is that childless singles were more lkely to vote for Obama than those who are married with children.
I have know idea what you refer to as "upper middle class"?
This "middle class" range has not been defined, but most folks I know, see it starting at 50k at the bottom with WIDELY varied beliefs of when one transition from upper middle class to wealthy.
I have been solidly in what I call the "lower middle class" (50k to 100k) for the last several years and I definitely paid taxes, every year.
On average, about 20k each year for the last 7 or 8 years.
And I don't have the "nuclear family", my wife and I had 4 children we claimed on taxes until some turned 18 and started claiming themselves.
People are getting on here and spewing a bunch of BS, they don't even know what middle class is, and they have no clue about the tax burden of the middle class
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
