CONGRESS says...

[Lemon]

I keep coming back to the federal budget deficit. Our leaders have given the economy a 350 billion boost over 10 years which is 35 billion a year. However, the government spends 300+ billion more than in takes in in taxes. This money comes from investors investing in government bonds instead of investing in businesses. Would it not make more sense to balance the budget and give the economy a 300+ billion boost every year? Not to mention the 300+ billion the governments spends on interest to support the national debt. Heck, if the government just managed it's self better as I see it we could all enjoy a 300+ billion tax cut every year instead of a paltry 35 billion a year.

[osprey4]

Originally posted by originel
income tax is a regressive tax form, not an even tax system. this means that the poor pay more than the rich (the reasoning is in the other post and i don't feel like re-typing it).

More baffling math at work.

Why not just have a flat 20% across the board income tax. Then EVERYBODY would stop whining (except original).

[osprey4]

Originally posted by EndobioticChaos
What he's saying is that the rich get a higher income tax rate because a lesser percentage of their income gets taxed.

So they pay less because their tax rate is higher? Ok, now I understand.

I understand liberals don't know math, anyway.

[Harold7]

EndobioticChaos

I didn't really understand the logic originel used in that post... if I'm taxed at a 40% rate and make 1,000,000, how can I be paying less than someone paying taxes at a 10% rate?

The fact that the poor spend most of their money on cost of living is just a fact of existence for those who are poor... that's what makes them poor, the rich didn't steal their money (no matter what the Democrats imply) and the fact that they have discretionary income to invest is what creates the jobs the poor have.

I don't know why you think investing is not taxed, ever hear of capital gains taxes, taxes on dividends and interest?

The poor not only don't pay income taxes (they're withheld, but they get it all back) most also qualify for the EITC which is basically free money for them.

If you also consider the dollar value of all the social services federal, state and local governments give to the poor, you could total up those dollar equivalents with the EITC and any income tax refund and you'd find that the "poor" are actually doing very well... in many cases better than the middle class who don't qualify for all those benefits, but get to pay for them through taxes.

[no1_vern]

Ok guys listen, the thing that got me so upset about this is that the military guys are being hit pretty badly.

As it was written, the group left out makes $10k-26K a year. For those NOT informed that is the bracket for MOST of the military ppl.

At least congress is claiming to TRY AND FIX it(WINK WINK) with an amendment - if it goes through, and if it doesnt the crim- ER congressmen will have saved face in front of their constituents.

Quote
"The tax bill that was signed last week ended up not offering the per child increase to families making between $10,000 and $26,000 a year, "

From http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=...ecentindex.asp

[Harold7]

no1_vern

As someone who made $98.00 a month when I enlisted in 1966, I understand completely your concerns about lower ranking military personnel and inadequate pay.

That problem is one separate from the tax code and will be solved only by targeted pay increases for the lower (E-1 through E-5) grades, unfortunately taking care of the troops is not (and hasn't been) one of the higher priorities for senior military leadership and congress for a long time.

If you're single, lower rank GI with no dependents you're stuck with just being in the lowest tax bracket as your only financial bright spot, with dependents, the EITC, food stamps, Goodwill etc., are the only real help young troops have... what a disgrace that the young people putting their butts on the line for our country get so little consideration from our elected leaders.

[Max50]

The poor have to spend most or all of their income, while the rich tend to invest most of it. Spending gets taxed, investing does not. Thus by increasing the rate for the higher incomes, you end up paying about the same percentage of your income.

A view of investment resources that have a profit is compensation for risk taking to the individual. Social benefit, it provides employment.

Investments do have tax component. At the corporation level the corporation pays taxes on profit, and then the distribution of those profits to the owners are taxed again (formerly). Partnerships' of a business or sole owner pay taxes based on whatever is drawn from the business, and capital gains taxes are paid on a sale that a business may have reinvested in the growth of the business.

Estate taxes (large) are imposed on distribution to beneficiaries on money that may have already been taxed on money generated from a business and reinvested in the business or other sources.

"...increasing the rate for higher incomes..."(This is an unsuccessful attempt to describe regressive taxation.) Regressive taxation has been correctly stated in another post on this thread.

[CERuppel]

Max50: Corporate taxes only apply if the corporate HQ is inside the USA.

THat loop hole is one of the most frustrating ones that I now of today.

"Regressive taxation" as you wish it to be called, needs to be applied to all US income earning people. (Sort of a hard way to word the fact that foreign nationals, or non-wage income, or non standard wages need to be addressed at the same time.) Anyway what I am trying to say is that the tax code as is does not apply to a large portion of the income in the US. The wealthy are able to conceal the income behind various tax loop holes that the poor simply do not have access to. Close the loop hole, and make "All Men Equal" again.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/00in01rt.xls

You'll need Microsoft Excel for this one.

What? Did you see? The top 50% of individual taxpayers pay 96% of the tax!

The top 1% pay 37%? The top 5% pay 56%??

And you want to do what with their money???

[Germ]

I would direct you to the above post by prexaspes. Also...........

This is NOT a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic that has embraced certain concepts of democracy. Democracy is majority rule. If 50% +1 says left-handed people only get to sweep floors, that's how it is. No appeal, no Supreme Court, no argument.

People making up to roughly $31,000 (don't remember the exact figure) with a dependent qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit. All those people who have a small enough income to pay no taxes, and have a dependent, not only get everything back they paid in but also get the EITC. And if they earn below $10,000, I believe, they get the EITC even if they have no dependents.

You think taxes are bad? Step into my shoes. $35, 000 to $39,000 income, single, and my son is grown and on his own. The IRS and others rape me every year. Last year alone, over $3,500 just in federal income tax. And then there's Social Security tax, Medicare tax, State tax, property tax, sales tax, car tags, license fees(which are taxes just the same), etc.

Then.........the democrats want to take some of what they steal from me and give it to some irresponsible baby making machine who doesn't pay taxes in the first place??

The whole thing disgusts me.