|
Post by ed1066 on Jul 8, 2011 12:31:03 GMT -5
Yes, and how did Maryland's tax increases on the rich help them out? Oh yeah, they actually ended up with LESS revenue...good call. And pulling more money out of the economy will help how? First off, I am not suggesting you just tax the rich, you tax everyone more, which will increase revenue. Second, whether we pay more in taxes or the govt cuts spending, you are still pulling money out of the economy. Either way it is going to hurt. Do you truly believe that if the government has more money coming in, they will not also spend more?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2011 12:36:26 GMT -5
I agree angle, yet no one offer to raise taxes on those making less than 200,000 per year. We need Serious Targeted spending cuts and across the board tax increases, we could start with the EITC Reduce EITC, reduce the child tax credit, cut the home mortgage deduction & raise tax rates on the high earners a few %. raising taxes on people who have seen no increase in income seems pretty cruel to me. raising taxes on people whose income has doubled in the last 15 years seems more than fair to me. We are not talking about a huge tax raise on middle class or lower earners. But, I find it ridiculous that someone with a 60K income & a few kids not only pays 0 in taxes, they actually have a negative tax liability. Are we actually to believe someone making 60K can't afford to pay $500 or $1000 in taxes? i don't think the $0 in taxes is quite accurate. the bottom 50% are responsible for ONLY 3% of government income tax REVENUE, but they pay 13% of their income in taxes, as a group. note: i just got this from a tax analysis website, but feel free to pull your own numbers for comparison.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jul 8, 2011 13:00:09 GMT -5
you are assuming that nothing else will be done, that the Bush Era Tax cuts, which would generate all $7T over that period would remain in place, and that the economy won't grow. that is a pretty negative set of assumptions- a scenario so unlikely as to be unworthy of consideration. Well, we can go on the present information or we can "what-if" all day. BTW, the Bush tax cuts expired last year, in case you hadn't heard. No, I'm not. Liberalism is a political philosophy as is conservationism. If it is your political philosophy why would you take that as an insult?
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jul 8, 2011 13:04:16 GMT -5
I am curious as to where you guys are finding these revenue numbers we are having. The last time I checked were are -1.4 trillion in revenue, how does that come out to plenty? We raise plenty of revenue to service our debt, not have everything we want. Just like an individual do when budgeting, you take care of your needs before you consider spending on the wants. Interest expense will rise to 3.1 percent of gross domestic product by 2016, from 1.3 percent in 2010 with the government forecast to run cumulative deficits of more than $4 trillion through the end of 2015, according to page 23 of a 24-page presentation made to a 13-member committee of bond dealers and investors that meet quarterly with Treasury officials.
While some of the lowest borrowing costs on record have helped the economy recover from its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, bond yields are now rising as growth resumes. Net interest expense will triple to an all-time high of $554 billion in 2015 from $185 billion in 2010, according to the Obama administration’s adjusted 2011 budget. www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-14/geithner-quietly-tells-obama-debt-to-gnp-cost-poised-to-increase-to-record.html
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jul 8, 2011 13:09:54 GMT -5
Do you truly believe that if the government has more money coming in, they will not also spend more? Nope. That is why I essentially oppose across the board tax hikes until the feds can prove that they are serious. If they can actually get some semblance of a balanced budget, I really wouldn't mind a tax increase for the purpose of reducing the deficit. I'm not voluntarily cracking my wallet so some pig in DC can redistribute it to their on personal pork projects.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 8, 2011 13:41:56 GMT -5
i don't think the $0 in taxes is quite accurate. the bottom 50% are responsible for ONLY 3% of government income tax REVENUE, but they pay 13% of their income in taxes, as a group. note: i just got this from a tax analysis website, but feel free to pull your own numbers for comparison. The 0% in taxes is correct, I was only referring to income taxes which I had said earlier, but not in what you quoted, so perhaps there was confusion. I made slightly under 60K & got a refund of $600 more than I had withheld. I find that ridiculous. The two numbers you quote aren't related/comparable as far as I can see - their portion of what they contribute to govt. revenue can not be compared with what % of their income goes towards taxes. Everyone could pay 13% in taxes, but the higher earners will still contribute a much higher % of the govt. revenue. What I am saying is - I don't find those numbers meaningful. A more meaningful comparison might be that the bottom 50% make 12.7% of the income, but only pay 2.7% of the income taxes collected (average tax rate of 2.5%). Now, again only looking at income taxes. But, I think there is room for the middle class to pay slightly more in taxes & I think there is room for the upper class to pay more as well.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2011 13:42:44 GMT -5
you are assuming that nothing else will be done, that the Bush Era Tax cuts, which would generate all $7T over that period would remain in place, and that the economy won't grow. that is a pretty negative set of assumptions- a scenario so unlikely as to be unworthy of consideration. Well, we can go on the present information or we can "what-if" all day. BTW, the Bush tax cuts expired last year, in case you hadn't heard. No, I'm not. Liberalism is a political philosophy as is conservationism. If it is your political philosophy why would you take that as an insult? i am not talking about self expression. and it is conservatism. i am talking about how the terms are used. i was raised as a conservative, by a conservative. there was hardly a day when my dad didn't use the word "liberal" as if it was a synonym for "shit". i have never heard the word conservative used with that much vitrol before or since. i would like to think that everyone's experience is different, but i doubt it.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 8, 2011 13:44:06 GMT -5
First off, I am not suggesting you just tax the rich, you tax everyone more, which will increase revenue. Second, whether we pay more in taxes or the govt cuts spending, you are still pulling money out of the economy. Either way it is going to hurt. Do you truly believe that if the government has more money coming in, they will not also spend more? I think you have the wrong people in office they will spend more money regardless of whether or not more money is coming in. I don't think a lack of income has slowed them down any, if it did then we wouldn't have a massive deficit. The only realistic way to solve the problem is to increase revenue & decrease spending. We can't decrease spending enough to cover the shortfall.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2011 13:51:59 GMT -5
i don't think the $0 in taxes is quite accurate. the bottom 50% are responsible for ONLY 3% of government income tax REVENUE, but they pay 13% of their income in taxes, as a group. note: i just got this from a tax analysis website, but feel free to pull your own numbers for comparison. The 0% in taxes is correct, I was only referring to income taxes which I had said earlier, but not in what you quoted, so perhaps there was confusion. I made slightly under 60K & got a refund of $600 more than I had withheld. I find that ridiculous. The two numbers you quote aren't related/comparable as far as I can see - their portion of what they contribute to govt. revenue can not be compared with what % of their income goes towards taxes. Everyone could pay 13% in taxes, but the higher earners will still contribute a much higher % of the govt. revenue. What I am saying is - I don't find those numbers meaningful. A more meaningful comparison might be that the bottom 50% make 12.7% of the income, but only pay 2.7% of the income taxes collected (average tax rate of 2.5%). Now, again only looking at income taxes. But, I think there is room for the middle class to pay slightly more in taxes & I think there is room for the upper class to pay more as well. i just ran payroll for one of my companies. the employee who is making $60k has $4,800 in Federal Income Taxes withheld. that is 8%, not 0% so, i don't know how you are getting down to 0%, but clearly it is not a case that can be generalized.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jul 8, 2011 14:05:43 GMT -5
Earlier (#57 I think) in the thread Angel talked about 'a few kids' as a contributing factor. What was the status and how many exemptions were being claimed by the EE making $60k with the $4,800 wihholds?
Edit to add Angel's post#.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 8, 2011 14:12:23 GMT -5
The 0% in taxes is correct, I was only referring to income taxes which I had said earlier, but not in what you quoted, so perhaps there was confusion. I made slightly under 60K & got a refund of $600 more than I had withheld. I find that ridiculous. The two numbers you quote aren't related/comparable as far as I can see - their portion of what they contribute to govt. revenue can not be compared with what % of their income goes towards taxes. Everyone could pay 13% in taxes, but the higher earners will still contribute a much higher % of the govt. revenue. What I am saying is - I don't find those numbers meaningful. A more meaningful comparison might be that the bottom 50% make 12.7% of the income, but only pay 2.7% of the income taxes collected (average tax rate of 2.5%). Now, again only looking at income taxes. But, I think there is room for the middle class to pay slightly more in taxes & I think there is room for the upper class to pay more as well. i just ran payroll for one of my companies. the employee who is making $60k has $4,800 in Federal Income Taxes withheld. that is 8%, not 0% so, i don't know how you are getting down to 0%, but clearly it is not a case that can be generalized. Because withholding has absolutely nothing to do with taxes owed. I would think someone doing payroll would realize that. I don't exactly remember the numbers, but here is a brief breakdown. Gross income 60K, deductions - 11.4K standard, 14.6K for 4 exemptions, 4K for HSA, 6K for insurance, 3K for 401K, leaving a AGI of 21K. Tax on 21K is 2.3K. Add in 2K child tax credit & 800 for making work pay & suddenly I have a -500 tax liability. That is without even being eligible for the 1.2K daycare credit, which I will be getting this year. I think a 60K household, which puts us in the top 50%, shouldn't have a negative tax liability regardless of the number of kids.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 8, 2011 14:15:03 GMT -5
Do you truly believe that if the government has more money coming in, they will not also spend more? I think you have the wrong people in office they will spend more money regardless of whether or not more money is coming in. I don't think a lack of income has slowed them down any, if it did then we wouldn't have a massive deficit. The only realistic way to solve the problem is to increase revenue & decrease spending. We can't decrease spending enough to cover the shortfall. ...yes we can! ;D
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2011 14:30:32 GMT -5
i just ran payroll for one of my companies. the employee who is making $60k has $4,800 in Federal Income Taxes withheld. that is 8%, not 0% so, i don't know how you are getting down to 0%, but clearly it is not a case that can be generalized. Because withholding has absolutely nothing to do with taxes owed. I would think someone doing payroll would realize that. are you saying he is going to get a $4,800 refund at the end of the year? again, my whole point was that your situation is not his. he pays FIT. he makes $60k/year.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2011 14:31:42 GMT -5
I think you have the wrong people in office they will spend more money regardless of whether or not more money is coming in. I don't think a lack of income has slowed them down any, if it did then we wouldn't have a massive deficit. The only realistic way to solve the problem is to increase revenue & decrease spending. We can't decrease spending enough to cover the shortfall. ...yes we can! ;D actually, we can't. not without going to off budget items.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 8, 2011 14:34:59 GMT -5
>>> actually, we can't. not without going to off budget items. <<< ...well, the author of this article said there were several common sense solutions... there are probably more, right? and why would off budget items be off the table in these negotiations, anyway?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2011 14:37:17 GMT -5
>>> actually, we can't. not without going to off budget items. <<< ...well, the author of this article said there were several common sense solutions... there are probably more, right? and why would off budget items be off the table in these negotiations, anyway? i thought these were budget talks. am i mistaken?
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jul 8, 2011 14:40:39 GMT -5
I think a 60K household, which puts us in the top 50%, shouldn't have a negative tax liability regardless of the number of kids. You could always leave some of your deductions off and pay more at any time, could you not? As for me, as long as our government remains fiscally insane, I'm going to continue to reduce my tax liability as much as possible. Without seeing his tax return, how can you know that for sure? All our HR people know is how much FIT is withheld from each employee.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 8, 2011 14:46:12 GMT -5
>>> actually, we can't. not without going to off budget items. <<< ...well, the author of this article said there were several common sense solutions... there are probably more, right? and why would off budget items be off the table in these negotiations, anyway? i thought these were budget talks. am i mistaken? ...I can neither confirm nor deny that statement...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 8, 2011 14:47:16 GMT -5
I think a 60K household, which puts us in the top 50%, shouldn't have a negative tax liability regardless of the number of kids. You could always leave some of your deductions off and pay more at any time, could you not? As for me, as long as our government remains fiscally insane, I'm going to continue to reduce my tax liability as much as possible. Without seeing his tax return, how can you know that for sure? All our HR people know is how much FIT is withheld from each employee. i am not an HR person. i am the CFO. and i know this guy's situation because he is one of my business partners, and a close personal friend. but let's turn this around- you seem to be insisting that there is no possible way that a person making $60k is paying FIT. what makes you so certain?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 8, 2011 15:23:49 GMT -5
You could always leave some of your deductions off and pay more at any time, could you not? As for me, as long as our government remains fiscally insane, I'm going to continue to reduce my tax liability as much as possible. Without seeing his tax return, how can you know that for sure? All our HR people know is how much FIT is withheld from each employee. i am not an HR person. i am the CFO. and i know this guy's situation because he is one of my business partners, and a close personal friend. but let's turn this around- you seem to be insisting that there is no possible way that a person making $60k is paying FIT. what makes you so certain? Nobody said that everyone making 60K is paying 0 in income taxes, that would be stupid. All I am saying is that it seems ridiculous to me that anyone making 60K can get a negative tax liability & it isn't like my situation is unusual - I have 2 kids & pay a lot for health insurance.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 8, 2011 15:27:42 GMT -5
I think a 60K household, which puts us in the top 50%, shouldn't have a negative tax liability regardless of the number of kids. You could always leave some of your deductions off and pay more at any time, could you not? As for me, as long as our government remains fiscally insane, I'm going to continue to reduce my tax liability as much as possible. Well, yes I could do that. But, it would be pointless & a waste of my money. An extra 1% of my income would not help the govt one bit. An extra 1% of everyone's income & at least you make a small dent in the deficit.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 8, 2011 15:27:48 GMT -5
>>> Nobody said that everyone making 60K is paying 0 in income taxes, that would be stupid. <<< ...why?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 8, 2011 15:33:33 GMT -5
>>> Nobody said that everyone making 60K is paying 0 in income taxes, that would be stupid. <<< ...why? Because there is no way that everyone that makes 60K pays 0 in income taxes. If they are single, no kids, little or no other deductions, then they could easily be paying 5K or more in taxes.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 8, 2011 15:40:05 GMT -5
>>> Nobody said that everyone making 60K is paying 0 in income taxes, that would be stupid. <<< ...why? Because there is no way that everyone that makes 60K pays 0 in income taxes. If they are single, no kids, little or no other deductions, then they could easily be paying 5K or more in taxes. ...oh... I thought you meant that the concept was stupid... not that it was stupid to say it was happening...
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jul 8, 2011 15:48:43 GMT -5
Just in case anyone cares. 60k gross, figure 10% or so in FICA & medical pre-tax withholds = 54k reportable. Subtract the 9,350 deduction from the EZ form and they are at 44,650 taxable. That'd equal 7,350 tax liability for 2010. Filing single, no other deductions, and didn't withhold anything for their 401(k).
Obviously this comes out different for someone with kids or a non-working spouse. The fact that it can result in that person (Angel) receiving a $600 check in addition to anything she had withheld is what's driving her (I think) and me nuts. It does seem as if the tax code needs some work.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Jul 8, 2011 16:03:10 GMT -5
Tax the liberals who think taxes are such wonderful ideas.
Anyone who thinks raising taxes is the answer is an utter moron because:
1. historically, raising taxes hurts both the economy and revenues raised 2. no matter how much taxes we give the government, it is not only NEVER enough necause they will spend it and more. 3. no matter if the taxes are aimed at the "rich", it will trickle down to others and will grow. The income tax was originally just only a few precentage on the most wealthy now about 60% pay it. The AMT was never adjusted for inflation and continues to get more and more professionals and business owners. Social Security was promised to not exceed 1% from you and 1% from you boss (nor would it ever be taxed). 4. Spending has mushroomed under this buffon and other Democrats. From a 160 billion dollar deficit (the last one from Bush and a GOP Congress), it has mushroomed to literally ten times that. If we simply restored ourselves to those 2007 levels, we would be fine. To those who disagree and claim it can't be done, aren't you the SAME ONES who complained that Bush and the GOP spent too much money? Isn't going back to those levels the least that you can agree to?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 8, 2011 16:11:53 GMT -5
Because there is no way that everyone that makes 60K pays 0 in income taxes. If they are single, no kids, little or no other deductions, then they could easily be paying 5K or more in taxes. ...oh... I thought you meant that the concept was stupid... not that it was stupid to say it was happening... Gotcha, I wondered why you were evening questioning what I said. And yes, it bugs me that there can easily be an 8K difference in taxes owed on a 60K income depending on the person's situation. Granted it helps me immensily to not be on the end getting taxed 7K, but seems silly none the less.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 8, 2011 16:27:29 GMT -5
...oh... I thought you meant that the concept was stupid... not that it was stupid to say it was happening... Gotcha, I wondered why you were evening questioning what I said. And yes, it bugs me that there can easily be an 8K difference in taxes owed on a 60K income depending on the person's situation. Granted it helps me immensily to not be on the end getting taxed 7K, but seems silly none the less.
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Jul 8, 2011 16:46:31 GMT -5
"I find this interesting. Taxes as a % of GDP in 2011 are forecasted to be 14.4%. Historically tax rates are around 18% of GDP, with the highest being 20.6%. Just raising tax rates back to the historic average would cover a huge part of the shortfall & spending cuts could cover the rest. "
- If these figures are true, then it means that 14.4% of your general cost of living goes to revenues that eventually fund the government. If your general cost of living is $40k, then $5,760 covers taxes and you consume $34,240. If we kicked it up to 20% of GDP, the lifestyle you lead would increase to $42,800 and the taxable amount of the cost of life would increase to $8,560 (only $2,800 out of your annual budget). A problem exists if you currently spend all of your disposable income (disposable being all income minus the money you like to save). In this scenario you wouldn't want to increase your cost of living, so you would sacrifice quality of living, by reducing expenditures to $40k which would result in Uncle Sam getting $8k (or 97% of planned revenue) and therefore only 19.4% of your GDP portion. It could be assumed that most people would chose (or be forced into) quality reductions, and taxes would need to be increased even more, as the economy slowed.
- Worse yet, as an employer, in the "rich" category, I would be the target for the tax increase, that I would pass on to your cost of living through my product. Knowing this, I would take the same action that I did back in the fall of 2008. See at that time I realized that Obama or Clinton was going to become President, and would raise my taxes, so I reduced staff and salaries (the quickest and most logical adjustment to my income statement) down 10%, so that I could maintain my net income after the new tax rates. Seems like most businesses did likewise back then, and logically would do the same in the future. So you would expect, on average the $40k spender (that spends every nickel they make) would be taking a 10% pay reduction, and increase (from 14.4% to 20% ) in cost of living. This would cause a quality of life that was valued today at $34,240 to $28,800 and we would still be short of balancing the budget. Why would anyone want the US citizens to take a 15%+ reduction in quality of life?
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Jul 8, 2011 17:24:38 GMT -5
A step farther, and assume that the "rich" just raise prices, and can no longer reduce overhead costs (employee costs). A monthly budget for the $40k spender. WAS Income $3,333 Housing $1,000 (30%) Food $ 500 (15%) Transportation $ 500 (15%) Essentials Misc $ 666 (20%) Fun $ 667(remaining) IS NOW Income $3,333 Housing $1,070 Food $ 535 Transportation $ 535 Essentials $ 712 Fun $ 481
Now lets say that "Fun" was three instances per week and spending $55.50. Now that instance will cost $60 and you will limit it to twice per week, just to balance the US budget.
|
|