Obama Signs Bill To Extend Bush Tax Cuts

haymarket said:

Now you are engaging in complete dishonesty. The study was not from either the Communist Party nor the John Birch Society.

Click to expand...

You tried to bolster a biased leftwing propaganda piece by claiming that the group that sponsored it was a LEGAL organization and I merely noted OTHER BIASED ORGANIZATIONS are legal but hardly credible. DUH

TurtleDude said:

You tried to bolster a biased leftwing propaganda piece by claiming that the group that sponsored it was a LEGAL organization and I merely noted OTHER BIASED ORGANIZATIONS are legal but hardly credible. DUH

Click to expand...

No. What you are attempting to do is to ignore the message and attack what you think is the messenger.

btw - the Citizens for Tax Justice has had their work praised by the Wall Street Journal. I would guess you are familiar with their editorial policies regarding both economics and politics.

haymarket said:

Sorry but I am not dictating anything. All I am trying to do is to introduce the complete picture of taxation upon the citizen.

Why would you object to the complete picture?

Click to expand...

Because the complete picture that you are trying to paint ignores personal choice which isn't an option with Federal Income taxes thus is hardly complete. Nor is that so called complete picture the thread topic. do you think it is fair for 47% of the American income earners NOT to pay any Federal Income Taxes?

You continue to divert from the reality which is

The top 1% of wage earners make 20% of all income and pay 38% of all Federal Income taxes.
The top 5% of wage earners make 34.7% of all income and pay 58.7% of all Federal Income taxes.

Taxes are taxes are taxes. The citizen has to pay money to the government. period.

Why are you trying to deceive people with incomplete information that paints a dishonest picture of taxation and the burden of taxation in America when you focus narrowly on only one tax and willfully ignore all the others?

haymarket said:

No. What you are attempting to do is to ignore the message and attack what you think is the messenger.

btw - the Citizens for Tax Justice has had their work praised by the Wall Street Journal. I would guess you are familiar with their editorial policies regarding both economics and politics.

Click to expand...

Why is Citizens for Tax Justice credible to you but the IRS data which I continue to post not? You think a poll is more accurate than actual data compiled by the IRS? What method was used by this group to measure taxes collected from 50 different tax structures and how would they measure how much in sales taxes are collected from a particular group. The IRS data is on Federal Income tax filings. How many file state sales tax filings? How about excise tax filings? What model is used to collect property tax filings?

haymarket said:

Taxes are taxes are taxes. The citizen has to pay money to the government. period.

Why are you trying to deceive people with incomplete information that paints a dishonest picture of taxation and the burden of taxation in America when you focus narrowly on only one tax and willfully ignore all the others?

Click to expand...

A better question is why are you diverting from the thread topic and ignoring Federal Income taxes data? How does any agency calculate how much sales taxe, excise taxes, or other use taxes that you pay in a year? Very easy to do with Federal Income taxes.

Conservative said:

A better question is why are you diverting from the thread topic and ignoring Federal Income taxes data? How does any agency calculate how much sales taxe, excise taxes, or other use taxes that you pay in a year? Very easy to do with Federal Income taxes.

Click to expand...

I am not ignoring any data on income taxes. What I am doing is just the opposite. I am trying to have an honest look at taxation in America and the burden of taxation on the American people.

haymarket said:

I am not ignoring any data on income taxes. What I am doing is just the opposite. I am trying to have an honest look at taxation in America and the burden of taxation on the American people.

Click to expand...

There isn't any honesty here as you are mixing apples and oranges plus ignoring the thread topic. Obama has no control, YET, over state taxes being collected or state revenue/expenses. How much do you pay in gasoline excise taxes if you don't drive? How much do you pay in sales taxes if you don't purchase any taxable items? Explain to me why people who earn income don't pay any Federal Income taxes?

Since people have been talking about percentages in this thread I figured it was time to bring in the worlds 3rd richest man. Yeah, rich folks may pay more income tax than joe blow down the street. But that is only because he/she has more money. But on a percentage base rich people pay less. Don't believe me then here's Warren Buffet.

Kal'Stang said:

Since people have been talking about percentages in this thread I figured it was time to bring in the worlds 3rd richest man. Yeah, rich folks may pay more income tax than joe blow down the street. But that is only because he/she has more money. But on a percentage base rich people pay less. Don't believe me then here's Warren Buffet.

Click to expand...

Then there is the IRS Data, which one is more accurate and why do you care what Warren Buffet says? Warren Buffet or any other rich person can send in whatever they want to the Federal Govt. Why does it have to be mandated by the Federal Govt? Is it fair that 47% don't pay ANY Federal Income Taxes but 53% pay them all? Why are you so concerned about what someone else pays in taxes but not that 47% of the income earners don't pay ANY?

The top 1% of wage earners make 20% of all income and pay 38% of all Federal Income taxes.
The top 5% of wage earners make 34.7% of all income and pay 58.7% of all Federal Income taxes.

Objective Voice said:

I think you'd be mistaken that this was a referendum against the President. I'd say it was more an issue of balancing the power of government. Happens every midterm election cycle. Prior to 2006 we had a Republican President and a Republican Congress. The People didn't like that one side had too much control over the government and as a result they elected a Democrat President (given the other choice(s), I can't say I blame them) and a majority Democrat Congress. Four years later, they reversed it. I wouldn't be surprised if the situation changes course again in 2012. However, if Congress remains majority Republican and the state of the nation shows marked improvements, we might see most parties currently in government get re-elected including the President. Stay tuned...

But I digress...this isn't about the upcoming 2012 election cycle. So, let's try NOT to re-direct the conversation again, shall we? This is about the effectiveness of the Bush tax cuts and/or the concept of "trickle-down economics" overall.

Click to expand...

Conservative said:

You can get that information from BLS or the U.S. Census, doubt however that it will make any difference in your opinion. GW Bush didn't lose in the 2006 elections because of the economy, he lost because of the war.

As for the thread topic, Obama spent almost 3 years claiming that the Bush tax cuts only benefited the rich, now he has changed his tune and signed the extension. His economic results showed that he had no choice in doing just that.

Click to expand...

My question to you had NOTHING to do with why former Pres. GW. Bush lost the 2006 midterm elections. I asked:

Based on the state of the economy today prior to both the 2006 midterms AND the 2008 presidential election, did the Bush tax cuts which has it's roots in the concept of trickle-down economics work as outlined to the American public or did they not?

Click to expand...

To which you replied with GDP figures:

Conservative said:

GDP by year

2000 9951.50
2001 10286.20
2002 10642.30
2003 11142.10
2004 11867.80
2005 12638.40
2006 13398.90
2007 14077.60
2008 14441.40
2009 14256.30

Click to expand...

Which I agreed where great indicators of how well this country did in selling durable goods and services mostly abroad (exports), but as I indicated to you those figures have nothing to do with the median income level of wage earners during that same timeframe. However, these figures do.

From U.S. Census data:

(Note: Figures only show median and mean income levels from 2000 to 2009. Data manipulated to fit screen. Full chart can be viewed from U.S. Census Bureau's website)

Table with row headings in column A and column headings in rows 4 and 5.
Table F-23. Families by Total Money Income, Race, and Hispanic Origin of Householder: 1967 to 2009
(Income in 2009 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars. Families as of March of the following year)

ALL RACES -- Median income (dollars) -- Mean income (dollars)
by Year ----- Value -- Standard error -- Value --Standard error

2009 (36) -- 60,088 - 217 - 78,538 - 321
2008 -- 61,521 - 194 - 79,634 - 319
2007 -- 61,355 - 190 - 78,845 - 312
2006 -- 60,064 - 284 - 79,508 - 351
2005 -- 59,683 - 220 - 77,855 - 328
2004 (35) -- 59,342 - 252 - 77,266 - 332
2003 -- 59,389 - 278 - 77,295 - 322
2002 -- 59,563 - 196 - 77,185 - 332
2001 -- 60,206 - 212 - 78,307 - 341
2000 (30) -- 61,083 - 223 - 79,193 - 349

As you can see, except for some minor fluxuations the median income level actually went down comparitively from 2001 to 2009, -$118. The mean income level decreased for at least half the decade but even when it did increase comparatively between 2001 and 2009, the change was only a mere +$231. Moreover, if you average out the median and mean incomes for the nine-year period (2001-2009), the figures show a very contrasting picture:

Avg Median income from 2001-2009: $60,134 (-$72 wages lost when comparing avg median income to 2009 median income level)

Avg Mean income from 2001-2009: $69,682 (-$8,856 wages lost when comparing avg mean income to 2009 mean income level)

I understand there are numerous variables that affect these income levels; however, the figures don't lie. The GDP figures show the country did well in overall sales in both imports and exports, but the income level of the average American worker did not change as drastically as those who support the Bush tax cuts would have one believe. And before you say it, I am NOT against people who make money keeping more of what they earn. So, let's not go back to that same tired talking point. I'm just illustrating that the Bush tax cuts weren't as effective for average wage earners. Comparatively speaking, if we were to look at the "lower" income levels of the top wage earners, this is what you'd find:

Lower limit of top 5 percent (dollars)

2009 = $200,00
2008 = $200,000
2007 = $197.216
2006 = $191,060
2005 = $184,500
2004 (35) = $173,640
2003 = $170,082
2002 = $164,323
2001 = $164,104
2000 (30) = $160,120

Except for 2008 and 2009, their income increased every year since 2000!

Conservative said:

Then there is the IRS Data, which one is more accurate and why do you care what Warren Buffet says? Warren Buffet or any other rich person can send in whatever they want to the Federal Govt. Why does it have to be mandated by the Federal Govt? Is it fair that 47% don't pay ANY Federal Income Taxes but 53% pay them all? Why are you so concerned about what someone else pays in taxes but not that 47% of the income earners don't pay ANY?

The top 1% of wage earners make 20% of all income and pay 38% of all Federal Income taxes.
The top 5% of wage earners make 34.7% of all income and pay 58.7% of all Federal Income taxes.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that Warren Buffet doesn't know what he pays in taxes? Doesn't know what his employees pay in taxes? Did you watch the video?

As far as those that don't pay any taxes...how can you get blood from a turnip? The reason that they don't pay taxes is that they don't make enough money. (duh) The federal government realizes that if someone can't pay thier bills and at least have a roof over thier head they're not going to be very productive.

Tell ya what. Tell me exactly how you are going to get ANY money out of someone that lives on the streets in order to send the federal government enough money to where people like turtledude would stop complaining? (fat chance of that since he thinks he is entitled to rule over the poor)

Conservative... please tat least try to follow this for just the two minutes that it takes to read it. Please.

1- People pay taxes, all kind of taxes to different level of government.
2- The tax burden on Americans includes ALL of those taxes.
3- To discuss one tax in an isolated environment that intentionally ignores ALL other taxes for pure political or ideological purposes is not an honest discussion on taxation or its burden on Americans.
4- All I am trying to do here is to bring an element of honesty to the discussion so that the complete picture of taxation and the tax burden on the average American is seen.

Objective Voice said:

My question to you had NOTHING to do with why former Pres. GW. Bush lost the 2006 midterm elections. I asked:



To which you replied with GDP figures:



Which I agreed where great indicators of how well this country did in selling durable goods and services mostly abroad (exports), but as I indicated to you those figures have nothing to do with the median income level of wage earners during that same timeframe. However, these figures do.

From U.S. Census data:

(Note: Figures only show median and mean income levels from 2000 to 2009. Data manipulated to fit screen. Full chart can be viewed from U.S. Census Bureau's website)

Table with row headings in column A and column headings in rows 4 and 5.
Table F-23. Families by Total Money Income, Race, and Hispanic Origin of Householder: 1967 to 2009
(Income in 2009 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars. Families as of March of the following year)

ALL RACES -- Median income (dollars) -- Mean income (dollars)
by Year ----- Value -- Standard error -- Value --Standard error

2009 (36) -- 60,088 - 217 - 78,538 - 321
2008 -- 61,521 - 194 - 79,634 - 319
2007 -- 61,355 - 190 - 78,845 - 312
2006 -- 60,064 - 284 - 79,508 - 351
2005 -- 59,683 - 220 - 77,855 - 328
2004 (35) -- 59,342 - 252 - 77,266 - 332
2003 -- 59,389 - 278 - 77,295 - 322
2002 -- 59,563 - 196 - 77,185 - 332
2001 -- 60,206 - 212 - 78,307 - 341
2000 (30) -- 61,083 - 223 - 79,193 - 349

As you can see, except for some minor fluxuations the median income level actually went down comparitively from 2001 to 2009, -$118. The mean income level decreased for at least half the decade but even when it did increase comparatively between 2001 and 2009, the change was only a mere +$231. Moreover, if you average out the median and mean incomes for the nine-year period (2001-2009), the figures show a very contrasting picture:

Avg Median income from 2001-2009: $60,134 (-$72 wages lost when comparing avg median income to 2009 median income level)

Avg Mean income from 2001-2009: $69,682 (-$8,856 wages lost when comparing avg mean income to 2009 mean income level)

I understand there are numerous variables that affect these income levels; however, the figures don't lie. The GDP figures show the country did well in overall sales in both imports and exports, but the income level of the average American worker did not change as drastically as those who support the Bush tax cuts would have one believe. And before you say it, I am NOT against people who make money keeping more of what they earn. So, let's not go back to that same tired talking point. I'm just illustrating that the Bush tax cuts weren't as effective for average wage earners.

Click to expand...

What you don't seem to understand is the components of GDP, there are four, figure them out and what percentage the contribute to the national economy? Second tax cuts allow the American people to keep more of what they earn and has nothing to do with personal income, but it does affect personal take home pay. It isn't the government's role to guarantee any individual a specific wage or that their wages will grow. Where do you get these ideals?

Tax cuts allowed the American taxpayer to keep more of what they earn and only a true liberal ideologue would argue against that. Why are you passionate about what someone else pays in taxes and wanting the govt. to keep more of what you earn? Do you think it is fair for 47% of the people not to pay any Federal Income taxes while you focus on the top 2% that pay the lion's share?

I don't understand the liberal mindset and their definition of fairness. Not one person here has explained it without trying to interject state and local taxes into the equation. Instead of talking about fairness why aren't you defining it? could it be that you really do understand there is nothing logical about the liberal position?

haymarket said:

Conservative... please tat least try to follow this for just the two minutes that it takes to read it. Please.

1- People pay taxes, all kind of taxes to different level of government.
2- The tax burden on Americans includes ALL of those taxes.
3- To discuss one tax in an isolated environment that intentionally ignores ALL other taxes for pure political or ideological purposes is not an honest discussion on taxation or its burden on Americans.
4- All I am trying to do here is to bring an element of honesty to the discussion so that the complete picture of taxation and the tax burden on the average American is seen.

Click to expand...

If you want to talk honesty then focus on the thread topic which has nothing to do with all the taxes people pay. This thread is about what Obama signed and it has nothing to do with state and local taxes. You want to talk total taxes start a new thread. In the meantime tell me what is fair about 47% of the people paying zero federal income taxes to fund the items in the FEDERAL BUDGET? I know why you divert because you know there is no defense for your position thus you have to bring in other taxes yet you never answered the questions I posted about those other taxes. Wonder why?

How much sales tax do you pay if you don't buy anything that is taxable? How much excise tax do you pay if you don't drive a car? How much property taxes do you pay if you don't own a home or live in a rural area? Please understand the various taxes we pay and what action generates those taxes. With income it is about what you earn and everyone that earns something should be paying something for the Federal govt. expenses. You don't think that is fair?

I posted the list of items in that budget which of course you ignore. Tell me what items there are duplicated at the state level and why we are paying both?

I disagree, you aren't trying to bring any element of honesty to the topic, just diverting from that topic.

Conservative said:

What you don't seem to understand is the components of GDP, there are four, figure them out and what percentage the contribute to the national economy? Second tax cuts allow the American people to keep more of what they earn and has nothing to do with personal income, but it does affect personal take home pay. It isn't the government's role to guarantee any individual a specific wage or that their wages will grow. Where do you get these ideals?

Tax cuts allowed the American taxpayer to keep more of what they earn and only a true liberal ideologue would argue against that. Why are you passionate about what someone else pays in taxes and wanting the govt. to keep more of what you earn? Do you think it is fair for 47% of the people not to pay any Federal Income taxes while you focus on the top 2% that pay the lion's share?

I don't understand the liberal mindset and their definition of fairness. Not one person here has explained it without trying to interject state and local taxes into the equation. Instead of talking about fairness why aren't you defining it? could it be that you really do understand there is nothing logical about the liberal position?

Click to expand...

Did I say the government had to guarantee anyone's income? Did I say the government had to guarantee what my employer paid me in an hourly wage? Did I say anything about fairness (although in essence that's truly what this debate is all about). No, I did not.

I asked a simple question, provided you with facts from the source YOU suggested I utilize, and when those facts turn your argument on it's ear you do as you've always done - move the argument somewhere else instead of addressing the facts that have been laid out before you. So, again, my question is very simple and straight-forward:

Based on the state of the economy today prior to both the 2006 midterms AND the 2008 presidential election, did the Bush tax cuts which has it's roots in the concept of trickle-down economics work as outlined to the American public or did they not?

Click to expand...

Yes or no will do.

Kal'Stang said:

Are you saying that Warren Buffet doesn't know what he pays in taxes? Doesn't know what his employees pay in taxes? Did you watch the video?

As far as those that don't pay any taxes...how can you get blood from a turnip? The reason that they don't pay taxes is that they don't make enough money. (duh) The federal government realizes that if someone can't pay thier bills and at least have a roof over thier head they're not going to be very productive.

Tell ya what. Tell me exactly how you are going to get ANY money out of someone that lives on the streets in order to send the federal government enough money to where people like turtledude would stop complaining? (fat chance of that since he thinks he is entitled to rule over the poor)

Click to expand...

Nope, have no interest in what Warren Buffet says about someone else's taxes. The question is why do you care what his opinion is and why aren't you asking the question as to why 47% don't pay any Federal income taxes? Are you telling me that in today's world that all the people in that 47% don't make enough to pay something in income taxes? You are speculating without true knowledge nor do you seem to care.

Instead of focusing on the real problem you build a strawman, how many of those people who don't pay any income taxes live on the streets? you don't seem to understand the Federal Income system, we are talking ONLY those with income not the total population. Those on the streets probably don't have a job thus aren't earning any income.

Stop thinking with your heart and think with the brain God gave you.

Objective Voice said:

Did I say the government had to guarantee anyone's income? Did I say the government had to guarantee what my employer paid me in an hourly wage? Did I say anything about fairness (although in essence that's truly what this debate is all about). No, I did not.

I asked a simple question, provided you with facts from the source YOU suggested I utilize, and when those facts turn your argument on it's ear you do as you've always done - move the argument somewhere else instead of addressing the facts that have been laid out before you. So, again, my question is very simple and straight-forward:



Yes or no will do.

Click to expand...

Yes, they indeed did help and continue to help those today who are working. If you are working you are still benefiting from the Bush tax cuts getting to keep more of your own money thus higher take home pay. If you have a problem keeping more of what you earn, send it to the govt.

Conservative said:

Yes, they indeed did help and continue to help those today who are working. If you are working you are still benefiting from the Bush tax cuts getting to keep more of your own money thus higher take home pay. If you have a problem keeping more of what you earn, send it to the govt.

Click to expand...

The question wasn't did they help wage earners keep more money in their pockets. Pres. Obama's tax cuts via the Stimulus did that, but a mere $15-25 put back in my paycheck isn't going to get me into that $50-100K income bracket. Of course, anyone who thinks such a meager tax decrease would move the bar so drastically is just plain foolish. What I and others here have been arguing is that the Bush tax cuts (or the continuance of Reaganomics..."tickle-down economics") didn't do as promised. They didn't:

- create new jobs for lower income people
- increase salaries to lower and middle income people
- expand business opportunities particularly in manufacturing and infrustructure
- reduce poverty

Instead, by all accounts they did the exact opposite. Why? Because the tax breaks were geared more to aid the higher wage earns than those at lower income brackets which I totally understand. However, the issue many lower and middle-class wage earners have a problem with is those at the top didn't put their money back into growing their businesses, didn't increase wages substantially, and they didn't provide those opportunities for prosperity that those who believe in the tax cuts claimed they would do. The Census data I presented bore out those facts which you really can't deny (though you will continue to try).

Kal'Stang said:

Are you saying that Warren Buffet doesn't know what he pays in taxes? Doesn't know what his employees pay in taxes? Did you watch the video?

As far as those that don't pay any taxes...how can you get blood from a turnip? The reason that they don't pay taxes is that they don't make enough money. (duh) The federal government realizes that if someone can't pay thier bills and at least have a roof over thier head they're not going to be very productive.

Tell ya what. Tell me exactly how you are going to get ANY money out of someone that lives on the streets in order to send the federal government enough money to where people like turtledude would stop complaining? (fat chance of that since he thinks he is entitled to rule over the poor)

Click to expand...

A person with 3 kids, making up to $43,000 a year can qualify for the earned income credit. They can't afford to give up $500, or $1,000 a year to the government? A person making $25,000 a year can't afford to give up $200 a year to the government? I bet they could. How many billions would that add up to?

Objective Voice;1059176421]The question wasn't did they help wage earners keep more money in their pockets. Pres. Obama's tax cuts via the Stimulus did that, but a mere $15-25 put back in my paycheck isn't going to get me into that $50-100K income bracket. Of course, anyone who thinks such a meager tax decrease would move the bar so drastically is just plain foolish. What I and others here have been arguing is that the Bush tax cuts (or the continuance of Reaganomics..."tickle-down economics") didn't do as promised. They didn't:

- create new jobs for lower income people
- increase salaries to lower and middle income people
- expand business opportunities particularly in manufacturing and infrustructure
- reduce poverty

Click to expand...

You really have a distorted view as to the role of the Federal Govt. in a free enterprise, capitalistic economy. It isn't the role of the govt. to create jobs, guarantee salaries, and expand. That is the role of the private sector which Obama doesn't understand nor do his supporters.

You also have a distorted view of the Obama tax cuts. How are they helping you today? Looks to me like you aren't employed because you have no idea. Those were rebate checks, not ongoing tax cuts. Once they were spent they were gone. No withholding cuts at all which would have meant more take home pay on EACH paycheck.

You seem to have a problem with people keeping more of what they earn. It is THEIR money first

Instead, by all accounts they did the exact opposite. Why? Because the tax breaks were geared more to aid the higher wage earns than those at lower income brackets which I totally understand. However, the issue many lower and middle-class wage earners have a problem with is those at the top didn't put their money back into growing their businesses, didn't increase wages substantially, and they didn't provide those opportunities for prosperity that those who believe in the tax cuts claimed they would do. The Census data I presented bore out those facts which you really can't deny (though you will continue to try).

Click to expand...

Now there you go again, "tax breaks were geared more to aid the higher wage earners" which then ignores Obama's comments that extension of tax cuts to the middle class benefit the economy. Which is it? Did the middle class get a Bush tax cut or not?

Stop with the strawman and diversion from reality. The Bush economy prior to 2008 created 8.5 million jobs. Obama has lost 4 million jobs since his economic stimulus plan was put into place. Bush inherited a recession, had 9/11, and the financial bubble bursting.

Tax cuts mean more take home pay and still benefit all workers today. Tell me why 47% of income earners don't pay any Federal Income taxes? Is that fair? So instead of focusing on those 47% you focus on the top 2% which pay almost 40% of the Federal Income taxes now. That doesn't make any sense to anyone who can think clearly.

Conservative said:

Nope, have no interest in what Warren Buffet says about someone else's taxes. The question is why do you care what his opinion is and why aren't you asking the question as to why 47% don't pay any Federal income taxes? Are you telling me that in today's world that all the people in that 47% don't make enough to pay something in income taxes? You are speculating without true knowledge nor do you seem to care.

Instead of focusing on the real problem you build a strawman, how many of those people who don't pay any income taxes live on the streets? you don't seem to understand the Federal Income system, we are talking ONLY those with income not the total population. Those on the streets probably don't have a job thus aren't earning any income.

Stop thinking with your heart and think with the brain God gave you.

Click to expand...

You don't want to use those on the street...ok lets use my family.

$14,480. That is what my wife's checks are gross. I don't have a job as I stay home and take care of the kids. Our tax bracket is 10%. 10% of $14,480 is $1,448 taking out.

Now this is why you focusing on just the federal income taxes is disengenous. (the feds take these into consideration when they discuss their taxes so as to not put too much of a burden on people)

Our state tax bracket is 7.4%. So after feds take thier cut we get another 964.37 taking out. That leaves us with $12,067.63. Note that this doesn't include the taxes taken out for SS and Medicare. But we'll leave those be for now.

So, 12,067.63. Rent $750 a month = 9000 a year. Leaves us with 3067.63 to live on for the rest of the year.

Now we do get the taxes we paid in for the year back so that gives us an additional 2412.37 + 2,000 (have two kids). So that leaves us with $7480 to live on through out the year.

This is something that the government takes into consideration when discussing tax rates. If they didn't and instead kept the money that we paid in we would have $3067.63 to live on through out the year. Even less once SS and Med gets taken out. Even more less if Obama hadn't signed the tax cuts bill.

So. Now do you understand why those that make a certain amount per year end up getting it back and thereby in essence not paying a net income tax? You've already acknowledged that if we lived on the streets we wouldn't have a job and thereby wouldn't be paying anything at all into the federal gov through out the year. And I can gauruntee you that if we only had 3067.63 to live on through out the year we WOULD be on the streets.

Now that all that has been established lets go one step further. Let's again assume that instead of getting tax returns back we didn't. Only it's not just me and my family. It includes thousands more, possibly even reaching a million, indeed it could even reach....47% of the population. That's alot of people living on the streets. A lot of people that are not productive members of society for the simple fact that you thought it was unfair that we didn't pay a net income tax. A lot of kids living in the street because you thought it was unfair that we didn't pay a net income tax.

Kal'Stang said:

You don't want to use those on the street...ok lets use my family.

$14,480. That is what my wife's checks are gross. I don't have a job as I stay home and take care of the kids. Our tax bracket is 10%. 10% of $14,480 is $1,448 taking out.

Now this is why you focusing on just the federal income taxes is disengenous. (the feds take these into consideration when they discuss their taxes so as to not put too much of a burden on people)

Our state tax bracket is 7.4%. So after feds take thier cut we get another 964.37 taking out. That leaves us with $12,067.63. Note that this doesn't include the taxes taken out for SS and Medicare. But we'll leave those be for now.

So, 12,067.63. Rent $750 a month = 9000 a year. Leaves us with 3067.63 to live on for the rest of the year.

Now we do get the taxes we paid in for the year back so that gives us an additional 2412.37 + 2,000 (have two kids). So that leaves us with $7480 to live on through out the year.

This is something that the government takes into consideration when discussing tax rates. If they didn't and instead kept the money that we paid in we would have $3067.63 to live on through out the year. Even less once SS and Med gets taken out. Even more less if Obama hadn't signed the tax cuts bill.

So. Now do you understand why those that make a certain amount per year end up getting it back and thereby in essence not paying a net income tax? You've already acknowledged that if we lived on the streets we wouldn't have a job and thereby wouldn't be paying anything at all into the federal gov through out the year. And I can gauruntee you that if we only had 3067.63 to live on through out the year we WOULD be on the streets.

Now that all that has been established lets go one step further. Let's again assume that instead of getting tax returns back we didn't. Only it's not just me and my family. It includes thousands more, possibly even reaching a million, indeed it could even reach....47% of the population. That's alot of people living on the streets. A lot of people that are not productive members of society for the simple fact that you thought it was unfair that we didn't pay a net income tax. A lot of kids living in the street because you thought it was unfair that we didn't pay a net income tax.

Click to expand...

it's pretty sad when a person thinks someone with your income should be paying taxes.

Kal'Stang said:

You don't want to use those on the street...ok lets use my family.

$14,480. That is what my wife's checks are gross. I don't have a job as I stay home and take care of the kids. Our tax bracket is 10%. 10% of $14,480 is $1,448 taking out.

Now this is why you focusing on just the federal income taxes is disengenous. (the feds take these into consideration when they discuss their taxes so as to not put too much of a burden on people)

Our state tax bracket is 7.4%. So after feds take thier cut we get another 964.37 taking out. That leaves us with $12,067.63. Note that this doesn't include the taxes taken out for SS and Medicare. But we'll leave those be for now.

So, 12,067.63. Rent $750 a month = 9000 a year. Leaves us with 3067.63 to live on for the rest of the year.

Now we do get the taxes we paid in for the year back so that gives us an additional 2412.37 + 2,000 (have two kids). So that leaves us with $7480 to live on through out the year.

This is something that the government takes into consideration when discussing tax rates. If they didn't and instead kept the money that we paid in we would have $3067.63 to live on through out the year. Even less once SS and Med gets taken out. Even more less if Obama hadn't signed the tax cuts bill.

So. Now do you understand why those that make a certain amount per year end up getting it back and thereby in essence not paying a net income tax? You've already acknowledged that if we lived on the streets we wouldn't have a job and thereby wouldn't be paying anything at all into the federal gov through out the year. And I can gauruntee you that if we only had 3067.63 to live on through out the year we WOULD be on the streets.

Now that all that has been established lets go one step further. Let's again assume that instead of getting tax returns back we didn't. Only it's not just me and my family. It includes thousands more, possibly even reaching a million, indeed it could even reach....47% of the population. That's alot of people living on the streets. A lot of people that are not productive members of society for the simple fact that you thought it was unfair that we didn't pay a net income tax. A lot of kids living in the street because you thought it was unfair that we didn't pay a net income tax.

Click to expand...

That's why a flat tax of, say $200 a montth; money that the government keepswould be better for you and the government, instead of taking all that money in payroll taxes, then turn around and give it back to you.

The government would realize more tax revenue, because they're not giving you money back to you. You would more money in yoour pocket now vice next year. The government would save untold millions, by not having to pay for a refunding department.

But, I'm sure that makes way too much sense and takes away from the, "soak the rich", argument.

Kal'Stang said:

You don't want to use those on the street...ok lets use my family.

$14,480. That is what my wife's checks are gross. I don't have a job as I stay home and take care of the kids. Our tax bracket is 10%. 10% of $14,480 is $1,448 taking out.

Now this is why you focusing on just the federal income taxes is disengenous. (the feds take these into consideration when they discuss their taxes so as to not put too much of a burden on people)

Our state tax bracket is 7.4%. So after feds take thier cut we get another 964.37 taking out. That leaves us with $12,067.63. Note that this doesn't include the taxes taken out for SS and Medicare. But we'll leave those be for now.

So, 12,067.63. Rent $750 a month = 9000 a year. Leaves us with 3067.63 to live on for the rest of the year.

Now we do get the taxes we paid in for the year back so that gives us an additional 2412.37 + 2,000 (have two kids). So that leaves us with $7480 to live on through out the year.

This is something that the government takes into consideration when discussing tax rates. If they didn't and instead kept the money that we paid in we would have $3067.63 to live on through out the year. Even less once SS and Med gets taken out. Even more less if Obama hadn't signed the tax cuts bill.

So. Now do you understand why those that make a certain amount per year end up getting it back and thereby in essence not paying a net income tax? You've already acknowledged that if we lived on the streets we wouldn't have a job and thereby wouldn't be paying anything at all into the federal gov through out the year. And I can gauruntee you that if we only had 3067.63 to live on through out the year we WOULD be on the streets.

Now that all that has been established lets go one step further. Let's again assume that instead of getting tax returns back we didn't. Only it's not just me and my family. It includes thousands more, possibly even reaching a million, indeed it could even reach....47% of the population. That's alot of people living on the streets. A lot of people that are not productive members of society for the simple fact that you thought it was unfair that we didn't pay a net income tax. A lot of kids living in the street because you thought it was unfair that we didn't pay a net income tax.

Click to expand...

Personal choice, you choose to stay home and take care of your kids, you choose where to live thus your state and local tax structure, you are one of those 47% that don''t pay any Federal Income taxes as your entire withholding is returned to you.

The Federal Govt. doesn't take into consideration state taxes at all. I live in TX and pay the same Federal Tax rate as those in NY. My state has no state income taxes.

SS and Medicare are use taxes, you get something back from those taxes in personal benefits.

I really suggest you read a little bit more and use the brain God gave you. This thread is about FEDERAL INCOME TAXES that have nothing to do with the state taxes. 47% don't pay any Federal Income taxes according to the IRS. Is it fair that 53% of the income earners pay your share of the Federal Govt?