Honest Tax Question

[gb93433]

When I look at how crippled the education system and the money it lacks compared to 30 years ago I have to ask some serious questions.

Of course we know there are some universities which are wasting money while others are getting little.

 

[Salty]

Found an item on the net:

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm

Lets say you make $400 a week. That would be $20,000 per year. How much tax would you pay?
These figures assume you do not itemize

................STD DED..DEP EXP....TAX....../wk
SINGLE.............4850.....3100..1,446......29
Married no Kids....9700.....6200....413.......8
Married 3 kids.....9700....15500....-0-.......0
Mom with 2 kids...7150.....9300....353.......7

So how come they take so much out of your paycheck. What you are doing is loaning your money to the goverment interest free!

People complain that the poor pay too much in taxes. Lets see many pay zero dollars. How is that too much!? The most shafted taxpayers are singles!

Salty

PS take a look at line 44 on form 1040 (long form). Thats the line, that if you are rich and have too many (legal) deductions, the IRS makes sure you pay some extra.

PPS I'm not rich and I am married

 

[El_Guero]

Originally posted by raunhawk:
hypothetically.........I make 50k and pay 10% and someone else makes 200k and pays 20%. I don't think that is fair?

Raunhawk

And while we are talking about fair. I would appreciate if you would pay the 20% that I was paying when I made 50k last year.

Or, would that be too much? Actually, I am serously joking. I pray that you dodged that other 10% legally.

G

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by SALTCITYBAPTIST:
People complain that the poor pay too much in taxes. Lets see many pay zero dollars. How is that too much!? The most shafted taxpayers are singles!

Because there are taxes and fees other than income taxes - sales tax, for instance. Almost all of those are flat taxes, so the burden falls most heavily on those who have least.

 

[Salty]

Originally posted by Daisy:
[/qb]

Because there are taxes and fees other than income taxes - sales tax, for instance. Almost all of those are flat taxes, so the burden falls most heavily on those who have least. [/QB][/QUOTE]

FEES are fees. You use you pay, whether you are rich or poor! Why should I pay for someting I dont even use?

Sales Tax, since you live in NY you realize there is NO sales tax on food
Sure maybe that rich guy on the other side of town just bought a $60,000 car. Lets see, that would be about $4,800 tax. If he can do that he probally lives in a house worth, lest say, $200,000. Hmmm what would the property tax be, in Syracuse, NY;according to the tax roles he paid over $7,100 in county, city and school taxes.

Another note, that car at $60,000 car - how many people made a profit along the way - the maker, the salesman, the mechanic in the dealer garage, ect. That 200,000 house - lots of people had an income off that house. do you get the ideal?

BTW Daisy, just wondering what you thought about the amount of Federal income Tax a family pays ( or does not pay). And sometimes a family actualy gets back more than they paid due to Earned income credit!

Salty

oh one final thing, the rich get and stay rich becuse they spend money to make money.
How does that apply to not so rich people.

I teach the safe driving course. By spending less than $40 you can complete the class and then save 105 off your car insurance. So if you spend $1000 a year, you can save $100 a year for three years.

(note: this is not an advertisment. just the facts)

 

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by raunhawk:
BUT, is it fair to say that those who have more money should pay more?

As a percentage of their income...yes. </font>[/QUOTE]Right out of Karl Marx Communist Manifesto.

 

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by raunhawk:
Oh sorry.....I am not trying to pick a fight or anything, I just have a hard time understanding such things. If we are all equal why I don't see why someone who makes more should pay a high percentage. I understand you disagreement, I was just looking for some answers and opinions and I thank you for yours.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with your reasoning. There is an air of Marxism flowing here that has been floated by the leftists for years, that infers, if not declares, that the rich should pay more taxes than the not so rich. It is a class envy situation that has been very successful. The rich in Congress are sure to provide themselves "shelters" so it doesn't effect them so much.

 

[PamelaK]

Have any of you all read the "Fair Tax" book by Neal Boortz which has been on the top 10 list for quite a while now? If so, what do you think? I have not but have heard quite a bit about it, mostly good. I think it relates pretty well to the discusion you've been having here.

 

[hillclimber]

The new usage tax that has been floated lately would be the fairest tax so far, as the rich would pay just as much as the poor in that their taxes would be on products purchased. It will devastate the poor because they never bore the load of taxation to that level before. There will have to be massive credits doled out to the poor in order to shift the tax burdon back up the pay scale.

 

[billwald]

SS is a plain, old capped income tax that goes into the treasury and is spent like any other taxes. Low and middle income people pay more SS tax than income tax.

 

[tenor]

Originally posted by hillclimber:
The new usage tax that has been floated lately would be the fairest tax so far, as the rich would pay just as much as the poor in that their taxes would be on products purchased. It will devastate the poor because they never bore the load of taxation to that level before. There will have to be massive credits doled out to the poor in order to shift the tax burdon back up the pay scale.

Actually under the Fair Tax there would be a monthly "rebate" equivalent to the tax on the poverty level for each household according to how many are in the household.

I generally support this idea but I do have some concerns about this plan.

1) THe tax rate needs to be protected
2) The thought of the authors is that prices will immediately fall due the lack of the intermediate taxes -- with human nature as it and the general greed going on in the business world, I don't see this happening. In Georgia, where I live, the GOvernor "repealed" the gas taxes for this month - the prices didn't fall as much as the tax.
3) How will state income tax be calcualted, added to federal?

We need to do something. What? I don't know.

Tim

 

[TexasSky]

I am a single Mom, and I live, literally, pay check to pay check, and at times when repairs need to be done - the pay checks don't go far enough. I get the earned income credit, and such things. Without them, I probably would have gone totally under financially a few times.

Now - the thing is, for my city - I'm actually pretty well paid. If you break it down to hourly, its WAY above minimum wage. Secretaries in my company start out at less than 1/2 my salary.

In my case, if I actually got to see what I earn, I probably could live off it fairly easily. They pull out social security, retirement, and benefits. Retirement is based on percentage of salary earned, and as your salary goes up, the higher the percentage withheld, probably to cover retirment of people in the lower income ranges. I'm not really sure what their justification is.

Now, I know that some wealthy people are decent Christians who actually do redistribute the wealth. As they reach a point where they really couldn't spend it all they start hiring people at decent wages, they give to charity, they don't just sit on it. Then there are people like Bill Gates. I'm sorry, but do any of us really believe that he actually ~earns~ what he makes? Is he working his tail off morning to evening to do what he does? Is he making some huge decisions that will change the future of the world? Is he sweating?

When I worked for an accounting firm for awhile we were officed in a bank building down town. We shared the section of the building with some very wealthy people. One of them was in the farm irrigation industry, and he earned his money. He worked in the fields with his employees, he trained them, he only wore a business suit when he had to come downtown, and half the time he didn't then. He worked for his money. I don't begrudge him a dime of it. Another client though, lived off oil-field-royalties. She kept an office in the building, and once a month she would come in, pick up her checks, chit-chat with everyone on the hall, hand the checks over to one of our accountants, hand over a few personal bills that she hoped were tax deductible, and leave. That bothers me.
I'm sorry, but she was paying the rent on an office in a very expensive office tower to serve as a "fancy" "post office box." That just.. bothers me.

 

[just-want-peace]

It's very obvious that Marxism is alive and well in the minds of many on this board!

Good post, raunhawk, and I agree with your queries. As a country we more & more tend to punish success and reward indolence.

 

[PamelaK]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
"Now, I know that some wealthy people are decent Christians who actually do redistribute the wealth."

Texas, I agree that Christians, wealthy or not, should be good stewards and are responsible to God for how they help their brothers. However, I am really wondering if that is all you are trying to say. Your phrase "redistribute the wealth" scares me a little bit.

For instance, take your example of Bill Gates. Now I know there are lots of controversial issues with him like the monopolies and court cases and such, but frankly, I haven't kept up with them and don't feel I could discuss them intelligently. However, just considering the basic facts, if Bill Gates or someone like him came up with an idea that is useful to millions of people, marketed it, and made mega bucks and can live off his interest for the rest of his life, then, yes, I believe he earned it and is entitles to what he now makes. (again, all controversy aside in this example)

 

[billwald]

&gt;I am a single Mom,

Have read this is the most important predictor of low income status. Now that a large percentage of pregnancies are to single women I don't see any system except pure communism where single mothers would not be on the bottom of the pile.

The pile will always have a bottom 10% no matter how big the pile is and the bottom 10% will always consider themselves "poor." How can it be any other way? Anyone think that Chairman Mao got his "Chairman Mao" jacket at the local Chairman Mao store?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by raunhawk:
The Democrats and a few Republicans like to say that if you make over $200,000 you should have your tax cuts repealed. Why?

There's no good reason. Such an idea is penalizing a person for making money. SOunds anti-capitalist to me. As it currently stands, per person, a taxpayer making 200K will pay about 30k in taxes. A person making, say 60k will pay about 11k. Why should a person making 200K be penalized more than he/she already is?

And also the estate tax. Why?

Again, no reason. The estate tax is a double-tax: Taxing the estate holder, and then the estate again when it befalls an inhieritor. Ridiculous.

Originally posted by ballfan:
And you also pay Social Security on all your income. A person making 200K doesn't.

That's completely false. People pay SS as a percentage of their income, and get it paid back to them as a percentage of what they paid in. A person making 200K will see considerably less of his/her SS investment than a person making 60K. So, in effect, the person making 200K is paying for the social security benefits of those making less than them.

Originally posted by KenH:
It can be argued that the well-to-do have benefitted more from our economic system and therefore should pay more in taxes because of this.

Per taxpayer, they already pay many times more.

 

[tenor]

Originally posted by Johnv:

Originally posted by ballfan:
And you also pay Social Security on all your income. A person making 200K doesn't.

That's completely false. People pay SS as a percentage of their income, and get it paid back to them as a percentage of what they paid in. A person making 200K will see considerably less of his/her SS investment than a person making 60K. So, in effect, the person making 200K is paying for the social security benefits of those making less than them.

In a sense, both of you are correct.

Ballfan is correct in that we only pay SS on the first $90,000 we make, I believe that's the cutoff. So in effect the person making $50K pays SS on 100% while the person making $200K pays it on about 45% of his total salary. Total SS employee and employer is about $7500 for $50K or 15% and $13500 for $200K or 6.75%.

So as a percentage of total income those who make more pay considerably less.