U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-13-2015, 10:16 PM
 
1,784 posts, read 917,264 times
Reputation: 517

Advertisements

We grant greater tax considerations for the children of the wealthy, less for children of the poor.

There is no per capita exemption from taxable incomes if adjusted gross income > $152, 525 – married filling separately to $279,650 – head of household. Otherwise per capita exemption is $3,950 annually cost of living adjusted.

The per capita exemptions for individual income tax filers and their dependents is only $3,950 reduction from taxable incomes.
The exemption’s maximum value to those in the highest income bracket is (.396)(3950) > $1,564 per capita,
For those in the lowest bracket it is $395 per capita and many of those filers do not qualify for earned income credits and their incomes are too low to fully benefit for the total per capita reductions from taxable incomes they are entitled to.

I consider it despicable that the per capita tax considerations for highest earning taxpayers are almost 4 times greater than that of our working poor. Surely the considerations for the children and parents of the working poor should be granted at least as much consideration as those of our wealthiest population segments.
The per capita exemption should be a tax revenue neutral uniform amount for all tax brackets and it should be a reduction from taxes themselves rather than from taxable incomes.

Tax reform can be accomplished by both huge changes and by numerous small modifications. I don’t do taxes anymore and had not realized that we finally COLA’ the exemption amount.

Respectfully, Supposn
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-14-2015, 01:02 AM
 
Location: Carmichael, CA
2,107 posts, read 3,534,113 times
Reputation: 3475
Hmmm....not understanding. Most people in the lower brackets, after subtracting for exemptions and deductions have no tax liability at all. And that's before all the various credits start being added.

So you want the people who already pay taxes to pay even more so the people who don't pay taxes get a bigger refund?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2015, 09:06 AM
 
1,784 posts, read 917,264 times
Reputation: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb73 View Post
Hmmm....not understanding. Most people in the lower brackets, after subtracting for exemptions and deductions have no tax liability at all. And that's before all the various credits start being added.

So you want the people who already pay taxes to pay even more so the people who don't pay taxes get a bigger refund?
CB73, currently those with annual incomes that are insufficient to justify and are not legally required to file income tax reports receive no benefits due to the now existing per capita exemption provisions of our federal income tax regulations.
Under the proposed regulation modifications outlined, there’d be no changes in such cases.

Regarding those working poor filers of income tax reports that currently recover their entire withheld earning and do not pay any income taxes, they’d receive no additional benefits under the proposed regulation modifications outlined,

Under the proposed tax revenue neutral regulation modifications outlined, income tax filers earning no more than the median income would in aggregate benefit. Those with the least taxable incomes would derive the greatest per capita exemption benefits due to this proposed modification and those with greater taxable incomes would benefit the least.

Respectfully, Supposn
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2015, 10:19 AM
 
14,011 posts, read 11,446,217 times
Reputation: 11956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
We grant greater tax considerations for the children of the wealthy, less for children of the poor.

There is no per capita exemption from taxable incomes if adjusted gross income > $152, 525 – married filling separately to $279,650 – head of household. Otherwise per capita exemption is $3,950 annually cost of living adjusted.

The per capita exemptions for individual income tax filers and their dependents is only $3,950 reduction from taxable incomes.
The exemption’s maximum value to those in the highest income bracket is (.396)(3950) > $1,564 per capita,
For those in the lowest bracket it is $395 per capita and many of those filers do not qualify for earned income credits and their incomes are too low to fully benefit for the total per capita reductions from taxable incomes they are entitled to.

I consider it despicable that the per capita tax considerations for highest earning taxpayers are almost 4 times greater than that of our working poor. Surely the considerations for the children and parents of the working poor should be granted at least as much consideration as those of our wealthiest population segments.
The per capita exemption should be a tax revenue neutral uniform amount for all tax brackets and it should be a reduction from taxes themselves rather than from taxable incomes.

Tax reform can be accomplished by both huge changes and by numerous small modifications. I don’t do taxes anymore and had not realized that we finally COLA’ the exemption amount.

Respectfully, Supposn
If you did that, you'd be giving a credit, instead of a deduction, for having kids.

Some might view this as the State paying for your kids and thus an erosion of parental responsibility. For the record, I don't agree, but I am just mentioning this as I'm sure a lot of people would argue that way.

The counter to that argument is that we are already doing this to an extent, via public education, particularly at the university level, since you don't have to pay expensive property taxes to get the public benefit, unlike at the K-12 level of education!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2015, 10:35 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
31,389 posts, read 69,915,701 times
Reputation: 37504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
CB73, currently those with annual incomes that are insufficient
to justify and are not legally required to file....
And? Is it really asking so much for someone who wants to to receive a benefit to ask for it?
The last thing the country needs is another means to separate the takers from the payers.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2015, 12:41 PM
 
1,784 posts, read 917,264 times
Reputation: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1 View Post
If you did that, you'd be giving a credit, instead of a deduction, for having kids.

Some might view this as the State paying for your kids and thus an erosion of parental responsibility. For the record, I don't agree, but I am just mentioning this as I'm sure a lot of people would argue that way.

The counter to that argument is that we are already doing this to an extent, via public education, particularly at the university level, since you don't have to pay expensive property taxes to get the public benefit, unlike at the K-12 level of education!
NCole1, I’m in complete agreement with your post.

Mr. Rational, I don’t understand the point of your post? Is it a complaint or a criticism?

Respectfully, Supposn
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2015, 03:51 PM
 
Location: Ruidoso, NM
5,459 posts, read 5,598,353 times
Reputation: 4550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
We grant greater tax considerations for the children of the wealthy, less for children of the poor.
Precisely. Exemptions favor the wealthy, and it goes way beyond just children, but any deduction. It's cheaper for them to buy house for instance than it is for a poor person (same house).

Poor people qualify for other benefits to make up for it, and if they are really poor having children is highly favorable rather than costly. Those in the middle pretty much pay for everyone else.

Don't know if you are aware of how Obamacare is funded? If you make ~$14k/yr or less, then you are on medicaid. Basically free, but restricted. Starting at ~$14k you get most of your Obamacare insurance payment subsidized, but anything you make over that point is effectively taxed at 15% of your income, until you become fully vested at ~$32k/yr. A person making $32k/yr subsidizes Obamacare the same $ amount as someone making $1B/yr. The cutoff for where you go from subsidizing to being subsidized is probably around $22k/yr.

This seems to be the say we are going in the US. Lots of benefits for the poor, primarily paid for by the almost poor.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2015, 04:22 PM
 
1,181 posts, read 1,501,755 times
Reputation: 1695
No family in the 10% bracket is not getting the EIC, it's just not possible.

In fact for a family to not get the EIC they have to make at least $44k, not exactly working poor.

If you're going to put the system on blast, and recommend new methods of "sharing the wealth" at least know how the system works as is.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2015, 08:11 PM
 
1,784 posts, read 917,264 times
Reputation: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff View Post
Precisely. Exemptions favor the wealthy, and it goes way beyond just children, but any deduction. It's cheaper for them to buy house for instance than it is for a poor person (same house).

Poor people qualify for other benefits to make up for it, and if they are really poor having children is highly favorable rather than costly. Those in the middle pretty much pay for everyone else.

Don't know if you are aware of how Obamacare is funded? If you make ~$14k/yr or less, then you are on medicaid. Basically free, but restricted. Starting at ~$14k you get most of your Obamacare insurance payment subsidized, but anything you make over that point is effectively taxed at 15% of your income, until you become fully vested at ~$32k/yr. A person making $32k/yr subsidizes Obamacare the same $ amount as someone making $1B/yr. The cutoff for where you go from subsidizing to being subsidized is probably around $22k/yr.

This seems to be the say we are going in the US. Lots of benefits for the poor, primarily paid for by the almost poor.
RRuff, Populist economic policies percolate their nations’ people up through income brackets of increasing purchasing powers. Due to the increased migration of employees to wages of greater purchasing powers and their effects upon their nations’ median wage and their entire economies benefit.

Although proportional to incomes, lesser earners are greater beneficiaries of populist policies, (because the entire population shares a greater pie) higher income earners receive the greater amounts of benefits due to their nations’ economic improvement.

There is little or no hope for the conditions of middle income earners’ existences improving unless those of lesser incomes experience even greater improvements in proportion to their incomes.

Too many middle income earners share your implied proposing we deny benefits to lesser earners in the false belief that benefits to the impoverished can only be to cost of those earning more.

Unsanitary conditions, poor health and ignorance among the poor reduce the economic and social conditions of the entire nation.

Respectfully, Supposn
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2015, 09:13 PM
 
48,508 posts, read 88,694,730 times
Reputation: 18188
The poor do not pay any effective taxes; so don't see the problem. Even lower middle in the end pays little taxes when you look at services government provides and who funds them in reality.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top