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.
For your hypothetical "wealthy" person who makes $120k, let's assume he is single and has no 401k or other item that would use pre-tax dollars, and rents an apartment, so no mortgage interest or property tax deduction, and lives in a no state income tax state. His Federal income amount would be $23,670, and his social security and medicare amount would be $9,180, for a total Federal tax of $32,850. His income tax rate would be 19.73%, and the total federal tax percentage would be 27.3%. From my own experience, if he has a reasonably normal mortgage and property taxes, his income tax rate would drop to about 16% with the extra deductions over the standard amount. I really don't think you can argue that higher earners don't pay their fair share.
Try $500,000 for your wealthy person. Someone who makes $120K and is single might be comfortable if he is not in the largest cities, but cannot possibly be wealthy at that income level. With a family, it's middle-middle class. The taxes on $500,000 are close to $200,000 and could be more (Federal, state, and property).
Sounds like you have listened to political statements on the new tax plan. More likely taxes are going to go down for almost everyone including some reductions for those who currently pay the most.
My understanding is that most people's taxes will go down NOW but if the plan stays in place, middle class taxes will eventually go up (not until after 2020 though). The tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are permanent within the new tax plan but the cuts for middle income earners are temporary.
My understanding is that most people's taxes will go down NOW but if the plan stays in place, middle class taxes will eventually go up (not until after 2020 though). The tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are permanent within the new tax plan but the cuts for middle income earners are temporary.
Your understanding is partially correct. The corporate tax cuts are permanent (unless changed by legislation). The individual rates (FOR ALL INDIVIDUALS) expire after 10 years. This was done to keep the bill within the deficit restraints so it could pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of requiring 60 votes. The same thing was done with the Bush tax cuts and when they came up to expire Obama extended them. Unless a party (whichever one is in power) wants to get slaughtered at the polls they will extend them in 2027. It's basically just an accounting tactic to make the numbers work for the bill.
There is a 60 month federal limit, if you would like I will post a link to that. Some states have exemptions and extensions but they are very rare and offered only in unusual circumstances, the most common extension is if an elderly relative who is also poor has custody of the child. In your link some states are listed that have no lifetime limit, that's interesting, one would have to assume that the state is paying 100% after 60 months
But you are right, if a parent is ineligible the children continue to receive child only benefits which amounts to very little money In Texas the TANF grant for one child in a 'child only case' is $99 a month
Bottom line is you can't raise a child on $99 a month
EDIT I found the info on states with TANF limits beyond 60 months, they can do that but they only receive 20% of the normal federal funding.
Well I'm not from TEXAS, but I know a few people (one being my SIL and another an ex co-worker of mine) who are single parents and have been on some sort of welfare or government assistance for well over 10 years! Food stamps, Link card, Medicaid and free daycare all of it! And on top of it my Ex co-worker makes over $40k a year!! The government is just now asking her questions of why she isn't going after the father for child support. She was cut off Medicaid and Daycare this year, but still gets the Link card. My SIL who also works has been receiving benefits for at least 15 years! They are both from Illinois. Of course that might explain why Illinois is in such a fiscal mess because they don't cut anyone off or look into their circumstance to see if it's legit!
Well I'm not from TEXAS, but I know a few people (one being my SIL and another an ex co-worker of mine) who are single parents and have been on some sort of welfare or government assistance for well over 10 years! Food stamps, Link card, Medicaid and free daycare all of it! And on top of it my Ex co-worker makes over $40k a year!! The government is just now asking her questions of why she isn't going after the father for child support. She was cut off Medicaid and Daycare this year, but still gets the Link card. My SIL who also works has been receiving benefits for at least 15 years! They are both from Illinois. Of course that might explain why Illinois is in such a fiscal mess because they don't cut anyone off or look into their circumstance to see if it's legit!
There are no time limits for SNAP or Medicaid. I have no idea what state provides "endless" free child care, that's highly unusual. In California I think the maximum after returning to work is 24 months, an additional 12 months is available under certain circumstances and cost sharing is required and is based on the parent's income. No parent can get subsidized child care in any state unless they prove they are working and are participating in a TANF welfare to work program. A LINK card is an EBT card, right? Those are used to dispense SNAP benefits, not just TANF cash.
The best way to reduce welfare and other government assistance is to raise the minimum wage to a "living wage." If people made enough money to support themselves, their incomes would be too high to qualify for many types of government help. High wages would provide an incentive to get off the dole.
There is plenty of bloat in both the military and the welfare system. The two should be thought of 2 different heads on a two-headed beast. Both have become destructive to the well being of our nation.
National defense is a federal responsibility, per the Constitution. Welfare isn't.
I can't believe the % of people who are in favor of random drug testing. Do they not care at all about the Big Brother state? If you don't trust the government, you sure as h*ll don't want them doing drug testing. This is a perfect example of how we lose our rights. It starts with a maligned group (the homeless, welfare recipients, etc.), then next thing you know, they find other reasons to test more people. How can people not see this? It's classic stepping stones technique. Get people to give up their rights in step by step fashion by dividing them against each other.
I had to **** in a bottle plenty of times while serving in the military. Even when I was in Afghanistan. I have no problem with it being required for those looking to suckle at the government teat.
National defense is a federal responsibility, per the Constitution. Welfare isn't.
Really?
GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE. Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."
The thing is , even if Fox were to post anything negative about this administration, it would be underplayed and relegated to off peak viewing. The real function of the fourth estate should be to keep government honest. Not grease the skids for incompetence and failure and lies.
While the MSM is decidedly liberal, there are many outlets that take their responsibility quite seriously. And perform their function admirably. Fox does not! Breitbart does not! Even responsible conservative journalists will not defend either outlet.
Yes, all outlets in the rush to be first and break news, make mistakes. Some actually acknowledge when it happens and should be commended for that. Never heard of Breitbart printing a retraction.
Most of the so-called MSM is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the DNC. Over 90 percent of the "journalists" admit to voting Democrat. Some have even come out and said they were actively slanting the news in favor of Hillary. With people like Dan Rather and his "fake but accurate" smear campaign, Lyin' Brian Williams, suspended Brian Ross and many others, it's no wonder the alphabet media has such a credibility problem today. How many stories has CNN had to retract in the past year? As for Faux News, Shepard Smith isn't any better. And just for the record, I don't watch Faux News either. The MSM is more than just liberal. It propped up Obama for eight years and now decides that it wants to be part of taking down President Trump. That's not what responsible journalism is about.
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.
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.
