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.
I chased down the link. For (I assume) tax year 2009, WCH has $13.K in business deductions (certain business expenses of reservists, performing artists, and fee-basis government officials), $21K in itemized deductions (but no Schedule A attached), $21.9K in personal deductions (which would seem to be 6 people in the house-hold), a $200 deductions for a contribution to a 401K, a $201 deduction for a residential energy credit.
Somehow I don't think that is comparable to Warren Buffet's secretary - I don't think that she has nearly $56K in deductions.
I do wonder if WCH is a performing artist or a government worker...
I also think that WCH needs to start contributing more than $200 a year to a 401K.
And $21K in itemized deductions? Mines only around $10K...I hope it's just a high mortgage interest rate and not medical bills that pumped up that figure.
It also occurs to me...when conservatives complain that the middle class doesn't pay it's fair share of taxes, they're talking specifically about WorkingClassHero!
thanks for the personal attack...much appreachated
as to the 200 in 401k..that is the max CREDIT
and most of the schedual a is interest and PROPERTY TAXES (over 12k in property taxes)
on the schedule a.. the first section is medical costs...to include the premium that you pay for insurance...minus a small percentage
then you have property taxes...many states charge a property tax, not only on land, but on durable goods like cars, boats, and in some states...pets( mostly for pedigrees)
then you have business expenses..this is where most just dont know about:
while you cant use 'commute' miles from your home..and in and around (between job sites) is duductable... your job requires steeltoe boots and doesnt supply it...that's a business expense..you job requires you to dress a certain way (ie business, business casual, uniform, etc) if your company doesnt supply or remburse...its deductable...your job want you to have a planner at the weekly meetings...if your job doesnt supply you with a franlin-covey..and you had to buy...its duductable...your job as a mechanic requires you to spend about 3k on tools each year...its deductable
charitable deductions...you dont have to make it anything big..for example if you say you go to church evey week and give $20....20x52...1040
plus the lines 48-53 which are the bush tax credit ( for households under 150k) that will bring your tax down to zero,,, the health credit, the energy credit (you can even use that as a renter, if the place doesnt include the appliances), child CARE credit, and the child credit (better to use this one later in lines 65(?)), the retirement (401k ) credit, and the education credit
the key is to get line 60 down to zero..(your total tax), then you get everything back
What's really sad is that I wasn't even being serious, it was hyperbole, and you guys come on here posting how it would be just fine if 50% of americans which includes hard working middle/working class people couldn't afford to have kids. I can't believe people are that bitter and self involved that they wouldn't question how this country is working if things were actually that bad, their only issue is "don't touch my money" "me me me, fu, it's all about me and mine." If only wealthy people had kids there would be no support services for the rich because it's middle and working class kids who grow up to do those jobs. Eventually the rich would become poor with no workers to underpay and then some would be forced to do those jobs.
BTW, like it or not, having children you can't afford is a right, no one can be stopped from doing that, but if there are enough decent paying jobs for working/middle class people we won't have to support those kids with tax money, the parents will support them with their jobs.
Oh, so you're for letting the wealthy keep their money now so they can create and provide jobs for the working/middle class? I'm glad we were able to show you the light.
I didnt vote because its a stupid poll with stupid replies.. You cant blanket the whole population in 2 short answers..
obviously not only the rich pay taxes, so you cant answer that one
and the middle class does not kick in their fair share, so you cant answer that one either..
I also did not vote for the same reasons. It's not a simple yes/no answer.
seriously, if you thought that i was making a personal attack then i truly appologize to you.
However, would you please point out the attack? I'd much appreciate it and it would help correct my future actions.
.
..
.
.
Quote:
it also occurs to me...when conservatives complain that the middle class doesn't pay it's fair share of taxes, they're talking specifically about workingclasshero!
Awww… the poor rich folks. What would they do, if people like you didn’t stand up for them.
The rich don't want your pity.
Quote:
That is a pretty strong period. But then, throughout history, authoritarians and dictators have always wanted everything to be their way, and of course, the idea of humanitarianism was either alien or something along the lines of cowardice and a weakness.
This is comical. I take it you don't understand communism...all these little welfare babies would be more than welcome since everyone pays for everyone else. What you support is reckless irresponsibility if you think people should just pop 'em out whenever they feel like it, whether they can support the child or not. That kind of attitude is part of what is getting us deeper in this hole. Have you taken a look at the HHS budget lately?
Quote:
And please remember that if someone returns you the favor, providing you a taste of what authoritarianism looks like.
Funny, I'm 27 and I've been married to my husband for almost 5 years, we are just now pregnant with our first child. We own a home and a business, and have no debt other than the mortgage and two car loans. We are more than ready and capable to financially and emotionally support this child. We would have no problem passing my little test. It's sad that you can't see the entire point I was trying to make with my original statement.
Quote:
1- Owning a business means absolutely nothing. And I hope it helps you earn enough to buy a mirror so you can look at yourself every once in a while to see the real face of rudeness. Here’s a clue on this point though… if you don’t have a response to the question as asked, stop complaining about it and MOVE ON (yes, I’m being rude, and you’ve earned it).
Owning a business sure means something, especially when we are franchisees of a large multi-national brand and had to QUALIFY to be able to own said business. I have nothing to say about the rest of this section, aside from once again stating that if you had phrased your question differently, I would have answered it...I cannot venture a guess on a question based on a false premise. Like it or not, you are the problem here, in that you cannot ask a question in a way that elicits a proper response.
Quote:
2- Did I say that? Please point out, or shut up.
Okay. At least we know that you have a personal idea of capitalism, or that you pick and choose per convenience.
You need to go back and reread what you said and clarify if you want an answer from me. I answered honestly your other questions, what makes you think I would purposely be dense about one in particular?
Quote:
3- Well, the question was on taxation, flat, fair, and in case of Buffett’s comment that the current tax structure can actually be regressive.
I think this was the part of your little questionnaire that asked if we agree/disagree with Smith's views on taxes. I told you I disagree. Why are you still going on about it?
Quote:
4- What has that got to do with GM, unions etc? Avoid trolling if you don’t want to get caught in the act.
I'm starting to think you're delusional. Go back and reread what you wrote and my responses. You accused me of cursing the middle class...I told you that is not what I'm doing. I told you I don't like paying for someone else's negligence which is why I don't think the poor should pay fewer (or no) taxes than everyone else. I brought up GM and the bailouts to further my point that I disagree with paying for someone else's negligence. It's not that hard to follow, but you have to READ.
Quote:
5-I missed the “cons”. Please share.
That is research you can do on your own and figure it out for yourself. I have done my due diligence, have you? Obviously not.
Now only if I can follow your point? Please elaborate so you can get a handle of my advice that you clearly haven't gotten.
Well, that is something you'd have to settle with your fellow conservatives.
Not true. A lot of liberals assume that if something comes out of Rush's mouth, he's speaking for every conservative out there. That is entirely not true. Most of us don't even listen to the man.
Take two people. One makes $5 million a year and the other, $50K. Everything else being equal, which of the two has a greater chance to benefit with a lower tax burden, considering capital gains tax relative to income tax?
Who's fault is it that the $50k guy didn't make investments?
WorkingClassHero, thank you for your reply. I appreciate the correction.
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.
It's sad that you can't see the entire point I was trying to make with my original statement.
I have nothing to say about the rest of this section, aside from once again stating that if you had phrased your question differently, I would have answered it...I cannot venture a guess on a question based on a false premise. Like it or not, you are the problem here, in that you cannot ask a question in a way that elicits a proper response.
