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.
The Democrats don't consider you "poor" because you don't have a bunch of out of wedlock children. If you were a single mother making a similar income you would pay no income tax , get thousands worth of tax credits, pay 0.00 for food, get housing vouchers, medicaid, child care etc.
and that "rich" guy making the exact income as you would pay taxes to support your lavish lifestyle. This BTW is why you should despise the Democrat party with all your heart and soul.
You can't get medicaid at $30k/year. Prob not food stamps. Poverty line is about 16k/year maybe a few 1000 higher now.
If you were earning $30k, married with children, you would also pay little or no income taxes. People with children have much higher costs than those without.
I made 30,000 dollars last year and I paid in about 3,000 in taxes. I got NONE of it back. I thought the bottom fifty percent didn't have to pay taxes?
Many corporations pay ZERO due to loopholes, doesn't that make the rich the freeloaders?
You must be a single guy with no kids or stay at home wife? We are ALWAYS expected to bend over and be skrewed by this govt's social engineering. If you had a mortgage deduction, stay at home wifey and some bratty kids, rest assured you probably would have gotten $$ back for the gov't while others would pay for your largesse. you are the exception. You should aim to find a job where you can get more deductions, get married (if you're hetro) and pump out some chilluns. the gov't would take care of you then.
I traced the source of that claim to a CBO report from about 4 years ago. It showed that the bottom income quintiles actually had a negative income tax burden, roughly since 1987. However, the "poor" still paid social insurance taxes and excise taxes. The lack of an income tax burden results from the EITC.
They will eventually get that $$ back assuming that they live long enough or have surviving dependents if they die before that time. Once others pay Fed, state taxes, they are gone for good.
I made 30,000 dollars last year and I paid in about 3,000 in taxes. I got NONE of it back. I thought the bottom fifty percent didn't have to pay taxes?
Many corporations pay ZERO due to loopholes, doesn't that make the rich the freeloaders?
I am not a Republican, and agree that most of the Federal Income tax is paid by the most rich. That's the way the tax brackets are designed.
I wish i WAS self employed. I hate working for someone else. Also, I'm not complaining that I had to pay taxes. I'm just saying that the fact that the bottom fifty percent DON"T pay is a MYTH
But nobody ever said that the BOTTOM 50% don't pay Fed income tax. They MERELY say that 47% (clsoe to 50%) don't pay Fed Income taxes due to generous tax deductions by the Bush administration in an attempt to buy votes from those demographics.
But nobody ever said that the BOTTOM 50% don't pay Fed income tax. They MERELY say that 47% (clsoe to 50%) don't pay Fed Income taxes due to generous tax deductions by the Bush administration in an attempt to buy votes from those demographics.
The tax brackets have nothing to do with Bush nor Obama. That said, everybody pays taxes to a degree or another, but if you are in the bottom half and can claim the right deductions you can have a good deal. The OP's story is quite different since he does not have a mortgage, children, etc.
The tax brackets have nothing to do with Bush nor Obama.
That's not what I said. But in fact, the 10% tax bracket was created under the Bush era tax cuts and the highest tax bracket lowered, with the "marriage penalty" virtually eliminated. Obama gave in to popular opinion and continued the tax breaks. We live in times where a POTUS would automatically lose if he dares to raise taxes. Just look what happened to the first Bush when he raised taxes during a recessionary time. If the second Bush had cut expenses concurrently with the tax cuts, I doubt that we'd be in as much trouble now.
Yeah. Right. Freeloaders. That is what we all are.
I make roughly ten times what you do, so did I pay 10 times more taxes (30,000)?
Nope. I paid 45+ times more taxes ($136,000).
I'm sick of hearing what's fair.
Btw, people whining about corporations paying taxes should quickly realize that THOSE TAXES are passed onto YOU...corporations NEVER pay taxes - they stick you with the bill built right into the price.
when I was a UT student (1985 or so), the finance professor told us that the highest income tax rate was 70%! the girl behind me exclaimed, "why would anyone want to work hard?". I never forgot that. Of course, the tax code was changed to lower the tax code to 39% or so soon after that, i believe. I don't think that the "rich folks" have it that good either. We are ALL taxed too much. Many of the tax breaks that are so widely touted are actually "phased out" for many higher income folks. That is NOT fair at all. I don't see anything wrong with ppl with kids having to lift some of the tax burden off of everyone else. Common sense. Their families use up more of the governements' resources. Why shouldn't they pay more in taxes?
I think that we also look at taxing some of the megachurches, churches that earn beyond a certain amount. It's not fair that they have excess to city services, federal services but pay $0 income taxes. they are leaching off of the public dole also.
The Democrats don't consider you "poor" because you don't have a bunch of out of wedlock children. If you were a single mother making a similar income you would pay no income tax , get thousands worth of tax credits, pay 0.00 for food, get housing vouchers, medicaid, child care etc.
and that "rich" guy making the exact income as you would pay taxes to support your lavish lifestyle. This BTW is why you should despise the Democrat party with all your heart and soul.
Look, BOTH parties pander to the type of breeders that you mention. Republicans are ONLY slightly better. It was George W who was bragging to the country in one of his SOTUs that a family of 4 with $45,000 income pays $0 FIT. His party plays to that demographic to get its votes. The only favor that Bush did was to expand the tax tables "across the board" rather than "targeted" which the Dems always want to do. A single taxpayer with no kids does better with the Bush tax cuts than what the Dems put out. Somewhat cynical since "the gays" (who cannot file as anything but single) are a Dem consituency.
Of course, "targeted" is an obvious ploy to their base of poor unwed single mothers (not necessarily welfare creeps) that votes for them.
If there could be a fiscally conservative who would make the tax code a fairere one and be socially liberla, he/she would have my vote in a heartbeat.
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.
