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.
President Reagan signed into law 11 tax increases, targeted at people down the income ladder. His administration and the Washington press corps called the increases "revenue enhancers." Reagan hiked Social Security taxes so high that by the end of 2008, the government had collected more than $2 trillion in surplus tax.
George W. Bush signed a tax increase too, in 2006, despite his written, ironclad pledge to never raise taxes on anyone. It raised taxes on teenagers by requiring kids up to age 17, who earned money, to pay taxes at their parents' tax rate, which would almost always be higher than the rate they would otherwise pay. It was a story that ran buried inside The New York Times one Sunday, but nowhere else.
In fact, thanks to Republicans, one in three Americans will pay higher taxes this year than they did last year.
First, some history. In 2009, President Obama pushed his own tax cut — for the working class. He persuaded Congress to enact the Making Work Pay Tax Credit. Over the two years 2009 and 2010, it saved single workers as much as $800 and married heterosexual couples as much as $1,600, even if only one spouse worked. The top 5 percent or so of taxpayers were denied this tax break.
The Obama administration called it "the biggest middle-class tax cut" ever. Yet last December the Republicans, poised to regain control of the House of Representatives, killed Obama's Making Work Pay Credit while extending the Bush tax cuts for two more years — a policy Obama agreed to.
By doing so, congressional Republican leaders increased taxes on a third of Americans, virtually all of them the working poor, this year.
As a result, of the 155 million households in the tax system, 51 million will pay an average of $129 more this year. That is $6.6 billion in higher taxes for the working poor, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimated.
In addition, the Republicans changed the rate of workers' FICA contributions, which finances half of Social Security. The result:
If you are single and make less than $20,000, or married and less than $40,000, you lose under this plan.
But the top 5 percent, people who make more than $106,800, will save $2,136 ($4,272 for two-career couples).
President Reagan signed into law 11 tax increases, targeted at people down the income ladder. His administration and the Washington press corps called the increases "revenue enhancers." Reagan hiked Social Security taxes so high that by the end of 2008, the government had collected more than $2 trillion in surplus tax.
George W. Bush signed a tax increase too, in 2006, despite his written, ironclad pledge to never raise taxes on anyone. It raised taxes on teenagers by requiring kids up to age 17, who earned money, to pay taxes at their parents' tax rate, which would almost always be higher than the rate they would otherwise pay. It was a story that ran buried inside The New York Times one Sunday, but nowhere else.
In fact, thanks to Republicans, one in three Americans will pay higher taxes this year than they did last year.
First, some history. In 2009, President Obama pushed his own tax cut — for the working class. He persuaded Congress to enact the Making Work Pay Tax Credit. Over the two years 2009 and 2010, it saved single workers as much as $800 and married heterosexual couples as much as $1,600, even if only one spouse worked. The top 5 percent or so of taxpayers were denied this tax break.
The Obama administration called it "the biggest middle-class tax cut" ever. Yet last December the Republicans, poised to regain control of the House of Representatives, killed Obama's Making Work Pay Credit while extending the Bush tax cuts for two more years — a policy Obama agreed to.
By doing so, congressional Republican leaders increased taxes on a third of Americans, virtually all of them the working poor, this year.
As a result, of the 155 million households in the tax system, 51 million will pay an average of $129 more this year. That is $6.6 billion in higher taxes for the working poor, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimated.
In addition, the Republicans changed the rate of workers' FICA contributions, which finances half of Social Security. The result:
If you are single and make less than $20,000, or married and less than $40,000, you lose under this plan.
But the top 5 percent, people who make more than $106,800, will save $2,136 ($4,272 for two-career couples).
Well, the part about the child's earnings being taxed at the child's parents tax rate is not wholly true. If the parents chose to report the child's earnings on their taxes (instead of filing a second form) and claim the child as a dependent then, yes, I guess the child's income would be taxed at a higher rate. Anyway, said 17 year old may still file his own return, although it has to be signed by parent or guardian.
I believe that part of the tax law overhaul was actually to stop parents from reporting some of their income as their child's and so taxed at a lower rate.
Wasn't it George Bush Senior who broke his pledge to not raise taxes? "Read my lips"? I don't recall Mr. Bush Jr. making a 'written, ironclad pledge'. Hmm.
Well, the part about the child's earnings being taxed at the child's parents tax rate is not wholly true. If the parents chose to report the child's earnings on their taxes (instead of filing a second form) and claim the child as a dependent then, yes, I guess the child's income would be taxed at a higher rate. Anyway, said 17 year old may still file his own return, although it has to be signed by parent or guardian.
I believe that part of the tax law overhaul was actually to stop parents from reporting some of their income as their child's and so taxed at a lower rate.
Wasn't it George Bush Senior who broke his pledge to not raise taxes? "Read my lips"? I don't recall Mr. Bush Jr. making a 'written, ironclad pledge'. Hmm.
If what you say is accurate about the child tax earning deal, then god forbid if parents use a loophole to save some money when earned income has been flat coupled with 30-plus years of inflation.
If what you say is accurate about the child tax earning deal, then god forbid if parents use a loophole to save some money when earned income has been flat coupled with 30-plus years of inflation.
Just sayin'.....
Well, it is actually against the law to report your earned income on another person's tax form (such as a parent preparing a separate 1040 for his or her child and reporting part of the parent's income on it) in order to benefit from a lower tax rate.
Well, it is actually against the law to report your earned income on another person's tax form (such as a parent preparing a separate 1040 for his or her child and reporting part of the parent's income on it) in order to benefit from a lower tax rate.
Jusy sayin'...
I'm sure, in principle, you'd agree with me on the matter given the state of affairs with the economy over the last thirty plus years, but i concede to your legal, albeit, well-made point. (just most of us don't enjoy the political privileges of legislation...)
To bring about the point; it's no accident the pseudo-economic heated up rapidly on unsound economic principles only to melt like a nuclear power plant.
Just sayin'..
Last edited by Blue Grass Fever; 04-14-2011 at 11:38 AM..
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.
