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.
Neither have I. I'm referring to the earned income credit, but you need to have a child
or if not, be between 25 - 65 with low moderate income and not be a dependent of another.
I make too much, so I never would qualify for that. I just pay federal taxes. That's my role in life
It should be everyone's role in life. Unfortunately, only half of us are paying into the system. The rest just take.
Have you heard that old truism, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction? Do you not think that if people in high finance and industry, etc. experience increased costs, they will just pass it on the consumers of there product as a price increase? Thus, it is the little guy, the alleged 99 percent person who will get hurt in the end. Now will one of you brilliant liberals tell me where I am making a mistake in my thinking?
If someone owns a pizza factory *ahem* and decides that they are going to pass the cost of their pizza on to consumers - let's be very fantastical and say that the cost of the pizza will jump from $10 to $30, since the supposed costs of Obamacare (which won't go into effect for another couple years anyway) are evidently insurmountable and staggering to business owners...
... well...
... people will stop buying his pizzas. They buy from the other guy, who raised them a few bucks rather than freaking the hell out and deciding that the world was ending and that he needed to price them out-of-range for the consumer.
His profits decrease and eventually he needs to be less punitive with the cost of his goods and accept that he's only going to be able to buy two yachts this year, rather than three.
If someone owns a pizza factory *ahem* and decides that they are going to pass the cost of their pizza on to consumers - let's be very fantastical and say that the cost of the pizza will jump from $10 to $30, since the supposed costs of Obamacare (which won't go into effect for another couple years anyway) are evidently insurmountable and staggering to business owners...
... well...
... people will stop buying his pizzas. They buy from the other guy, who raised them a few bucks rather than freaking the hell out and deciding that the world was ending and that he needed to price them out-of-range for the consumer.
His profits decrease and eventually he needs to be less punitive with the cost of his goods and accept that he's only going to be able to buy two yachts this year, rather than three.
Not all small businesses are the same size. There are companies employing 11 people and other companies that are still called small business that employ hundreds of people and make millions.
Small business owners, the Mom and Pop type businesses, WANT Obamacare because they are forced to pay the heath insurance companies exorbitant prices.
Whereas, what is called small business also, companies making millions, who employ several hundred, they already get health insurance premium reductions because they are insuring so many more employees.
They probably didn't work for it either, their ancestor probably worked for it. I am showing that they have built up so much wealth that they are not going to suffer if their tax rate goes up by 3 or 4 % which I believe is the increase actually being discussed.
The Republicans want to tie in any increase in taxes for the rich to an equal increase in taxes for the middle class, but for the average middle class family struggling today, having $2000 less a year is going to have a significant impact. For the top 1 % who are already so filthy rich, paying an additional $2 or 10 million a year is going to be like a drop in the bucket, they won't even notice it.
And that's IF they pay it, many pay no tax whatsoever----like the 7,000 millionaires in 2011 who paid absolutely nothing in taxes.
---also the stock market has done very well so far this year.
It doesn't matter. IF I leave money to my kids, that's my business. I earned it and I left to my heirs. Why is that an issue for you?
The stock market has done poorly the last 10 years. We have yet to regain what we lost.
One issue with your calculations is you're not looking at income. Return on invesments is not income. Income is income. They're not taxed the same way. Case in point. My FIL had over 100K in RTI when he was retired but still got full social security checks because he had no income. He did not pay the same tax rate as someone who earned an income. This is set up this way to encourage people to invest for their futures so they'll be less of a burden on society.
I'm still waiting. Please post your list of people who EARNED (as in had income) of a billion dollars a year. Oh what the heck, post a list of people who earned or had RTI that totals a billion dollars a year. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath. You're just exaggerating for effect and we all know it.
Your only problem with the "filthy rich" is you're not one of them. They either earned what they have or they have an ancester who earned what they had. How about this. You go out and build a business you can leave to your kids. Do what they did. You have no business whining about what they have if you're not willing to do what they or their ancesters did to get it.
And there are very good reasons someone could make millions in RTI and pay no taxes. Such as they lost millions in RTI last year and rolled losses over onto this year. Seriously, if they made a million this year but lost a million last year, how much taxes do you think they should pay given their portfolio now has the same value it had two years ago?
It doesn't matter. IF I leave money to my kids, that's my business. I earned it and I left to my heirs. Why is that an issue for you?
The stock market has done poorly the last 10 years. We have yet to regain what we lost.
One issue with your calculations is you're not looking at income. Return on invesments is not income. Income is income. They're not taxed the same way. Case in point. My FIL had over 100K in RTI when he was retired but still got full social security checks because he had no income. He did not pay the same tax rate as someone who earned an income. This is set up this way to encourage people to invest for their futures so they'll be less of a burden on society.
I'm still waiting. Please post your list of people who EARNED (as in had income) of a billion dollars a year. Oh what the heck, post a list of people who earned or had RTI that totals a billion dollars a year. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath. You're just exaggerating for effect and we all know it.
Income levels as reported in articles on the internet aren't broken down by "earned" income vs income from investments. It's not like I'm looking at people's tax returns. If you are able to find something like that go ahead and post it.
I don't know about the stock market but:
"Between 1979 and 2007, average after-tax incomes for the top 1 percent rose by 281 percent after adjusting for inflation — compared to increases of 25 percent for the middle fifth of households and 16 percent for the bottom fifth."
Most of the gains after the recent recession have accrued to the wealthy, not the middle class or poor.
So I don't think you need to worry about how hard a time the wealthy are having.
I don't like subsidizing war - see we have something in common,
we both don't want to subsidize something
And remember, we can't raise taxes on 10% of the population to fund the current level of spending.
You all are going to have to chip in too
The current tax rates are barely progressive, I'd say there's room for some changes.
The rich aren't paying much more tax than the average middle class person.
"The bottom 99 percent pays a 27.5 percent total tax rate on average, while the top 1 percent pays an average 29 percent tax rate, according to 2011 data from Citizens for Tax Justice."
this graph is based on after-tax income gains over the last 30 years. Now which line would be affected less if their taxes were increased by a 3 or 4 per cent?
I luv my obama phone...and rumor is we gon git Iphone5's soon. Git on the freebie wagon...plenty to go around.
I think you mean your Reagan phone.
Once again, Reagan gets credit for doing more for the impoverished in this country than modern day Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians would ever stand for.
"In 1985, the FCC implemented Lifeline to help low-income households in case phone rates increased after the breakup of AT&T. ... The commission maintains that, in accordance with the universal service mandate, 'telephone service is essential for finding a job, connecting with family, or getting help in an emergency.'"
Also? It isn't a tax, it's a fee that's included on phone subscribers' bills (if you object to that distinction, talk to Mitt Romney who claimed he never raised taxes because all the revenue increases he implemented were referred to as "fees").
And the maximum monthly usage is capped at $10.00 per person/phone. Any air time exceeding that must be paid by the user.
Also, it's Democrat Clair McCaskill who opened an investigation into fraud and abuse in the system and pushed through new rules that require a national database to check for households with multiple phones through more than one carrier, and to close accounts that haven't been active for 60 days.
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.
