NYTimes: it is necessary to raise taxes on the middle class

No, but some people think almost the opposite of that so I'm trying to make a point.

 

OMG!!!!

Not the bad old days. . Full employment $200/yr more taxes for the average Texan!! OMG

Tuition $300 per semester at UT Austin. OMG NO!!

Spazz out. Stop the thinking..!!! NO MORE TAXES NO MORE TAXES NO MORE TAXES PLEASE

How much longer can the point one percent and their duped fan boys the libertarian/conservatives get away with it?

 

Honestly, that's not true. Small business owners pay the lowest in taxes as they have a lot of flexibility in reporting income against loses.

The people who pay the highest rates are the ones who don't have complex tax returns. It's people who don't own a house, who don't invest or own a business, and who don't give a lot to charity.

Romney wants to eliminate the tax breaks on the middle class so he can lower taxes on the rich. Its pretty sick and will tank our economy faster than you can say end of the American dream.

 

Everyone works hard for their paycheck.

If you want the rich to pay the same rate as everyone else, than their tax rate will go down from 35% to 30% and everyone elses will go from 18% TO 30%.

You do that and you will literally have a revolution on your hands. You can only suck so much blood out of the gentry before the whole thing collapses.

 

I want you to look back on this post when you're thirty years old.

 

Well I hope you make it. Hope you get a scholarship or have wealthy parents as nominal tution at UT Austin is over 10 x's as much as it was about 25 years ago while nominal wages are about 2.5 x's as much. Many students are indebted for many years at hundreds per month for 20 years.

It was different when the wealthier paid more taxes and the tax dollars went to subsidize state schools like UT.

Many of the people protesting on Wall Street are ex hard working students like yourself who are heavily indebted after taking out loans and working very hard. Maybe you should try to investigate for yourself. Seek out someone who was there or possibly google occupy houston and talk to some who protested here.

Try not to get all your news or impression of political reality from Fox News or the Fox light stations like CNN or ABC.

Good luck. It is good that you are thinking about these issues.

BTW in the society of the last 30 years that libertarian/conservatives have increasingly created, luck is ever more important. Hopefully you won't have the bad luck of graduating in a down year in a down field with high debt. For instance many law students (by definition almost 100% were more hard working or smart than the average highschool students) they graduate with debts of over $100k and many do not get jobs. Or another example. My sister and her husband graduated in 1983 IIRC from UT Austin with geology degrees. A good field when they started and a complete bust when they finished. Something like 2 out of 400 grads got jobs that year. Fortunatly tuition was dirt cheap,few had loans and those that did had heavily subsidized low interest ones with deferred interest till after graduation. Loans that don't exist today. This low tuition and low interest loans were brought to you by taxation.

 

It is very true. Employers pay 7.65% on their employees wages. They also pay federal and state unemployment taxes, occupation taxes, business licenses, etc. They also pay 7.65% on their half, unlike us employees. Schedule C owners pay FICA taxes on their health insurance, but employees do not. We've seen numerous small laws over the year that have been proposed and passed that nickel and dime small businesses.

Is there some flexibility? Yeah. There are tax advantages, but don't think they don't get hammered on the other foot.

 

This is what our cuts to education is producing, people. This, right here. The grossly rich's strategy of dumbing down America to the point of having our kids imagine themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires is working.

 

??? No. I just work hard and hope to make a lot of money in the field I'm going into.

 

The rates in the figure that SamFisher provided include social security and medicare taxes (see the description below the graph).

My reading of the editorial is that the NYTimes is not talking about taxes on non-income sources. In any case, you would be hard pressed to find a typical household paying close to 50% of their income in taxes.

At the end of the day, tax revenue from all sources (income, social insurance, corporate income, sales, excise, etc.) at all levels of government (federal, state, local, etc.) comes out to 25-30% of our GDP in each year over the past two decades. Given our tax structure, which is very regressive relative to other developed countries, you just don't have any group of people paying 50% of their income as tax.

The 25-30% figure comes from taxpolicycenter.org.

 

You kids stay in school.

Work your ass off, go to the right school, get in the right club, get the right internship. That s*** works. It's your best shot to get rich and hire accountants.

 

1. Uh...read the graph chief, it very clearly accounts for Social security etc

2. It's pretty clear that you don't have a very good understanding of the way the tax codes work - you included tons of taxes, but no deductions.

For example - Why the qualifier about sales tax? That's a consumption tax, why should it be latched onto income tax? (though it's deductible if you want to claim it instead of income tax....) ANd who would live in Oregon, yet make all of the purchases where you live in any event? And you say it's not bizarre? Really?

Why is all of the $593 k paid in ordinary income btw? Why not as dividends, why not actually have the company keep it and pay it out as capital gains or over time? And why aren't they taking, you know, any deductions at all? SInce they're paying out a ****load of state tax it would have been deducted from their income (as would property tax.) Oh and I love how you give them property taxes, but no mortgage interest deduction (or even a deduction for the property tax).....and of course they're apparently taking zero business-related expense deductions as well.

Also, I like how you ahve them as BOTH a sole proprietorship AND an S-corporation apparently. Other than that you can't be both at the same time (you're either a corporation, with shareholders, or you're not...) this is nice and illegal.

Basically what you're saying is if you hypothetically took some random person who lived in oregon and made all their purchases in a sales tax state and they for whatever reason decided not to avail themselves of any and all available tax deductions and intentionally fudged their tax liablity to be as high as it could possibly be, and engaged in some un-possible fudging of corporate forms that is illegal, you could get them to 42%, and that such a thing is not "extremely bizarre".

Res ipsa loquitor.

 

How much is 50% of income worth to a poor person compared to 50% of income worth to a rich person?
Think about that and that is why flat tax rates are terrible.

 

Self-employed folks easily get all of that canceled out and more with the additional deductions they have. I mean, you get to deduct the cost of your health insurance amongst many other things. You can even deduct your FICA taxes which shaves a few points off as well. Not to mention that you can deduct many many other costs - like part of your rent if you work from home.

The advantages are immense, and if you are paying more taxes as self-employed or a small business owner, you really need to hire an accountant.

 

should target corporations not paying their fair share of taxes instead of arguing over the common man.

 

DING DING DING DING

 

NY Times would never run an article on this because after all, their corporate parent is a tax dodging and treasury rebate benefactor.

 

The class warfare card is really fun to play for the libpigs, and it must feel good to complain about 'rich people' when your life's work has not been rewarded by society with money... however, raising taxes on anyone stifles job growth and actually lowers tax revenue. But those are just the facts, no doubt of little importance to the dishonest demagogues on the left who would prefer to deceive their emotional fanbase with lies and distortions.

Obviously Obama has no clue how any of this works, nor is he making any effort to understand. Good grief our economy would be roaring if we had competent leadership who understood the business world.

 

Lulz at all the tax experts here, when I'm the CPA who deals with this in real life.

Yeah guys.