Originally posted by Jeff It's not. The point is that often people with lots of money complain about their "hard-earned dollar" when, in fact, that is a very "soft-earned" dollar. The guy's making the least are doing the most work yet it is often those with the most that complain about how expensive it is to be rich. Ironic. I know that your are speaking of generalities, but all of my family's dollars are hard-earned. I doubt anyone on this board works harder than I do. I don't mind paying taxes. But I don't want the government to waste the money. How many billions are wasted? Its like our sweat means little to politicians. I also don't like the attitude that many have about people making more money than they do, like somehow others are entitled to my pay or that I didn't earn it. When they bust their a**es putting themselves through grad school and then another 10 years of working weekends and up at 3 in the morning to finish client's projects, then they can cop an attitude with me. Until then they can forget it.
For those of you making under $25K AGI. For the year 2002, you will be able to get up to a $1000 nonrefundable income tax credit. What do you have to do? Save $2000 in a IRA. You don't make much money? Claim maximum exceptions, use the would be tax money to fuel your IRA. The thing to remember, its nonrefundable. This means if you will get a refund next year, then you can't add this tax credit ontop of it. You must ensure that you owe the government money at the end of the year, then walla......... your debt is wiped clean with this credit. Nothing like this exists for the rich, and I doubt if 1% of income earners under $25K a year will take advantage of this new legislation.
OK, I mis-assumed that your post read to mean that the rich earn their money while the poor don't. I've heard arguments to the same on this board, I apologize for mistaking your post.
NCSTATEFAN...that's nearly 10% of the income of those who make $25,000. A lot of times, people don't have that much left over to save. Boo freakin' woo that the rich don't have that kind of option...they have many more options to use to reduce what they pay in taxes.
Did my taxes the other day (but I ain't sending the damn check till the absolute last moment) and my tax prep program showed me how much this "big" tax cut would save me over the next few years. Of course it assumes that my income stays constant, etc, etc, but it's not all that much. So here's my question: If I pay that amount, will people stop complaining to me about how I don't pay enough in taxes? I would be more than happy to do so if Daschle et al. would shut the hell up about it.
The rich get richer b/c they're rich for a reason, usually. Two actually, one, they know what to do with their money besides spend it, and two they have enough money to not have to spend everything they earn. The middle class plant worker 50,000 a year guy could easily become a 150k 200k a year if he spent and invested his money wisely. But we all know that you gotta have the latest and greatist SUV that gets 4 mpg! Yes I know families cut into this but more than they should, instead of buying your kid a dirt bike for christmas, how about a tax free college fund? Put some more into your 401k and quit complaining about social security. Yes it's probably screwed, but don't make matters worse by depending on it when you've spent the past two decades yapping about how it won't be there when you're old enough to recieve it. *run*
The burden argument is bunk to me. Why not just double the poverty line and say any money made over this amount goes to the government. Then the poorest 50% pay nothing and all of the fat cats can cover anyone else. Who cares if it is fair or not. It's not like it would be a tremendous burden to live on twice what is considered poverty. Here are a couple of radical ideas. Don't start a family if they are such a financial burden on you at the time that you need to b**** about the rich people getting a tax cut. Stay in school and go to college. Combined with the first suggestion, most people should be able to do this. If you can't afford even a state school, look into the Army College Fund and the Montgomery GI Bill. If you can't get accepted into a four year college, go to a juco for a couple years and then transfer. Also, look into vocational studies like being a mechanic, there is real money in having a rare skill like auto repair. Now that you have a college education and a good job, look at your taxes, are you still going to be complaining about you're current tax bracket not paying enough, hell no. We are all so into enabling people. They have to feed their kids, they come from a poor family, boo freaking hoo. This is America. Anyone has the right to pursue their dreams and ambitions. Hard work and proper planning can get you into those higher brackets and then we can finally get rid of the Democratic Party forever.
Don't start a family if they are such a financial burden on you at the time that you need to b**** about the rich people getting a tax cut. Or, maybe the rich people b****ing about paying too much in taxes should stop working and just be poor instead. That way, they don't have to worry about paying so much.
Plant worker .. $50,000 a year?? I don't think I've ever heard those two phrases in the same sentence. Show me a plant worker who makes $50,000 a year and I'll show you a damn happy dude. Most middle class plant workers make faaaaaar less. $50,000/annum for a plant worker is nowhere even close to the average.
Jeff, Just a simple thing I learned from all my economics classes. If you tax the corporations more they will pass down the cost to the consumers or employees. Prices will either go up, and/or salaries will not be as high as they would have been without the taxes. It is ALMOST pointless worrying about what the percentages are tax wise. If corporations paid 100% of the taxes I have a feeling every product we buy would be much more expensive, and make it even worse for the poor, who spend most of their income on goods. You can manipulate the percentages to benefit a certain group to a degree, but overall it doesn't make much difference. Continuing on to the deduction talk, rich people itemize deductions because they get killed in taxes. They are in a higher tax bracket, have to worry about double taxation if they own a business, or if they have capital gains from stock they own, etc. I may be going out on a limb, but I for one am thankful my taxes are at the rate they are at. I may not feel like I'm getting my money's worth, but it sure beats what I'd be paying in Europe or many other areas of the world. (Of course they get a little more for their tax dollar, but I'd rather not pay for some of the things they fund.) B
Good eye Brian and my choice of words was not an accident--it was meant to be more "inclusive" than earned would be. In the same vein (sp?) as others picked up on, much of the wealth owned by the rich is earned, but much of it is also inherited or from speculation. There is nothing wrong with that and I certainly understand the importance of investment and speculation to our economy in particular (less certain of much economic benifits of inheritence), but you can make a distinction among the ways wealth is accumulated. Further, another said investments include risks--I agree with this, but losses are written off so it isn't like the tax structure is insensitive to this issue. I don't like the attitude that many have that every dollar they make (soft or hard earned) is solely do to their individual efforts and that there is no recognition of the hard work of people at all economic levels in our soceity do that afford people the oppertunities in our great nation to be wealthy. I have zero complaints about my education or income. But I have no illusions it is independent from our great nation's institutions & freedoms, and that others often life costing efforts--whether fighting wars or in inhumane fields and factories--are a big part of why I can be in the place I am today. B, I don't share your perspective in total, I would prefer having a stronger saftey net and my perceived benifits it brings to society even at the cost of say another 5-10% of my income--more like Western Europe, but I really liked how you outlined it.
Thanks for the kind words. If it was only another 5-10% I'd agree with you, but realistically I think it would end up being closer to 15-20%. By either putting that much into savings or paying off debt, I feel like I get much more out of my paycheck than some of the social benefits offered. Though at 5-10% I could split the savings and extra benefits and be a happy camper. B
You are of probably correct with our current expenditures--including federal, state, local. But my figure might be on target if we reallocating spending by doing such things like not paying for the drug war home (incarceration--prisons, jails, prosecution--of nonviolent persons is one of the states biggest expenses) and abroad (decriminalize, or better yet, tax, drugs), cutting back some military spending and/or getting more international reimbursement for what we do, etc. When you consider fed, state and local taxes I would really like to know how much less we pay in taxes than persons in GB, France, Germany or Switzerland for instance. I would think we get a whole lot less relative to what we pay. I think some of the benefits of a larger safety net are more indirect--you may not get more right now but you may have to support extended family members less or by reducing overall violence for instance. Of course there are some others things I think we should have more government spend more on (screw Amtrak, lets get some high speed trains between major cities) both might benefit you directly (if you live between such cities) and the overall economy.
B: My only opinion left on this one is, if companys don't have to pay any taxes, they also should receive no subsidies either. To me, that is not only fair but the essence of capitalism.
Even if those subsidies create new job oppurtunities? I don't mind subsidies when certain conditions are required along with them. But if it is given to a company with no stipulation then I'm not always for it. In a perfect market subsidies are supposed to create jobs, employing more people, but overall decreasing pay slightly (either through higher taxes or lower salaries). B
The problem with this is that people try to get rich to have money. You don't have a family to have more money, you do it for the other benefits. If you (general you, not necessarily YOU) have made the choice to sacrifice some of your financial well being in favor of family, that is a valid choice, but it should not shift the burdens away from you and onto someone else. If you have made the choice to pursue wealth before family, then you should not be punished with higher tax brackets.
Are there actually people who pay no income taxes? I mean, I've worked minimum wage jobs a few times in my life, and every time, there were taxes taken out of those paychecks, and not once did I get all the money back in the refund. And during that time period, didn't this country see the biggest economic growth in its history? Does that guy really believe that the rich having a higher percentage of the total tax burden will drive our economy straight into the ground? I'll say it again, burden is not the right word. These horrible people he's referring to that only pay 4% of the total taxes have much more of a tax burden than the struggling top 1% earners (whose money earned he conveniently never states). Let's say I make $30,000, and I pay $4800 in taxes, I'm struggling a little more than the guy who makes $125,000 and pays $29,500. The latter still has a lot of money to work with while the first guy, who didn't have that much to begin with, has even less. Now I'm sure someone will come in and say that the first guy wasn't working hard for his money, and I'll tell you to **** off, you can't tell a school teacher, a janitor, a bus driver, a rape counselor, or many other people that they don't work hard because they don't make as much money as other people. I just have one question for this guy and the other b****y whiners who make a great deal of money-would you rather switch places with these horrible people who aren't paying that much in taxes because they aren't making that much. I didn't think so. And when I move into that upper 5% very soon (God willing), you'll never hear me b****, I guarantee it. I'll be too busy counting my lucky stars.
