DeafCaroline
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,889
- Reaction score
- 8
No you didn't. As usual.
It depends on the size family, so I don't know the exact figure for the cut off but that sounds close. Yes, they get back their tax withholding in a lump sum. Those who qualify also get back a lump sum for earned income tax credits. That's money that they didn't even pay in to the IRS.Reba, ok, so, let's say on average a low income earner pays 8% interest deduction in taxes from their payroll.
Let's say they're earning 9 dollars an hour x 8 hours a day x 260 days (average number of work days in a year = $18,720. 8% of that is deducted from their cheques for taxes = 1496.70 cents. You say they get all that back plus more? And they don't have to pay anything in income tax either?
Aww, the old "Get out of the USA" card. :roll:I'm waiting for somebody start flipping yell about a strawman or sumthin.
Um, the poor do not pay taxes, at least not on income taxes. Perhaps you need to define exactly what the income amount you're referring to as to constitute as being "poor."
The top 25% income earners pay 86% of all federal income taxes while the top 50% income earners pay 97% of all incomes taxes.
Here's a bit of history for ya.
In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a lower tax rate, the richest 1% pay 39% of all income taxes. They now pay more than double that share today.
Funny how a Canadian is trying to tell Americans about American taxes.
As I said in my post, one either advances or moves on. In some cases, I moved on, in some I advanced.So how did you advance from your low income jobs?
I don't understand your question. It's because I didn't want to work for minimum wages that I was motivated to advance. I didn't want to work 60 hours per week at $1.65 per hour (no overtime rate) for the rest of my life.if not for minimum wages, how do you think you'd advance?
Yes, I did take evening classes so I could work during the day. I also took (and passed) as many CLEP tests as possible so I could save time and money on taking college courses.How she advanced? How about while working you look for a better position since you have now the experience under your belt? Or while working went to night school or take college courses for a shot at getting a better job/career once you have your degree?
if not for minimum wages, how do you think you'd advance?
Aww, the old "Get out of the USA" card. :roll:
Here is something to consider: (and I refuse to research it)
Is it possible that those top 1%'ers are making a much larger percentage of total income compared to 1980? Is this an indication that the top 1% have spread the earnings gap to such an insanely larger amount? Perhaps in 1980 those 1%'ers would command 20% of all income, compared to something like 45% now. Just a thought.
BTW, those numbers I used above are just for example.
When I was a kid, there were maybe 1 or 2 billionaires. Now there are hundreds...
yes, i did take evening classes so i could work during the day. I also took (and passed) as many clep tests as possible so i could save time and money on taking college courses.
That's great, but if you want to actually see a higher standard of living for people rather than just feeling all warm and fuzzy from declaring yourself a firm believer in livable wages, I'd recommend also being a firm believer in the Law of Unintended Consequences. You could start off by asking yourself this question: Why not just raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour? Anyone could live very comfortably off that. What could go wrong?So have I. Where is your empathy? Just because we were lucky enough to get out doesn't mean others will be as well. I am a firm believer in livable wages.
Congress has to pass a spending bill before a President can sign it. Probably a more relevant question is who was in control of the Congress during the Reagan years, the Bush 41 years, and the Clinton years? As for Bush 43, one of the reasons Republicans got pounded so bad in 2006 and 2008 is that their base was sick of the excess deficit spending, which hit an whopping $455 billion. What happened after Democrats took control of the Congress and then the presidency? Enough that a whopping $455 billion deficit now seems astonishingly low.Seems pretty clear what the answer is. Make darn sure all Presidents are Democrats from now on.
When they say payroll taxes, they mean mostly the FICA tax which goes to Social Security and Medicare (usually 6.2% and 1.45% respectively, for a total of 7.65%). It's really about double that because the employer has to match that. To an employer, that's considered part of an employee's compensation since it's part of the cost of employing someone, even if the employee never sees it. In other words, if the employer didn't also have to pay that tax, the employee would probably see that much more money in his paycheck.The poor don't pay taxes? that's a big surprise to them
"The reality is that the income tax is one of a number of types of taxes that individuals pay, both over the course of their lifetimes and in a given year, and it makes little sense to treat it as though it were the only one that matters. Some 86 percent of working households pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes. In fact, low- and moderate-income people pay a much larger share of their incomes in federal payroll taxes than high-income people do: taxpayers in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale paid an average of 8.8 percent of their incomes in payroll taxes in 2007, compared to just 1.6 percent for taxpayers in the top 1 percent of the income distribution. ..."
Apparently, it is possible. My question is why should I care? If some guy in my neighborhood becomes a billionaire because he created something a lot of people want, will it make me poorer? Will his new-found wealth make the rest of the pie any smaller for the rest of us?Aww, the old "Get out of the USA" card. :roll:
Here is something to consider: (and I refuse to research it)
Is it possible that those top 1%'ers are making a much larger percentage of total income compared to 1980? Is this an indication that the top 1% have spread the earnings gap to such an insanely larger amount? Perhaps in 1980 those 1%'ers would command 20% of all income, compared to something like 45% now. Just a thought.
BTW, those numbers I used above are just for example.
When I was a kid, there were maybe 1 or 2 billionaires. Now there are hundreds...
Adjusted gross income (taxable income)
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in05tr.xls
Adjusted to current dollars.
1986 - Top 1% gross income of $285 billion dollars which leaves about $2.3 trillion dollars for the rest of the lower income earners from a total income of $2.5 trillion dollars. 285,000,000/2,500,000,000 = 11.4%
2005 - Top 1%. $1.5 trillion out of $6.0 trillion dollars on adjusted gross income. $1.5 trillion/$6 trillion = 25%
So, yeah, more people making more money in the top 1% in 2005 than in 1986 however there are more people outside of the top 1% bringing in more money combined ($1.5 trillion vs $4.5 trillion dollars). In other words, the biggest revenue makers for the Fed govt are those outside of the top 1% (i.e. those earning less than the top 1%). You can see why on taxing 100% on the rich will not work in paying off the debt. Revenue is not a problem...it's a spending problem.
That's great, but if you want to actually see a higher standard of living for people rather than just feeling all warm and fuzzy from declaring yourself a firm believer in livable wages, I'd recommend also being a firm believer in the Law of Unintended Consequences. You could start off by asking yourself this question: Why not just raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour? Anyone could live very comfortably off that. What could go wrong?
Congress has to pass a spending bill before a President can sign it. Probably a more relevant question is who was in control of the Congress during the Reagan years, the Bush 41 years, and the Clinton years? As for Bush 43, one of the reasons Republicans got pounded so bad in 2006 and 2008 is that their base was sick of the excess deficit spending, which hit an whopping $455 billion. What happened after Democrats took control of the Congress and then the presidency? Enough that a whopping $455 billion deficit now seems astonishingly low.
When they say payroll taxes, the mean mostly the FICA tax which goes to Social Security and Medicare (usually 6.2% and 1.45% respectively, for a total of 7.65%). It's really about double that because the employer has to match that. To an employer, that's considered part of an employee's compensation since it's part of the cost of employing someone, even if the employee never sees it. In other words, if the employer didn't also have to pay that tax, the employee would probably see that much more money in his paycheck.
The reason that graph is so regressive is there's a limit on the Social Security part of the FICA tax, which is the biggest part of the FICA tax. Only the first $100,000 of income can be taxed for that.
I'm really not a fan of Social Security and Medicare, or at least the way it's set up. Older people, by and large, are wealthier than younger people because they've had decades to work, save up, invest, and advance in their careers. What these programs are basically schemes to transfer wealth from younger poorer workers to older wealthier people. I really don't know why modern day progressives fight tooth and nail any attempt to fix the structural problems in the system. Given their rhetoric, I would think they'd be opposed to direct transfer of wealth from the less wealthy to the more wealthy. Maybe someone can explain this to me?
Apparently, it is possible. My question is why should I care? If some guy in my neighborhood becomes a billionaire because he created something a lot of people want, will it make me poorer? Will his new-found wealth make the rest of the pie any smaller for the rest of us?
Apparently, it is possible. My question is why should I care? If some guy in my neighborhood becomes a billionaire because he created something a lot of people want, will it make me poorer? Will his new-found wealth make the rest of the pie any smaller for the rest of us?