Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950
-
dwccrew
That's not the issue here. The issue is income tax, hence the tax bills are at the lowest levels. Consumption taxes have little to nothing to do with that.Bigdogg wrote:
Correct but they do pay other kind of taxes, gasoline, sales, alcohol tobacco etc...iclfan2 wrote:
Half of the country pays no income tax...BCSbunk wrote: a filthy lie please provide evidence that half the country pays no tax. better read the article.
You are so wrong it is sickening
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0 -
Writerbuckeye
The point remains that when people do not have to pay in (at all) they don't take ownership of the FACT that taxes have to be paid by someone. If they had to pay, even a little, it might dawn on them that NOBODY is getting anything for "free" and there's a need to watch spending...always.jmog wrote:
Elementary school children? really?BCSbunk wrote:
You got me. You are right why are elementary school children not paying their fair share and the the poor people who make less than 10 kiclfan2 wrote:
Half of the country pays no income tax...BCSbunk wrote: a filthy lie please provide evidence that half the country pays no tax. better read the article.
You are so wrong it is sickening
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0
LOL Oh yeah I forgot about the elderly and their massive SS checks.
You do realize that the 50% statistic is of working adults right?
The threshold is also far above $10k as well. -
Footwedge
Which circles back to the real culprit in all of this. Globalization and the resultant raping of the collective American worker....both blue and white collar.IggyPride00 wrote:
You can say that again.This is actually quite terrible news and just shows how bad the unemployment and underemployment is in this country.
In the past decade we have done multiple rounds of tax cuts, massive stimulus spending, cut interest rates to almost zero.....and we still have a net loss in jobs since the turn of the century.
That should scare the bejesus out of everyone.
Substitute fair trade for free trade...and voila...Americans would have more jobs than what the economy could handle.
Tax percentages collected on the individual would remain low, federal coiffers would shoot way up, the national debt would recede, and unemployment compensation, welfare and other expensive safety net programs and their taxpayer costs would fall through the floor.
But American corporate interests are not about helping the American economy. The American corporate interests are more concerned about increasing the bottom line....in a traitorous fashion I might add. They do this by shipping manufacturing plants overseas to circumvent mimimun wage laws (pay sweat shop grunts a buck an hour), environmental laws, and safety laws.
The fact is...globalization encompasses 90% of the ills in this country.
1. Real unemployment at 16%
2. Expansion of the government by leaps and bounds to keep the unemployment numbers from hitting Depression levels.
3. Huge and unsustainable increases in annual deficits.
4. And the continual depreciation of inflation adjusted wages...adding to the lowered tax base receipts.
5. The record setting annual bankruptcies that are paid for by the people who have not declared bankruptcy in higher credit interest rates (costs passed on by the banks).
Each and every issue listed above is a direct cause/effect of globalization with the resultant endgame being America morphing into shitholedom in the near future. -
futbol4ever
I certainly hope that was sarcasmFootwedge wrote:
Yeah...I'm moving to Canada so I can keep more of my hard earned money.tk421 wrote: Half the country pays no taxes. The only people the politicians want to raise taxes on are the filthy greedy "rich". Having only 1/2 of the country pay for everyone else is not a good idea. Of course, the moment any politician mentions raising real taxes on anyone not rich, s/he will get skewered. Of course, income tax isn't even the tip of the iceberg tax wise. There are plenty of "hidden" taxes that no one ever mentions. -
CinciX12
Uh oh.iclfan2 wrote:
Half of the country pays no income tax...BCSbunk wrote: a filthy lie please provide evidence that half the country pays no tax. better read the article.
You are so wrong it is sickening
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0 -
believer
Footie,Footwedge wrote:Which circles back to the real culprit in all of this. Globalization and the resultant raping of the collective American worker....both blue and white collar.
Substitute fair trade for free trade...and voila...Americans would have more jobs than what the economy could handle.
Tax percentages collected on the individual would remain low, federal coiffers would shoot way up, the national debt would recede, and unemployment compensation, welfare and other expensive safety net programs and their taxpayer costs would fall through the floor.
But American corporate interests are not about helping the American economy. The American corporate interests are more concerned about increasing the bottom line....in a traitorous fashion I might add. They do this by shipping manufacturing plants overseas to circumvent mimimun wage laws (pay sweat shop grunts a buck an hour), environmental laws, and safety laws.
The fact is...globalization encompasses 90% of the ills in this country.
1. Real unemployment at 16%
2. Expansion of the government by leaps and bounds to keep the unemployment numbers from hitting Depression levels.
3. Huge and unsustainable increases in annual deficits.
4. And the continual depreciation of inflation adjusted wages...adding to the lowered tax base receipts.
5. The record setting annual bankruptcies that are paid for by the people who have not declared bankruptcy in higher credit interest rates (costs passed on by the banks).
Each and every issue listed above is a direct cause/effect of globalization with the resultant endgame being America morphing into shitholedom in the near future.
I can't believe this but you are 100% dead-on accurate in this post! -
BigdoggMiddle-class households that earned between $34,300 and $141,900 paid 50.5 percent of all federal tax revenues in 2007 (the most recent year analyzed.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/68094 -
Al BundyBigdogg;396093 wrote:Middle-class households that earned between $34,300 and $141,900 paid 50.5 percent of all federal tax revenues in 2007 (the most recent year analyzed.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/68094
I know the middle class is hit hard with taxes, but I question that study. It appears that they picked $141,900 as the top value for "middle class" because it puts the tax burden over 50%. Looking at the chart at the bottom of the link, the level would have to be well into the 5th quintile, so we are including many of the top income people as "middle class" in this example. -
BCBulldog
Is there really a difference between tax increases and deficit spending? Tax increases decrease the amount of money the taxpayer has. Deficit spending devalues the money that the taxpayer has. At the end of they day, the taxpayer has less buying power/value/wealth either way. -
Al Bundyccrunner609;396111 wrote:$141,900 is not middle class.
But it is the value at which the study can put percent at over 50%. Just another example of a study manipulating stats to try to prove a certain outcome. -
jmogccrunner609;396111 wrote:$141,900 is not middle class.
Depends for me.
If i'm a single man making $142k I agree with you, I'm not middle class.
However, if I'm a married man with 3 or 4 kids and a wife who is a stay at home mom, $142k is most definitely middle class. -
Footwedge
People on this board...from both sides of the aisle....need to reread this post 20 times and think about it....ponder it...and then come to the understanding that our once great, beacon pf prosperity days are officially over. When the government utilizes maximum Keynesian philosophy to the tune of 2 trillion....with absolutely zero results (reduction in unemployment) it's time to realize the system in irretrievably broken.IggyPride00;351744 wrote:You can say that again.
In the past decade we have done multiple rounds of tax cuts, massive stimulus spending, cut interest rates to almost zero.....and we still have a net loss in jobs since the turn of the century.
That should scare the bejesus out of everyone.
For those on the right that think more tax cutting is the answer, you're nuts. Between 2000 and 2005, corporate taxes paid by American companies was on average 1/3 LESS than fellow corporations in the the top 30 producing nations as a percentage of GDP across the globe. Link available upon request.
The outsourcing of American livelihoods today is the biggest form of collective treason ever seen over the past 234 years. -
sjmvsfscs08jmog;396137 wrote:Depends for me.
If i'm a single man making $142k I agree with you, I'm not middle class.
However, if I'm a married man with 3 or 4 kids and a wife who is a stay at home mom, $142k is most definitely middle class.
I still disagree with you. My best friend growing up was one of eight and his father was a nuclear engineer making $85,000 and his mom didn't work. They were middle class.
Back when I took some political theory classes, we used to read how Karl Marx (ahhh! run away!) predicted that technology and progress in capitalism would become so efficient and good at what it does that the unemployment rate would boom while production did too and that it would lead to the downfall of the world's great capitalist power and usher in an era in which the workers controlled the means of production.
Every time I see information like this, I can't help but think he was right on the money with his prediction. Look around everywhere, people who thought they had job security ten years ago don't anymore. We have standardized everything to the point where skill is nonessential Even teachers are being replaced by websites and software with video and whatnot. We're moving exponentially faster to the point in which the majority of people aren't needed to work because a machine/technology can do their job.
And I say all of that as an avid Republican. -
I Wear PantsRaising or lowering taxes will not help until we lower spending.
Which is why I'm not all aboard the "lower taxes to save the economy" train because we never lower spending. Lower taxes +still increased spending = worse situation. -
I Wear Pants
Yes it is.ccrunner609;396111 wrote:$141,900 is not middle class. -
Footwedge
You and I hardly ever see eye to eye on issues. But kudos to you sir for seeing reality smacking you in the face. Excellent post. I remember seeing my first computer in high school in the early 70's. It was a monster...probably 8 feet x 6 feet by 6 feet. They made the "outrageous" claim that these things would replace humans in doing a ton of work. I thought...how stupid is that line of thinking?sjmvsfscs08;396348 wrote:I still disagree with you. My best friend growing up was one of eight and his father was a nuclear engineer making $85,000 and his mom didn't work. They were middle class.
Back when I took some political theory classes, we used to read how Karl Marx (ahhh! run away!) predicted that technology and progress in capitalism would become so efficient and good at what it does that the unemployment rate would boom while production did too and that it would lead to the downfall of the world's great capitalist power and usher in an era in which the workers controlled the means of production.
Every time I see information like this, I can't help but think he was right on the money with his prediction. Look around everywhere, people who thought they had job security ten years ago don't anymore. We have standardized everything to the point where skill is nonessential Even teachers are being replaced by websites and software with video and whatnot. We're moving exponentially faster to the point in which the majority of people aren't needed to work because a machine/technology can do their job.
And I say all of that as an avid Republican. -
believer
I understand what you're saying and empathize with you.Footwedge;396139 wrote:People on this board...from both sides of the aisle....need to reread this post 20 times and think about it....ponder it...and then come to the understanding that our once great, beacon pf prosperity days are officially over. When the government utilizes maximum Keynesian philosophy to the tune of 2 trillion....with absolutely zero results (reduction in unemployment) it's time to realize the system in irretrievably broken.
For those on the right that think more tax cutting is the answer, you're nuts. Between 2000 and 2005, corporate taxes paid by American companies was on average 1/3 LESS than fellow corporations in the the top 30 producing nations as a percentage of GDP across the globe. Link available upon request.
The outsourcing of American livelihoods today is the biggest form of collective treason ever seen over the past 234 years.
HOWEVER, capitalism is based on cost and efficiencies (IE: turning a profit). If the American workforce has gotten to the point where it is no longer cost effective, then - right or wrong - that labor moves to the next most cost effective labor source.
But don't fret...the awesome thing about capitalism is sooner or later the market corrects itself. Cheap Chinese labor will not last forever. And as American consumerism begins to decline because more and more Americans are unemployed or under-employed, the Chinese will have no one to buy their products. When that critical mass occurs the Chinese and Americans will have a common problem.
Why do you think the Chinese government props up U.S. government spending? They produce; we spend. The communists have become the capitalists. The free marketers have become the socialists.
What goes around comes around....it ALWAYS does. -
jmogsjmvsfscs08;396348 wrote:I still disagree with you. My best friend growing up was one of eight and his father was a nuclear engineer making $85,000 and his mom didn't work. They were middle class.
First, $85k 15-20 years ago when your buddy was growing up was a LOT more than $85k is now.
Trust me, I'm roughly in a "similar" situation to your nuclear engineer buddy. I'm a research chemical engineer, lets just say making better than $80k but less than $110k (depends on yearly bonus) and I have a stay at home wife and 3 kids. When you throw in an above average neighborhood (not the inner city, not some upscale area), student loans, 2 cars, etc I can honestly say I get "by", but not by a ton. I don't have money to burn, we watch every penny.
Take my income up to $142k its not like my bring home would go up by the same amount as the tax rates would be higher. I might bring home an extra $15-25k per year, and that would mostly go to paying off debt and retirement, not to living like a "rich" person.
Like I said, single making $142k could be considered rich, married with kids making $142k would be upper middle class at best. -
Al Bundyjmog;396994 wrote:First, $85k 15-20 years ago when your buddy was growing up was a LOT more than $85k is now.
Trust me, I'm roughly in a "similar" situation to your nuclear engineer buddy. I'm a research chemical engineer, lets just say making better than $80k but less than $110k (depends on yearly bonus) and I have a stay at home wife and 3 kids. When you throw in an above average neighborhood (not the inner city, not some upscale area), student loans, 2 cars, etc I can honestly say I get "by", but not by a ton. I don't have money to burn, we watch every penny.
Take my income up to $142k its not like my bring home would go up by the same amount as the tax rates would be higher. I might bring home an extra $15-25k per year, and that would mostly go to paying off debt and retirement, not to living like a "rich" person.
Like I said, single making $142k could be considered rich, married with kids making $142k would be upper middle class at best.
142k is well abover middle class. In 2007 the 90th percentile (well above middle class) was $75,920. The median income was about $45,000. The 75th percentile was about $50,000.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2008/3/22/92434/7687 -
jmogAl Bundy;397018 wrote:142k is well abover middle class. In 2007 the 90th percentile (well above middle class) was $75,920. The median income was about $45,000. The 75th percentile was about $50,000.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2008/3/22/92434/7687
We aren't talking the same language.
I'm talking total household adjusted income (basically what you bring home adjusted for number of dependants).
What your link proved is that single JOBS percentiles, not household percentiles adjusted for number of dependants in the household.
Look at this link (yes, its wikipedia, as much as I hate wiki)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluence_in_the_United_States#Status_and_Stratification
Look at the definitions of upper middle and lower middle classes then get back to me.
"Upper middle class[1] (15%) Highly educated (often with graduate degrees) professionals & managers with household incomes varying from the high 5-figure range to commonly above $100,000"
"Lower middle class (32%) Semi-professionals and craftsman with some work autonomy; household incomes commonly range from $35,000 to $75,000. Typically, some college education. "
So, by definition, the upper middle class ranges from around the 90 to 95 percentile down to around 75-80 percentile.
The lower middle class ranges from that 75-80 percentile down to about 45 percentile.
Below that is the working class, working poor, and poor -
sjmvsfscs08jmog;396994 wrote:First, $85k 15-20 years ago when your buddy was growing up was a LOT more than $85k is now.
I'm 20. More like 5-10 years ago. -
sjmvsfscs08Footwedge;396622 wrote:You and I hardly ever see eye to eye on issues. But kudos to you sir for seeing reality smacking you in the face. Excellent post. I remember seeing my first computer in high school in the early 70's. It was a monster...probably 8 feet x 6 feet by 6 feet. They made the "outrageous" claim that these things would replace humans in doing a ton of work. I thought...how stupid is that line of thinking?
Just because I'm a Republican doesn't mean I don't see things for what they are. I got off the phone with my mother, who is at some bigwig education meeting down in Atlanta, and she was talking about a revolutionary way to rep your brain before a lesson and you'd basically become exponentially more efficient at learning. She's been an educator and administrator for thirty years and has never seen anything like it. They are able to teach autistic kids and dyslexic kids at rates never before seen. So what the hell does that mean? It means you can chalk teacher up to those next on the chopping block. Machines have conquered the factory worker, software and the internet will begin to consume substantial lawyer and teaching positions within fifteen years in my opinion. You don't need an expensive lawyer when you have legalzoom.com for the wills and small stuff, that will continue to grow. You won't need a teacher to get you hooked on phonics, this software, a video and a few managers will do the job better. Capitalism is my opinion has always been the best method, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. You will indeed see unemployment rise as technology relegates workers and skilled professionals to the unemployment line.
The return of the Luddites is around the corner.
Now don't think I'm beginning to turn my back on capitalism. I'm simply aware of what could happen. I see too many piece-of-shit freeloaders walking around inner-city America to suddenly give them an excuse to be lethargic and a strain on society. I've seen too many girls get pregnant and tell the government it's retarded for a bigger check to think "oh they just can't find a job." Bullshit, the bureaucracy loves to grow the bureaucracy and making--errr, allowing people to become dependent on the government is a great trick of theirs. It's like a fucking cancer, and cancers need to be removed.