Taxes

[Sundays Man]

This is our Tax System explained in terms most everyone can understand. It predicts what will happen if Obama get his way.



We call it 'Bar Stool Economics'

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would
go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are
all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your
daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they
divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that
from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end
up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill
by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each
should pay. Even though the rich guy had paid much more all along and now got

much less back, he went along with the plan anyway.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got' 'That's true!!' shouted
the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?
The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down
and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all
of them for even half of the bill!


And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how
our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start
drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible:p

[PoniesRock101]

haha!

[WashingtonBay]

Not bad :)

[WashingtonBoy]

Excellent illustration.

WSJ: Obama's Tax Cut for 95% of Americans Is an Illusion (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/10/wsj-obamas-tax.html)

[JackieB]

I looked at both candidates' plans very carefully and I think Obama's is fair, as you can imagine from me. Keep in mind that the taxes for those earning over $250K as a family are simply returning to the rates before the Bush tax cuts.

Also, it is true that many large corporations don't pay any federal income tax, so I support closing those loopholes.

I don't like taxes any more than most people. But we are drowning in debt and passing it along to the young people. I also really want to see all Americans have an opportunity to be able to purchase affordable healthcare, so I'm willing to see some of my tax money go toward funding this program.

[WashingtonBay]

Also, it is true that many large corporations don't pay any federal income tax, so I support closing those loopholes.

We also complain that these large corporations are taking much of their manufacturing and jobs overseas because of the cost of doing business here. So how will making it more expensive to do business here help with that?

[Sundays Man]

Keep in mind that the taxes for those earning over $250K as a family are simply returning to the rates before the Bush tax cuts.

Also, it is true that many large corporations don't pay any federal income tax, so I support closing those loopholes.



O.K. then ask the $250k+ wage earners how fair THEY think it is. I think the fair tax plan is the only...well..fair tax plan and I might even go with the straight tax plan, but this is NOT what I would call fair and I'm not EVEN close to the $250K bracket. Spreading the wealth around is not the American way. Yes we are in debt and that's because we the people have been asleep at the wheel. If someone doesn't hold those yayhoo's (political and corporate) accountable for the condition of our economy NOTHING will ever change. If there is no repercussions for destroying the national economy for your own gain, then we are worse than stupid. Remember ole Forrest said, "stupid is as stupid does". We held the Enron people accountable and the impact wasn't nearly as aggregious. I think we need to outsouce our political system and get rid of all the nut cases we've allowed to infect our nation.

And you are right. There is no such thing as a corporate tax. Tax the corporation and guess who foots the bill?....bingo, you and me; they simply pass on the expense to us.

Oh by the way JackieB...the devil made me post this.:innocent: I really didn't want to do it. I just thought it make for interesting dialog.

[mtnmollie]

I looked at both candidates' plans very carefully and I think Obama's is fair,
I don't like taxes any more than most people. But we are drowning in debt and passing it along to the young people.

1) WE are drowning in debt because we foolishly spend more than we make.

WE cant even senceablly spend more than we make-
we burn money or throw it away.

2) Go read the thread about Little Johnny. :cowboy:

3) Its not my fault.
Oh by the way JackieB...the devil made me post this. I really didn't want to do it.

:cowboy:

[mtnmollie]

Sunday's man-

1) In free enterprise system does everyone buy their own beer at a fair market price to all?
Determined by supply and demand?

2) Are income taxes even leagal?
If they are not leagal- they plan to steal less from us and make us happy?
and still overspend?

2b) Do we have taxation with representation in this country?
They take my money and do what they like with it..

3) You only think people at the bar are getting free beer.
It is hard for poor people to get on the gravy train.

4) Did you just explain why we are loosing industry?
Less government or less taxes or less wages overseas or something?

Gee what will tomorrow bring us?

Yo people should be very happy today because i am whipping you less. :rolleyes:

[missdixie]

Hey that plan sounds a-okay to me! You'll excuse me if my heart doesn't bleed for the rich guy.... If you have more, you should contribute more. End of story in my book.

[Sundays Man]

Sunday's man-

1) In free enterprise system does everyone buy their own beer at a fair market price to all?
Determined by supply and demand?

2) Are income taxes even leagal?
If they are not leagal- they plan to steal less from us and make us happy?
and still overspend?

2b) Do we have taxation with representation in this country?
They take my money and do what they like with it..

3) You only think people at the bar are getting free beer.
It is hard for poor people to get on the gravy train.

4) Did you just explain why we are loosing industry?
Less government or less taxes or less wages overseas or something?

Gee what will tomorrow bring us?

Yo people should be very happy today because i am whipping you less. :rolleyes:

Molly you are very tough on me. I'm not that smart. I know supply and demand is certainly alive and well. I found that out after the last huricane. High demand for gasoline low supply extremely high prices and with that, everything else went up.

I guess there are valid arguments over the validity of whether taxes are legal. I do know that they are a necessary evil to keep our country going. Having said that, I don't think it's legal the way some of our politicians are benefiting from the tax dollars and wasting our tax dollars. We need to demand and fight for accountability of our political leaders.

Yes we have representation. We elect them and re-elect them and re-elect them even when they seem to interested in nothing but their own gain and to blazes with the rest of the country.

I don't know if the poor are getting free beer, yet. I'm sure we will find a way to "spread the beer" though if Obama finds out about it. I mean fair is fair;).

I''m not an economist, but I'm not stupid either. If I owned a corporation and needed to show profit, profit, profit, year after year (shareholders are funny that way), I would finally run out of ways to cut costs without pricing myself out of the market for whatever my business is. With pressure to make profit and costs of material, labor and taxes going up, I have to look for other means. Hey, there's a fella in China that can manufacture my product for 1/3 the price it costs me to make it!!! I won't have to deal with all the labor issues, health insurance, environmental issues, taxes, manufacturing facilities or anything. What a bargain!!! Fire all the workers and lets go to China!!!

Of course the quality of the product is only 1/3 that of what the American workers would produce, but look at the savings....and the profits!!! Why China can ship that stuff in here for almost nothing. Now we have thousands of people out of work, but we have the products. Problem is, if we keep sending stuff overseas, no one in this country will have enough money to buy it in the first place (remember we fired them) and there goes the economy and everyone eventually looses.

But note also, that the manufacturing processes in China are poluting the heck out of our environment. It seems that some of our tree hugging, tip toe through the tulips envoronmentalist forget that there's no protective shield between us and the foreign manufacturers to protect us from their polution. They don't care about the environment in China and India and other places. I guess we need to sit back and take a long look at the way we do things in this country. If we don't learn to become self sufficient as a nation, as we once were, we will be taken over because of our own stupidity.

[HoustonFarrier]

If you have more, you should contribute more. End of story in my book.

But how much is enough ? At what point do we say enough????? Tell me the figure that is enough?

Steve

[vicklynn]

If you have more, you should contribute more. End of story in my book.

Id like to know what your idea of more is also.

[Sundays Man]

Hey that plan sounds a-okay to me! You'll excuse me if my heart doesn't bleed for the rich guy.... If you have more, you should contribute more. End of story in my book.

The illustration and real life depicts the fact that they do pay more. No one's heart has to bleed for anyone and I have worked my butt of my entire life to help suppor this country and I'm in the same boat as the majority of the people. If you arbitrarily pick a number out of the air and say that this is the rich and these are the poor, then when will it stop. I wonder if you were making $250K you'd feel the same. It's easy to say you would, but we may get our chance. When we can't keep up with the economic situation by putting more tax burden on the "wealthy", then we may "become wealthy" next year just by declaration of his majesty Obama. $250k now 175K next time and so on. The people making $250k aren't rich. They are just at a different level of broke than us.

I'm amazed at how so many people today say, "WE" have to sacrafice when they aren't part of the "WE" factor. We may be down the road, but we're safe right now. If "WE" are going to sacrifice and the wealthy are "ONLY" going back to pre Bush tax cut status then it's only fair that "WE" ALL go back to pre Bush tax cut status. I've learned through the years, that just because I don't have a job doesn't mean I have to starve. I've never sat around with my hand out to the government for a free hand out. There are always things I could find to do to make money without being a burden on the rest of my countrymen. Just one of the reasons that so many illegal aliens find it so inviting in our country is because they know they can find work and make a living because there are so many jobs in America that Americans won't do either out of laziness or pride. The money is still there, but no one wants "that" kind of work. I've watched them for many years working in our housing developements from daylight till dark, seven days a week and singing while they do it. In 100 degree to freezing temperatures, there they were.

[JackieB]

O.K. then ask the $250k+ wage earners how fair THEY think it is.

I'm sure they consider it unfair that they have a larger burden, and I don't dispute that. It would take a pretty altruistic person to vote for Obama if he/she earns over $250K a year.

I've never been outside of the middle class, but I have had really well paying jobs in the past (not now that I'm self-employed, but for most of my career). And I have to admit that my tax burden didn't greatly impact my quality of life.

If I thought that the Republican Party really represented fiscal conservatism, I might feel somewhat differently. But I just haven't seen it, even during the many years that the Republicans had the House, Senate, and White House. If anything, I found their approach to be even worse, which was to spend like there's no tomorrow without considering the revenue (tax) side.

Take the war in Iraq, for example. We knew shortly after the war started that our original estimates of a total expenditure of $50bn or less with the Iraqis funding their own rebuilding with oil revenue. We knew this for sure by about the fall of 2003. Yet I never heard the President or leadership in either the House or Senate (which were in Republican hands at that time) say to the American public - "Look, this war is far more expensive than we originally estimated. Probably 10X or more what we thought. So, while our troops are fighting valiantly in Iraq and Afghanistan, we need Americans at home to make similar sacrifices or we will end up at the end of this war with a massive debt to retire." And then suggest a tax to pay for the war as we go along. That type of gesture would have meant something to me. But instead, we are told to just live our lives as normal, and spend because it's good for the economy.

To me, fiscal responsibility means either matching expenses with revenue, or proposing a plan that has a reasonable likelihood of doing so. Sarah Palin said about two weeks ago in a stump speech that I was watching that McCain/Palin would balance the budget during its first term. Now that contradicts every independent analysis of their actual platform and would seemingly be impossible during this economic downturn. So, please put it on paper for us. I heard John McCain say he would freeze spending and then look for cuts. OK. List them out. You've got hundreds of billions that have to be cut to balance the budget in your first term, so please tell me which agencies and programs you plan to eliminate.

Perhaps I'm cynical about it, but what I feel that I have seen is promises to be more conservative fiscally during campaigning, and then rampant spending once in office.

[HoustonFarrier]

I heard someone on the radio say..."we are going from trickle-down economics to trickle-up poverty under BO's plan....":p

If BO gets elected...I will be able to quit one of my jobs, since I can then drop low enough in to a tax bracket where I will get free money from the govt !!!!! Yee-haaaww!:):)

Steve

[JackieB]

But how much is enough ? At what point do we say enough????? Tell me the figure that is enough?

Steve

Well, I do think we can go back to the pre-Bush level of taxes. That's what Obama is proposing. These were in place during Reagan and Bush Sr. (both conservatives) and the country didn't go down the tubes.

[JackieB]

Here is a link to historical tax tables. If you go back several years, you can easily see the 36% and 39.6% brackets that Obama wants to reinstate.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

[HoustonFarrier]

But Jackie....in addition to letting the Bush tax cuts expire.....BO wants to ALSO add MORE tax burdens as well....so, again....how much is enough? How much before the so called "rich" in this country say...the hell with this, I'm going off-shore (as many are doing). And when they do, everyone complains about losing jobs etc......So, after awhile, the $250K figure drops down to $175K.....$150K......$100K.....get the picture? It's called "repressive taxation". Our tax system is broken...and neither one of the candidates has the right approach (for the record, I prefer a consumption tax).....but McCains is less "dangerous" than BO's. BO is already on record as saying that he wants to "spread the wealth" around, via taxation.

Steve

[JackieB]

But Jackie....in addition to letting the Bush tax cuts expire.....BO wants to ALSO add MORE tax burdens as well....

What are those additional burdens? I'm only aware of his interest in closing loopholes in the existing code for corporations. So the code wouldn't change, but it would be harder for corporations to get out of paying those taxes. Although he is proposing credits for companies that create U.S.- based jobs.

[Toodlestoo]

This is why I like the 10% flat tax.

[HoustonFarrier]

His health plan WILL raise EVERYONE's taxes...it HAS to, there is nowhere else to get the $$$ from to run the regulatory structure needed. Of course it's not in print...he'd never get elected if he did that :)

All you have to do is hear him say ..."spread the wealth..." as he did to "Joe the plumber".

Read in depth his health care plan....

1. New Federal provision and control of health care.
2. Additional federal involvement in employer-based coverage
3. Expansion of existing government health programs, restrictions on
state experimenta­tion, and mandated coverage for children
4. Federal regulation of health care delivery.

But...you cannot find ANYWHERE where he says HOW he will pay for all of this. Short of printing more money.....all he CAN do is raise taxes.

Steve

[TLC97]

****Tanya puts on body armor)*****
Well I personaly have a HUGE problem with BO's tax plan. My husband makes over $250k a year and we pay plenty in taxes. Our quarterly's to the state & federal gov't total more than $40k (each qtr). So the "they make more they can pay more" statement is true, believe me we pay it. I will honestly say I am not a fan of Bush, but his tax cuts have made it easier for us. Examp- hubby wanted a new pick-up for work, which was desperately needed. We were able to write off over 30% (of course over 5 yrs), this was basically pay it to the federal gov't or to GM, well I would rather pay GM and put the money back into the economy in a more direct manner. Some of you may think we do not work for our money, well at 60-70 hrs a week, believe me my husband works very hard for his money. We donate to numerous local charities and believe in and practice the "random acts of kindness" philos. I am just letting you know what it is like in my household. The gas prices have hit us very hard and since my husband in-house finances many of the pieces he sells, we are now having to repo more than before. Needless to say he has had many a sleepless nights, and some of these guys are 6-7 months behind, no bank would let that happen.

I have real issue with people who pay little to no taxes and they get insanely inflated refunds. The way I see it is many (not all) of them are getting money back that they did not have to bust their butts to make. Heck if I could stay home and get health ins. and a pay check yeah that would be great. I am not complaining about the average single parent busting their butts to scrape by, they deserve any help they can get as they are trying. I hope you can see the difference.

I am sorry but when someone says, well you make $250k a year you need to pay out your arse in taxes it is ok, no it is not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As not everyone is paying the same percentage.

[Aina]

It all comes down to this in my book. STEALING IS WRONG!!! The government is stealing from the rich to give to the not so poor in America. You think there are poor in America? Go to Africa. Go to Peru where kids live in the gutters because their parents abandon them because they couldn't feed them. Those are poor.
Why does the government have more of a right to my money than I do? I earned it. Not them. I should get to choose to do whatever I want with it. My dad wrote a book and is getting it published. He is going to earn less from his book than the government will make off it. What gives them the right? Did they labor over the book for hours? Did they get the PhD? Did they spend time away from their family researching things? No. Yet they get to take more of the money than my dad gets.

Is rape wrong? Yes. What if everyone voted on and and decided that it was ok, would it still be wrong? Duh.

Private property rights are as innate a right as the right to ones body. When you vote to increase taxes you are voting to STEAL money from someone. You are voting to ROB someone AT GUNPOINT. If they don't pay then they go to jail. How fair is that?
I don't care how good the cause is. It is NEVER ok to steal in my book.


(Sorry for the rant. On a diferent board I have been discussion this issue for a while and and I am tired of their sob stories. I don't care if you starve, the government should take my money and give it to you. Now, being a nive generous person I am, I would probably give you food and you wouldn't starve. But it ISN'T A RIGHT! You have NO RIGHT to STEAL *MY* money.)

[Sundays Man]

O.K. then ask the $250k+ wage earners how fair THEY think it is.

Thank you Aina. That pretty much answered my question!

[JackieB]

But...you cannot find ANYWHERE where he says HOW he will pay for all of this. Short of printing more money.....all he CAN do is raise taxes.


Those who sign up for the plan do have to pay premiums, Steve. It's not free. His stated plan, if I'm correct on this, is to get the revenue from rescinding the Bush tax cuts for those top two tiers, and by collecting more tax from corporations by closing the current loopholes.

One could say that all politicians are holding back on saying everything to us. That's a pretty difficult thing to prove. For example, I heard John McCain say that the Social Security problem would be easy to solve and Sarah Palin said that their Administration would balance the budget during their first term. I find both claims to be rather incredible, but I won't go so far as to say that they are lying to me.

[HoustonFarrier]

by collecting more tax from corporations by closing the current loopholes. .

What effect on inflation do you think that will have? Remember when Jimmy (peanuts) Carter did his corporate tax barage in the name of the "middle class" ????

Steve

[Sundays Man]

Bottom line is, that his majesty Obama's answer for every single problem known to man is "get the government involved".:nono: Yeah THEY can fix it.:jawdrop::rant::help::p;) Everything they have ever touched turns to....ummmm.....well, you know what I'm saying. Mark my words, read my lips, hear me now, it's going to be the beginning of the end for our country as we know it if we elect him. If he's elected, the only thing in my favor, is that I'm at an age now that I won't have to worry about it for long, but my children and grandchildren will have a very heavy price to pay some day.

[Tiz]

Jackie, how can you worry about "drowning in debt" and support a candidate that says he's going to grow government, and spend an additional 1 trillion or so a year? Your candidate also calls freezing government spending taking a "hatchet" to the budget, so that provides a clue to his idea of potential spending cuts.
Liberals just don't make sense, Jackie.

[palomino]

The more you make, the less you make- it sucks. John only makes 69K a year but clears MAYBE 3500 a month after taxes- its freaking ridiculous. Im GLAD he doesnt make more- hed make even less!! Im debating on wether or not I should claim ANY money I make trimming, or just let John use the child tax credit on London, and I could file with Jack.
I worry all the time about money, and its not getting any less stressful worrying about more taxes. Im not saying we pay as much as a 'wealthy' individual, but he gets taxed out the booty! I wonder what it would be like to actually SEE 69K a year.........ahhhh dream on.

[palomino]

I will say this:
LIFE WAS SO MUCH EASIER WHEN I WAS BROKE!!
I had NOTHING to worry about, healthcare for my child was covered, housing was (mostly) covered, and food was covered. Yes, I used government programs. If you have issues with that, sorry. I paid taxes like crazy when I made good money, and I earned the right to use the programs when I NEEDED them. With as much as government helps out the poor, they dont need any tax breaks- I saw a Mexican family (not saying its always Mexicans, so dont chase me with the race card) with WIC vouchers and a food stamp card in line at wal mart, probobly had 450 dollars worth of food. Oh, and they spoke no english (dont even get me started) When I saw them inside they were getting in a freaking ESCALADE. Nice.
I didnt drive an Escalade when I was broke. That is riding the system, and using the CRAP out of our tax dollars.
Gosh, sorry I jacked the thread, I could go on all day.

[JackieB]

Mark my words, read my lips, hear me now, it's going to be the beginning of the end for our country as we know it if we elect him.

I'll take you up on that challenge, Sundays Man. I know that you are honest to a fault and will admit if you were mistaken, and you know that you can expect the same from me. Of course, we don't know that Barack Obama will be elected, but if he is, I think the policies he will implement will be good America and that he will be a successful and well-regarded president. Of course, only time will tell on these things, but this forum isn't going anywhere. You and I should be able to compare notes all through this next president's term, and for many years afterwards.

[Sundays Man]

I will say this:
LIFE WAS SO MUCH EASIER WHEN I WAS BROKE!!
I had NOTHING to worry about, healthcare for my child was covered, housing was (mostly) covered, and food was covered. Yes, I used government programs. If you have issues with that, sorry. I paid taxes like crazy when I made good money, and I earned the right to use the programs when I NEEDED them. With as much as government helps out the poor, they dont need any tax breaks- I saw a Mexican family (not saying its always Mexicans, so dont chase me with the race card) with WIC vouchers and a food stamp card in line at wal mart, probobly had 450 dollars worth of food. Oh, and they spoke no english (dont even get me started) When I saw them inside they were getting in a freaking ESCALADE. Nice.
I didnt drive an Escalade when I was broke. That is riding the system, and using the CRAP out of our tax dollars.
Gosh, sorry I jacked the thread, I could go on all day.

I for one would never criticize anyone who had to use the system when hard times hit. You did at least contribute. I think what rubs most people's fur the wrong way is just what you descibed at "ChinaMart". And trust me, there are a LOT of life long citizens of this country that have done nothing to contribute and worked the system to death. I know of a couple who came to this country from Africa with NOTHING. They had to live with some people for a while and learn the language, as ALL DANGED IMIGRANTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO. I digress. Anyway, the husband and wife started cleaning houses to make a little money. Today they are in the same business and are extremely successful. They had to have a little help in the beginning, but they were trying to make their own way. We have natural citizens that aren't even willing to do that. Why should they, when they feel they are "entitled" to the free govt. handouts. I say stop the madness. When they get hungry enough they might get off their lazy tails and go to work! Show us some initiative and we'll show you some well deserved help along the way, otherwise take a hike. Start taking some of the jobs that no one will take except the illegals and that might help stem the flow. They know there is plenty of work in this country because most Americans wouldn't stoop that low to do manuel labor. I mean come on, how could we expect anyone to do that. http://img2.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/confused/confused0024.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net/free-rolleye-smileys.php) They seem to do pretty well for themselves, excluding the ones that drain our tax dollars.

[TLC97]

Well I will say this again, as a household with over a $250k income we can not afford Obama and I do not see how his plan will work. Plain and simple.

Jackie B-Why should people who pay barely anything in taxes now get back more than they pay in? Or under Obama's plan not pay in at all, how is that fair??? Honestly????

[Tiz]

Another question...
We've heard for years that Social Security is on the brink of bankruptcy. In light of that, how can Obama suggest that anyone get a refund for what they pay in? Could this be why he calls it a "payroll tax refund", instead of Social Security tax refund?

[JackieB]

Jackie, how can you worry about "drowning in debt" and support a candidate that says he's going to grow government, and spend an additional 1 trillion or so a year? Your candidate also calls freezing government spending taking a "hatchet" to the budget, so that provides a clue to his idea of potential spending cuts.
Liberals just don't make sense, Jackie.

He's not going to spend an additional $1 trillion a year for one thing. That's just the typical negative campaign hype that we've been talking about where those who issue such statements count on voters to not do research on their own. Here is a link to an independent analysis of the cost of both candidates' plans. http://www.usbudgetwatch.org/reports Click on the "Promises, promises..." link.

I agree with the hatchet/scalpel analogy. For example, a blanket freeze on government spending would automatically make it harder for veterans to get access to some programs they desparately need. If there is one thing that I am for having my tax dollars go toward no matter what, it's helping veterans. It's an absolute travesty that they should return injured after having fought valiantly for our country only to face difficulty receiving benefits, or have to stay in hospitals that are falling apart.

[JackieB]

I say stop the madness. When they get hungry enough they might get off their lazy tails and go to work!

I agree 100% with you on this point, Sundays Man. Although for me, it's not the money so much as it is robbing people of the dignity and pride that comes with being self-sufficient. And of course if children don't have good role models to look up to, they don't have much of a chance to break the cycle themselves. Some do, but it's really hard because we all want to look up to our parents, and if they don't work, then that's what we see.

Except for feeding, clothing, providing healthcare, and educating. This is a case where I'm glad that we "defeat" natural selection. In nature, offspring with bad parents are doomed to die young. I support our government taking a role in helping provide children with these basic necessities if their parents won't.

[JackieB]

Jackie B-Why should people who pay barely anything in taxes now get back more than they pay in? Or under Obama's plan not pay in at all, how is that fair??? Honestly????

I don't have a problem with low wage earners not paying very much in taxes. I remember when I first got out of college and I was struggling mightily. I had to have a friend fill my tank with gas and then hope I could come up with enough to pay her back by the time her credit card bill came. I was constantly worried about how to make ends me. I don't mind giving people in this group a little bit of break.

I'm not aware of a plan on Obama's part to completely eliminate taxes on lower income brackets. If you could point that out to me, I'll check. And nobody gets back more than they pay in that I know of. Tax credits cannot be greater than the amount of tax paid.

[rocknK]

JB, When I was young I solved my poverty problem by getting more jobs. One full time & two part time. Barely had time to sleep, but at least I wasn't broke. Bought my first house a the ripe old age of 20, then I found out about being broke!

[JackieB]

JB, When I was young I solved my poverty problem by getting more jobs. One full time & two part time. Barely had time to sleep, but at least I wasn't broke. Bought my first house a the ripe old age of 20, then I found out about being broke!

Wow, that's impressive. I've been fortunate to always have a good work ethic, too. But the first job I got out of college paid a whopping $12K a year and I had to pay for all of my own expenses out of it. I could earn more in commission on sales, but the office product I sold wasn't competitive, so that made it pretty tough. :)

I was determined to be independent and not ask my dad to sign for my first credit card, and the bank wouldn't give me one on my own until I built up some work history. So, I went the first year hand-to-mouth for sure! But then I got a good job and things started looking up.

[WashingtonBay]

And nobody gets back more than they pay in that I know of. Tax credits cannot be greater than the amount of tax paid.

They certainly do! People who qualify for EITC get that whether they paid that much tax or not. EITC For Individuals (http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=150557,00.html)

[rocknK]

Might be that CA wages are higher , but apprentice electricians in 1976 were making close to 20,000 to start. All you had to do was show up on time & work your @ss off & they paid you. Funny I'd been doing that my whole life at home for free. Well I did get fed & clothed & a warm dry bedroom I could call my own. Those were the days.

[JackieB]

They certainly do! People who qualify for EITC get that whether they paid that much tax or not. EITC For Individuals (http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=150557,00.html)

Very interesting. Thanks for pointing that out to me, WB. I stand corrected and just did a bit of research on the EITC.

I found it curious that the EITC has apparently always enjoyed broad bipartisan support. It does seem to be unfair to allow a family to earn a tax credit beyond actual taxes paid.

[twofingers]

last year I paid 47% of my income in taxes. BO made four million two hundred thousand and paid right around 200,000.00 in taxes a far cry from my meager 47%. When he says I have not done my part and ponies up the million or so to make things right I will believe he is sincere and vote for him. but everybody here knows that he isn't going to put his money in the pot, just yours.
I believe hat a 7% tax straight across the board no deductions is fair and will bring in more money than the current 40,000 page tax code we have now.

[TLC97]

JackieB- my youngest sister-in-law is a regular Jerry Springer wanna-be. She has 3 children and pays VERY little in taxes and gets back about $6000-$7000 a year. Another person I know saved two years of refunds (got back more than paid in) to get a boob job. That is your tax dollars paying for cosmetic surgery. I have a huge issue when people who "need" the money just blow it, so you know they don't really need it. I have no problem with help ups, instead of hand outs. I also have no problem with people who make very little paying in very little, but I don't think I should have to pay over 40% of income in taxes.

OB's plan not only increases my tax rate but it also removes many of the deductions we currently use to assist us to pay a little less.

[WashingtonBay]

Very interesting. Thanks for pointing that out to me, WB. I stand corrected and just did a bit of research on the EITC.

I found it curious that the EITC has apparently always enjoyed broad bipartisan support. It does seem to be unfair to allow a family to earn a tax credit beyond actual taxes paid.

I guess politicians on both sides think giving people free money is always a popular idea.

But I think the EITC, and other giveaways like it, are a really good reason to scrap the whole tax code and start over. Make it about paying taxes, the exact amount we owe, every month (or quarter) with a check. No withholding, no overpayment that leads to people getting excited about getting their own money 'back'. Just writing checks. It will make everyone a little more aware of what their government costs, and probably make them a little more careful about what they vote for.

[JackieB]

OB's plan not only increases my tax rate but it also removes many of the deductions we currently use to assist us to pay a little less.

I understand TanyaC97, really I do. You and your husband work very hard to earn your money and I don't feel good about anyone's taxes going up. I just think that Obama's overall plan is the best one for America right now.

Ultimately, I would love to see what many have suggested, which is scrapping the tax code entirely and starting over as WB suggests. My wife and I are both self-employed and pay quarterly taxes as well, so we certainly see those huge checks going to the government.

[TLC97]

Well I will have to just agree to disagree. I do not see how Obama's plan is what is best for America. I really feel his plan will be the beginning of the end..................................

[JackieB]

Well I will have to just agree to disagree. I do not see how Obama's plan is what is best for America. I really feel his plan will be the beginning of the end..................................

Yes, I suppose. A few of the great things about our system is that there are good checks and balances in place with the three branches of government, and no president can be elected for more than two terms.

Those of us who feel that the current Administration is perhaps the worst one in recent history, if not ever, are breathing a sigh of relief that it's finally ending, and those who are worried about the one coming up (regardless of which candidate is elected) won't have it forever.

I'm absolutely positive that the country isn't going to be irreparably harmed (which seems to be what you are suggesting, and I know that Sundays Man said the same thing the other day) if Obama is elected. John McCain, to his considerable credit, even said the same thing at one of his rallies.

And if McCain is the next president, I think he will probably do at least fairly well as president. I don't agree with some of his policies, but he is definitely an honorable man.

I just hope that whoever is elected that the Nation will get behind him, at least for a year or so to see how things go. I've always done that (for a year anyway), but I get the impression that this election cycle is so contentious that we may be back in the "American held hostage" nonsense that Rush Limbaugh did the entire time that Clinton was president. That's just not helpful to second-guess and criticize virtually everything that our leader does. I'm a firm believer in at least saying "He may not have been my candidate, but he is our president."

[Aina]

Just thought I'd post something my dad wrote on a diferent board. They still haven't answered him. Can you?

I come from a broken home. I graduated from high school and my mother tells me I must split the rent until I move out. I quickly move out on my own.

I work very hard and get a college degree. I send myself through school. I am not that bright (as you can tell from my posts) so I have to study twice as hard as everyone else. I live in a cockroach infected apartment and eat only one meal a day. I have to work nights, get off at 7:00 AM and be in class by 9:00 AM. I get a nap and go to class during the day. I don’t have a girlfriend because, to be honest, I can’t afford one. I put up with this year after year. When I graduate, I don’t go get a job and a life. I go to graduate school. After many more years of working almost every waking hour and living in absolute poverty, I get a Ph.D. and a decent job.

In addition to my day job, I decide to write a book. After years and years of research, I start writing. It takes me five years of many late nights and early mornings to write the thing. It sells pretty well. Then, someone comes to me and offers to market it to a group. They will buy 30,000 copies of the book. My take of book is $24,000. However, I don't get the full amount. The government gets their cut and I get my cut.

How should we divide up the money? How much of the $24,000 should I get and how much should the government take? Of the money the government gets, how much of that should be given to the poor who watch TV (I have never had time to watch TV), eat three meals a day (something I couldn’t afford to do when I was earning my education) and didn’t take time away from their family to spend untold hours working on the book?

I want my “fair” share of the money I earned. What is my “fair” share?

[Pi and Tofu]

This has to be quick because I am off to work.
39.6, that is close enough to say 40%. I don't care if you are right above the poverty level, can anyone think that it is "fair" to give back 40% of what you EARNED? You worked, you sweated, you did what it took to earn a job that would pay you enough to make that kind of money, and now it is fair to say, cut it mostly in half to help out the people that do not qualify for that type of job.
Also, I never hear anything about sunset provisions. 2010 is almost here. We are about to have sunset hit, which means that we are going back to a time of "death taxes." Nice.
Capital gains, you made money, great. Now back to giving the government up to 30% of what you gained. Right now at 5/15% it makes sense, how can 25-35% make sense to anyone?

[HoustonFarrier]

You worked, you sweated, you did what it took to earn a job that would pay you enough to make that kind of money, and now it is fair to say, cut it mostly in half to help out the people that do not qualify for that type of job.


Yep...that's called socialism...take from those who have, and give to those who don't want to......

Steve

[JackieB]

Here is the actual budget for last year to help illustrate where our money goes.

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg288/JackieB_2008/FederalBudgetPieChart.jpg

[Tiz]

2008 tax rates


Single Filing Status (http://taxes.about.com/od/filingstatus/qt/single.htm)

(Tax Rate Schedule X)

10% on income between $0 and $8,025
15% on the income between $8,025 and $32,550; plus $802.50
25% on the income between $32,550 and $78,850; plus $4,481.25
28% on the income between $78,850 and $164,550; plus $16,056.25
33% on the income between $164,550 and $357,700; plus $40,052.25
35% on the income over $357,700; plus $103,791.75

Married Filing Jointly (http://taxes.about.com/od/filingstatus/qt/marriedjointly.htm) or Qualifying Widow(er) Filing Status (http://taxes.about.com/od/filingstatus/qt/qualifyingwidow.htm)

(Tax Rate Schedule Y-1)

10% on the income between $0 and $16,050
15% on the income between $16,050 and $65,100; plus $1,605.00
25% on the income between $65,100 and $131,450; plus $8,962.50
28% on the income between $131,450 and $200,300; plus $25,550.00
33% on the income between $200,300 and $357,700; plus $44,828.00
35% on the income over $357,700; plus $96,770.00

Married Filing Separately Filing Status (http://taxes.about.com/od/filingstatus/qt/marriedseparate.htm)

(Tax Rate Schedule Y-2)

10% on the income between $0 and $8,025
15% on the income between $8,025 and $32,550; plus $802.50
25% on the income between $32,550 and $65,725; plus $4,481.25
28% on the income between $65,725 and $100,150; plus $12,775.00
33% on the income between $100,150 and $178,850; plus $22,414.00
35% on the income over $178,850; plus $48,385.00

Head of Household Filing Status (http://taxes.about.com/od/filingstatus/qt/headofhousehold.htm)

(Tax Rate Schedule Z)

10% on the income between $0 and $11,450
15% on the income between $11,450 and $43,650; plus $1,145.00
25% on the income between $43,650 and $112,650; plus $5,975.00
28% on the income between $112,650 and $182,400; plus $23,225.00
33% on the income between $182,400 and $357,700; plus $42,755.00
35% on the income over $357,700; plus $100,604.00

1999 tax rates
TAXABLE WAGES
OVER
NOT OVER
AMOUNT OF TAX
$0
$2,650.00
$0.00
2,650.00
27,300.00
$0.00 PLUS 15.00% OVER 2,650.00
27,300.00
58,500.00
3,697.50 PLUS 28.00% OVER 27,300.00
58,500.00
131,800.00
12,433.50 PLUS 31.000% OVER 58,500.00
131,800.00
284,700.00
35,156.50 PLUS 36.000% OVER 131,800.00
284,700.00
AND OVER
90,200.50 PLUS 39.600% OVER 284,700.00
e. If the employee is married, apply the following tax rates to taxable wages to determine the annual tax amount:
TAXABLE WAGES
OVER
NOT OVER
AMOUNT OF TAX
$0
$6,450.00
$0.00
6,450.00
47,500.00
0.00 PLUS 15.000% OVER 6,450.00
47,500.00
98,500.00
6,157.50 PLUS 28.000% OVER 47,500.00
98,500.00
163,000.00
20,437.50 PLUS 31.000% OVER 98,500.00
163,000.00
287,600.00
40,432.50 PLUS 36.000% OVER 163,000.00
287,600.00
AND OVER
85,288.50 PLUS 39.600% OVER 287,600.00

[JackieB]

Tiz,
I calculated taxes on a person who is married, filing jointly, and earns $260K now and who earned $260K in 1999. It's $64,529 now and $75,353 in 1999.

[Tiz]

I thought the mantra was that the "Bush tax cuts" whacked the middle class and gave his rich "cronies" big breaks. As you can see, that isn't true.
I wonder how your hypothetical married couple spent the extra money they were allowed to keep? I wonder how many waitresses, salesclerks, yard maintenance workers, car dealers, tack shop owners, and on and on, benefited from their extra spending?

[JackieB]

Different subject, but I read a very interesting article on CNN.com (or was it CNBC.com?) that made a lot of sense to me. The article stated that the elephant in the political room that no politician is willing to truly confront yet is, as has been mentioned often before, Social Security.

We know that Social Security will pay out more than it brings in within about 30 years. Nobody dispustes that. But what was most interesting is that the article said that we definitely won't get nearly that far before Social Security has to be addressed. The article suggested that US citizens who are currently teenagers will be faced with the prospect of major tax increases when they are in their 30's to assure that the U.S. can meet the Social Security obligations of boomers - who will all be retired and expecting lifetime benefits since they paid in their share.

And of course, there is no way that the then 30-somethings are going to be willing to allow this to happen without demanding change.

The reason, understandably enough, why no politician will truly confront Social Security is because there is nothing to be gained, and a lot to be lost, by taking it on now. The real solution, whatever that is, probably isn't going to be very appealing to anyone.

McCain said he would reach across the aisle and come up with a bipartisan solution, but didn't give details. Obama's campaign says that it is shoring up Social Security by rescinding the Bush tax cuts and so on, but the experts say that this won't be nearly enough.

So, we'll see. I'm planning for my own retirement without Social Security factored in. I've looked at it this way my entire career because of warnings that the Social Security system isn't viable for the long run. I'm sure I'll get something, but I'm not counting on it to live. I'll just figure that it's an added bonus.

[Sundays Man]

Different subject, but I read a very interesting article on CNN.com (or was it CNBC.com?) that made a lot of sense to me. The article stated that the elephant in the political room that no politician is willing to truly confront yet is, as has been mentioned often before, Social Security.

We know that Social Security will pay out more than it brings in within about 30 years. Nobody dispustes that. But what was most interesting is that the article said that we definitely won't get nearly that far before Social Security has to be addressed. The article suggested that US citizens who are currently teenagers will be faced with the prospect of major tax increases when they are in their 30's to assure that the U.S. can meet the Social Security obligations of boomers - who will all be retired and expecting lifetime benefits since they paid in their share.

And of course, there is no way that the then 30-somethings are going to be willing to allow this to happen without demanding change.

The reason, understandably enough, why no politician will truly confront Social Security is because there is nothing to be gained, and a lot to be lost, by taking it on now. The real solution, whatever that is, probably isn't going to be very appealing to anyone.

McCain said he would reach across the aisle and come up with a bipartisan solution, but didn't give details. Obama's campaign says that it is shoring up Social Security by rescinding the Bush tax cuts and so on, but the experts say that this won't be nearly enough.

So, we'll see. I'm planning for my own retirement without Social Security factored in. I've looked at it this way my entire career because of warnings that the Social Security system isn't viable for the long run. I'm sure I'll get something, but I'm not counting on it to live. I'll just figure that it's an added bonus.

O.K. Social Security. Let me just say it this way. Anytime you let the govt. have control of your financial "security", you're in trouble. I can't think of anything the govt has ever done that they didn't mess it up. You might say that govt. funded health care will most definately wind up on the same track as social security. I digress. I have contributed very little to social security. I have spent almost all of my working years with the railroad and my money went to "Federal" railroad retirement. You guessed it, the govt. controls it. And guess what, it's heading down the same road as SS. I am fortunate enough to be at an age where it may not effect me too much, but the same problems exists with this program. Fewer workers, less money, many retirees. RR retirement contributions are much higher than SS, but you get more out of it, but that's moot if the money runs out. And I think that SS money should be invested and not just sitting there for evey politician that finds ways to drain it.