Tax Rates
- Thread starter theiioftx
- Start date
I have no problem with my current tax rate. I don't want it raised, but I'm not screaming to have it lowered either. I simply want to see the feds spend less than they take in and do it by cutting EVERYTHING, starting with entitlements.
Y
YoLaDu
Guest
For me there is no set number. I want our tax rates set at a number that reflects what this country wants to spend. If our country demands more be spent, the tax rate should reflect that. If our country wants to spend less, our tax rate should reflect that.
If we could just get people to agree to that, then we could have an honest heart to heart discussion on what we can afford. If we want something big, we need to raise taxes to pay for it, be it a war, a drug prescription plan or universal healthcare. If we want our tax rate lowered, we need to discuss what we want less of, be it defense spending, entitlements, etc.
At this moment in time, things are so out of wack, it is my opinion that both spending has to be cut and taxes need to be raised before we can even get to a stable standard as described above.
If we could just get people to agree to that, then we could have an honest heart to heart discussion on what we can afford. If we want something big, we need to raise taxes to pay for it, be it a war, a drug prescription plan or universal healthcare. If we want our tax rate lowered, we need to discuss what we want less of, be it defense spending, entitlements, etc.
At this moment in time, things are so out of wack, it is my opinion that both spending has to be cut and taxes need to be raised before we can even get to a stable standard as described above.
O
Oilfield
Guest
Quit taxing achievement and instead tax consumption. This would be so much more fair. All the targeted exemptions and credits are pure insanity. Everyone should participate and contribute and a consuption tax would allow every person to control how much they contribute. Likewise illegals would contribute more of their fair share.
Rex Kramer
1,000+ Posts
Any current taxpayer who would willingly pay more in taxes in this environment is insane and should not be taken seriously on this topic.
Yo you are willing to pay whatever the gov wants when half the country pays no taxes? We need to get the other half envolved in this shared sacrifice, as Obama calls it. You can only go the well so many times before you run dry. You cannot just look at federal taxes either, you have to figure in all the little add ons like gas taxes, state, and local. They already get a big junk of what we work for. Quit building bridges to no where, before we talk about more taxes.
Y
YoLaDu
Guest
Uninformed
5,000+ Posts
Jamaica
Income Tax Rate
35%
Corporate Tax Rate
33.3%
Sales Tax / GCT Rate
17.5%
Alaska
There is no state sales tax or personal income tax in Alaska. Corporate tax rates are graduated from 1% to 9.4% in increments of $10,000 of taxable income. The 9.4% maximum rate applies to taxable income of $90,000 and over.
Income Tax Rate
35%
Corporate Tax Rate
33.3%
Sales Tax / GCT Rate
17.5%
Alaska
There is no state sales tax or personal income tax in Alaska. Corporate tax rates are graduated from 1% to 9.4% in increments of $10,000 of taxable income. The 9.4% maximum rate applies to taxable income of $90,000 and over.
I find it astounding that some folks really believe that the US government needs more revenue. I just cannot fathom that some folks really believe that the government is efficiently using the revenue it has already confiscated from us and legitimately needs more. These politicians just want more money so they have more power to influence more votes. It will not go towards reducing the deficit and certainly not towards reducing the debt.
Y
YoLaDu
Guest
Yo, I made $52,206 and have three kids my tax liability was $2,001. After my education credits, retirement credit and child tax credit (which was $459), I owed $0. Then it gets better. I not only didn't have to pay a dime to the government but I received everything back which was deducted from my payroll $1415. I also received the Making work pay credit of $800, Additional tax credit $2,541 and American opportunity credit $1,000.
So your point is proven, in my case anyway, and I do feel that the tax code is severely broken. I don't necessarily believe we need to raise taxes just restructure it. If we didn't have any loopholes and credits, I would have been glad to pay $2,001 in taxes which only represented 3.8% of my reported income.
I don't consider myself one of the unfortunate tax payers that needs help with credits and such. I have a house (and fixin to close on another one), two cars, two retirement accounts, two checking accounts, savings account and other forms of credit. If someone like me can do it on my income then I know others can too. This just goes to show that you don't need handouts from the government, you just need self control and the will to achieve.
We need to cut government entitlements and trim the fat on all agencies including the military (to which I am a part of). Everybody needs to sacrifice including the poor, whether that sacrifice comes through a small tax or entitlement losses (I don't care which).
So your point is proven, in my case anyway, and I do feel that the tax code is severely broken. I don't necessarily believe we need to raise taxes just restructure it. If we didn't have any loopholes and credits, I would have been glad to pay $2,001 in taxes which only represented 3.8% of my reported income.
I don't consider myself one of the unfortunate tax payers that needs help with credits and such. I have a house (and fixin to close on another one), two cars, two retirement accounts, two checking accounts, savings account and other forms of credit. If someone like me can do it on my income then I know others can too. This just goes to show that you don't need handouts from the government, you just need self control and the will to achieve.
We need to cut government entitlements and trim the fat on all agencies including the military (to which I am a part of). Everybody needs to sacrifice including the poor, whether that sacrifice comes through a small tax or entitlement losses (I don't care which).
orangecat1
500+ Posts
interesting, I'm in the lowest tax bracket because of credits also.
but, the catch for me is that I have one of those tax credits you had to hunt for. I found the credit one night in April, while finishing taxes, living in an apartment. Got the first time homebuyer credit in 2004,(Mortgage Credit Certificate) the credit is supposed to last forever, as long as I live in, and owe on the home, the credit is 40% of interest paid on mortgage during the year, up to $2000.
So we start off with $4000 of credits, the 2k for 2 children and the 2k for first time homebuyer.
One year, we had a bunch of medical expenses,( 3 surgeries between the wife and I) were itemizing, and we owed 0, and had room to do an IRA conversion at the 0% tax bracket.
btw, I don't recommend 3 surgeries as a way to get into the 0% bracket.
This year our liability will probably go up to close to 2000, and our gross income is in the 70s.
It is interesting, our parents generation in the 1970s, had high income taxes to pay, and 0 or pretty close to 0 health insurance to pay.
It's now flip-flopped, and the most important benefit about a job is health insurance, mostly paid for. Imo, it almost seems like the health insurance is the reason for the job, especially in a case like mine, where my wife has the health insurance.
Which scenario would I rather have? I would take the 70s in a heartbeat.
Despite the fact income taxes were higher, look at your health insurance as a % of your income. Much higher than any withholding you've ever had, unless you're paying 0.
but, the catch for me is that I have one of those tax credits you had to hunt for. I found the credit one night in April, while finishing taxes, living in an apartment. Got the first time homebuyer credit in 2004,(Mortgage Credit Certificate) the credit is supposed to last forever, as long as I live in, and owe on the home, the credit is 40% of interest paid on mortgage during the year, up to $2000.
So we start off with $4000 of credits, the 2k for 2 children and the 2k for first time homebuyer.
One year, we had a bunch of medical expenses,( 3 surgeries between the wife and I) were itemizing, and we owed 0, and had room to do an IRA conversion at the 0% tax bracket.
btw, I don't recommend 3 surgeries as a way to get into the 0% bracket.
This year our liability will probably go up to close to 2000, and our gross income is in the 70s.
It is interesting, our parents generation in the 1970s, had high income taxes to pay, and 0 or pretty close to 0 health insurance to pay.
It's now flip-flopped, and the most important benefit about a job is health insurance, mostly paid for. Imo, it almost seems like the health insurance is the reason for the job, especially in a case like mine, where my wife has the health insurance.
Which scenario would I rather have? I would take the 70s in a heartbeat.
Despite the fact income taxes were higher, look at your health insurance as a % of your income. Much higher than any withholding you've ever had, unless you're paying 0.
When you go to Walmart (or wherever) and make a purchase, the cashier is probably working for $9-$10 per hour and assuming he/she works full time, is earning perhaps $20,000 in a year. Let's say the employee is a mother of two. She files her taxes, has no tax and in fact receives EIC for $4,000 and additional child tax credit for $2,000. Her refund is $6,000 in addition to recouping any withholding taxes.Now, the goods you purchase at Walmart are a little bit cheaper than they otherwise would have been because they were manufactured in China. The local competition to Walmart went out of business, and as a result, the lady that checked you out makes only $20,000 per year although with no income tax and in fact $6,000 in refundable credits, it's probably equivalent to earning $30,000 per year. If not for "free trade" policies, competing stores would be open for business, and this woman would likely have been making $12 to $13 per hour.
But hey, the consumer saves money right? Not really. Although the goods you buy are cheaper than they would be without the various GATT, NAFTA, Most Favored Nation Status, etc. trade deals, you are indirectly paying more by virtue of the $6,000 in transfer payments from you the taxpayer, to the lady working behind the counter when she files her return.
Without the globalization factor, you would probably pay more for your goods, the lady's salary would be higher, but the government would not have had the incentive to create subsidies so that this working person can get by.
As a result of globalization, the consumer pays less in prices, but more in taxes (if they are middle class or higher), the blue collar worker earns less in salary but makes up the difference via tax subsidies paid by the rest of us. The billionaire CEO gets wealthier because in exchange for less costs - labor in this case - the taxpayer makes up the difference for decreased labor costs.
My point is that most of us taxpayers feel resentful because we subsidize the poor working class, when in fact, we are subsidizing the mega-wealthy. We the taxpayers, in many cases, merely serve as the wage replacement mechanism for workers to the benefit of multinational corporations. The wage payer has simply changed hands from the corporation to the taxpayer.
But hey, the consumer saves money right? Not really. Although the goods you buy are cheaper than they would be without the various GATT, NAFTA, Most Favored Nation Status, etc. trade deals, you are indirectly paying more by virtue of the $6,000 in transfer payments from you the taxpayer, to the lady working behind the counter when she files her return.
Without the globalization factor, you would probably pay more for your goods, the lady's salary would be higher, but the government would not have had the incentive to create subsidies so that this working person can get by.
As a result of globalization, the consumer pays less in prices, but more in taxes (if they are middle class or higher), the blue collar worker earns less in salary but makes up the difference via tax subsidies paid by the rest of us. The billionaire CEO gets wealthier because in exchange for less costs - labor in this case - the taxpayer makes up the difference for decreased labor costs.
My point is that most of us taxpayers feel resentful because we subsidize the poor working class, when in fact, we are subsidizing the mega-wealthy. We the taxpayers, in many cases, merely serve as the wage replacement mechanism for workers to the benefit of multinational corporations. The wage payer has simply changed hands from the corporation to the taxpayer.
We're both correct. Large corporations successfully lobby to achieve lower labor costs through policies favorable for them (globalization) while politicians oblige and placate the exploited worker via dependency on government largess funded by the taxpayer. More bread and circus.
Y
YoLaDu
Guest
it's no surprise that a tax system that has 1) created a smaller percentage of Americans who own more of the overall wealth 2) created a larger percentage of Americans who make 50K or less a year and 3) allowed tax credits to reduce one's tax liability to 0 when making less than 50K a year, would produce a stat like: "half of Americans don't pay federal income tax."
I am guessing repealing any or all tax credits would break Mr. Norquist's pledge, so tax credits ain't going away anytime soon. So I don't see what GOP politicians are complaining about. They have handcuffed themselves on this one.
I am guessing repealing any or all tax credits would break Mr. Norquist's pledge, so tax credits ain't going away anytime soon. So I don't see what GOP politicians are complaining about. They have handcuffed themselves on this one.
CUT THE SPENDING FIRST. Then and ONLY then should we be talking about taxes.
The Feds can't be trusted to keep their word at all. BOTH sides need to learn to SPEND LESS FIRST!!!!!
Maybe if they will show some friggen responsible spending first, will I agree to any sort of talk on taxes, until then taxes need to stay put!
The Feds can't be trusted to keep their word at all. BOTH sides need to learn to SPEND LESS FIRST!!!!!
Maybe if they will show some friggen responsible spending first, will I agree to any sort of talk on taxes, until then taxes need to stay put!
So the tax system created the large gap between the haves and have nots? Wow. And I thought it was my education from UT and Rice along with years of hard work and investment risk. I plan to liquidate my kid's college fund and get a good tax attorney on a retainer.
THEU
2,500+ Posts
ok,
I am going to offer what I think it either a radically different perspective from the ones above, or maybe, just maybe, it is a middle of the road 'compromise' without it being a compromise to me at all. I want to set out a road map for the way ahead, and in some ways they are ordered, so the numbering is somewhat important.
1) The government needs to be found to be trustworthy. Most people do not know that SSI or FICA is paid into a separate trust from the general budget and on paper has funds, but they have all been borrowed out of the fund. People paid into SSI expecting that that money was to be paid for the current retired and that they would eventually get out what they put in, because it is an insurance system (hence the name SSI) and not an entitlement from general budget. Although this is now what is has become due to BOTH parties. We need to take a serious account of what is Constitutionally authourised spending and what is not. We need to reduce expenditures across the board including about a 30-35% cut in defense spending. The days of playing party politics with federal programs needs to be a thing of the past.
By cutting and reigning in spending both parties are saying we take fiscal responsibility seriously.
2)Overhaul of the tax code. Blaming taxcode on who gets rich or who gets or stays wealthy is insane and stupid. Why do poor people who win the lottery generally end up losing it all? Because they don't have a mind or the lifestyle discipline for creating and managing wealth. Saving 3k a year from the time you graduate college, until age 65 should have you with over 1,000,000 in savings for retirement. That is based on some basic planning and compound interest. How many people do that? VERY VERY few. How many of those same 'poor' people have necessities of life like a PS3, big screen LCD tv, etc? Far too many. Many don't have wealth or create wealth because they squander it, not because they are taxed.
Also, when you look at chart about the ultra wealthy in the US, let me ask how many of those are in the technology field? I am seriously curious about this. It seems that these inventors of common place technology didn't gain great wealth because of the tax code, but because of sheer genius and hard work. Bill Gates, Michael Dell... those people didn't get that rich because of the tax code.
The tax code needs to be simplified. There are probably behaviours that we want to encourage. Having children, quite honestly is one of those. Sustainability of a culture and an economy owes a big part to the stability of the population and to population growth. Charitable giving? Do you know how much good charities do and give in the US? Those are 2 that I am for. Although, I could honestly give up the child credit to just have a charitable donation deduction be the ONLY deduction for individuals.
Here is where I break with the 'right.' Poor people do pay taxes even if they don't pay federal income tax. They pay taxes other ways, so to say they don't pay taxes is really just a lie of the right. I do believe we need to in some ways protect the poor. Call me a 'lefty' on this one I guess.
So make it the same across the board with a graduated income tax coming at various points, but only the charitable giving deduction, and with that being dollar per dollar. So here is my simple chart, that would also do away with the IRS almost completely.
INCOME: $0 - 20,000 0%
$20,001- 50,000 5%
$50,000 - 100,000 15%
$100,001 - 500,000 25%
$500,001- 10,000,000 30%
$10,000,000 - INFINITY 35%
That is it. Now, feel free to quibble about the income breaks and the percentages... but something that simple would seem to work, and reduce the cost of figuring taxes even. If you make 75,000 Then you pay 5% on 30k, and 15% on 25k... seems simple enough to me. As I say, the percentages and the income brackets may need some adjusting, but that type of simplicity seems to be something that both parties ought to be able to figure out.
I am going to offer what I think it either a radically different perspective from the ones above, or maybe, just maybe, it is a middle of the road 'compromise' without it being a compromise to me at all. I want to set out a road map for the way ahead, and in some ways they are ordered, so the numbering is somewhat important.
1) The government needs to be found to be trustworthy. Most people do not know that SSI or FICA is paid into a separate trust from the general budget and on paper has funds, but they have all been borrowed out of the fund. People paid into SSI expecting that that money was to be paid for the current retired and that they would eventually get out what they put in, because it is an insurance system (hence the name SSI) and not an entitlement from general budget. Although this is now what is has become due to BOTH parties. We need to take a serious account of what is Constitutionally authourised spending and what is not. We need to reduce expenditures across the board including about a 30-35% cut in defense spending. The days of playing party politics with federal programs needs to be a thing of the past.
By cutting and reigning in spending both parties are saying we take fiscal responsibility seriously.
2)Overhaul of the tax code. Blaming taxcode on who gets rich or who gets or stays wealthy is insane and stupid. Why do poor people who win the lottery generally end up losing it all? Because they don't have a mind or the lifestyle discipline for creating and managing wealth. Saving 3k a year from the time you graduate college, until age 65 should have you with over 1,000,000 in savings for retirement. That is based on some basic planning and compound interest. How many people do that? VERY VERY few. How many of those same 'poor' people have necessities of life like a PS3, big screen LCD tv, etc? Far too many. Many don't have wealth or create wealth because they squander it, not because they are taxed.
Also, when you look at chart about the ultra wealthy in the US, let me ask how many of those are in the technology field? I am seriously curious about this. It seems that these inventors of common place technology didn't gain great wealth because of the tax code, but because of sheer genius and hard work. Bill Gates, Michael Dell... those people didn't get that rich because of the tax code.
The tax code needs to be simplified. There are probably behaviours that we want to encourage. Having children, quite honestly is one of those. Sustainability of a culture and an economy owes a big part to the stability of the population and to population growth. Charitable giving? Do you know how much good charities do and give in the US? Those are 2 that I am for. Although, I could honestly give up the child credit to just have a charitable donation deduction be the ONLY deduction for individuals.
Here is where I break with the 'right.' Poor people do pay taxes even if they don't pay federal income tax. They pay taxes other ways, so to say they don't pay taxes is really just a lie of the right. I do believe we need to in some ways protect the poor. Call me a 'lefty' on this one I guess.
So make it the same across the board with a graduated income tax coming at various points, but only the charitable giving deduction, and with that being dollar per dollar. So here is my simple chart, that would also do away with the IRS almost completely.
INCOME: $0 - 20,000 0%
$20,001- 50,000 5%
$50,000 - 100,000 15%
$100,001 - 500,000 25%
$500,001- 10,000,000 30%
$10,000,000 - INFINITY 35%
That is it. Now, feel free to quibble about the income breaks and the percentages... but something that simple would seem to work, and reduce the cost of figuring taxes even. If you make 75,000 Then you pay 5% on 30k, and 15% on 25k... seems simple enough to me. As I say, the percentages and the income brackets may need some adjusting, but that type of simplicity seems to be something that both parties ought to be able to figure out.
Ag with kids
2,500+ Posts
THEU
2,500+ Posts
Ag,
she paid those, but was given refunds on income tax in a larger amount. Perhaps I wasn't as precise in my wording as I could have been.
I will say this, with my proposed system she would still be paying all those other taxes with no refunds. There would be no refunds for taxes unless you over pay, and even then you will NEVER get out more than you put in!
she paid those, but was given refunds on income tax in a larger amount. Perhaps I wasn't as precise in my wording as I could have been.
I will say this, with my proposed system she would still be paying all those other taxes with no refunds. There would be no refunds for taxes unless you over pay, and even then you will NEVER get out more than you put in!
NEW: Pro Sports Forums
Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.
Pro Sports Forums
Pro Sports Forums
Recent Threads
-
'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'
- Started by Namewithheld
- Replies: 3K
- West Mall
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 443
- West Mall
-
Elon Musk Stuff
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 522
- West Mall
-
Insanity, thy name is public education
- Started by ProdigalHorn
- Replies: 47
- West Mall
