while 53% pay income tax, one does not become a NET Federal Income Tax Payer until you are at a taxable income level of about 117,000 dollars from what I have read.
"
I wonder if you realize that everyone who earns up to $106K pays payroll taxes and there is no reason to cut them. And it doesn't matter whether somebody is an Obama supporter or was a McCain supporter knows that payroll taxes are contributions to one SS or not. They need to know there is a means tested program - the earned income tax credit - that will offer relief for the payroll taxes they pay.
I will also point out again that the 400 richest American's tax payers have gotten richer under Bush and their effective tax rate has plummeted to 16-17%
Yes, I understand that but those that claim the poor pay taxes too don't understand that.
Why do you care how rich someone gets? How are people getting rich affecting you and your family? So let me see if I have this right, you make a 100000 and 20% in taxes=20,000 in taxes then because of incentive you grow that income to 200000 and your tax rates are 15% so you pay 30000 in taxes, because the tax rate drops from 20-15 that is a bad thing? that is liberal logic, not the fact that the govt. got 10000 more in taxes.
You really need to think a little more and feel a little less.
All hat and no cattle!!!
It has been reported that 53% of the people in this country actually pay Federal Income Taxes. Is it not surprising that the other 47% have no problem raising taxes on the income generaters in this country?
Wow, what an excellent point. Shall I say it is hardley surprising you want to lower your own taxes?
There's nothing surer. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. In the meantime, in between time, ain't we got fun...
!930s song
ricksfolly
I have no problem with somebody getting rich, in fact I applaud it, more power to them. They can get "filthy rich" for all I care. I completely understand your example, however in my opinion the very rich can pay the higher taxes that existed before the the Bush tax breaks were implemented. You don't agree. Tough.Yes, I understand that but those that claim the poor pay taxes too don't understand that.
Why do you care how rich someone gets? How are people getting rich affecting you and your family? So let me see if I have this right, you make a 100000 and 20% in taxes=20,000 in taxes then because of incentive you grow that income to 200000 and your tax rates are 15% so you pay 30000 in taxes, because the tax rate drops from 20-15 that is a bad thing? that is liberal logic, not the fact that the govt. got 10000 more in taxes.
You really need to think a little more and feel a little less.
I have no problem with somebody getting rich, in fact I applaud it, more power to them. They can get "filthy rich" for all I care. I completely understand your example, however in my opinion the very rich can pay the higher taxes that existed before the the Bush tax breaks were implemented. You don't agree. Tough.
How is Obama helping the middle class become richer?
Can't wait for you to explain how higher taxes are going to get 16 million unemployed people back to work? You don't really seem to understand how our economy works and I would love to hear your qualifications as an expert on job creation and the role of our govt?
Nobody disagrees with the fact that money is wasted by government. Why should wasteful spending excuse you from paying taxes?Yep, see, even a Conservative has free speech opportunities. Only a liberal seems to be worried about someone else pays in taxes so why shouldn't I express how I feel about paying taxes especially since Congress wastes so much money.
That help will arrive at 12.01 New Years-day 2011.:2dance:
Nobody disagrees with the fact that money is wasted by government. Why should wasteful spending excuse you from paying taxes?
Why should it excuse 47% from paying income taxes? I understand the need for taxes but not enough to fund a 3.8 trillion dollar govt. which is a huge overreach from what our founders envisioned.
Nobody disagrees with the fact that money is wasted by government. Why should wasteful spending excuse you from paying taxes?
Exactly raising taxes on all taxpayers or even on the rich always helps individuals create individual wealth, right?
Of course not, but rather than putting the money into the mattresses of the wealthy, as we have for the last ten years we can redirect it into boosting a weak economy and maybe paying a few pennies off of the national debt. I realize it is foreign to your thought process to think of something beside yourself but that just might help the country that we all call home.
Why should it excuse 47% from paying income taxes? I understand the need for taxes but not enough to fund a 3.8 trillion dollar govt. which is a huge overreach from what our founders envisioned.
That is about the income my wife and I share, as retirees, and we pay a lot of taxes.
Here ya go Bill, don,t look like it will be a whole of diffrence in your tax statis.
Conservative
So how many wealthy people do you know that put their money into a mattress?
Think that sending more money to D.C. means Congress will use that money to pay down the debt?
When has the Congress ever paid down any of the debt?
ZOOM that metaphor went flying over your ole dome didn’t it conservative? Who stimulates the economy more, the working poor (which is including more and more of the shrinking middleclass with this bush recession) or those making over a mill?
So now it is down to who stimulates the economy more, the poor or the rich? Does it really matter? How many jobs do poor people create? Looks to me like both stimulate the economy and why would you hurt any economic class? Seems to me you have a lot of class envy for some reason.
Sure it will .What’s your crystal ball say?
History says you are wrong
I believe ti was during the Clinton years, which had a Republican majority in Congress that did something besides obstruct that did it.
You believe wrong. From the U.S. Treasury Dept.
Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.
Lowering the taxes has little to do with the number of jobs. You could lower the taxes even more than they are now and it would have little effect on the number people working. The term 'job creation' is somewhat a misnomer because nobody hires simply because they have extra money and want give somebody a job. They hire them because they believe that by doing so, the money spent on salary/benefits will outweigh by the increased revenue they produce.Can't wait for you to explain how higher taxes are going to get 16 million unemployed people back to work? You don't really seem to understand how our economy works and I would love to hear your qualifications as an expert on job creation and the role of our govt?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?