Cry me a river for the freakin "poor" - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Cry me a river for the freakin "poor"
Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:29 PM on j-body.org
Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax
Apr 7 05:38 PM US/Eastern
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
Associated Press Writer


FILE - In this April 5, 2010 file photo, Internal Revenue Service Commissio...

WASHINGTON (AP) - Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it's simply somebody else's problem.
About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

Most people still are required to file returns by the April 15 deadline. The penalty for skipping it is limited to the amount of taxes owed, but it's still almost always better to file: That's the only way to get a refund of all the income taxes withheld by employers.

In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.

Tax cuts enacted in the past decade have been generous to wealthy taxpayers, too, making them a target for President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress. Less noticed were tax cuts for low- and middle-income families, which were expanded when Obama signed the massive economic recovery package last year.

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners—households making an average of $366,400 in 2006—paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.[/b]

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

"We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing," said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

The vast majority of people who escape federal income taxes still pay other taxes, including federal payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, and excise taxes on gasoline, aviation, alcohol and cigarettes. Many also pay state or local taxes on sales, income and property.

That helps explain the country's aversion to taxes, said Clint Stretch, a tax policy expert Deloitte Tax. He said many people simply look at the difference between their gross pay and their take-home pay and blame the government for the disparity.

"It's not uncommon for people to think that their Social Security taxes, their 401(k) contributions, their share of employer health premiums, all of that stuff in their mind gets lumped into income taxes," Stretch said.

The federal income tax is the government's largest source of revenue, raising more than $900 billion—or a little less than half of all government receipts—in the budget year that ended last Sept. 30. But with deductions and credits, especially for families with children, there have long been people who don't pay it, mainly lower-income families.

The number of households that don't pay federal income taxes increased substantially in 2008, when the poor economy reduced incomes and Congress cut taxes in an attempt to help recovery.

In 2007, about 38 percent of households paid no federal income tax, a figure that jumped to 49 percent in 2008, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center.

In 2008, President George W. Bush signed a law providing most families with rebate checks of $300 to $1,200. Last year, Obama signed the economic recovery law that expanded some tax credits and created others. Most targeted low- and middle-income families.

Obama's Making Work Pay credit provides as much as $800 to couples and $400 to individuals. The expanded child tax credit provides $1,000 for each child under 17. The Earned Income Tax Credit provides up to $5,657 to low-income families with at least three children.

There are also tax credits for college expenses, buying a new home and upgrading an existing home with energy-efficient doors, windows, furnaces and other appliances. Many of the credits are refundable, meaning if the credits exceed the amount of income taxes owed, the taxpayer gets a payment from the government for the difference.

"All these things are ways the government says, if you do this, we'll reduce your tax bill by some amount," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

The government could provide the same benefits through spending programs, with the same effect on the federal budget, Williams said. But it sounds better for politicians to say they cut taxes rather than they started a new spending program, he added.

Obama has pushed tax cuts for low- and middle-income families and tax increases for the wealthy, arguing that wealthier taxpayers fared well in the past decade, so it's time to pay up. The nation's wealthiest taxpayers did get big tax breaks under Bush, with the top marginal tax rate reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, and the second-highest rate reduced from 36 percent to 33 percent.

But income tax rates were lowered at every income level. The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.

Here's how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:

The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.

With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.

The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.



Is it just me, or are there too many tax credits, top to bottom? How 'bout this: You can choose a flat tax with no deductions/credits.....or keep your current tax structure the way it is.




“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Thursday, April 08, 2010 4:54 PM on j-body.org
While it's not made as obvious in that article, the real problem in these credits are that there are plenty of people getting hundreds and even thousands back on their income tax that they never paid. In other words, money is being taken from the higher income people, and given to the lower income people.

The myth commonly believed by people (simply because they've heard it repeated enough times) is that the tax cuts in 2003 was mostly good for the rich, and hurt the poor and middle class. In reality, the top 20% saw their share of the tax burden jump from 81.2% in 2000 to 86.3% in 2006, while the bottom 20% saw their handouts go from 1.6% of their earned income in 2000 to 2.8% in 2006 (yes, this is a percentage of taxes they were given. This is the thing everyone misses about the tax credits: there are a good amount of people who actually get money back in a "refund" check that they never paid.

What that article fails to point out is that a family of four with income lower than $50K/year will actually recieve money they didn't pay. This is redistribution. It is taking from one group and giving to another. To anyone not familiar with these numbers, it should be making you scratch your head to think about how the Bush tax cuts are constantly touted by the Democrats as being for the rich, and hurting the poor and middle class.

I had posted this in another thread before, but it's always worth pointing out again, so that someone who hasn't seen it before gets a chance to consider it. You can read the whole article here.






Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Thursday, April 08, 2010 5:49 PM on j-body.org
Typically, a thread is a starting point for discussion, via the poster making a 'point' that others can either agree with, or take exception with.

What is your 'point'?





Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Thursday, April 08, 2010 6:22 PM on j-body.org
Quote:

Quote:

Is it just me, or are there too many tax credits, top to bottom? How 'bout this: You can choose a flat tax with no deductions/credits.....or keep your current tax structure the way it is.




“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Thursday, April 08, 2010 6:45 PM on j-body.org
I think a flat tax like the VAT would be good if they abolished the income tax. That way you pay if you spend. I would only agree to it though if there were a constitutional amendment to remove the ability of government to deficit spend. I would pay 20% instead of all the nonsense. Well as a business owner I am sure I would pay less than they want now.



Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Thursday, April 08, 2010 7:21 PM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

What that article fails to point out is that a family of four with income lower than $50K/year will actually recieve money they didn't pay. This is redistribution. It is taking from one group and giving to another. To anyone not familiar with these numbers, it should be making you scratch your head to think about how the Bush tax cuts are constantly touted by the Democrats as being for the rich, and hurting the poor and middle class.

Intriguing. So it is your contention that this family would receive a tax refund for tax they didn't pay? If yes, can you shed some more light on how this works in practice?





Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Thursday, April 08, 2010 8:25 PM on j-body.org
Here's the light.

Not same situation, but works the same.

I work with 2 baby mammas. They have 2 + 3 kids respectively. They make less than I do, pay less in taxes out of their checks, yet when tax season rolls around, they receive refund checks of well over 3-4k. Way more than they paid out it federal taxes.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Friday, April 09, 2010 4:50 AM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Intriguing. So it is your contention that this family would receive a tax refund for tax they didn't pay? If yes, can you shed some more light on how this works in practice?
It's not just my contention, it's how it works. Ask your accountant about it.

Example: family of four with an income of $40K/year, using the text from the original article:

The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $14,000. The federal income tax on $14,000 is $1,610.

With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.

The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $1,610 in taxes, so the family makes a $1,190 profit from the federal income tax.


Again, I encourage anyone to double check on this, but I can tell you for a fact this is how it works. This is where the statistic I posted previously come from that the bottom 20% of income earners in this country recieve, on average (and these numbers are a few years old) 2.8% of their income from tax "refunds".







Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Friday, April 09, 2010 5:16 AM on j-body.org
allot more poor people then rich people so its allot easier to just say the rich should pay for it because their rich.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Friday, April 09, 2010 1:06 PM on j-body.org
Quik...Your example sucks. They do not get more back than they paid in. If you'd like, run this past an actual tax accountant and wait for the smile to curl on his lips as he realizes what a right-sack swinging looney you sound like. Abso-fcuking-lutely hilarious!

LOL, besides...you guys act as if the current administration is somehow re-writing the fudamantal rules regarding taxation. It's ALWAYS been the case that the higher income bracket pays more taxes. Holy sh!t, you treat it as if it's some Revelation about Left-theft! Classic Chicken (Little) Sh!t.

WTF. How about you find something that MATTERS to whine about for a change? It's always this shell game of funky math that never actually works. Get off your rapidly-secretary-spreading keyboard-pounding A55es and go do something REAL to make a difference instead. This ain't working.






Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Friday, April 09, 2010 3:02 PM on j-body.org
LOL. So tell me, Bill, did you actually run that by one? Keep this up, it only proves your ignorance. Why don't you tell Scott that he's lying now. The tax credits do, in fact, make it possible for people to get money "refunded" that they haven't paid in. I have a former neighbor who was all excited last year because he got back about 1500 more than they paid in Federal. Him and his wife both work, and they have two kids. He made 30K and she made 12K (she works at a seasonal restaurant). Before telling someone that their example sucks, try doing your homework first.

And where in this thread did anyone say it's all about what the current president and congress did? I even pointed out that the Bush tax cuts did some of this, hence the statement that his tax cuts being all about the rich. Way to read what you wanted to hear.








Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Friday, April 09, 2010 3:16 PM on j-body.org
Hold on. Wait one minute. Do I understand this right...you are pissing and moaning about married couples with children receiving tax credits?

PLEASE tell me this isn't the extreme right's latest pisspot about "what's wrong with Leftie Government."

How many fans and new voters do you think THIS one's going to get in the GOP boat, attacking familes with children?
For fcuk's SAKE, man...this is the backbone constituency of American life, and you somehow think that attacking them is going to...wait, what did you think attacking them is going to achieve anyway?

The tax credits apply to the taxes paid in OTHER tax years. They are NOT "getting back more than they paid in." Holy sh!t. You wingnut numbskulls will fall for anything. Desperation is your only reamining tool, apparently.

I just cannot even BELIEVE the defecation that spews from your mouth.





Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Friday, April 09, 2010 5:02 PM on j-body.org
No, as usual, you don't have it right. I am not pissing and moaning about married couples with children, dipsh!t. I happen to be married with children of my own, and they seem to be able to grasp basic points better than yourself.

The AP published an article showing how many Americans don't actually pay taxes (an article that never would have been published two years ago, BTW, since the majority of the credits are from Bush). I pointed out that one of the things missed was that there are a good amount of people who actually get more back than they pay in, and you have seen a few examples. I used the same example as the article used, but with a lower income. Here's a non-married, non-parent exmple for you that illustrates how this can work:

A married couple with no kids making $25K per year has the standard deduction of 11,400, and a personal exemption of 7,300 (3650 X 2), leaving a taxable income of 6300. The tax on this is 725, but the Making Work Pay credit of 800 exceeds this, and they will end up with a positive of $75 for the year. Not much, but it still illustrates the point that people can get back more than they pay in via these credits.

FYI, these tax credits have nothing to do with previous tax years. Here's a good example: a child tax credit is available for a tax year even if the child was born on December 31st of that year. Again, check it out. You have no idea what you're talking about here, and it's more obvious with every weak attempt you make at attacking me. The defecation is coming from your direction, as you miss every single point laid out. It seems your entire purpose for posting in this forum has been to insult everyone. What exactly do you even stand for? From your ridiculous posts you constantly make attacking people, it looks like you're just against everything you read.

Just so you completely understand (well, you probably won't, but it can't hurt to try) my position here, I have repeatedly stated my opposition to tax credits, because elligible recipients get the full credit back regardless if it exceeds what they paid. This has been my position all along. This thread was simply another opportunity to discuss it. I have always believed the tax codes need to be more straight forward, with only deductions and no credits, as well as more flat rate. A two or three tier system with small bumps in percentage points between them is sufficient, and allows for huge economic growth. This has been proven again and again, as well as the fact that the rich still end up paying a huge portion of the tax burden even when their rates are lowered.







Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Friday, April 09, 2010 5:25 PM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

This has been proven again and again, as well as the fact that the rich still end up paying a huge portion of the tax burden even when their rates are lowered.

PRECISELY why it's such a non-issue. But that's never stopped you from screaming about obviations before. So....fcuking...WHAT. You ain't making one iota of difference whining about it here.

You don't like it? Too...fcuking...BAD. Move somewhere where the rich don't pay more taxes than the poor, or go change it here (good luck with that, as it's been the status quo for the better part of a century or longer, and somehow the nation, AND the rich, not only survived, but prospered).

This is the epitome of lameness, arguing about theoretical "worst case" constructs here. Write your congressman. Go participate in...well, SOMETHING. Bouncing this crap off me, or others here, achieves less than nothing, for it wastes your time. I thought you'd already acknowledged as much. Something brought you back, and it sure isn't the call to duty. More like the call to DOODY.









Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Friday, April 09, 2010 6:39 PM on j-body.org
Bill, you're nothing more than an old fool who never moved beyond highschool. What I told you before was that I wasn't going to waste my time with your idiotic pissing contests here. I never said I was leaving the forum. Shame on me for thinking that when you asked a question of my first post that it was an honest request for some insight, and not baiting for your typical foolishness. I won't make the mistake of giving you any credit next time.

If you had one ounce of reasonability in you, you would realize that there was no "screaming" in my post. The last line of it was clear in that it was simply posted for people to consider. But once again, you've got such a hard-on for any chance to start throwing around your school-yard level insults that you read your own preconception into it and began your typical immature bullsh!t.

Continue spewing your idiocy. Most here probably know better than to give it any serious consideration. You do more to discredit yourself than anyone else could.








Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Friday, April 09, 2010 7:07 PM on j-body.org
Yes, take the pissy, whiney shots. When I take away your fuzzy math, that's all you have left. Here you are doing exactly what you said you wouldn't, because you couldn't miss the chance to try and soothe your tortured soul...maybe your world got sh!ttier again, and so you had to seek an outlet, . Did it work? Do you feel better now?

I'm sorry the side you picked is under such fire right now. Sure, it sucks to be on the extreme team, especially when you are losing the battle of public opinion. Try to make yourself feel better by taking it out on me. You can fool yourself (and I'm not even sure on that!), but you sure can't fool me.

Ever wonder why you are all alone when you do this? I don't. No one cares, Quik. They all stopped caring a long time ago. I just enjoy making you squirm. I realized long ago I can't make you think.





Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Friday, April 09, 2010 8:36 PM on j-body.org
here's the last 4 bits from the AP article posted above.

"[color=purpleBut income tax rates were lowered at every income level. The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.

Here's how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:

The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.

With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.

The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.


]


The received more in refund than they paid in taxes. Quite simple. Liberals complain about rich not paying their fair share....blah blah blah.... I guess they only believe the rich and upper middle class should be shouldering that burden.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Friday, April 09, 2010 9:15 PM on j-body.org
Seriously. A family of four living on $40K a year. Does that sound like some kind of extravagant lifestyle? Break it down. That's $3000 a month for four people to live, eat,and get to and from work. Clothing, shoes, rent, utilities, school supplies, food, probably bus passes too, because no WAY is that enough for car payments too.

You think they have nice cars? You think they can afford a mortgage? That's about as spare an existence as it GETS.

You self-righteous "friends of the rich" try to make it sound like these people contribute NOTHING to society, and just take, take, take. You suck for being so selfish and arrogant. They are the American Dream waiting to happen. Two working parents that make little more on salary than they could draw on welfare. Paying taxes on every purchase they make, every utility bill they pay, every penny they spend, and you want to make sure thay have ZERO money left to enrich their childrens lives. Ever occur to you that if they don't catch a small break like this, they'll just get on the dole and suck off the teat WAY MORE?

Fcuk you self-righteous a55holes. Really? Sit there and don't even TRY to think about how it feels to have that kind of responsibility, and live from paycheck to paycheck wondering if your kids will have rags to wear to school so they can be made fun of. You make me SICK.






Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Saturday, April 10, 2010 5:34 AM on j-body.org
LMAO. I think we struck a nerve.

Bill, you're so f*cking clueless, it's unbelievable. I have been in that position in my life before, and it's not nearly as hard as you make it out to be. There was a point not so long ago that I had 2 kids and a household income of approximately 40K. I still managed to have 2 decent cars, pay my rent, and save enough of a down payment to purchase a house. It can be done, but people aren't willing these days to go without any luxury items, such as a big screen TV, the latest game system, etc., and racking up credit card debt on foolishness they don't need. People piss their money away on crap, and then don't understand why they can't get ahead.






Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Saturday, April 10, 2010 5:48 AM on j-body.org
You didn't strike a nerve. You just showed that you are 100% without a clue about anything but yourselves. This is why people like you remain lonely single men, many who will never "get" what it's like to be part of a loving family unit. You'll die in front of your keyboards, never having had the chance to love and cherish others because you've hardened yourselves so much to the world around you.

I'm not suprised that you "used" to be part of a family. Apparently, you couldn't handle it. And if you stil are part of that family...they have my endless sympathy. They sure aren't going to get any from YOU.





Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Saturday, April 10, 2010 7:59 AM on j-body.org
He used to make the 40k. He's still married with the kids. Just because someone has a family and doesn't make a lot of money, should not exempt them from shouldering part of the tax burden. To believe otherwise is to believe "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". People can live off $3000 a month...comfortably too. They might live in a poorer area of town and drive a used cavalier, and pack their own lunches for work, no morning starbucks run....one landline and no cell phones...kinda like how my grandparents raised my parents. It can be do e easily if people don't get buried in high interest car loans and collections companies.

As a single man, it irks me that baby mamas, earning the same or less $ than me, pay no federal income taxes at all. And don't go one about how expensive kids are to raise. Having a kid is like buying a dog. It's gonna cost you X amount of money to take care of it. I that isn't in your budget, then perhaps a box of Trojans is.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Saturday, April 10, 2010 11:52 AM on j-body.org
What irks me is when low and mid level income folks that bitch on the tax credits when it is designed for their own category, and ridiculous when those low and mid level income folks defend the high level income folks as if they them selves fall in that category. Some of you all remind me of the juveniles sitting and not clapping; because Obama didn't mention more tax credit for the 10% in the first 2mins of the vid and Obama pointed it out. lol


This link is for the folks who are confused on what middle class is and think that when you earn between $30K-$70K per year they fall under the top 10%... lol

ScottaWhite wrote:

Is it just me, or are there too many tax credits, top to bottom?

I'm glad to see that you recognize that all levels get credits one way or another.




THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Saturday, April 10, 2010 1:20 PM on j-body.org
The low income people don't typically own legal businesses, and therefore, do not create legal job opportunities.

Lobs like to say, "rich should pay still more, so we can give it to the poor, who will spend it on the rich mans goods"

Non-Lunatics believe "lowere the rich mans business taxes, and he'll hire an extra worker, who will earn a paycheck, and spend it on rich mans goods"

when you are only concerned about unfair policies that affect someone else, you are settling into a mindset of "it can't happen to me".

When you allow govt to erode someone else's liberty, you are enabling them to to remove yours next.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Saturday, April 10, 2010 2:26 PM on j-body.org
I have no shame in what I will post because I followed the law to get these numbers:

filling status M9 (married with 2 kids) on the W4 worksheet this is what came up. It really doesnt matter what you claim along the year because when you do your taxes at the end of the year you will either owe or have over paid and the filling will reflect that.

Okay so 2009 I grossed 37,081
I payed medicare 469.34
I payed social security 2,006.83
I payed Federal tax ZERO
TOTAL: 2,476.17

My non taxable deductions:
I payed 401k 1,079.45
I payed Medical insurance (CIGNA) 4,712.94
TOTAL: 4,712.94

My NET pay for 2009 was 28,812.59
I recieved a check from the IRS in the amount of 5,215.00

I fillied married filling jointly, and had an adjusted gross income of 31,289
I also claimed my 2 children whom live with me and my wife.

WTF did I do to get 5K back?????
Did I take the money...........hell yeah I accepted it because that was the figure it gave me back. Should I have recieved such a large return after paying Zero in federal taxes NO, I was expecting to owe about 200 or so bucks or at least break even with my child tax credits.... The system is flawed and needs to be revamped.

PS I also live in TX were the median income is 37K so im not "poor" for say as some one making 37K in other parts of the US. Texas also has no state income tax.

I pay 972.00 for rent in a 2007 built 2 story house right around 2,100 sft
I OWN a 2004 corolla S
I OWN a 1995 Isuzu Rodeo
I have minimal debt, and my other expsense total 500.00 a month.








Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Saturday, April 10, 2010 4:36 PM on j-body.org
Lookee Lookee ^^^


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search