tax this tax that...
 

seems there implementing higher taxes on the existing taxes and wanting to tax new things. my personal opnion is that all is is going to do is make things worse. I (being a bluw collar worker) feel like i will feel the effects more than the lower or higher class. I struggle from week to week as most everybody does and if they put more taxes on new things then what the hell am i going to do?? It's not my fault that we as a country are in the prediciment that we are in. its the government's fault.
when they government was foing to shut down they were foing to still pay themselves (but not at the local level ie.. some irs workers post office. etc...) now how in the hell is that fair? I the government would start looking out for the american people FIRST, then i believe some of the prolblems would start to fade away.

The taxes are only a small fraction of how you're being fleeced, it's just that they're visible to you.
The monetization of the debt by massive printing of dollars, along with the Fed's zero interest rate policy is doing far more to destroy you financially.
There, feel better now?

:) ok sorta...

i really dont understand alot about what you mean by that?? how does the more dollars we print have to do with me finacncially? i understand that the more we print the less valuable it becomes.

I just wonder if lowering taxes on the upper earners, leads to more investment in commodities, which is an artificial demand so prices rise... Gold, oil, the stock market all have gone up a lot and I would think that some of it is that there are billions or trillions of wealth that need to go somewhere.

and you think you're hurting ralphie?

as a non american, i want your government to pull their shit together. as a non american your countries financial policies are hurting me more than any one of you.

as a person who works as an expat and pays no tax, i earn my money in a currency that is pegged to the USD. in the last 4 years ive seen the american dollar lose almost 40% against the australian dollar. that means that my salary has reduced by 40% and what i send his is almost 40% less of what i had been sending home. just this year alone, the USD has lost 16% against the Aussie dollar. Ive lost more in currency exchange than most people earn in an entire year in the States. and thats no exageration.

what eribrav is referring to is called 'quantitive easing'. its not printing of money so to speak. but rather the 'creating of money out of nothing' to ease the pressure on the banks that have inteerst rates close to zero. this can ( and probably will) create inflation which is probably compaounded on the tax you already complain about. you can find a good explanation here. http://www.businessinsider.com/what-...itative-easing

American taxes are at their lowest point in over 50 years. Tax receipts haven't been this low since before JFK.

As for the "printing of money," core inflation is still very low, as are long term interest rates. Meaning that however much has been "printed," we are still far, far away from having any sort of inflationary pressures.

Core inflation is only very low if you accept the figures the US govt. puts out there.
Most of us have a need to eat and consume fuel, and don't get to make the kind of hedonic adjustments the govt. is so fond of making to artificially depress the figures.

Another one for Ralphie: Where can you safely invest money nowadays and earn any kind of interest rate return? Ponder that. The reason there's no answer for that question is the zero interest rate policy. It takes folks who need a rate of return on their savings to live on and either forces them to accept nothing, or forces them onto the risk curve in search of returns, in a place they shouldn't be investment-wise.

Core inflation excludes food and oil because they are volatile and not really influenced by monetary policy. But one need not accept it. The fact that long term interest on US bonds is still low means that investors themselves don't expect much higher inflation.

And "zero interest" by the government doesn't, by itself, reduce the amount of money investors can make. It only reduces returns on financial, as opposed to direct, investment. And the only reason it does so is because private actors would rather lend to the government at 0% than to someone else for more than that. That is the only reason the interest rates get that low. If there was any sort of actual concern about the government inflating things or being unable to repay its debt, the interest wouldn't be that low. In fact, interest rates for many private companies and individuals remains high, meaning that investors can still invest and expect some kind of return.

please explain this, cause im confused on that:confused:

Whole article here

Inflation explained (really good cartoon)

Actually, that is (unsurprisingly) wrong.

As for increases in the price of oil and food, as global commodities their price is increasing not because of American monetary policy, but because developing countries are growing fast and increasing demand.


Bullionism is nothing more than a religion nowadays.

And here I was expecting cool animated infographics demonstrating the mechanism of output gaps.

---------- Post added at 10:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 PM ----------

There are many factors affecting the average American beyond taxes and inflation. As noted above, the taxation on Americans is relatively low. And starting from 2009, the U.S. went through a brief deflationary period (negative inflation) and has consistently averaged around 2% inflation, which is a desirable rate. Sure, this doesn't include such thing as oil, but oil prices have been low because of low demand.

Of course, what I'm getting at is the near future: oil is set to rise. But this is a global factor, not a U.S.-only factor, so there is only so much the government can do.

The other problem is America's abhorrent saving rate. (Is it still zero? Negative?) Americans, on average, aren't saving money and they haven't been for years. In China, the savings rate has ranged between something like 30% and 40%—yeah, that's the equivalent of $3 to $4 of every $10 earned. Of course, that's the far end of the spectrum (China's rate is the global high), but it demonstrates what's possible. The issue is that a lot of Chinese know how to do without much of what would be considered the trappings of the middle-class (though there is no indication this won't change).

In the U.S. (and in Canada largely), there is a kind of expectation that comfortably middle class living is the norm: too big of a house, too many TVs, too many cars, replacing furniture too often, too many appliances—of course, the question arises: what does "too big," "too many," or "too often" mean? Well, if you aren't saving 10% of your income, then it's up to you to decide your limits.

Don't blame the government for everything. The problem isn't just with them. We live in the age of marketing, where spending is the norm, and saving is something to do "one day." The American way of life will continue to be difficult to maintain as the global economy rises. The disparity of wealth between the U.S. and poorer nations will flatten, which will make it increasingly difficult to find cheap labour and cheap resources/commodities.

We will all need to change our standards in terms of rethinking: what is a quality way of life?

you are right. to a point... i went from having 2 car payments of over 1000 a month, to having one now of 350 a month. i used to put 15% in my 401k and now i only put 5% in it. when the inflation of things went up, my pay rate statyed the same and my income fell flat on its face. I am 100% comission in what i do. I have learned to live a much simpler life than 3 years ago. look at the housing market. people were living in 400,000 houses that they couldnt afford and now they are foreclosed on ( for many different reasons, some they can help and some they cant). my house is of average space and money (at that time).

I'm not blaming the government for everything, just some of it. i have a feeling that it will get worse before it gets better.

in the county that i live in it has the highest unemployment rate in the state. 11.5%. thats horrible. but some of it could be prevented. i have friends that lost their jobs and CHOOSE to stay at home and collect unemployment because they cant find a job tha pays enough. WTF:confused: i have one friend that went from being a project manager for a big construction company to being the drive through guy at burger king. its all a matter of self pride. and thy both have families. go figure...

The size of your car payments have nothing to do with inflation. They have everything to do with the size of the loan, the payment period, and your interest rate.

you know what i mean

dippin pretty much covers all of my points more eloquently than I could. Taxes here in the US are at a historically low point. We here in the US are faced with the choice of either cutting government programs (including defense, social programs, etc) drastically, raising taxes to European levels and higher, or a combination of the two. Since the Republican party won't even consider raising taxes, and the 'response' from the Democratic party is pathetic...I weep for the nation.

The main problem is that we've become a nation of people who feel too put upon by the responsibilities of citizenship to want to invest in their own nation.

No one ever got to the moon by cutting taxes. No one ever defeated fascism by cutting taxes. No one ever dominated the world in terms of the development of science and technology by cutting taxes. Yet cutting taxes is apparently the only solution to every problem we have.

Perhaps the US needs to just cut all spending to the bone, if only to show exactly what happens to nations that don't want to pay taxes or run a deficit.

Be careful of what you wish for.

Tax receipts are low because people are earning less, and those who can invest are investing in ways the government can't touch - less taxable money, less taxes collected.

And not just for the rich, which is what most people dwell on. Nearly half of Americans pay no federal income tax at all.:rolleyes: How's that for a "historic low?"

(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,...

The rest of the article Nearly 50% Will Pay No Fed Income Tax for 2009 - CBS News

Lindy

From 2001 to 2010, the Federal Tax Code increased from 1.4 million words to 3.8 million words. I think there was some pretty intense lobbying going on behind the scenes. Not to mention, many redundant and VERY poorly drafted codes.

ok, so, why are we paying less taxes? tax cuts??? ok if so then to me (being a ignorant person to some of the political aspects) it seems that is why we are seeing so many things that are being cut at so many levels. is that right???
why did we have so many tax cuts? is it so we (the people) would vote them into office (wichever one it may be)?? if thats the case then whose to blame? the government, or the people?
if its the people then we have no one to blame but ourselves, right???


sorry for the ignorance.

I wonder how many large corporations such as GE, who also paid no tax or even got refunds and rebates, it would take to make up for the 50% of people who make so little money they don't pay taxes?

---------- Post added at 11:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:05 AM ----------


I personal think it's uneducated voters. Many of these people enjoying hearing what they want to hear. Want to go to war? Yeah I think so. Umm, what's it gong to cost? 'Nothing! In fact we're going to cut your taxes! "Hell yes! Let's get them bastards! Hey do you know where I can buy a $3 yellow ribbon bumper sticker? I want to show my support."

I wonder if there would be protests in the streets if they had said in 2001, people age 55-65, you can either pay for this war or get Social Security for the first 10 years of your retirement... Or you can get these tax breaks now, but your SS payments will be reduced by 10%.

Well, you won't hear me arguing that large profitable corporations should not be taxed. They should certainly pay pay taxes on their profits (if they have profits.)
But something besides corporate tax law is broken if a family of four taking in $50k can get away with paying no federal income tax at all.
$50k is hardly so little money
$50k is about 7 times the minimum wage
$50k is higher than average teacher pay in 36 states
$50k is higher than starting teacher pay in every single state
$50k is more than double the federal poverty guideline for a family of four...

It's apparent from this that it is not just the super-rich and corporations that aren't paying their "fair share."

Lindy

so we're paying more taxes now because they didnt raise them for the war 10years ago????? that makes no since

You're not paying more taxes. Taxes are lower then they've been in over 50 yrs. Why do you keep saying you're paying more taxes?

And it makes more sense that we owe more now (in debt) since we basically borrowed the money to fund the wars. When you borrow money you have to pay it back some day, right?

---------- Post added at 08:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 PM ----------

That doesn't sound right to me either. Where do you get that 50k for a family of four from?

---------- Post added at 08:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:36 PM ----------

Here I found this-

Nearly-half-of-US-households-no tax

Well if that's true that's just as screwy as cutting taxes on the wealthy and big business thinking they'll spread the wealth around. At some point we have to start paying our way.

One thing to keep in mind with the 'nearly 50% pay no (federal income) tax' meme is that the federal income tax is just one part of a person's overall tax burden, and is the most progressive, and generally where the deductions apply...the big two driving this 50% number are mortgage deductions and child credits. Other federal payroll taxes for medicare and social security still apply to those people. They still pay state taxes, sales taxes, etc.

So it isn't as if 50% of the population don't pay taxes at all.

It's not that simple, though. What does $50,000 get a family of four?

Here's a living wage estimator: Living Wage Calculator - Introduction to the Living Wage Calculator

For my county, for a family with two adults and two kids the living wage amounts to $63,000 pretax income (or $57,000 after taxes). $50,000 may seem like a lot, but sometimes our perceptions can be off. Now, I haven't examined the assumptions of this model, but I suspect that the model is more robust than your hunch that $50,000/yr is more than adequate for a family of four.

I think a household income of $50,000 puts a family comfortably in the working class. Which is good, considering in some states a single teacher on average makes more than an entire household.

How many of those households raking in $50k are making it from a single source? If you have two or three householders making up for the $50K, how much should they be taxed individually?

thanks that was a good link that I needed.

Tada!

Median Wage as compiled by the Census Bureau:

U.S. Trustee Program/Dept. of Justice

This is used for means testing Bankruptcy candidates (high earners may be precluded from filing bankruptcy).

Unless you're getting over 1.5 million I wouldn't worry.

Tully, that's exactly what I was saying. Perhaps it's not just corporations and the "wealthy" (though they are the easiest target:surprised:) that aren't paying a fair share.

Don't put words in my mouth. I very carefully said pay no federal income tax and I'm fully aware of social security and medicare taxes, state and local sales taxes, state income taxes, property tax if you own your home or other real property and lots of miscellaneous hidden taxes which is why your $100 dollar motel room costs $138, your $100 dollar cell phone bill is $142, etc. Taxes are everywhere.
So no, I never said 50% of the population don't pay taxes at all. I know better.

$50,000 will obviously go farther in Manhattan, KS than it will in Manhattan, NY. Bur when it comes to federal taxes, it is never "that simple," and that is part of the problem.

The time/labor of some is not worth a "living wage." Should a living wage be provided regardless of that? How about for those who don't work? Should they be provided a living wage as well?

In my home town in Kansas, a family could live pretty well on $50k

The model assumed a married couple filing jointly with two dependent children in school, as a household. Three or four people "living together" is not a household, according to the feds. Minors can make up to a certain amount with no federal income tax withheld or due.

Lindy

Lindy, what you're suggesting to me is that it would be better to scale federal income taxes based on local cost of living.

I can pine over the costs in my own hometown too. I can get a house there for the same cost of a tiny condo in an affordable Toronto neighbourhood.

Regardless, the U.S. has a highly urbanized population (over 80%, compared to the global average of about 50%). This means that most Americans need to pay the higher cost of living of urban areas vs. rural areas.

How would you go about these facts in light of the discussion? How could you do something without making the system more complicated?

---------- Post added at 07:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------

So a married couple considered as making $50K is more or less an approximation suggesting a husband making $25K and a wife making $25K (a simple average). How does this stack up to your individual teacher's salaries?

Meh. Too much simplicity is often just as problematic as too much complexity. If the idea behind a "fair" tax systems is that we charge people enough money to fund the things we think are important while at the same time ensuring that we don't charge people so much that they can't afford to make ends meet, then I'm okay with complexity if that is what is required to make it a reality.

Who said anything about providing a living wage? What does that have to do with the relative value of $50,000? The fact that $50,000 seems like a lot of money to you doesn't make it a lot of money.

However, since you asked, I think that one of the measures of a civilized society is how that society treats the inevitably existent people who are unable to provide for themselves adequately within the constraints of the system. Free market systems seem to produce these people by design- they provide the cheap labor that makes everything else possible. It seems reasonable to me that in more civilized societies (societies that value the minimization of human suffering and its consequent social and economic costs), there will be institutional mechanisms in place to ensure that these people and their families are able to live in relative comfort. Because, you know, if left unchecked, market forces tend towards squalor for the many and comfort for the few.

Overall, American taxes are very weakly progressive. When you break down by quintile, share of taxes paid lines up pretty well with share of overall income. As such, some people not paying income taxes because of low income is hardly an issue.

thats a good web site, but it shows for medical $280.00. I pay $200.00 a week it is close to right but in come things its way off. just depends on what and where you work.

now it seems that because my pay went down drastically over the last 2 years nothing else went down. everything else is on the rise. tax rates, gas prices, health insurance, etc...

correct me if im wrong but it seems to me that the democrats are trying to keep raising the debt limit, if that is the case then we'll never be able to pay it back and the economy will get worse. am i wrong??? can we (the people) view the budget plan?

The Democrats? Bush and the Republican Congress raised the debt ceiling four times between 2001 and 2006 (and again in 07, with a Dem Congress.)