Welcome to PatsFans.com

For Those Who Say Middle Class Taxes Are Too High

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Mrs.PatsFanInVa, Apr 14, 2010.

  1. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,480
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -1

    My Jersey:

    Middle-income Americans are now paying federal taxes at or near historically low levels, according to the latest available data. That’s true whether it comes to their federal income taxes or their total federal taxes.

    Income taxes: A family of four in the exact middle of the income spectrum will pay only 4.6 percent of its income in federal income taxes this year, according to a new analysis by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. This is the second-lowest percentage in the past 50 years.
    Overall federal taxes: Middle-income households are paying overall federal taxes — which include income as well as payroll and excise taxes — at or near their lowest levels in decades, according to the latest data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).


    Federal income taxes on middle-income families have declined significantly in recent decades

    In 2000, the year before the 2001 tax cut that President Bush and Congress enacted, the median-income family of four paid 8.0 percent of its income in individual income taxes, according to Tax Policy Center estimates — a smaller share than in any year since 1967 (except for 1998 and 1999). The Bush tax cuts further reduced middle-income tax obligations.

    This year, the Making Work Pay tax credit, which President Obama and Congress enacted as part of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is providing a credit of $800 to married joint filers ($400 to single filers). A median-income family with two children thus will receive an $800 tax cut in the return it files this year.

    With the new tax cut, the median family’s federal income taxes will equal just 4.6 percent of its income in 2009. That is lower than in any year since 1955 (the first year for which these data are available) except for 2008, when another stimulus-related tax cut was in effect.


    Federal Income Taxes on Middle-Income Families at Historically Low Levels — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
  2. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,225
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:

    First one neds to look at the Board of Directors and one see they are a HArd Left Group, so of course they think we need to be taxed more. They also don't mention the income level they define as middle class, so how to judge who is under taxed. They also ignore the levels of sales taxes, energy taxes, property taxes and state income taxes.


    I'll bet we will see this study cited when the VAT tax proposal is unveiled after the midterm election?


    Then we have the taxes that will be in place if we enact cap and tax, Waxman-Markey bill.



    So with that said the observation is correct 47% of Americans won't owe any Federal income Tax. This is very dangerous, it put up at a tipping when the non taxpayers are combined with unionized government property, you then have a majority who lives off the government (factoring in entitlement programs) and has an incentive to pursue the politics of envy, ie let the 'rich' pay. When 1 group can tax the minority (taxpayers) that is a road to tyranny.

    BTW since you say you are under taxed what tax loopholes are you foregoing and how much are you going to voluntarily donate to the government? There is a line on the form for this you know..... :rolleyes:
  3. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I can actually see some truth to for near poverty line families -- it's all what you call "middle class". There's a huge deficit, the money's going somewhere.
  4. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,371
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I have no problem with progressive taxation (though I don't think it's ideal), but this is unacceptable.

    imo, everybody should pay something in taxes -- everybody. I don't care if it's mostly symbolic, even just $1 -- everybody should contribute.
  5. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,480
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -1

    My Jersey:

    ROFLMAO I didn't say anything, 13. I merely cut and pasted an article and gave a link to it.

    You sure can make assumptions, can't you?
  6. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,225
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:




    It is politically expedient to have a group who only takes from government and doesn't contribute this group will welcome an ever expanding government which will give them trinkets in exchange for their liberty.

    The Roman politicians figured this out thousands of years ago.


    I would prefer NO INCOME that it was Unconstitutional for government to have an income tax for citizens for> 100 years.


    James Madison: "...a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents."



    Thomas Jefferson second inaugural address: "At home, fellow citizens, you best know whether we have done well
    or ill. The suppression of unnecessary offices, of useless
    establishments and expenses, enabled us to discontinue our internal
    taxes. These covering our land with officers, and opening our doors to
    their intrusions, had already begun that process of domiciliary vexation
    which, once entered, is scarcely to be restrained from reaching
    successively every article of produce and property...

    "The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles, is
    paid cheerfully by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to
    domestic comforts, being collected on our seaboards and frontiers only,
    and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens, it
    may be the pleasure and pride of an American to ask, what farmer, what
    mechanic, what laborer, ever sees a tax-gatherer of the United States?"



    They understood tyranny today we accept a soft tyranny.
  7. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,480
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -1

    My Jersey:

    Not only were you wrong in saying I said I thought we should pay more taxes, you're wrong about this article (or this organization) thinking we need to be taxed more.

    It's a simple informative article, 13 - there's no opinion given anywhere in it. The whole thing merely states some facts - it doesn't say it's a good thing or a bad thing - it's just was it is - an accounting.

    Why do you read so much into it that isn't there? Your own paranoia, perhaps?
  8. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,225
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:

    It doesn't define middle class at all. There is not context to make their 'facts' understandable.

    As I say the groundwork is being laid for the passage of a VAT tax to deal with the budget deficit 'problem'. This will be among the recommendations of the so called 'bi-partisan' deficit panel. This way Obama, Ried and Pelosi can spin that it isn't their responsibility. Hell they can even blame Bush (who does share some responsibility).
  9. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,371
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Let's not heap too much praise on the founders' aversion to tyranny... if you disagree, ask blacks or women if they'd rather be alive in today's American or that of Jefferson and Madison.

    Also, there's the matter of practicality. There was virtually no Federal government when they were alive. I would prefer a much smaller government than we have now, but I don't think the Federal government of 1796 is really the ideal, either.

    Even if our government were much smaller, I don't think it could exist without an income tax.

    What would you prefer for means of government funding, btw?
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2010
  10. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,225
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:



    In the context of their day they were enlightened, clearly slavery was swept under the rug instead of being dealt with and look where that got us.


    I would prefer to have the states collect prop taxes, and send their share based on population into the government, and import duties on imports.

    Cut government to live within these bounds.
  11. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,480
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -1

    My Jersey:

    Well then it's only fair to blame him some, isn't it? Which means that Obama, Reid and Pelosi aren't alone in their guilt and you can quit laying it all on their doorstep.

    Cool.
  12. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,225
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:


    Bush was bad on spending, the current gang is Bush on steroids. Nobody ever laid all the blame on the current morons. Bush was hammered by conservatives here on a regular basis for his spending. He was ripped by me for the No child Left Behind mess and the Prescription Drug entitlement.
  13. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,371
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    If this is true, you were a rarity among Republicans, from what I witnessed.
  14. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Uhh... not. This has been pretty clearly defined as the Bush-Obama spending.
  15. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,371
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I don't have any idea how much money that would generate, but my firt impression is that would require cuts far beyond what most people, myself included, would find palatable.

    I also think it would destroy the economy.
  16. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,371
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Uhh... yeah. Seriously, read what you're responding to before you post.
  17. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,225
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:


    Who mentioned republican, I am a conservative/libertarian, not a republican. I supported S Forbes not Bush in 2000

    BTW you must not listen to any conservative talk radio. He was ripped by all the talkers for both the big government.
  18. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,371
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Apologies -- I wouldn't want to label anybody a Republican (or Democrat) who isn't one.

    I absolutely do not listen to any conservative talk radio. I do watch O'Reilly and other things on Fox from time to time, however, and deal frequently with friends and relatives who are Republicans -- I saw and heard little along those lines until the last year of his presidency. The only right-leaning source I read that did criticize spending was the Wall Street Journal, but that was usually in the context of blaming all of government, including Bush, rather than blaming Bush (again, until 2008 or so).

    (Reason certainly did criticize him, but Reason is libertarian as opposed to conservative, so I wasn't referring to them.)
  19. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I did. You're suggesting that it was a rarity for conservatives to criticize Bush for increases in government spending. After 2005, conservatives were all over him. In fact, most Democrats didn't get involved until that point either.
  20. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,371
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I don't think you did. I specifically said "from what I witnessed."

    Now, if you want to specify some of the allegedly many conservatives who were "all over him" in 2005 and 2006, I'm all ears. If they're out of the mainstream and conservative, I most likely wasn't exposed to them (see my response to patsfan13, above).

    I do not think most Republicans were criticizing Bush until 2008, maybe 2007. (If you're referring to non-Republican conservatives, well, let me know who you are referring to.)
  21. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,225
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:




    O'Reilly is a sort of populist not really a conservative at all. Levin, Linbaugh, Beck, Ingrham all went after the spending by the pubbie congress and the administration. The pubbies earned their defeat in 2006 when they lost congress, unfortunately people didn't realize how much worse Pelosi and Reid were.
  22. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +39 / 0 / -5

    My Jersey:

    How and in what ways do you feel it hurt or destroy the economy?
  23. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,371
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I shouldn't have said destroy, as I was making an asumption about the tax levels -- it depends on what kind of import duties you're talking about. If they're substantial, we'd wind up in a sort of isolationist economy, with drastically higher costs for most products and a new grey market emerging for smuggled foreign goods coming across our porous borders and ports. (Some people would re-gain "traditional" jobs, though.) If they're substantial.

    If they're not, not a big deal at all, though prices will go up.
  24. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,225
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:

    Many countries tax imports with national sales taxes, we would be leveling the playing field.

    BTW How old are you (generally) I am 57 and worry about the crushing tax burden the current welfare state will place on my children (20's) and grandchildren (<3).
  25. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +39 / 0 / -5

    My Jersey:

    I think the important ideas fiscally conservative people are trying to get across is that ALL forms of taxation should be open, honest and easily seen. So instead of having

    federal income taxes,
    state income taxes
    Property taxes
    Sales taxes
    excise taxes
    Utility taxes
    Hotel taxes
    Service taxes
    Restaurant taxes
    Liscense taxes

    Along with tens of other forms of "hidden" taxes, that we should all just pay one or two forms of taxes so that we all know EXACTLY what we're paying in taxes each year.

    If you and I only knew just how much taxes we're paying, we'd really have a greater understanding of the fact that we are certainly NOT under-taxed.

    Let's use the KISS method. That way, our gov't can't sneak any new forms of tax increases upon us. How many times have you ever even knew about an increase in the tax on your cell phone or hotel room? Think about it.
  26. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,525
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +44 / 0 / -1

    My Jersey:

    Ah, much better.
  27. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,525
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +44 / 0 / -1

    My Jersey:

    PR, one can beat the drum of transparency all one wants. I know you'll get plenty of takers on that one. Sounds great. Hell, I have no problem with it.

    Of course, we'll have to start off by centralizing all government. After all, we can only have one tax. We don't want state and locality taxes. Those are sooooo confusing.

    Then you won't have property taxes, so local school taxes become a federal mandate. Or, if you are so nimble of mind that you can still conceive of the states, they become a state obligation.

    Your state income tax just went up, by the way. Or the VAT. Or whatever system you are proposing to replace the current system with.

    I don't like or dislike the many layers of taxes. Frankly, I don't want to see a big $1,000 bill for my cigarette smoking at the end of the year on a nice itemized bill. In addition, it would have to be paid by non-smokers, wouldn't it, if it weren't added at the point of sale.

    Your idea of redistribution? Well, that would be fine by me... dunno what the non-smokers of the world would feel about it.

    Or you could leave sales tax at the point of sale... OR, replace it with a revenue-neutral but "simpler" system, whereby my cigs would be cheaper but just plain existing becomes more expensive for everybody. Works for everything - smokes, booze, groceries, whatever. Get rid of all sales tax, and make it one big generic TAX. Okay. No need to itemize. No more sin taxes, no more guiding specific desired outcomes. I am sure that's part of the program anyway.

    But the key is you would still have to have sales tax.

    Same deal with anything you guide through taxation. For example, no more tax breaks for Corporations that sponsor 401(k) plans with a company match. So, nobody will offer any kind of defined contribution plan. Defined benefit plans are already on the chopping block. Other worthies hereabouts want to disappear Social Security. Oh yeah, and we are all going to live 20 years instead of 5 after we stop working.

    But that's okay, you are just trying to simplify taxes, not remove them. So you would add all this to the income tax.

    Or is my sneaking suspicion correct, that you just want free money by way of cutting all taxes out, then not roll them into a single overarching item called TAX?

    I agree there are aspects of the multilayered system that are unfair and infuriating.

    What kills me about off-the-cuff tax "reformers" is that they usually don't give a second thought to the consequences of their brilliant prescriptions, and that upon inspection their new proposal is usually no damn better than the system it replaces.

    By the way, the last tax code simplification resulted in our oh-so-handy three brackets. Handy at the bottom end, because there's no graduation up to the first plateau. Handy at the top end, because 28% is the top marginal rate. And who bears the brunt? Duh. The middle.

    LOL... yeah we need more simplification, that's the problem.

    It's not that I disagree with you in the abstract on a bulletin board. I only disagree with you where the rubber hits the road... I know exactly the tax I pay on my gas and my groceries and my smokes and my phone bill. I know the rate I pay to the state and to the Feds. I don't see what's not "transparent." As to "simplification," sounds like redistribution. Call it what it is.

    PFnV
  28. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,371
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    We have many sales taxes, and other taxes, too -- but it doesn't matter if we're leveling the playing field -- result is the same, regardless. It may just be more politically expedient in negotiating with the other nations.

    I'm 40. Don't get me wrong -- I think we need to cut government at all levels. (I've thought so since before Bush.)
  29. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,371
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Again, I agree. (I don't think I've ever claimed we are undertaxed.)

    The fact that an industry has emerged around tax preparations shows just how convoluted just federal and state income taxes have become.

Share This Page