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:
    16,407
    Likes Received:
    399
    Ratings:
    +769 / 14 / -6

    #24 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:
    25,563
    Likes Received:
    164
    Ratings:
    +445 / 11 / -14

    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 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,673
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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 Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,587
    Likes Received:
    173
    Ratings:
    +421 / 8 / -4

    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:
    16,407
    Likes Received:
    399
    Ratings:
    +769 / 14 / -6

    #24 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:
    25,563
    Likes Received:
    164
    Ratings:
    +445 / 11 / -14




    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:
    16,407
    Likes Received:
    399
    Ratings:
    +769 / 14 / -6

    #24 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:
    25,563
    Likes Received:
    164
    Ratings:
    +445 / 11 / -14

    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 Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,587
    Likes Received:
    173
    Ratings:
    +421 / 8 / -4

    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:
    25,563
    Likes Received:
    164
    Ratings:
    +445 / 11 / -14



    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:
    16,407
    Likes Received:
    399
    Ratings:
    +769 / 14 / -6

    #24 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:
    25,563
    Likes Received:
    164
    Ratings:
    +445 / 11 / -14


    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 Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,587
    Likes Received:
    173
    Ratings:
    +421 / 8 / -4

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

    khayos In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,673
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

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

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,587
    Likes Received:
    173
    Ratings:
    +421 / 8 / -4

    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 Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,587
    Likes Received:
    173
    Ratings:
    +421 / 8 / -4

    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:
    25,563
    Likes Received:
    164
    Ratings:
    +445 / 11 / -14


    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 Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,587
    Likes Received:
    173
    Ratings:
    +421 / 8 / -4

    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 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,673
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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 Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,587
    Likes Received:
    173
    Ratings:
    +421 / 8 / -4

    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.)
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>