How many people here understand what taxable income is and how marginal tax rates work?

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:And even if you do fall into that battered 1%, the chances that you created a single job this year are even less than 1%. So pay up and shutty.


Not the PP, but I guess I am in your 1%. I am right on that margin, and I hired a nanny. That negligible increase does make a difference to me and if it increases too much, I will have to let my nanny go.


I am a believer in we all got ourselves into this mess, we should all be a part of getting ourselves out of it. The democrats seem more intent on paying entitlements to more than 50% of Americans than getting at the root cause of our fiscal problems. All I hear is that I make too much. I don't make too much. It would be different if I lived in Iowa, but I live in suburban DC, and my $200K, which varies with the economy, doesn't go very far. If I have a successful year in my business, I'll get hit. Why should I bust my butt to have a successful year, then? Such a disincentive.


For one thing, the top 1% of earners in 2009 made between 343,000-503,086/yr. You might not have included your spouse's salary, but you are not quite in the 1%.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This is just bullsh*t - this lie about how Obama only wants to raise taxes on the rich like some Robin Hood.

Here is the truth: The Democrats, over and over again, have tried to block extension of the Bush tax cuts, which would raise taxes on EVERYBODY (unless you are at the poverty level).

Secondly, Obamacare is a TAX (per the supreme court) on EVERYBODY who cannot or does not purchase health insurance. And you all can cite to various exclusions from this tax, but being a veteran tax lawyer myself, I know lots of people who cannot afford a CPA will fall through the cracks, get mailed a tax bill, plus interest and penalties, etc. This whole thing is a disaster - and they still will have NO HEALTH INSURANCE. This is like the opposite of Robin Hood - kicking a dog when it's down (i.e., taxing you and penalizing you because you cannot afford health insurance).


Once again, if these people have no plans to EVER visit the ER, accept an ambulance ride, receive treatment when ill, take Rx meds, etc, then they are in an unfortunate situation. Sorry, Christian Scientists! You should be exempt. For the rest of us, we will all use the system so should help pay for it. Let me repeat that:

IF YOU WILL EVER GO TO THE HOSPITAL, DOCTOR'S OFFICE OR TAKE RX MEDS, YOU SHOULD HELP PAY FOR THE SYSTEM! I NO LONGER WISH TO FOOT THE BILL FOR YOU THROUGH MY INSURANCE PREMIUMS!

their tax/penalty or whatever we need to call it these days is necessary in order to help pay for the uninsured, such as themselves. And the tax/penalty will be quite negligible too.

Truly, I just don't understand the problem here. Repubs are anti-handouts, but we HAVE been giving the uninsured handouts! ACA puts an end to that. What exactly is the problem? Yet another example of republicans voting against their own best interests.


If low/middle class people cannot afford it, they cannot afford it - what don't you get? Some people in America do not have $300 HHI. or even $60K HHI. Something like 1/6 Americans are in poverty.


Here's some quick info on how much people will pay, who is exempt, and how it will be inforced. my apologies for the copy and paste from factcheck.org - Just in a hurry!

How Much?

The minimum amount — per person — will be $695 once the tax is fully phased in. But it will be less to start. The minimum penalty per person will start at $95 in 2014, the first year that the law will require individuals to obtain coverage. And it will rise to $325 the following year.

Starting in 2017, the minimum tax per person will rise each year with inflation. And for children 18 and under, the minimum per-person tax is half of that for adults.

However, the minimum amount per family is capped at triple the per-person tax, no matter how many individuals are in the taxpayer’s household. So, for example, a couple with one child over 18 (or two children age 18 or under), and no coverage, would pay a minimum of $285 in 2014, $975 in 2015 and $2,085 in 2016. And that would be the minimum no matter how many uninsured dependents a taxpayer has.

The tax would be more for persons with higher taxable incomes. When phased in, it will be 2.5 percent of household income that exceeds the income threshold for filing a tax return. For 2011, those thresholds were $9,500 for a single person under age 65, and $19,000 for a married person filing jointly with a spouse. So, to give a rough calculation, a couple with $100,000 of income might pay a tax of $2,025 if they choose to go without coverage.

But the penalty can never exceed the cost of the national average premiums for the lowest-cost “bronze” plans being offered through the new insurance exchanges called for under the law. We have no way of knowing what that average rate might turn out to be in 2014, but there is reason to think it could be quite high. For example, the total cost of a basic Government Employees Health Association plan currently offered through the Federal Employee Health Benefit program (the model for the state insurance exchanges) totals $9,459 per year for a family plan, and $4,159 for individual coverage.

Update, June 29: The cost of a “bronze” plan could be higher, however. In January 2010 the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued this estimate:

CBO, Jan. 11, 2010: Overall, CBO estimates that premiums for Bronze plans purchased individually in 2016 would probably average between $4,500 and $5,000 for single policies and between $12,000 and $12,500 for family policies.

CBO has not issued any new estimate since that one, according to spokeswoman Deborah Kilroe.


Refusal to Pay

The law prohibits the IRS from seeking to put anybody in jail or seizing their property for simple refusal to pay the tax. The law says specifically that taxpayers “shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty” for failure to pay, and also that the IRS cannot file a tax lien (a legal claim against such things as homes, cars, wages and bank accounts) or a “levy” (seizure of property or bank accounts).

The law says that the IRS will collect the tax “in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68” of the tax code. That part of the tax code provides for imposing an additional penalty “equal to the total amount of the tax evaded, or not collected.” It also requires written notices to the taxpayer, and provides for court proceedings.

So it may turn out that the IRS will be suing those who fail to pay the tax for double the amount. But so far, the IRS has not spelled out exactly how it will enforce the new penalty with the limited power the law gives it.

Who’s Exempt?

The law makes a number of exemptions for low-income persons and hardship cases.

“Individuals who cannot afford coverage”: If an employer offers coverage that would cost the employee more than 8 percent of his or her household income (for self-only coverage) that individual is exempt from the tax.

“Taxpayers with income below filing threshold”: Also exempt are those who earn too little to be required to file tax returns. For 2011 — as previously mentioned — those thresholds were $9,500 for a single person under age 65, and $19,000 for a married person filing jointly with a spouse, for example. The thresholds go up each year in line with inflation, so those cut-offs will be higher in 2014, when the tax first takes effect.

“Hardships”: The Secretary of Health and Human Services is empowered to exempt others that she or he determines to “have suffered a hardship with respect to the capability to obtain coverage.”

Other exemptions: Also exempt are members of Indian tribes, persons with only brief gaps in coverage, and members of certain religious groups currently exempt from Social Security taxes (which as we’ve previously reported are chiefly Anabaptist — that is, Mennonite, Amish or Hutterite).
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:And even if you do fall into that battered 1%, the chances that you created a single job this year are even less than 1%. So pay up and shutty.


Not the PP, but I guess I am in your 1%. I am right on that margin, and I hired a nanny. That negligible increase does make a difference to me and if it increases too much, I will have to let my nanny go.



You're in the 1% but you can't afford your nanny? You have more problems than just understanding the tax code, honey.


How do you figure? I am not the person who wrote about her nanny, but I will tell you that with my student loans, the house in another city that I cannot sell, the social security and other expenses for my nanny (b/c everything that I do is above board!), and my other expenses, having a nanny is not easy - even if you are income rich. The problem is that I have high income, but not enough deductions.


So quit and become a SAHM. "Problem" solved.
post reply Forum Index » Political Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: