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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the government should make everyone show the tax due divided by gross income if for no other reason than to provide people with an accurate sense of how much they pay. It would be like the disclosures on loans and fees.

Ok I'll start. Our number is 42. What's yours?

1040 Line 61 / Line 22. No way that can be 42%

When I read "tax due" I took that to mean total "tax due.". If you meant line 61, I'll get back to you.

How can you pay more than the total tax in line 61?

They agreed that the cuts would expire. The GOP wants to void that agreement.

They agreed that sequestration would include some defense money. The GOP wants to void that agreement.

I thought standing by your word was one of the exceptional things about America of which they are do proud. What's going on?

Anonymous wrote:the bush tax cuts were never meant to be permanent. they only remain because the economy went in the dumper due to 2 wars on credit and the housing bubble plus the wall street scandal surrounding it.

Clinton had a budget surplus, and the Bush tax cuts frittered them away. We need to get rid of the Bush tax cuts by letting them expire.

Also, letting the Bush tax cuts expire is not a "tax increase" like PP would have you believe.

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.

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.

If you make right around $250K then you are not likely to be affected. Do you really mean that you do not have enough deductions to lower you below $250K? No mortgage deduction, no child-care deductions, no charitable donations, or pre-tax FSA's, 529's, 401K's, IRA's, etc that would reduce your pre-tax wages? If after all of your deductions, you still have a net income over $250K, then you really are sufficiently over $250K that you are the targeted group. You would then belong to the group of individuals/families that have had the lowest marginal tax rates since 1932, except for a brief blip from 1988-1992 (thank you GHWB 40). The marginal rate for the top tier is at 35%. The current plan is to return it to the pre-2007 marginal rate of 39.6%. From 1932 to 1981, the rate ranged from 63% to 91%. And you're complaining about one of the lowest tax rates in the last 80 years? Here are the numbers:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

And for the PP who wondered what the first quote comment meant...the Republicans have been rejecting returning to pre-2007 tax rates for the highest margin (remember, only 4.6%) because they claim that that demographic include the businessmen who are providing new jobs. They say that if you eliminate the existing tax cuts for the wealthiest group, that they will no longer have the means to create more jobs and decrease the unemployment rate. So, if you are in the top bracket and are NOT creating jobs, then you are not in the group that the Republicans are trying to defend from eliminating your tax burden.

the bush tax cuts were never meant to be permanent. they only remain because the economy went in the dumper due to 2 wars on credit and the housing bubble plus the wall street scandal surrounding it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the government should make everyone show the tax due divided by gross income if for no other reason than to provide people with an accurate sense of how much they pay. It would be like the disclosures on loans and fees.

Ok I'll start. Our number is 42. What's yours?

1040 Line 61 / Line 22. No way that can be 42%

When I read "tax due" I took that to mean total "tax due.". If you meant line 61, I'll get back to you.

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.

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).

What does any of this have to do with marginal tax rates and taxable income?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the government should make everyone show the tax due divided by gross income if for no other reason than to provide people with an accurate sense of how much they pay. It would be like the disclosures on loans and fees.

Ok I'll start. Our number is 42. What's yours?

How the hell did you pay 42% in taxes? Uh, the top marginal rate is lower than that. You did something wrong.

This individual is likely dividing their net income by their gross (on their paycheck). Which again, is scary and shows how clueless most Americans are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the government should make everyone show the tax due divided by gross income if for no other reason than to provide people with an accurate sense of how much they pay. It would be like the disclosures on loans and fees.

Ok I'll start. Our number is 42. What's yours?

1040 Line 61 / Line 22. No way that can be 42%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the government should make everyone show the tax due divided by gross income if for no other reason than to provide people with an accurate sense of how much they pay. It would be like the disclosures on loans and fees.

Ok I'll start. Our number is 42. What's yours?

How the hell did you pay 42% in taxes? Uh, the top marginal rate is lower than that. You did something wrong.

Great thread, OP.

I would like to add that many business owners do not seem to know that this only applies to their own take home pay! You do NOT pay income tax on money that will go back into the business, such as payroll!