The 15% tax bracket extends to $63,100 (net) for couples ...

[Member2019]

I honestly don't want to hear it this year. The 15% tax bracket extends to $63,100 for couples for the 2009 filing. That means a family of 3-4 (1-2 kids) can gross over $80,000 (more than $100,000 if you include 401K) with even just the standard deductions, and yet be in the 15% bracket and have a net tax liability under $10,000. That's nothing people.

Furthermore, if you are in that 15% bracket, you pay 0% capital gains! That right there is the smartest thing I've ever seen! It means a family of 3-4 (1-2 kids), making over $100,000/year with their 401K maxed out, can also make investments and pay no gains on those investments as well. Will someone please tell me how people don't save in this country with that?

I'm honestly tired of people saying the "poor" pay too much tax and the "rich" (high income earners for those that understand what I'm talking about, not the "wealthy" who are actualy "rich") don't pay enough. After $63,100 it jumps to 25% and then 33%+ for couples that make over $100K/each.

I'm tired of people saying W. did not cut taxes for the poor. I'm tired of people thinking tax credits are tax cuts. Tax credits are handouts and entitlements, not cuts. It's mathematically impossible to avoid giving the same tax cut to the "rich" (high income earners) when you do the "poor." The only way to actually take from the "rich" (although not wealthy, they don't pay income tax and they can "sit on their money" and not pay capital gains either) and give to the poor is "entitlements" like a tax credit, which is no different than welfare, etc...

In all honesty, I cannot believe it's this good for families making $100K. The tax bracket is setup well. I honestly can't see why people bitch. At least when it comes to the federal government. If you don't like what your state does, consider Florida, Nevada and New Hampshire, where they do not have state income taxes.

 

[Red Spyder]

I'm glad we don't have state income taxes in Texas...hmm, no taxes in Texas, sounds like a good slogan right there

 

[Member2019]

I'm glad we don't have state income taxes in Texas...hmm, no taxes in Texas, sounds like a good slogan right there

Oh, I didn't realize Texas doesn't either. I thought it was only three (3) states: FL, NH, NV

 

[General Warcock]

What are these income brackets you're calling "poor" and "wealthy"?

I would say the majority of people don't save in this country because they live from paycheck to paycheck, which of course would also lead them to complain about the "wealthy".

 

[Member2019]

What gives?

What are these income brackets you're calling "poor" and "wealthy"?

I didn't use "wealthy," I used "high income earners." People who don't work and are "wealthy" don't pay income taxes, only "capital gains" if they make any gains. They can sit on their money and not even pay those if they wish. In fact, how anyone can even speak of "wealthy" when it comes to income tax brackets is beyond me, as their existing wealth has nothing to do with income.

I would say the majority of people don't save in this country because they live from paycheck to paycheck, which of course would also lead them to complain about the "wealthy".

Again, I didn't use "wealthy" but "high income earners" -- I explicitly stated such!

I also stated this was about taxes. Why do people complain about taxes being "unfair"? "Tax cuts for millionaires" (even though that's a 100% guarantee that any tax cut for anyone will also benefit higher income earners at least the same as lower income earners in a progressive tax system), is what people talk about all-the-time. I consider it a basic math test if people actually and remotely understand the first thing about income taxes.

I mean, they aren't at all "unfair" for couples making under $100K (and even some over $100K with a couple of kids and 401K maxed out)! I honestly didn't realize the 15% tax bracket extended so high for couples now. I'm duly impressed that the rate is that low for families making even over $100K (over $80K not including 401K).

If they have complaints about the amount they make, then that has nothing to do with taxes. Same deal with the "wealthy," it has nothing to do with taxes. In fact, your "mix up" on "wealthy" is part of the problem, since I'm taking about taxes and you brought up "wealthy." The two have virtually nothing to do with each other.

Unless, of course, they want "entitlements." Those aren't tax cuts. But even then the "wealthy" don't pay for most those, much less with "income taxes." It's the "high income earners" that pay the overwhelming majority of entitlements. Entitlements are no different than welfare. In all honesty, I cannot believe how bad people are demonized for taking food stamps these days when that's the thing I'm least worried about.

I mean, people have to eat, and I'm more than willing to support my government doing that. Same deal with kids going to school, having healthcare, etc... I'm just tired of the other hand outs. And don't get me started on the pork. I could hand $1 to the United Way, or even my state/local governments, and it would go farther than $2 to the US Federal government.

 

[nearlyinvisible]

Flat tax is the way to go...............but we'll never see it.

I am so sick of being punished for:

#1- being single (not married)
#2 -having a good income

I'm all for paying my fair share of taxes but we should all have to pay the same %

And, if anything single people need more help than married couples. Couples can share costs. Singles can't.

 

[Member2019]

Flat tax is the way to go...............but we'll never see it.
I am so sick of being punished for:
#1- being single (not married)
#2 -having a good income
I'm all for paying my fair share of taxes but we should all have to pay the same %
And, if anything single people need more help than married couples. Couples can share costs. Singles can't.

Huh?

A lot of single couples "shack up" and share costs! Or friends live together to do such. In many companies, you can even extend benefits to "partners" now days without any sexual connotations or requirements (although the withholdings may be post-tax).

Couples pay a marriage penalty. Granted, you now have to be beyond the 15% bracket to see it now (at least that is now the case), but trust me, it's there. My wife and I get fucked every year because of it. We'd pay less tax if we were divorced and "shacking up," a good $5K last year.

Heck, when my wife and I first got married, there was not only a huge penalty for being married, but even the standard deduction wasn't 2x singles.

 

[General Warcock]

Flat tax is the way to go...............but we'll never see it.

I am so sick of being punished for:

#1- being single (not married)
#2 -having a good income

I'm all for paying my fair share of taxes but we should all have to pay the same %

And, if anything single people need more help than married couples. Couples can share costs. Singles can't.

I second such a system.

The U.S. should be taking a lot better care of it's people than they do. I mean the country is nearly in ruins with severely outdated infrastructure, horrendous public education, unaffordable health care, laughable minimum wage and working conditions.

Prof Voluptuary you're right, I read your post incorrectly. I was wondering, could you tell me where you're getting these statistics from?

 

[Member2019]

I second such a system.
The U.S. should be taking a lot better care of it's people than they do. I mean the country is nearly in ruins with severely outdated infrastructure,

Ummm, do you realize the US has a crapload larger infrastructure than any other nation? Our roads and bridges are falling apart because we have way too many miles and way too many bridges.

It's hard to reverse what the Einseinhower adminstration started -- that's 50 years of pushing autos instead of mass transit. It's a burden we've put upon ourselves, instead of being much smarter like our European colleagues and building a more sustainable infrastructure.

If it's about taxpayer waste, then yeah, I agree!

horrendous public education

And both Clinton and, even more, W. threw a crapload of money at the problem. What did that give us? Nothing!

Why throw more taxpayer dollars at it?

unaffordable health care

Ummm, this is not true at all. Too many Americans choose not to pay for their options. They opt for the cheapest. I don't. I opt up to the best plan, each and every time. While people bitch in my own company, I have no issues, because I'm one of the 5% or so that pays an extra $100/month.

I think Mitt Romney got it right in MA. If you are 3x the poverty line, and you opt for a cheaper insurance program with your employer, you're going to be penalized. I applaud MA for telling people, "hey, you have the option, you are going to pay for it, not skimp on coverage.'

The MA approach is being seriously considered by many states. It's not about inadequate healthcare, it's about people who don't bother to get it when it's offered. Then when they get sick, they bitch about what they don't have. You don't get insurance when it happens, you get insurance because it may happen.

So why throw more taxpayer dollars at this too?

laughable minimum wage and working conditions

Huh? Come out to Chrysler, Ford and GM sometime. That'll change your mind, especially compared to many other nations.

And what does taxpayer dollars have to do with this either?

Prof Voluptuary you're right, I read your post incorrectly.

But it perfectly illustrates the problem. I say "income tax" and you think "wealthy." The two have the least to do with each other, yet people think that. Then they bitch about taxes.

Couples who make under $100K/year (and even some others over $100K, but still netting $63,100 or less such as after 401K) complain about taxes when they have it pretty damn good in the 15% brackes. At $63,100 net, that a maximum tax liability under $9,500. The median, household gross income in 2008 was above $50K and net taxable under $35K (I'm pulling that from memory, so I need to check), which means that a huge, great majority of Americans top out at the 15% bracket, with a lot under the 10%, and have tax liabilities well, well under $5K.

I can understand if they bitch they don't make enough, but pay too much tax? It has nothing to do with taxes, or what others "don't pay enough of." It has to do with their income, not income tax.

I was wondering, could you tell me where you're getting these statistics from?

What "statistics"? Dude, this is common sense math at work. I'm not making up the brackets, amounts and other details. Those are mere fact of the 2009 filing tables and standard deductions, maximum 401K allowances, etc...

As far as how much people pay, see the OMB "summary sheets" on the percentages of all revenue (including capital gains from individuals), how much fo that is income tax, and how much income tax comes from various budgets. Also see the much those who get direct entitlements (tax credits) are being funded by those who do not.

The US also has very high, overall corporate tax rates. As another member mentioned in another thread (or was it another board), only Japan edges the US out by a few fractions of a percentage for the #1 spot. But I haven't verified this yet, and it is irrelevant to this thread on individual taxes -- income, gains, etc...

 

[nearlyinvisible]

Huh?

A lot of single couples "shack up" and share costs!

............don't give my girlfriend any ideas

 

[General Warcock]

My point was that taxpayers get nothing for their money, that is unless you count planes flying into buildings as live entertainment.

 

[nearlyinvisible]

laughable minimum wage

Minimum wage for minimum skills. Why should we pay (reward) people with no skills or education?

 

[Member2019]

If I ...

............don't give my girlfriend any ideas

If I had a child and my wife left me or passed away and my best friend's wife left him or passed away leaving him with 2 kids, it would be more advantageous for both taxpayers and ourselves to be "partners." Why our country doesn't encourage that, and encourage it, tax and benefit-wise, is beyond me.

Instead, we penalize marriages/partnerships and reward single, head-of-households, with entitlements if they don't make enough and with state healthcare and other services. WTF? I make more than my friend, so by "partnering" with him, I'd remove a taxpayer burden that he would be if his wife was no longer part of their income.

Now in my case, I don't have kids. And we make more than median. So the government fucks us, hard, with the penalty. Although it's not nearly as bad as earlier in our marriage. That's one thing I absolutely love W. for, he finally reduced that BS to be less of a penalty, although I believe the first, early and small "breaks" did start late in the Clinton administration (I could be wrong and it might be all post-2001 or post-2003).

 

[nearlyinvisible]

(regarding education)

And both Clinton and, even more, W. threw a crapload of money at the problem. What did that give us? Nothing!

Why throw more taxpayer dollars at it?

Money doesn't improve education. More than anything good parenting does. You can't "buy" that.

 

[Member2019]

My point was that taxpayers get nothing for their money, that is unless you count planes flying into buildings as live entertainment.

It depends. On some things, like road/bridge infrastructure, the government honestly cannot afford what it has built. That was my point.

 

[General Warcock]

Money doesn't improve education. More than anything good parenting does. You can't "buy" that.

That's strange, then you're suggesting private schools are just as good as public schools?

 

[Member2019]

Probably not, *BUT* ...

That's strange, then you're suggesting private schools are just as good as public schools?

Probably not.

But private school students tend to do better, because their parents are more concerned with their child's education, which they are more directly paying for (in a greater amount than they do in taxes themselves).

Hence the results are not what they seem to be the cause of.

 

[nearlyinvisible]

That's strange, then you're suggesting private schools are just as good as public schools?

Not necessarily. But the chances are that if parents are going to take the initiative (and spend the money) to place their child in a private school, then they are more likely to have an active role in their child's education.

 

[pikachar]

In all honesty, I cannot believe it's this good for families making $100K. The tax bracket is setup well. I honestly can't see why people bitch. At least when it comes to the federal government. If you don't like what your state does, consider Florida, Nevada and New Hampshire, where they do not have state income taxes.

Also, don't forget Arizona doesn't tax military as well.

 

[Namreg]

so 100k a year is "poor" now in america...well wait a few years and let inflation do its thing.