Taxes for 160 million Americans are going up starting January 1

reply to post by newcovenant


I am going strictly by the booklet on taxable income rates you receive from the IRS every year at tax time...the charts show as income increases so does % of tax to be paid. And you do need to read all the posts to follow the conversation.

reply to post by newcovenant


Section A—Use if your filing status is Single. Complete the row below that applies to you.
Tax.
(a) (b) (c) (d) Subtract (d) from (c).
Taxable income. Enter the amount from line Multiplication Multiply Subtraction Enter the result here and
If line 43 is— 43 amount (a) by (b) amount on Form 1040, line 44
At least $100,000 but not over
$174,400 $ ´ 28% (.28) $ $ 6,383.00 $
Over $174,400 but not over
$379,150 $ ´ 33% (.33) $ $ 15,103.00 $
Over $379,150 $ ´ 35% (.35) $ $22,686.00 $

No matter how you look at it the system is flawed and unequal.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Welcome to the American injustice system. They make you work harder so you could pay higher taxes and in the end, they end up taking all of the money from all of the hard work you endured. Welcome to the land of the free.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Yeah, I don't see how anyone who isn't overly wealthy can defend the Republicans on this one.

This is about a TAX CUT...not every single pet project you can try to cram into the bill to make it unpassable and then say "Hey, we tried.".

Wrong. The payroll tax was only one portion of this. The Dems added unemployment benefit extensions onto the same bill (thus drug testing) and a large portion of Obama's job creation bill (thus the job creating pipeline requirement and the draw down order on job crippling assinine EPA overregulation). The ultimate argument here is that the GOP is insisting (per Obama's Pay-Go nonsense from last year) that some way of funding all of this is agreed upon. As is usually the case, Democrat lawmakers find it nigh unto impossible to actually balance a budget and fund anything, preferring to have their cake, eat their cake, and then throw the credit card statement from the baker shop in the trash when they recieve it.

I'm not "overly wealthy" and I'm defending the Republicans on this one. I don't believe either party has any interest in putting more money in my pocket, as both parties do a great job of raping my paycheck every 2 weeks. However, I'd rather see my tax dollars used for actual infrastructure projects and debt reduction than watch it pissed away on higher debts, more interest payments, and extensions of broken social welfare programs. If my take home pay drops thanks to these Democrat games, I will encourage everyone I work with to join me in voicing displeasure at the polls in November.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Indigo5

 

You can't give a tax break to the 99%, because only 53% pay taxes...the rest just take.

You mean the 35 people who own 93% of the worlds wealth?

Ya...

reply to post by AwakeinNM


Ron Paul is not here to save you as he has and continues to remain silent on this and will not take a stand means he's for the tax increase the nation is about to be dealt!

reply to post by burdman30ott6


EPA regulations keep your water safe, the air safe so this claim that the EPA is overregulated is that it's not regulated enough and has never been empowered to show it's true potential

I'm confused as to how taxes are going up? Aren't they simply reverting back to what they were before they were temporarily lowered by reducing the FICA witholding? Surely everyone didn't think that would last forever, especially with the long-term structural issues facing the social security trust fund. Sure, I've enjoyed the extra $30 a week or so, but I haven't changed my lifestyle because of it. I als0o don't believe this was ever portrayed as a permanent tax break.

To add more to the pain of hard worker Americans now on the top poor income earners, don't forget what you are paying now on gas, the last statistics of household spending on gas top about 4,000 thousand dollars a year, this means that no only we get taxes taken but also deduct what now has become one of the biggest expenses in a household when it comes to what you spend on gas in a year

Do the math.

But rest assure that during election year gas prices will come down to help the corrupted fat rats gain favors from the slaves.

Obama: no tax increases for 250,000 and under, ha!

Taxed enough already: ha!

The hypocrisy almost makes up for the tragedy. Almost

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Indigo5

 

It is not an equal playing field if you take a higher % from one group than another. Why should someone who is successful pay 35% and someone else pay 17% or nothing?

You are confused about how the tax system works in the USA..

I will let the 3rd wealthiest human being on the planet explain it. ...#2 in the United States..Bill Gates beat him at the last ranking

while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks.

Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate.

Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE...IT IS BRIEF...WARREN IS A SELF MADE BILLIONAIRE AND KNOWS WHERE HE CAME FROM AND WHERE WE ARE

www.nytimes.com...

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
The ultimate argument here is that the GOP is insisting (per Obama's Pay-Go nonsense from last year) that some way of funding all of this is agreed upon. As is usually the case, Democrat lawmakers find it nigh unto impossible to actually balance a budget and fund anything, preferring to have their cake, eat their cake, and then throw the credit card statement from the baker shop in the trash when they recieve it.

Not accurate in the least...The bill that passed the senate with Boehners (initial) approval and virtually the complete support of GOP Senators WAS funded...and would REDUCE the deficet and in a manner that the GOP would consider a victory...tacking it on to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loan recipients.

The Senate's two-month measure would reduce the deficit by nearly $3 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Under the plan, the $33 billion in costs would be offset by an increase in the fees that new homeowners with federally backed mortgages would pay to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration. Those entities would then turn that money over to the U.S. Treasury.

www.cnn.com...

thanks teabaggers jeeez

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
why would someone who doesn't earn $250,000 a year vote republican ?

not rhetorical, I'm curious

Curious? More like ignorant. Deny.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by AwakeinNM

 

Ron Paul is not here to save you as he has and continues to remain silent on this and will not take a stand means he's for the tax increase the nation is about to be dealt!

Yeah, that must be what it means. Way to assume, genius. Is that how you reach all your conclusions?

reply to post by mastahunta



It is a fact that 47% of US citizen's don't pay taxes....53% including the 1% support everything that is paid out via the government. Welfare, road repair, WIC, police and fire....everything. And I for one am sick of it.

reply to post by Indigo5




I am really getting tired of people replying to a post without reading the previous or latter ones.....I said that already the tax code is progressive, but then corp etc get loopholes and deductions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


FAIR OR FLAT TAX AND ABOLITION OF THE IRS.

reply to post by Indigo5


Buffet is also a bleeding heart liberal socialist so I take what he says with a grain of salt.

reply to post by Indigo5


A 3 billion dollar reduction or a 33 billion dollar reduction does not by any stretch of the imagination fund this bill and it does nothing to the 15 trillion dollar deficit. What a joke.

160 Million people? How is that possible when only 140 Million are employed?

Source: www.bls.gov...

Paychecks are earned by labor, your labor should not be taxed. It should not be confused with profit. Paychecks belong to your household. It's CRIMINAL that taxes are STOLEN from paychecks and families.

The entire concept of undermining the constitutional amendment against per capita tax, and instituting an income tax (16th Amendment) was a mechanism for enslavement by the founders of the Federal Reserve, in exchange for bailing out the Federal government from bankruptcy in the early 1900s.