Bathroom reading material

[Mary]

To me this is the bottom line---The people we have elected have spent way more than has been collected through taxes for a number of years. The debt is legal and has to be paid. Sooner or later you have to get to the point where you decide where to go to collect the taxes to pay it.

Major deficit spending (IMHO) undermines the inherent strength of a democratic government. When do you think the war in Iraq would have ended if our politicians would have been required to pass new taxes to fund the billions we have spent on that war?

Deficit spending over the years has quietly but dramatically forced us into ever narrowing economic (taxation) options. Those concerned about disproportionate taxes for higher incomes need to decide who is going to bear the burden of those deficits. I am waiting to hear some politician explain how much he/she intends to raise taxes on the poorest 40% among us.

The discussion always seems to revolve around reasons why additional taxes would be unfair to one group or another. We need to get beyond that. If we think raising tax rates for those making over $250,000.00 per year is unacceptable, then we need to hear who it is that should pick up that burden. And we need to decide now. There are no easy choices left for us.

Hear, Hear, Dennis!

Sorry to bow out of this dialogue, but the green hills of Southern Illinois are calling . . . www.caveinrockkaylors.com

 

[ShezaGirlie]

Right on Dennis...well said.

 

[Karlynn]

Just to clarify the stats I posted - it's the bottom 40% of income earners, not the 40% of our poorest. Although certainly we have those earning an income who are poor. But we have many who earn no income and are not included in those statistics.

I guess my frustration can be described with this. Several months ago my son and I were having a discussion on both pres. candidates and their tax plans. My son said "I have no problem with you paying more in taxes if that means I pay less." And I believe this is what our politicians are fostering - class wars. This gets our country no where. Technically, I shouldn't have a problem with the top 5% paying more in taxes than the rest - because I'm certainly not in the bracket that makes 250K or more. I think this has to do with how we view our responsibility as citizens of this country. If we continually expect the others to do more than we do, we get a country of individuals who's primary goal is to look out after #1 and our poor stay poor because government can not make them no longer poor. Only help from willing individuals generously contributing above what they pay the government (in time and money) can accomplish this.

There's no way we can tax ourselves out of the debt this country has, and most of which China holds the markers on. And for me, that is scary. So we talk about taxing our wealthiest while we continue to add more and more and more debt to an already monstrous bill. Whether we are forking it over in an increase in our income tax, or in the other taxes that Tbone did a good job of listing. Those are the insidious kinds of taxes that we don't see spelled out in our paychecks. So our poor are getting taxed in ways that are hard to control. I know too well, living in Cook county with our 10% sales tax. So to feel that if you aren't in the top 5% you don't have to face tax increases - you are mistaken.

Bottom line for me - I fear that charitable organizations in this country will suffer the most in this economy and with the increasing size of government. The more people perceive government doing - the less they feel the need to contribute. That is simply an historical fact.

 

[Wise]

Just to clarify the stats I posted - it's the bottom 40% of income earners, not the 40% of our poorest. Although certainly we have those earning an income who are poor. But we have many who earn no income and are not included in those statistics.

I guess my frustration can be described with this. Several months ago my son and I were having a discussion on both pres. candidates and their tax plans. My son said "I have no problem with you paying more in taxes if that means I pay less." And I believe this is what our politicians are fostering - class wars. This gets our country no where. Technically, I shouldn't have a problem with the top 5% paying more in taxes than the rest - because I'm certainly not in the bracket that makes 250K or more. I think this has to do with how we view our responsibility as citizens of this country. If we continually expect the others to do more than we do, we get a country of individuals who's primary goal is to look out after #1 and our poor stay poor because government can not make them no longer poor. Only help from willing individuals generously contributing above what they pay the government (in time and money) can accomplish this.

There's no way we can tax ourselves out of the debt this country has, and most of which China holds the markers on. And for me, that is scary. So we talk about taxing our wealthiest while we continue to add more and more and more debt to an already monstrous bill. Whether we are forking it over in an increase in our income tax, or in the other taxes that Tbone did a good job of listing. Those are the insidious kinds of taxes that we don't see spelled out in our paychecks. I know too well, living in Cook county with our 10% sales tax. So to feel that if you aren't in the top 5% you don't have to face tax increases - you are mistaken.

Bottom line for me - I fear that charitable organizations in this country will suffer the most in this economy and with the increasing size of government. The more people perceive government doing - the less they feel the need to contribute. That is simply an historical fact.

Girl, you are one smart cookie. Well said!

I still have a hard time wrapping my head around a $250,000 earnings being in the very wealth category. I am concerned for small businesses.

 

[Ross]

I wouldn't say $250 is VERY wealthy, but it is wealthy in the grand scheme of things. Really though, that's not the point, which is why I love this material. It shows just how confusing it becomes. [Turnpage=124of647] HR1[/Turnpage]

 

[Lisa in Katy]

Well said Karlynn. In those stats that you posted, it might be interesting to know that as of 2004, the US Census Bureau found that the household income threshold to get you into the top two quintiles (top 40% responsible for 99% of the taxes) was only $55,331. The top 20% had a bottom threshold of $88,030. The top 5% (responsible for 61% of the taxes) had a bottom threshold of $157,176. Those in the top two quintiles had a median of 2 wage earners, those in the 3rd & 4th had a median of 1 wage earner, and those in the bottom quintile had a median of 0.

What is interesting to me is that when I was working as a teacher and my husband was working as an aircraft mechanic, which I would consider clearly middle class jobs, we were already in the top quintile.

Something I would like to know is that when we add in "income" from the government - WIC, free healthcare, free lunch, AFDC, etc., what is the income of those at the bottom? After all, my income is used to pay for these things (some is admittedly pre-tax), so that is truly income for them, albeit nontaxable. I taught kids from the lower quintile families and saw tons of abuse of the system. I could always tell when the government check came in because they would all come to school with new clothes - including $150 tennis shoes and designer purses. They talked about the movies they saw several times a week, the concerts they went to on the weekends, and all the time my taxes were paying for their breakfast and lunch. Some of their parents picked them up in Hummers, Navigators, and cars with $5000 rims. I saw the babies having babies so they could start collecting their government checks. So are they "poor"? No, if you can afford new clothes every month, and a variety of entertainment options, you are not "poor".

At least part of the problem is unreported income. In the early 90's, I tried to hire someone to come to my house and take care of my kids. This person would work 8-3 each day. I would provide breakfast, lunch, and snacks, two weeks paid days off at her discretion plus the days off that I would take, and $200 a week ($10,400 a year plus at least $720 for food (at least $3 a day). Two different times I found someone I thought would be good. Both backed out when I asked for their social security numbers so I could report their earnings to the government.

I think it's time to fine companies each and every time they are found to be paying employees under the table or using false social security numbers. I think it's time to check into all these lawn services, construction companies, maid services, restaurants, etc. to make sure they are following the law. The taxes that would be gained from both the companies and the employees alone would make up a good chunk of the shortfall. When the government has done everything they possibly can to ensure that people are obeying the law, then they can look at me for more money.

 

[Ross]

Something I would like to know is that when we add in "income" from the government - WIC, free healthcare, free lunch, AFDC, etc., what is the income of those at the bottom? After all, my income is used to pay for these things (some is admittedly pre-tax), so that is truly income for them, albeit nontaxable. I taught kids from the lower quintile families and saw tons of abuse of the system. I could always tell when the government check came in because they would all come to school with new clothes - including $150 tennis shoes and designer purses. They talked about the movies they saw several times a week, the concerts they went to on the weekends, and all the time my taxes were paying for their breakfast and lunch. Some of their parents picked them up in Hummers, Navigators, and cars with $5000 rims. I saw the babies having babies so they could start collecting their government checks. So are they "poor"? No, if you can afford new clothes every month, and a variety of entertainment options, you are not "poor".

Those are not the truly needy, but system abusers. They may be selling drugs on the side or working under the table, but if they could come up with the things you spoke of, drugs would be my guess. The truly needy wouldn't possibly be able to produce any such thing from government help. They can barely afford to survive.

I can use my son as an example. Just after the accident, he qualified for state disability assistance and got a whopping check each month for a whole $257 and $140 in food stamps. Once he became eligble for Soc Sec Disability, no more state assistance except medicaid and he had to pay $109 a month to have it. He starts Medicare March 1st.

 

[Bridgette]

Yep, I agree with you Ross. Drugs would be my guess too.
In NZ, people living on government benefits, who abide by the law, DO NOT drive around in Hummers, buy Nikes, etc.....on the other hand, people who are on benefits but who also profit from making and selling drugs, especially P, can afford luxuries.
Over here, the gangs make big money from drugs and other criminal activities...

 

[Lisa in Katy]

My point exactly. There is lots of abuse at both ends of the spectrum. It's not just things like drugs, it's also under the table income - straight cash. Remember that I live in Texas and we have lots of illegal aliens here. The school I taught in last had a large majority of Hispanic kids.

Long ago I saw a documentary about a guy who washed windshields and begged on the corner of a major intersection in New York City. In the week that they followed him, he averaged $800 a day - straight cash. He wasn't actually homeless, but the people giving him money didn't know that. They asked him why he didn't have a regular job, and he asked them why should he? He said that his income dropped in the colder months, but he still made about $100,000 a year with no taxes.

I don't begrudge those who are disabled or elderly and have no choices. I think that we as Christians are supposed to take care of them. I do begrudge the unemployed by choice and the people breaking the law.

 

[Dennis S]

I promise to get off this thread after this post. But I still haven't heard whose taxes are going to be increased to pay the bill. (And I think the borrowed funds must be paid back-we didn't borrow that money from some chump on the corner). If we abandon our national debt we are looking at a financial Armageddon.

Karlynn: Although we will pay more than our kids, they could rightly be concerned that we (at least my generation) will have spent all of their social security contributions before they even qualify for benefits.

If you total the current (private) debt load of US citizens you arrive at 13 Trillion dollars. (A sum almost precisely equal to our annual Gross National Product). I understand the concepts of "class warfare", diminution of monies for charitable giving, and general unfairness. As important as they are, we are way past that now. The dirty dishes in the sink don't matter when the house is on fire.

 

[Lisa in Katy]

Dennis, I think if we crack down on all the companies who are paying income under the table or to false SSNs, and earning income under the table, it will help. This includes individuals who have babysitters, lawn services, and maids that they aren't properly claiming. I think if we crack down on all the people who aren't paying taxes on their income (all income levels), it will help. I think if we crack down on the abuses in the government it will help. Once we've done all that, then let's see where we are and figure out how we are going to solve it. But the Robinhood method is, in my opinion, the worst. Penalizing me for working my butt off everyday and striving to make more money is not the solution. I'm not in the top 2%, but I'm in the top 10%, and I still pay more than my fair share. Because of the economy, I'm not getting a raise this year and my husband is getting a 2.8% raise, so our total income will go up about 1.4%. I bet that we will see an increase larger than that in our non-discretional spending though.

 

[Karlynn]

I know we'll all be paying for this. I believe this debt is going to require a whole lot more than just increasing the tax for the top 5% of earners. But as long as people are willing to believe it's not going to affect them they won't put the pressure on Washington to stop.

 

[OldManEmu]

Debt

Debt

All our US members have little to be concerned about in the near future; he isn't known as helicopter Ben for nothing. Ben controls the printing press so therefore controls the US dollar. Look out for gold and commodities, the Chinese are aware of the game and are buying gold and commodities in preparation for the problems from printing US dollars.

 

[Tbone]

Just an update on numbers after the WSJ link I posted.

From the Congressional Budget Office - latest IRS stats from 2006

Top 1% of all earners in the US payed 39% of the income tax total. While their income made just 18% of all pre-tax income in the US

Top 5% payed 61% of the income tax total. Their income accounted for 31% of all pre-tax income earned in the US.

Top 40% of all earners paid 99% of the total 2006 income tax.

Bottom 40% of all income earners paid no taxes.

This is for the nation. States have their own tax laws, so these numbers may not reflect whether or not someone pays a state tax.

If you want a nonpartisan look at what's going on with our country's financial concerns, http://www.cbo.gov/ is a great site - but it's pretty dry reading.

Take this as you will, I just think it contradicts the argument that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share. And if we say they should pay more, on what concrete philosophy are we basing that?

It is based on the concrete fact that they wish to make this a Socialist state. They want us to pay for others, smile, bend over, and keep our mouths shut.