President Obama!

[Babagounj]

Re: Obamanation here today

The $15 billion bill includes a $13 billion payroll tax break for employers who hire new workers;
This is flawed; social security payments would be suspended for a small business that hires someone who has been out of work for 60 days. The way around this is to fire your current workers and tell them to re-apply for their jobs in 60 days. Thus no real jobs growth and the business saves $$.

 

[moreluck]

Re: Obamanation here today

The $15 billion bill is Reid's baby.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Re: Obamanation here today

The $15 billion bill includes a $13 billion payroll tax break for employers who hire new workers;
This is flawed; social security payments would be suspended for a small business that hires someone who has been out of work for 60 days. The way around this is to fire your current workers and tell them to re-apply for their jobs in 60 days. Thus no real jobs growth and the business saves $$.

That would not work as the new employees have had to have been unemployed for a period of time (60 days?) prior to you hiring them.

 

[diesel96]

Re: Obamanation here today

The problem with your scenario is the bricklayer and the stockbroker do not pay the same in taxes, even if the tax rate remains the same. If they both pay a 15% income tax the stock broker pays more because 15% of 250k is more than 15% of 50k. Or in the case of a 23% fair tax the stock broker would still pay more because the stock broker can afford to buy more stuff. The idea that higher income earners should pay higher tax rates comes straight from the father of communism himself Karl Marx.

Your whole argument is flawed. The stock broker already pays a lot more then the brick layer. If you're really concerned about fairness then a flat tax rate is what you want. The present system favors the rich wage earner who can afford the accountants that maximize his tax savings. With government creating tax write offs and exemptions government can promote a tax rate that appears to be fair while providing the rich with write offs to avoid actually paying those rates.

Does the stockbroker really pay alot more of his paycheck then the bricklayer ? Pound for pound, by RATIO, using 15%,both the stockbrocker and the bricklayer, pay the same percentage of their earnings, which leaves them both with the same percentage of net income. Now who is more likely to spend most of that net income on basic neccessities stimulating the economy, and who is more likely to hord or make a quick buck investing

Why should the stock broker be penalized for his hard work? How does penalizing success motivate someone to achieve more?

Granted, not everyone is afforded the same opportunities in life and there are people that are suffering and need help. However, in this case if the bricklayer is unable to make more $...why isn't it his MORAL obligation to make better choices (maybe not have as many kids, different car or house) and live within his means with what he has?

We all know, it takes money to make money.....Kudos to those who have worked hard to achieve significant earnings. But lets admit, our Capitalist system is set up wear the more money you make, the more advantages of increasing your flow tenfolds. It's simply not as achievable by those making a modest paycheck. Therefore, reversing Bush's Tax Cuts to the Reagan days on income above the 250k plateau makes sense, and brings in much needed revenue, especially when we're fighting wars and stimulating the economy.

 

[brett636]

Re: Obamanation here today

Does the stockbroker really pay alot more of his paycheck then the bricklayer ?

Well lets do the math and find out.

50,000 x .15 = $7500
250,000 x .15 = $37500

So yes, the stockbroker does pay a significant amount more than the bricklayer because he makes more money. At the end of the day both end up with 85% of their pay.

Pound for pound, by RATIO, using 15%,both the stockbrocker and the bricklayer, pay the same percentage of their earnings, which leaves them both with the same percentage of net income.

Wow, you are capable of some basic logic! I'm happy for you!

Now who is more likely to spend most of that net income on basic neccessities stimulating the economy, and who is more likely to hord or make a quick buck investing

Oh, never mind, you blew it here. Very to easy answer to this problem, and that is the stockbroker is more likely to stimulate the economy because as he invests money with companies those companies use that money to invest in their business. Perhaps some of those companies will invest in new buildings giving the bricklayer some work to do allowing him to keep food on his table and a solid roof over his family's head.

 

[bbsam]

Re: Obamanation here today

Do you people have no business sense whatsoever? The unfairness come in the form of tax deductions and subsequent "taxable income". The $250,000 stock broker can easily take advantage of these deductions and bring his income down to a level close to the $50,000 brick layer. Or the $120,000 Fedex Contractor can eye that new 2010 Chevy Camaro not as a childish, lustful desire, but a "corporate vehicle". The newer house with the higher mortgage payment brings with it the "home office" with higher tax deduction. Since the business is incorporated, much of the income is either untaxed or taxed at a lower rate. I personally don't bother with the specifics. Let the accountants do that. But really, the laws and tax structure of this country are made, bought, and paid for by corporate entities and the tend to favor themselves. Surprise, surprise, surprise!

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Re: Obamanation here today

Do you people have no business sense whatsoever? The unfairness come in the form of tax deductions and subsequent "taxable income". The $250,000 stock broker can easily take advantage of these deductions and bring his income down to a level close to the $50,000 brick layer. Or the $120,000 Fedex Contractor can eye that new 2010 Chevy Camaro not as a childish, lustful desire, but a "corporate vehicle". The newer house with the higher mortgage payment brings with it the "home office" with higher tax deduction. Since the business is incorporated, much of the income is either untaxed or taxed at a lower rate. I personally don't bother with the specifics. Let the accountants do that. But really, the laws and tax structure of this country are made, bought, and paid for by corporate entities and the tend to favor themselves. Surprise, surprise, surprise!

This is by far the biggest hurdle facing those who promote the Fair Tax, including myself, and is why I reluctantly concede that this will not happen during my lifetime.

 

[tieguy]

Re: Obamanation here today

Do you people have no business sense whatsoever? The unfairness come in the form of tax deductions and subsequent "taxable income". The $250,000 stock broker can easily take advantage of these deductions and bring his income down to a level close to the $50,000 brick layer. Or the $120,000 Fedex Contractor can eye that new 2010 Chevy Camaro not as a childish, lustful desire, but a "corporate vehicle". The newer house with the higher mortgage payment brings with it the "home office" with higher tax deduction. Since the business is incorporated, much of the income is either untaxed or taxed at a lower rate. I personally don't bother with the specifics. Let the accountants do that. But really, the laws and tax structure of this country are made, bought, and paid for by corporate entities and the tend to favor themselves. Surprise, surprise, surprise!

I think anyone who thinks a 250,000 earning stock broker would pay the same dollar amount of tax's as the 50,000 plumber needs to educate theirselves on the tax code.

 

[Babagounj]

Re: Obamanation here today

That would not work as the new employees have had to have been unemployed for a period of time (60 days?) prior to you hiring them.

once you fire them and after 60 days re-hire them , then they become " new employees ".

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Re: Obamanation here today

once you fire them and after 60 days re-hire them , then they become " new employees ".

You would hope that whomever is overseeing this would be able to catch but knowing our government...

 

[brett636]

Re: Obamanation here today

Do you people have no business sense whatsoever? The unfairness come in the form of tax deductions and subsequent "taxable income". The $250,000 stock broker can easily take advantage of these deductions and bring his income down to a level close to the $50,000 brick layer. Or the $120,000 Fedex Contractor can eye that new 2010 Chevy Camaro not as a childish, lustful desire, but a "corporate vehicle". The newer house with the higher mortgage payment brings with it the "home office" with higher tax deduction. Since the business is incorporated, much of the income is either untaxed or taxed at a lower rate. I personally don't bother with the specifics. Let the accountants do that. But really, the laws and tax structure of this country are made, bought, and paid for by corporate entities and the tend to favor themselves. Surprise, surprise, surprise!

I've prepared more tax returns in a year than you will in your lifetime. I've done everything from sole proprietors, to rental properties, and even people who buy and sell stock. I can tell you there is little to no truth in everything you just stated about the tax code, and what little is true you obviously don't understand how most of those deductions work. Please, stick to subjects that you know atleast something about, as this is not one of them.

This is by far the biggest hurdle facing those who promote the Fair Tax, including myself, and is why I reluctantly concede that this will not happen during my lifetime.

I disagree. Corporations would benefit from the fair tax just as you and I would. The biggest hurdle for the fair tax are politicians, as they are the ones who will stand to lose the most power if the fair tax were enacted, and the politicians with the majority today are all about increasing their own power.

You would hope that whomever is overseeing this would be able to catch but knowing our government...

I remember hearing about a 4 year old claiming the first time home buyer tax credit. If the government allows this then I would bet they will allow the practice you describe as well.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Re: Obamanation here today

I do know that taxpayer's claiming the first time home buyer credit cannot e-file. I think if I were eligible I would e-file without claiming the credit and paper file an amended return.

 

[diesel96]

Re: Obamanation here today

Well lets do the math and find out.

50,000 x .15 = $7500
250,000 x .15 = $37500

So yes, the stockbroker does pay a significant amount more than the bricklayer because he makes more money. At the end of the day both end up with 85% of their pay.



Wow, you are capable of some basic logic! I'm happy for you!

Oh, never mind, you blew it here. Very to easy answer to this problem, and that is the stockbroker is more likely to stimulate the economy because as he invests money with companies those companies use that money to invest in their business. Perhaps some of those companies will invest in new buildings giving the bricklayer some work to do allowing him to keep food on his table and a solid roof over his family's head.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

I think anyone who thinks a 250,000 earning stock broker would pay the same dollar amount of tax's as the 50,000 plumber needs to educate theirselves on the tax code.

No matter how you spin it, Percentage-wise, the average American middle-class person pays more than the average American upper-class person. Though, one-on-one, number-wise it's less, percentage-wise, it's greater.

So lets stop arguing this improbable hypothetical anomaly.... comparing a bricklayer's taxed earnings against a successfull stockbroker at the same rate. Not happening in this country. Not without factoring in the higher wage earner's tax shelters and hugh deductions....

As a whole, at the end of the day, not only is the middle class eventually taxed at a higher rate, they contribute a much more alarming percentage of their earnings directly into the economy ? ... Now imagine all that lost Federal revenue if those making significantly more than 250k paid their fair share as the bricklayer, or even Warren Buffet's receptionist. Because we all know, there's a discrepentcy which favors the upper crust compared to the bottom feeders.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece


In a capitalist society, capital is rewarded more than labor, skill, expertise and knowledge... money earns money disproportionately...... as a result, once a person crosses the threshold and begins to save money, his saved money begins to multiply and create more savings, hence, an upward spiral is set in motion.... on the other hand, one whose income falls below his expenses, he has to borrow and pay disproportionately higher reward for the money borrowed which leads to the spiral downwards...... this is the key reason why in a capitalist economy, the distribution of wealth is more skewed then what is warranted by the natural differences in earning capabilities of various people.

 

[tieguy]

Re: Obamanation here today

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece


No matter how you spin it, Percentage-wise, the average American middle-class person pays more than the average American upper-class person. Though, one-on-one, number-wise it's less, percentage-wise, it's greater.

Diesel you've really stepped out there on a limb with this one. Everyone who knows anything about the tax structure knows the higher wage earner pays a greater percentage.

 

[tieguy]

Re: Obamanation here today

A litTax distribution info courtesy of wikopedia
As of 2007, there are about 138 million taxpayers in the United States.[5] The Treasury Department in 2006 reported, based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data, the share of federal income taxes paid by taxpayers of various income levels. The data shows the progressive tax structure of the U.S. federal income tax system on individuals that reduces the tax incidence of people with smaller incomes, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with higher incomes - the top 0.1% of taxpayers by income pay 17.4% of federal income taxes (earning 9.1% of the income), the top 1% with gross income of $328,049 or more pay 36.9% (earning 19%), the top 5% with gross income of $137,056 or more pay 57.1% (earning 33.4%), and the bottom 50% with gross income of $30,122 or less pay 3.3% (earning 13.4%).[6][7] If the federal taxation rate is compared with the wealth distribution rate, the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).[8]
Other taxes in the United States with a less progressive structure or a regressive structure, and legal tax avoidance loopholes change the overall tax burden distribution. For example, the payroll tax system (FICA), a 12.4% Social Security tax on wages up to $106,800(for 2009) and a 2.9% Medicare tax (a 15.3% total tax that is often split between employee and employer) is called a regressive tax on income with no standard deduction or personal exemptions but in effect is forced savings which return to the payer in the form of retirement benefits and health care. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that three-fourths of U.S. taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.[9]
The National Bureau of Economic Research has concluded that the combined federal, state, and local government average marginal tax rate for most workers to be about 40% of income.[10][11]


"

 

[bbsam]

Re: Obamanation here today

Very simple Brett. Capital gains is taxed at what %? 15%. Consider Capital Investment firms who's only income is capital gains. Guess what rate they get taxed at. 15%. Is that fair? Honestly, anyone who believes that the top earners in this country pay the top tax rate of their income in income tax is simply misguided. And for someone who has prepared so many tax returns to suggest that the loopholes do not exist or that they do not reward those who use them at the expense of the rest of the nation seems odd. Why then all the tax deductions? Why the complex tax code? Why is taxable income so often far less than gross income?

 

[brett636]

Re: Obamanation here today

I do know that taxpayer's claiming the first time home buyer credit cannot e-file. I think if I were eligible I would e-file without claiming the credit and paper file an amended return.

This is true. I usually advise my clients to do what you stated, or depending on when they bought the home they can amend their 2008 return and claim the credit as well. Its also a good idea to include a copy of the closing statements when mailing too.

Very simple Brett. Capital gains is taxed at what %? 15%. Consider Capital Investment firms who's only income is capital gains. Guess what rate they get taxed at. 15%. Is that fair? Honestly, anyone who believes that the top earners in this country pay the top tax rate of their income in income tax is simply misguided. And for someone who has prepared so many tax returns to suggest that the loopholes do not exist or that they do not reward those who use them at the expense of the rest of the nation seems odd. Why then all the tax deductions? Why the complex tax code? Why is taxable income so often far less than gross income?

In actuality that Capital Gains tax rate is too high. Capital Gains is related to investments, and the more investment taking place means more jobs for people like you so you can come on here and complain about the evil rich people holding you down. There is also a precedence that shows the government rakes in more tax revenue when they drop the capital gains tax rate because people invest more. Then again, you view the government as a great equalizer stepping on people who you view to be evil simply because they were able to get more ahead in life than you. Do you ever think about how pathetic you are believing this?

I am not going to waste my time explaining to you the tax code in detail, but if you want to know more, go get a copy of a pub. 17 from the IRS and learn it yourself. What I don't think is fair with the tax code are people who make $10k, claim to support 3 kids, and get 60% or more of their entire yearly income as a tax refund when they did not contribute a penny themselves. Its the same as welfare, only they call it the earned income credit.

 

[brett636]

Re: Obamanation here today

For those of you who want to come on here and claim the middle and or lower class is taxed more than the upper class look at this graph to see how wrong you are.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Re: Obamanation here today

brett, have you noticed a lot of confusion or even unawareness of the Making America Work credit? My co-workers and I were talking taxes the other day and most of them had neither heard of it or taken advantage of it when they filed their returns. When I told them it was a $400 credit for single filers and a $800 credit for married filers and that the only requirement was a job they kicked themselves for not knowing about it.

 

[over9five]

Re: Obamanation here today

brett, have you noticed a lot of confusion or even unawareness of the Making America Work credit? My co-workers and I were talking taxes the other day and most of them had neither heard of it or taken advantage of it when they filed their returns. When I told them it was a $400 credit for single filers and a $800 credit for married filers and that the only requirement was a job they kicked themselves for not knowing about it.

AND you can't be claimed as a dependent on someone elses forms.