From Site Income Tax if All Bush Tax Cuts Expire: $382 refund Income Tax if Bush Tax Cuts are Extended:$382 refund Income Tax under Obama's Tax Proposals: $692 refund
I guess its a little better if you're just a college kid that makes about 5 grand a year.
[This message has been edited by 1988holleyformula (edited 08-03-2010).]
IP: Logged
06:24 PM
Aug 4th, 2010
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Maybe no one is commenting because when you plug numbers in the Obama plan seems to be the best.
If this is true some would be posting their numbers, think about it. The calculator is neither pro or con it is meant to show how individuals would be affected.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 08-04-2010).]
IP: Logged
11:37 AM
aceman Member
Posts: 4899 From: Brooklyn Center, MN Registered: Feb 2003
My taxes would be lower next year IF ALL of Obama's tax plans were passed. How many hidden taxes does Obama have that will be added outside of my income tax return? What if Bush's tax cuts expire and Congress only passes SOME of Obama's tax plan along with more of those hidden taxes I mentioned? What happens when Congress expires Bush's tax cuts AND continues to spend, spend, spend AND look at Obama and tell him the budget can't afford his tax plan AND Businesses are stiffled because of all the taxes and can't afford or desire to expand their businesses, thus allowing more people to be hired?
IP: Logged
11:44 AM
Rallaster Member
Posts: 9105 From: Indy southside, IN Registered: Jul 2009
Married with 1 child: Income Tax if All Bush Tax Cuts Expire: $1,870 refund Income Tax if Bush Tax Cuts are Extended: $1,870 refund Income Tax under Obama's Tax Proposals: $2,586 refund
If this is true some would be posting their numbers, think about it. The calculator is neither pro or con it is meant to show how individuals would be affected.
I am thinking about it, and many here are pro or con so if it doesn't agree with their political leaning they most likely won't post. You didn't :P
IP: Logged
12:04 PM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
Income Tax if All Bush Tax Cuts Expire: $2,476 addittional Income Tax if Bush Tax Cuts are Extended: no change Income Tax under Obama's Tax Proposals: no change
Guess I'm not "rich" according to President Obama..
edit: A dependant is someone who is dependent on someone else.
[This message has been edited by spark1 (edited 08-08-2010).]
IP: Logged
12:30 PM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
More than half of U.S. voters favor extending the so-called Bush tax cuts that are scheduled to end Dec. 31, but they’re more ambivalent about whether the cuts should be continued for wealthier taxpayers.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 1,000 likely voters found that 54 percent of U.S. voters believe the Bush administration tax cuts should be extended.
The survey, taken Aug. 1 and 2, found that 30 percent say the tax cuts should end this year, while 16 percent aren’t sure. Only 22 percent think letting the tax cuts expire will help the economy.
Just over half believe that ending the cuts will hurt the economy, while 13 percent more say it will have no impact.
Given the choice, 48 percent favor extending the Bush tax cuts for all Americans while 40 percent prefer continuing the tax cuts for everyone except wealthy Americans. It’s important to note that the question did not put a monetary value on “wealthy.”
If taxes are increased only on those who earn more than $250,000 a year, 38 percent believe that would be bad for the economy. Nearly as many, 33 percent say it would be good for the economy. That latter figure is a huge drop from February of last year.
Despite his campaign pledge to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, 44 percent of voters expect their taxes to increase under President Obama. Just 9 percent think their taxes will go down, and 39 percent expect them to stay the same.
The Bush tax cuts, enacted in 2001 and 2003, according to The Washington Post, “lowered tax rates across the board on income, dividends and capital gains; eventually eliminated the estate tax; further lowered burdens on married couples, parents and the working poor; and increased tax credits for education and retirement savings.”
The president is considering extending most of these cuts except for taxpayers who earn more than $200,000 per year and families that make more than $250,000.
Although 83 percent of Republicans and 58 percent of voters not affiliated with either party favor extending the Bush tax cuts, 53 percent of Democrats think they should end this year.
Just over half of the voters in the president’s party also believe raising taxes on those who earn more than $250,000 a year is good for the economy. On the other hand 56 percent of GOP voters and 48 percent of unaffiliateds say an increase on those taxpayers is bad for the economy.
More than 55 percent of mainstream voters favor extending the Bush tax cuts for all Americans, but 60 percent of those in the political class think they should be continued for everyone but the wealthy.
Mainstream voters are twice as likely as those in the political class to say allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire will hurt the economy.
Two-thirds of voters believe America is overtaxed. More than half of the voters continue to believe that tax increases will hurt the economy, while 55 percent say tax cuts help the economy.
Two-thirds also believe cutting taxes is a better way than increased government spending to create new jobs.
Only 18 percent of Americans are willing to pay higher taxes to lower the federal budget deficit. But most voters think President Obama’s new bipartisan deficit reduction commission is more likely to recommend tax increases than spending cuts to meet the growing deficit, and 78 percent expect Congress to raise taxes if the commission recommends it.
More than 80 percent of Americans say the size of the federal budget deficit is due more to the unwillingness of politicians to cut government spending than to the reluctance of taxpayers to pay more in taxes.
The number of voters who view the issue of taxes as very important has jumped 10 points from May to its highest level ever in Rasmussen Reports tracking.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 08-04-2010).]
IP: Logged
08:55 PM
jimbolaya Member
Posts: 10652 From: Virginia Beach, Virginia Registered: Feb 2007
I am in a "high" income bracket, but according to that calculator, I would be getting a significantly higher amount back rather than paying like I do now...
IP: Logged
09:26 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Unless I significantly increase my income, I won't be paying taxes for the next 12 years. But I did notice one thing on mine and my wife's paystubs - Social Security and Medicare deductions are TWICE what I pay in Federal and State taxes COMBINED.
Obama can cut federal taxes all he wants, but check your paystubs for how much you're paying in SS and Medicare deductions.
for me, the take home message from this is that if Obama has his way, the more money you make, then you will even pay more compared to what you paid under the Bush tax cuts. Sure it looks good for low income people, but there is a point where it goes the other way.
We are already in a system where the highest paid people pay the majority of taxes, so why should they be obligated to pay more? Would someone mind explaining (logically) why that is right?
....I compared a single person making $25,000 a year to one making $2,500,000 a year, here are the results:
scenario 1: with yearly income of $25,000: with Bush tax cuts, pay $1900 a year in taxes (under Obama's plan, get a ~22% discount in taxes and pay $1500 a year). So, under Bush tax cuts they were paying about 7.6% of their income to taxes, under Obama they pay about 6%. Looks good
scenario 2: with yearly income of $2,500,000: with Bush tax cuts, pay $850,000 a year in taxes (under Obama's plan, get a ~11% INCREASE in taxes and pay $952,000 a year). So under Bush tax cuts they were paying about 34% of their income to taxes, under Obama they pay about 38%. Looks bad.
DID ANYONE NOTICE THAT THE HIGHER PAID PERSON HERE IS PAYING ROUGHLY 5 TIMES MORE IN TAXES (ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS) THAN THE LOWER PAID PERSON?
Conclusion: this is consistent with his socialist agenda, continue to take more off the wealthy and give it to the poor, great plan, it has always worked.....not....read your history books.
Redistribution of wealth, that is exactly what this proves. Yeah, that's going to encourage investment
[This message has been edited by ditch (edited 08-08-2010).]
for me, the take home message from this is that if Obama has his way, the more money you make, then you will even pay more compared to what you paid under the Bush tax cuts. Sure it looks good for low income people, but there is a point where it goes the other way.
We are already in a system where the highest paid people pay the majority of taxes, so why should they be obligated to pay more? Would someone mind explaining (logically) why that is right?
....I compared a single person making $25,000 a year to one making $2,500,000 a year, here are the results:
scenario 1: with yearly income of $25,000: with Bush tax cuts, pay $1900 a year in taxes (under Obama's plan, get a ~22% discount in taxes and pay $1500 a year). So, under Bush tax cuts they were paying about 7.6% of their income to taxes, under Obama they pay about 6%. Looks good
scenario 2: with yearly income of $2,500,000: with Bush tax cuts, pay $850,000 a year in taxes (under Obama's plan, get a ~11% INCREASE in taxes and pay $952,000 a year). So under Bush tax cuts they were paying about 34% of their income to taxes, under Obama they pay about 38%. Looks bad.
DID ANYONE NOTICE THAT THE HIGHER PAID PERSON HERE IS PAYING ROUGHLY 5 TIMES MORE IN TAXES (ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS) THAN THE LOWER PAID PERSON?
Conclusion: this is consistent with his socialist agenda, continue to take more off the wealthy and give it to the poor, great plan, it has always worked.....not....read your history books.
Redistribution of wealth, that is exactly what this proves. Yeah, that's going to encourage investment
So what you're saying is it's a slightly modified version of what you had before but the people who can afford it the most will have to pay a larger percentage. The people making $25,000 most likely will spend their extra money and help the economy. The people making $2.5 million won't be able to hide the money they have to pay in some kind of a tax shelter. Boo hoo.
We are already in a system where the highest paid people pay the majority of taxes, so why should they be obligated to pay more? Would someone mind explaining (logically) why that is right?
Good question. I have never heard a logical explanation on why people are punished (by paying a higher % of their income as taxes) for being more successful.
Good question. I have never heard a logical explanation on why people are punished (by paying a higher % of their income as taxes) for being more successful.
In most western European countries and the United States, advocates of progressive taxation tend to be found among the majority of economists and social scientists, many of whom believe that completely proportional taxation is not a possibility.[18][19] In the U.S., an overwhelming majority of economists (81%) support progressive taxation.[18][19]
[edit] Arguments for implementation A progressive tax maximizes the amount of tax that can be collected, with the minimum number of protests, thereby presenting an easy political solution for governments with budgeting problems.[citation needed] In a market economy, the larger an investment is, the higher its rate of return. This is due to both economies of scale and the increased range of investment opportunities. In addition to these economic forces, those who control greater amounts of capital within a society are able to participate more directly in shaping government policy, often in ways that further maximize their wealth. Thus, due to both economic and political realities within a market economy, it is a natural process for the wealthiest individuals and firms in a society to become disproportionately wealthier over time. In order to prevent the political instability resulting from the natural stratification of the populace into an ever smaller and wealthier aristocracy or moneyed class, and an ever larger working class, all free market democracies engage in progressive taxation and programs to enhance economic opportunity for the lower and middle classes.[citation needed] In response to the concern that progressive taxation creates an unfair psychological burden on the wealthy, it is argued[citation needed] that if the utility gained from income exhibits diminishing marginal returns, as many psychologists assert (see Weber-Fechner law), then for the tax burden to be shared in a utilitarian way the tax-bill must increase non-linearly with income. As income levels rise, marginal propensity to consume tend to drop. Thus it is often argued that economic demand can be stimulated by reducing the tax burden on lower incomes while raising the burden on higher incomes[20] It is also argued[citation needed] that people with higher income tend to have a higher percentage of that in discretionary income, and can thus afford a greater tax burden (this is the “vertical equity” argument). Some would claim that a person earning exactly enough money to pay for food and housing cannot afford to pay any taxes without it causing material damage, while someone earning twice as much can afford to pay up to half their income in taxes. Some believe that the wealthy have a disproportionately greater interest in maintaining societal goods typically supported by taxation such as security of property rights[citation needed], defense and infrastructure, as they have much more to lose if these fail than do the poor. Public investments in defense and foreign aid often support assets abroad whose expropriation is a far greater risk than is the risk involving domestic investments. It is inherent in tax policy that it implements economic and social policy. People who are concerned about a runaway, cancerous[weasel words] character in the global economy, greenhouse gases, etc., see benefits in progressive taxation, both in its braking effect on the economy and in helping shape economic activities towards necessities more effectively than purely monetary or fiscal policies.[citation needed] As long as after-tax income is a strictly increasing function of gross income, there is a monetary incentive to increase compensation received. Indeed, for any particular income goal, the higher the tax rate, more compensation one must receive to reach that income goal. For this reason, progressive income tax may increase the incentive to produce among the largest producers (if higher production is truly associated with higher compensation). A progressive tax reduces income inequality, which has been reported to have a number of societal benefits, such as lower homicide rates at all income levels.[21] Richard Wilkinson argues that in a more unequal society, even middle class people on good incomes are likely to be less healthy, less likely to be involved in community life, more likely to be obese, and more likely to be victims of violence.[22] Amongst the wealthiest quarter of countries, there is no relation between a country's wealth and general population health, but within a country, relative levels can have an effect.[23]
Originally posted by newf: So what you're saying is it's a slightly modified version of what you had before but the people who can afford it the most will have to pay a larger percentage. The people making $25,000 most likely will spend their extra money and help the economy. The people making $2.5 million won't be able to hide the money they have to pay in some kind of a tax shelter. Boo hoo.
I see, so people who make that kind of money hide their money in tax shelters. Tell me more since you know so much about them. If that were the general case, then why is it that the highest paid people in the US pay the majority of taxes? I'm not making this up, it's a well documented fact.
You may be content with paying an arm and a leg in taxes in Canada for little return, but some of us down here believe in the concept of 'pulling ones own weight'
[This message has been edited by ditch (edited 08-08-2010).]
I see, so people who make that kind of money hide their money in tax shelters. Tell me more since you know so much about them. If that were the general case, then why is it that the highest paid people in the US pay the majority of taxes? I'm not making this up, it's a well documented fact.
Read my previous post In the U.S., an overwhelming majority of economists (81%) support progressive taxation.[
IP: Logged
10:10 PM
ditch Member
Posts: 3780 From: Brookston, IN Registered: Mar 2003
Seriously though I have no idea to what degree but you asked why the highest paid people in your country pay the majority of taxes.
And no I don't think anyone is content with taxes for the most part but your accusation that people in my country don't believe in pulling their own weight is something you may want to come and see for yourself.
IP: Logged
10:19 PM
ditch Member
Posts: 3780 From: Brookston, IN Registered: Mar 2003
Seriously though I have no idea to what degree but you asked why the highest paid people in your country pay the majority of taxes.
And no I don't think anyone is content with taxes for the most part but your accusation that people in my country don't believe in pulling their own weight is something you may want to come and see for yourself.
I was clearly talking about you, so don't try and twist it around to make it seem like I was talking about Canadian people in general
the fact is that if you punish people for progress, you will hinder progress, that is my point
[This message has been edited by ditch (edited 08-08-2010).]
I was clearly talking about you, so don't try and twist it around to make it seem like I was talking about Canadian people in general
the fact is that if you punish people for progress, you will hinder progress, that is my point
And my point was to answer your question and show you that it is a practise that is done in many many countries and there is sound reasoning behind it. Not that everyone believes in it but for the most part it is an accepted way of taxing in the U.S. and many other places.
IP: Logged
10:29 PM
ditch Member
Posts: 3780 From: Brookston, IN Registered: Mar 2003
Wait what do I put in for the dollar amount for state/local taxes?
Depends on whether you itemize or claim a standard deduction. If you itemize, you can claim your state and county taxes, so in that case you would put in the amount you pay in state and county taxes for the year.
Depends on whether you itemize or claim a standard deduction. If you itemize, you can claim your state and county taxes, so in that case you would put in the amount you pay in state and county taxes for the year.
Well technically this doesnt work for me at all since I am a 1099, but do I just take my income total * state tax?
IP: Logged
10:32 PM
ditch Member
Posts: 3780 From: Brookston, IN Registered: Mar 2003
Originally posted by newf: And my point was to answer your question and show you that it is a practise that is done in many many countries and there is sound reasoning behind it. Not that everyone believes in it but for the most part it is an accepted way of taxing in the U.S. and many other places.
I understand, but just because it is a 'practice' doesn't mean it is the best route to go, and furthermore (as I said before), how far do you go with it. We lowered taxes on the "wealthy" back in 2001/2003 and tax reveune actually increased, and the economy grew.
