The divide in this country is growing, and is alarming

[droski]

If I said "no one" believes that I didn't mean to and that would be wrong. But support for that theory seems fairly muted to me this go-'round. Do you not agree?

it's BASIC economic theory LG. BASIC. obama's own economic advisors agree with conservatives. my liberal, lesbian, economics teacher at cal didn't even argue that taxes cuts don't help the economy.

 

[droski]

Correlation does not imply causation

 

[lawgator1]

You don't seem to understand poor. When half the country pays no federal income tax, broadening the base would have to be exponential to capture the actual poor.

The "actual poor"?

 

[BigPapaVol]

The "actual poor"?

yes, those who can't afford the necessities of life and have no chance of ever doing so.

 

[lawgator1]

yes, those who can't afford the necessities of life and have no chance of ever doing so.

Ok, well, what about a family of four with annualized gross income of, say, $30,000? You want them taxed at the lowest rate on that?

 

[BigPapaVol]

Ok, well, what about a family of four with annualized gross income of, say, $30,000? You want them taxed at the lowest rate on that?

I'm fine with their taxes being minimal.

 

[droski]

I'm fine with their taxes being minimal.

their tax bracket is currently 15%. include 2 child tax deductions and their effective tax rate is around 9%. can't say i'm really feeling they are getting screwed there.

 

[BigPapaVol]

their tax bracket is currently 15%. include 2 child tax deductions and their effective tax rate is around 9%. can't say i'm really feeling they are getting screwed there.

given that they'd actually qualify for federalized HC, they're hitting a home run.

 

[sjt18]

You are wrong. That is the very purpose of the GOP plan for tax reform to "broaden the base."

No it isn't. Are you truly that dense? You broaden the tax base by growing the economy so that more people make enought to have to pay taxes. "Broaden the base" is not another way of saying "tax the poor"... it is another way of saying "expand the private economy thus creating more tax payers".

The GOP tax reform plan is not about making sure that more wealthy people pay more in taxes, I assure you.

Who said it was? You need to get off the premise of a zero sum game and accept what JFK said. A rising tide lifts all boats.

If you believe that its about coming up with a tax plan whereby their constituency pays more, well, then we really cannot have a meaningful discussion about it.

No. It is a plan that they hope will lower the rate on everyone but STILL increase revenues. Twenty percent of 100 is greater than 30% of 50. A lower tax rate on a more wealthy economy is better than a higher rate on a poorer economy.

Are you really not able to follow this?

 

[sjt18]

You don't seem to understand poor. When half the country pays no federal income tax, broadening the base would have to be exponential to capture the actual poor.

Are you aware of anything in the GOP proposal that would make the lower half at their current earnings levels start paying the income tax?

 

[MG1968]

Ok, well, what about a family of four with annualized gross income of, say, $30,000? You want them taxed at the lowest rate on that?

after EITC and child tax credits, they will get back probably twice what they actually paid in, including FICA and SS.

The Fair Tax addresses these people as well as Forbes' version of a flat tax.

The only taxes low income people are guaranteed to have some liability for are sales taxes.

 

[NEO]

Really need a flat tax and a vat tax.

 

[sjt18]

after EITC and child tax credits, they will get back probably twice what they actually paid in, including FICA and SS.

The Fair Tax addresses these people as well as Forbes' version of a flat tax.

The only taxes low income people are guaranteed to have some liability for are sales taxes.

Since the Fair Tax proposal would replace all other taxes... the poor wouldn't even pay federal consumption taxes anymore.

 

[sjt18]

Really need a flat tax and a vat tax.

VAT is just another way of taxing productivity and wealth creation. IMO, taxes should be levied against consumption AND access to our markets by foreign entities... and pretty much nothing else.

 

[lawgator1]

after EITC and child tax credits, they will get back probably twice what they actually paid in, including FICA and SS.

The Fair Tax addresses these people as well as Forbes' version of a flat tax.

The only taxes low income people are guaranteed to have some liability for are sales taxes.

Can one receive back more because of a "tax credit" than they actually paid in taxes? Or is the "credit" limited to income, much like you can't take a deduction for more than its corollary contribution to income?

 

[volinbham]

First, I really do believe that holding onto this outdated notion that lower taxes always causes growth, especially in the current environment, and especially for the very top of the economic ladder, has proven to be unjustified. No one really seems to believe this anymore.

In fact, when I do see this argument being made -- that lower taxes on the wealthy will result job growth -- it is always coming from longstanding business people who themselves even seem unconvinced of it at this point. They say it, because maybe it sued ot be true. But they wince when they say it now.

Seriously? How did you reach this conclusion. Can you link some of the wincing?

I rarely see this argument being made by the TPers. Instead, their argument is a fairness argument. Their claim is not that lowering taxes on the wealthy will help the economy, but rather that lower taxes on the wealthy and cuts in spending for the poor is fair because the wealthy deserve to be wealthy and the poor deserve to be poor.

Have never heard nor seen a hint that this is why TPers want taxes lowered. You are really reaching here

There is almost a Calvinistic attitude out there amongst the far right on such matters. It is disturbing. And I think it is commentary from that wing of the GOP -- which so oddly in my mind seems to be carrying the mood up there in DC at the moment -- that makes me question the motives of the GOP at this point in time.

You've always questioned their motives - be honest

Your comment at the end that we have incurred all of this debt in the last 2-5 years derails the topic because it makes me want to (properly) point out that the majority of the debt came about prior to 2009. More significantly, if you look at the long term debt issues, those problems have been brewing for decades, if not theoretically speaking since the inception of the programs.

Regardless of where the debt came from it is there and the unfunded liabilities issues are more real than ever. We've doubled the national debt in such a short time that the timing is urgent. Whether Reps were responsible or not at least they recognize the problem and are suggesting solutions. Dems are saying it's either not a problem or taxing the rich will solve it. Head in the sand at best.

I fully recognize that these issues have to be dealt with. Cuts are inevitable, including cuts that will affect me in 20 years. And I'm okay with that. But I do think that Obama is fundamentally morally and philosophically correct -- the best and fairest way to bridge the budgetary gap is to cut spending AND increase taxes on the very top of the economic ladder.

But he has made no proposals for dealing with SS and Medicare and the Reid proposal expressly excludes them. He's talked about "tough changes" but refuses to make any statements that can be evaluated or will lock him into a position. That is neither morally or philosophically correct. Adding taxes is the only thing he has been specific on and I could support that but not until I see the other part of the equation. In short, he's been using lip service then trashing specific proposals.

For one thing, it is politically palatable to do so. The polls clearly show this. Second, it seems to me that a more balanced approach is healthier for the long term economy. Sure, if we had $5 trillion in nothing but spending cuts tomorrow, the stock market would be through the roof. For awhile. But then the effects of those cuts would eventually catch up with us, and probably sooner rather than later. So let's spread the pain, as it were.

See above - he hasn't said what pain he's willing to stand behind.

Last, you have to ask what we are all about. If its all just a mad rush to accumulating wealth and power, and without regard to a system of government and economy that will look out for the bottom as well as the top, then what's the point? I mean, I respect the likes of Ron Paul because he speaks in terms of unadulterated free enterprise. But the way we are set up, we see time and time again how poorly that works for us, the consequences of it, etc.

I'm not against free enterprise, just like you aren't against maintaining a government-run safety net. The trick is to strike the right balance, and right now the safety net for millions side of the equation is in danger of being run over for the sake of just a few, imo.

I've seen nothing that suggests Obama is about balance other than he keeps saying he has a balanced approach.

 

[MG1968]

Can one receive back more because of a "tax credit" than they actually paid in taxes? Or is the "credit" limited to income, much like you can't take a deduction for more than its corollary contribution to income?

http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96466,00.html

The earned income credit (EITC) is a tax credit for certain people who work and have low wages. A tax credit usually means more money in your pocket. It reduces the amount of tax you owe. The EITC may also give you a refund.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Questions and Answers

Exactly. One can actually make money off taxes.

 

[sjt18]

Here's what conservatives want.

Real cuts in the size and scope of the Federal gov't... as in REAL reductions in year over year spending without the baseline budgeting double speak. How then is it not compromise to only cut the rate of increase from almost $10 trillion over 10 years to about $6 trillion while leaving programs intact?

Real cuts in tax rates and tax complexity. How then is it not compromise to agree to leave taxes like they are?

The uncompromising position is that of the left and especially Obama.

 

[sjt18]

Can one receive back more because of a "tax credit" than they actually paid in taxes?

Yes they can and do. Did you really not know this? I have in laws that do it practically every year.

 

[Cartervol]

I've seen nothing that suggests Obama is about balance other than he keeps saying he has a balanced approach.

Yeah, he's going to screw everybody equally, redistribution thing.

 

[Weezy]

While in college, I got more back in taxes one year than I paid in (not much...like $40.00).

 

[Gramps]

Can one receive back more because of a "tax credit" than they actually paid in taxes? Or is the "credit" limited to income, much like you can't take a deduction for more than its corollary contribution to income?

Example:

A single mother with 2 children and a "deadbeat" dad/dads who does not pay his/their child support.

In order to receive max benefits, she needs to either work 30 hours per week or go to school full time ( with a government grant of course)

She can get the following benefits per month , maybe more.

WIC: $100-200
Families first $100-200
food stamps $300-500
gas allowance to work $5.00 per day = $125.00
medicaid for her and the children that will pay 100% of office visits, prescriptions, hospitalization...

She gets a job at Subway paying $8.00 per hour x 30 hours per week = $240.00
$240 X 52= $12,400.00 per year
10% total withholding $1,240.00
Take home pay = $11,160.00


Let's say income tax withholdings are 5% = $620.00

When she files taxes she will be back her $620.00 plus $4,000-6000 in earned income.

Lets use these figures on the low side and see what she gets per year


Take home pay: $11,160.00
WIC $ 1,200.00
Families First $ 1,200.00
Food stamps $ 3,600.00
gas allowance $ 1,500.00
Tax refund $4,600.00

Total $23,270.00 per year

Oh there is more.

She will get most of the child care paid.
If children are in school, they can eat free
She also can get some help on utilities.
She may qualify for some amount of rental assistance.

Bottom line she works 30 hours per week making sandwiches, she has $23,270.00 in cash or vouchers for food.
Her and her children have great insurance.

Not a bad deal...

We should help people get on their feet in some cases, but there needs to be an end after 2 -4 years max. IMO helping them go to school or get some type of job training is fine but it should not be a 15-20 year way of life.

I would think it is safe to assume 60% could not pass a drug test.

just my 2 cents...

 

[volinbham]

Example:

A single mother with 2 children and a "deadbeat" dad/dads who does not pay his/their child support.

In order to receive max benefits, she needs to either work 30 hours per week or go to school full time ( with a government grant of course)

She can get the following benefits per month , maybe more.

WIC: $100-200
Families first $100-200
food stamps $300-500
gas allowance to work $5.00 per day = $125.00
medicaid for her and the children that will pay 100% of office visits, prescriptions, hospitalization...

She gets a job at Subway paying $8.00 per hour x 30 hours per week = $240.00
$240 X 52= $12,400.00 per year
10% total withholding $1,240.00
Take home pay = $11,160.00


Let's say income tax withholdings are 5% = $620.00

When she files taxes she will be back her $620.00 plus $4,000-6000 in earned income.

Lets use these figures on the low side and see what she gets per year


Take home pay: $11,160.00
WIC $ 1,200.00
Families First $ 1,200.00
Food stamps $ 3,600.00
gas allowance $ 1,500.00
Tax refund $4,600.00

Total $23,270.00 per year

Oh there is more.

She will get most of the child care paid.
If children are in school, they can eat free
She also can get some help on utilities.
She may qualify for some amount of rental assistance.

Bottom line she works 30 hours per week making sandwiches has $23,270.00 in cash or vouchers for food.
Her and her children have great insurance.

Not a bad deal...

We should people get on their feet in some case, but there needs to be an end after 2 -4 years max. IMO helping them go to school or get some type of job training is fine but it should not be a 15-20 year way of life.

I would think it is safe to assume 60% could not pass a drug test.

just my 2 cents...

Yep. What has happened is a slow addition of program on program to a point where we have the above scenario.

Any suggestion that any of the GROWTH in these programs should be cut is considered hating poor people and mean spirited.

 

[Scotty's Flat Top]

Some recent released data from the Pew Research Center is confirming what us libs on the board have been telling you see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, Republicans and junior TP types: there is serious white flight towards the Republican party, there is a permanent underclass of racial minorities and its getting worse, and what is happening is that the wealthy have coopted government via the Republican party in order to maintain the status quo.

Consider:

1) The median wealth of white households is now 20 times (that's right, TWENTY) the median wealth of black households. And its 18 times that of Hispanic households. These represent the largest gap between types since the government began keeping track of the numbers 25 years ago.

2) The GOP has gained on the Democratic party in terms of raw numbers since Obama took office three years ago. But its all amongst white voters. The GOP had a margin of 2 percent amongst white voters in 2008, is now a whopping 13 percent. Amongst black and Hispanic voters, the numbers have stayed the same. In other words, the ENTIRE gain of the GOP has been amongst white voters.

3) The Democrats had a 7 point edge amongst white voters under age 30 three years ago. That has now shifted to an 11 point GOP edge. Amongst whites earning less than $30,000 a year, the Dems had a 15 point edge, now its the GOP by 4 points.


This data confirms that the right wing hate machine at Fox and the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, and Hannity, have successfully convinced white Americans that blacks and Hispanics are lazy and are trying to live off the productivity of whites. Anyone who does not think that a race conflict is on the horizon is deluding themselves. This whole new GOP approach on tax reform of lowering rates and "broadening the base" is code for lowering taxes on whites, and increasing them on minorities. This despite the fact that the minority community has an incredibly low rate of wealth compared to whites, who, while overall have lost wealth in this economy, have lost it at nowhere near the level of the black and Hispanic communities.

Cut entitlements, increase taxes on the poor. That Republican mantra is all about maintaining these gaps. Thing is, the minority communities continue to grow. It is the changing face of the economy and our culture. If we as a nation want to advance and prosper on the whole, then we need to create opportunities for wealth amongst the minority communities, and fast.

Blaming the underclass for this is pointless. And the GOP unspoken mantra that its the welfare babies taking all of your hard earned cash, is tired and stale. Time to grow up and smell the bacon here, folks.

My job is to determine eligibility for state and government funded programs (welfare) I assure you are mistaken on this statement