jracer98 Posted April 16, 2011 Report Share Posted April 16, 2011 Thanks for a different point of view. (A west Texas expression---->) I am really red assed at "corporate America" having the ability to pay nothing. I don't begrudge them understanding and using strategy within the existing rules to do so...that's actually a lot like racing. In my narrow view, the middle level guy (me) appears to pay almost all the taxes jay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwmbishop Posted April 16, 2011 Report Share Posted April 16, 2011 Absolutely agreeable that its not so much how we create our federal revenue - its how it's spent that creates the problem. Thats the same tenet that aplies to each of us as individuals - why should corporate (with their huge profits not being taxed as "executive exit salaries held in trust") or government be held to any different standard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwmbishop Posted April 16, 2011 Report Share Posted April 16, 2011 In my narrow view, the middle level guy (me) appears to pay almost all the taxes jay It sure seems that way. But look at it in the "effective tax rate" scenario. Take the total tax on your 1040 series return (without reagrd to self employment tax) and divide it by the total gross income. That percentage is what is called effective tax rate. Anyone with under 36K and married is effective 0 rate due to standard deductions. the average in America is 18%. Add to that the 16.7% se tax (wage earners only pay half "corporate america" ponies up the other half) And Americans easily pay 24% of their income in tax - before adding state, sales, property and rendition taxes. The max avg is estimated around 35 (higher in some states lower in others). Still far better than Canada (45), Au (48) or UK (53). Last year looking at the top 10% of gross earners filing 1040 - they accounted for 40% of the total revenue from 1040 series returns. The bottom 30% paid nothing. So yes that spread 60% of the burden across the higher end of the middle class. The lowest gross income in that top 10 was over 600K. Yes tax code alowances are such that they can get their taxable income down to under 250 (if you made more than 265 TAXABLE last year you are a top ten). But thats the gotta have money to make money thing and that why the tiers (brackets) are so important. The effective rate on a million gross with average use of deductions and defferals is around 30%. Geting aggressive and spending to make tax breaks (which fuels the economy) gets it down to 25. Them aint tax breaks for the wealthy. I feel thats actually due the wealthy - in exchange for them not hording their money, living off the interest and letting middle america fend for itself. Unfortunately this is also the "pool" where we get most of our politicians from. Its much like playing poker - if nobody is risking the pots stay small and nobody wins more thay they lose. But in defense of that - would you rather work for a stable company or one that could fold up and go out of business tonite? Our tax code relies heavily on the upper middle class becuase they are more reliable. The lower upper class is trust funders (think Paris Hilton) and the lower middle and lower classes are just too unreliable an income stream for revenue dependancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jracer98 Posted April 16, 2011 Report Share Posted April 16, 2011 Our tax code relies heavily on the upper middle class becuase they are more reliable. That sounds alot like the Willie Sutton (bank robber) line of "...because that's where the money is". got to get back to work---> see ya down the road jay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KISS_Racing Posted April 16, 2011 Report Share Posted April 16, 2011 Ok, seriously.... My Border Patrol & Homeland connections tell me that with the budget cuts they have been forced to buy used equipment.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwmbishop Posted April 16, 2011 Report Share Posted April 16, 2011 sounds a lot like Mr Sutton was a smart man..... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hray Posted April 17, 2011 Report Share Posted April 17, 2011 In my narrow view, the middle level guy (me) appears to pay almost all the taxes jay .......... (wage earners only pay half "corporate america" ponies up the other half) And Americans easily pay 24% of their income in tax ......... And who pays for the half that corp america ponies up. Any one who buys from corp america, so in effect, we pay it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txtom Posted April 17, 2011 Report Share Posted April 17, 2011 If the government would stop spending what it doesn’t have would we be in this predicament. I think our government agencies are programmed to spend every dime they have for fear of not receiving the same amount in the next budget year. That was correct in my Military years. We actually had more than one budget area, and each had a pool of money. Let's say I had a 5,000 per year budget for office supplies-computer paper, printer ink, etc. Now, last year, I only spent $4200 of that. This coming year, my budget is $4200, and they don't care that prices went up. So, half way through this budget year, i will be swiping ink pens and borrowing stuff from wherever I can to get through the end of the year. That thinking had people buying whatever they could to keep their budget number up. In my shops in the USAF, I had a big vault room to shoot X-rays in. Since most of you x-rays were on the flightline, this room became storage. I once had 5 cases of toilet paper they bought to spend their budget money, and made me store it for them. That was 5 cases of 144 rolls each, or enough to keep Congress clean for 3 hours. We became experts at fixing and repairing stuff, and creating ways to get around the "there is no money for that" mentality. And don't leave that ink pen out, or I "accidently" took it with me. On another note, I currently have 25 percent of my primary income withheld in taxes, and I claim single "0" on my Military retirement pension, and my wife claims the same on her lower income job. I wrote my several hundred dollar check to cover what I still owed to Uncle Sam last week. I had an almost $2000 dollar swing from getting money back in 2009 to paying in 2010 on about the same amount of income. I still ain't figured that one out, amd I am not sure I want to try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwmbishop Posted April 17, 2011 Report Share Posted April 17, 2011 I had an almost $2000 dollar swing from getting money back in 2009 to paying in 2010 on about the same amount of income. I still ain't figured that one out Last year when consumer spending dropped again Obama pressed Congress for a stimulus. This was accomplished by adjusting the withholding tables to increase weekly takehome. All tables were adjusted - but anyone using the 0/single strategy was hit the hardest. Tax rates did not get adjusted - only the prepayments thru withholding. A 500 per week gross in the 0 single table saw a weekly takehome increase of about 7.00 (that is a 7.00 per week lower prepayment of tax - which of course decreases the refund or raises the balance due). This was the "stimulus" to generate more consumer spending. A rather dumb move if you ask me as the larger refund from those who use their tax return as a savings account has a ton more spending power than the trickle in from increased takehome. But then this is the same government who budgets by historic spending only as you eloquently described - I was in a river and delta warfare training command - we used up our budget "surplus" to have additional "training sessions" on the Colorado River - basically a party weekend! Unfortunately we saw a lot of folks hurt by the "fix" - especially painful when on combined SS and wages, retirement and wages, or fixed income with witholding and even more so when at the top of (or moving up) a bracket. People who's divorce became final ended up owing a bunch! Sadly the Finance Commitee pointed this out to congress prior to passing - but their were earmarks attached and pressure from Obama that made them ignore these ramifications and charge full speed ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KISS_Racing Posted April 17, 2011 Report Share Posted April 17, 2011 Ok, for real this time... I hear there was a sighting last night at a certain facility. Said to have them grouped together like a covey of quail... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txtom Posted April 17, 2011 Report Share Posted April 17, 2011 So where did they end up? Is it some kind of big secret no one is supposed to know? They are just lights........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 I-37. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwmbishop Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Ok, for real this time... I hear there was a sighting last night at a certain facility. Said to have them grouped together like a covey of quail... Quail live on the ground - what good are lights laying on the ground? Landing markers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiTech Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Quail live on the ground - what good are lights laying on the ground? Landing markers? they are laid out in inscripted messages to alien.s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHigdon Posted April 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Jaime, we didn't get a chance to make it out to I-37 last night, did they have the lights setup and working? Had they setup anymore in the pits (which really need some light)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Jaime, we didn't get a chance to make it out to I-37 last night, did they have the lights setup and working? Had they setup anymore in the pits (which really need some light)? I saw some they had put on top of the water towers pointing into the pits. I was on the track and it seemed a little brighter but that may have been because of all of the cold medicine I was taking all day...LOL...I can't speak for the the pits either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford27 Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 flat tax rate for everyone One man earning 50K would pay 5 leaving 45 to support one person with. One man earning 50K with wife and four kids would also pay 5 leaving 45 to feed, clothe, educate and entertain FIVE people with. One man earning 50K requiring the purchase of 20K worth of supplies, tools and fuel would pay 5K leaving 25K to support however many are in his family. No deduction to invest money in job creating business venture? No deduction for renting that shop, or the tools you need to earn the money? Same rate on service earned income and sales income with an inventory... Are you nuts? I can see your a smart tax guy obviously more knowledgeable than me ,but I'll have to disagree with your thinking here. I believe the man with one dependent shouldnt be penalized because the man with 5 dependents couldnt keep it in his pants. He made the choice and if it makes his life harder (or his dependents) that should be on him. Not everyone else. I do understand your second point, and it's a good valid point that shows the complexity between business and personal taxes. My only argument might be that with lower tax rates you wouldnt need tax inncentives, but I know thats arguable as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jracer98 Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 In my narrow view, the middle level guy (me) appears to pay almost all the taxes jay added-----> http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/w...ndex.htm?hpt=T2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwmbishop Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 In my narrow view, the middle level guy (me) appears to pay almost all the taxes jay added-----> http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/w...ndex.htm?hpt=T2 If you read and digest the article - it breaks down to two big key points. First "tax breaks for economic activities the government favors" - this includes home mortgage interest etc... This is social engineering that caters to special groups. And I agree 1000% that its is not "right" - however it IS legal (constitutionally speaking). The second point is "often misunderstood or mistated" - people use statistics much like drunkards use lamposts - to support their position rather than illuminate the issue. Obama's tax return - gross income 1.7 mil, tax bill 453,770 = effective rate of 28% (includes SE tax) Bidens tax return, gross income 379,000, tax bill 86,626, effective rate = 23% (includes SE tax) My tax return gross income 209,000 tax bill 38,203 effective rate = 18% (includes SE tax) Unamed w2 only client of mine, gross income 150750 tax bill 15352, effective rate = 10% (includes only 50% of SE tax). unamed client gross income 17000, tax bill ZERO, but gets 3562 Earned income credit "refunded" - effective tax rate NEGATIVE 20%! I do not see any "tax breaks for the wealthy" in those numbers - the effective rate is very comparable to the power to "buy" deductions. And buying those deductions almost always does more for the community than it does for the taxpayer! point in case - the deduction of 250,000 charitable on Obama's return is a tax savings of less than 97500. - even though he is in the 35% bracket. Taxable incomes over 250K phase out and reduce the schedule a deductions! So tell ya what - you give ME 250k and I'll give you 97500. Fair enough tranaction? No? Then obviously those tax breaks for the wealthy are not as wild and despicable as our media (with most authors square in the middle of the 48% that pay NO tax) would make it seem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwmbishop Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 I believe the man with one dependent shouldnt be penalized because the man with 5 dependents couldnt keep it in his pants. I see so the man and wife supporting his parents with alzheimers and a brother paralysed in a car crash should be raped by the IRS. Or the family that adopted four crack babies rather than let them languish in foster care at the expense of the rest of us taxpayers should also be penalized? (both real scenarios that I know of) As I said ya gotta think it all the way through - not just jump at the first solution you see. With no taxes there is no government - with no government there is anarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hansen99 Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Hey jwmbishop wanna sponsor my car ! ! ! ! just asking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwmbishop Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Hey jwmbishop wanna sponsor my car ! ! ! ! just asking I have been very interested in sponsoring a car. I have even wanted to sponsor races. However I have contractual territory limitations on where I can advertise. My territories have no race tracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hray Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Hey jwmbishop wanna sponsor my car ! ! ! ! just asking I have been very interested in sponsoring a car. I have even wanted to sponsor races. However I have contractual territory limitations on where I can advertise. My territories have no race tracks. haven't heard that one before! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwmbishop Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 haven't heard that one before! The drawback to being a franchisee - even if my contract did not say I can't advertise in any media originating outside of my territory - my ad dollars would draw business to the franchisee in the area - not me so would be of little value. Some McDonald's Franchisees in So Cal lost their franchises over the same type of out of territory advertisng last year (they sponsored a dragster at Pomona while they had metro Los Angeles territories). It's still in court. A few years back a Meineke Muffkller Franchisee lost his - but his lawsuit was succesful and he got 5 years net in damages. Of course it ended his growth as well - at least in that line of business. And a franchise is like a car - it doesn't really pay you until the loans are paid off - then the longer you keep it the more it pays! And then how "ordinary and necessary" is advertising in houston or austin for a business with 200 locations closer to the area than mine? The IRS would throw a fit and call it a hobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiTech Posted April 19, 2011 Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 I do not see any "tax breaks for the wealth... hmmm ......does GE ring a bell .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.