1st check of the new year

Stop spending.

The end. :up:

 

Uh-uh, D'ern.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/06/Obama-Boehner-tired-spending

 

Holey shit! You have just stumbled on the one thing that the politicians have not considered yet!

But seriously, I am not sure why the elimination of deficit spending has not gained more traction. But you can't pander to no jobber entitlement fucktards if you don't give them free stuff at the expense of the taxpayer.
It does suck that the newly elected Prez has to live up to the obligations of the guy that screwed up the last 4 years though...

 

Neither party wants to stop spending. Whether the money goes to weapons or votes, Lockheed or LaRhonda, it still just goes.

 

I think it's 3.8%. So you're saying that a jump from 15% to 18.8% on unearned income of households that make more than $250,000 (it's individuals at $200,000)...is a huge burden?

Don't answer; it's not worth it.

How? One of your clients is going to notice a few thousand more in the number on his return?

He's more right than you are. You're trying to win with miniscule technicalities. The gist of his argument is still the correct one.

Dammit, I'm being yelled at that I have to leave to watch some Holy War. Hold on.

 

A grand or two a month in additional taxes is real money, especially for a small business owner who's business income is taxed at the higher personal rates.

 

That's not unearned income--so it's not the subject of that tax or what we're talking about here.

 

So if I have an adjusted gross income of in excess of $250k from my business(es) and unearned income on top of that of $100k (dividend income on my investments lets say) I don't pay the higher rate under the revised code?

 

You're a lot more enjoyable when you're calling people fart-licking dung beetles.

All this serious and *marginally* polite posting has me thinking your New Year's Resolution will be short-lived.

 

I think you might want to look at the data yourself. Not only are you wrong on the detail information, but you (and Mittens), miss so far on the general point as to be one of those people you just ignore.

We'll take them one at a time.

First, you're talking about the Tax Policy Center, not an I.R.S. promulgation.

Secondly, it's not individual filers, it's filers and non-filers. So basically, citizens. Another word for that is everybody.

Thirdly, it's 46.4something percent. You want to argue technicalities, get them right. You're supposed to be an accountant, right?

So what we have here is not the I.R.S., but a private entity saying that about 46% of all Americans pay no Federal income tax. Poor Mittens can't even do rounding good.

I like the Tax Policy Center okay, and I'll stipulate their conclusion. Only about 46% of all American citizens pay an income tax.

But that's just the specific tax classification defined as 'income' tax. It leaves out 'payroll' tax, which is most certainly a tax on income, and which every single American with a job pays from dollar one, no ifs, ands, buts, or exceptions. In fact, 80% of Americans pay more in that income tax than they do in the actual income tax you're trying to hold up as an issue--and the break is somewhere around $100,000 per year, if memory serves.

So what we have is that not only are you either unaware of or purposely lying about the specifics, you're wrong on the basic point as well, which is that almost every working American pays income tax. Every single one.

And let's talk about those 54% that don't pay just an income tax. You know who they are? High-school kids and retirees. A lot of them still pay payroll income taxes, but no, don't pay the income tax itself. So what you're pissed about is that college students and people receiving Social Security don't pay the income tax.

I thought no one hated retirees more than me. Congratulations, you win. I'm not particularly fond of college students (at least the ones that aren't girls in bikinis) either, but I guess you win there too. Those bastards.

But sure, there are still some poor people at whom you can direct your impotent rage, and you mention them:

Well, I'd argue that the real purpose is to incent the recipient towards employment, but whatever, sure. Refunding FICA collections can be a big deal at $18k/year.

No, they still contribute, just some of them may receive some money back if they're broke enough.

To save time, and working just from memory, the maximum you can get from the EITC (and no one gets the maximum) is about $5,700. If you have three kids. And if you make no more than $16,000-something. So we'll round up and say they're taking home a total of $23,000/year.

Those greedy fucks.

Yes, we can argue that they shouldn't have three kids, or should have been born smarter, or picked better parents that instilled a stronger work ethic, or any number of other things. But I'm coming back just to the the numbers: $16,000/year earned. A tiny percentage of them will indeed get something less than $6,000 from the Feds, for a total of $23,000. With three kids.

I can't hate them for trying putting themselves in that position any more than I can hate your parents for unleashing you on the world, and that seems to be every bit the loser move of the first group. It's just too hard an existence. If some of my tax goes to a single mom to help her with her kids after she works full time at some scut job, I'm okay with it.

And all this is just the theoretical maximum. The far more common scenario is the $1,200 EITC refund to the lady with one kid making $25,000/year. So she still paid, on a net basis. She's still a taxpayer, she still has skin in the game, or whatever trite phrase the 'tards are mewling in this week. In fact, a lot of those people pay in more as percentage than the rich do.

So...you're still wrong, in just about every way you can be wrong about this.

If you want to try again later after the game, you've got a few hours to Google and come up with some better arguments.

 

From what sort of account is the $100,000 earned? Just a regular brokerage account at Scottrade?

 

Non-qualified.

 

I was not talking about the Tax Policy Center. The IRS publishes statistical information on its website.

The IRS in its statistical publications classifies the income tax statistics into "Business" and "Individual" and a couple minor irrelevant categories. I was using the word based on how the information is presented by the source. If you simply said filers, that would also include businesses and other entities and is much less precise.

I said nearly, which that amount is.

IRS

I was specifically talking about the income tax, but as you have an issue with employment taxes being included, no, not all, not every single one pay those taxes either. Refundable credits can and often do refund more money that was paid in income and employment taxes combined

I don't hate them, but I still think they should be directly impacted by the spending our government does. They don't have skin in the game when they are not net tax payers. I think even retirees should have to cut a small check to the government every year so they can see what they are voting for.

Your example is wrong, the single mother making $25,000 is not a net tax payer. Doing a back of the napkin calc, she would have had about $1,400 in employment taxes withheld, and would have owed $870 in federal income taxes. The child tax credit would have wiped that out and the EIC would have refunded her $1,700, exceeding her employment taxes collected. She is not a net tax payer.

The top 1% pays an average rate of 24% and the top 10% an average rate 18.1%. There is no way any of the groups you mention above pay at higher average rates.

I don't hate these people at all, but I do think they should contribute at least nominally as citizens.

 

And no group should get a "refund" which exceeds the amount of payments paid in.

 

OMG, I received my first statement of the year and my FICA deduction is way up!

The Horror...

Will I be able to continue to over tip my bartender?



Yes:up:

 

try it on minimum wage.

 

That's a nice place to be. :up:

 

You're the one that said the cut was stupid. Which is it?

 

Having a job and getting a paycheck isn't nice?

 

Cutting funding without cutting the program is always stupid as far as being fiscally responsible. I will grant that in terms of the election it was a good strategy.