Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

The senate passed the tax hike today

Posted by   + Show Post
What are your thoughts? Is it fair to raise taxes to 39.(something)% on people who earn over $250,000 a year, when almost 50% of Americans paid NO federal taxes last year? How many layoffs and closing business do you predict?
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
by on Nov. 9, 2012 at 4:32 PM
Replies (341-346):
moneysaver6
by Gold Member on Nov. 11, 2012 at 9:51 PM

That's correct.  You said "welfare".  I didn't argue that.  Did you even read what I said (in red below)?

Cash assistance is one form of welfare.  Food stamps is another form of welfare aka public assistance (the terms are interchangable).  All told, there are around 69 different forms of welfare; depending upon the state.

Quoting Luv.My.Kidz:

I specifically said Welfare.... welfare is CASH assistance. If I was talking about foodstamps I would say foodstamps. I didn't.

Quoting moneysaver6:

Welfare and public assistance are the exact same thing.  They are a gross descriptor that encompasses all forms of public assistance/welfare.  I assume when you say that you weren't talking about foodstamps or medicaid that you were referring to cash aid.  Cash aid is a FORM of welfare or public assistance, but it is not the ONLY form of welfare or public assistance.

I never said that you were dumb.  I don't find it productive to call people names.   I see that you do, however.  I hope you know that when you call other people names, you're not making THEM look bad.  You're only making yourself look bad.

Quoting Luv.My.Kidz:

I said Welfare... not Foodstamps or Medicaid.... stop trying to correct me I know what I said. I'm not dumb! People who get Medicaid/Medicare should receive foodstamps for their whole lives if they can't afford medical dumbass! Especially the elderly! Would you want your grandmother to go without food because she has to pay for medical instead?

Quoting moneysaver6:

There is not a limit on all forms of public assistance in all states. People receive food stamps & are on Medicaid for their whole lives in some cases.

Quoting Luv.My.Kidz:

Welfare has time limits... here in Ohio it's 3 years... you also have to go through classes and job placement.... do you live in a cave? Places are not hiring if you are on assistance... did you not read a thing I said?

Quoting Paperfishies:

Uh I just stated that welfare hurts more than it helps. I've said it many times on here, our country needs a giant welfare reform. Welfare needs a time limit, the welfare offices need to be more helpful with finding job placement, etc.
Quoting Luv.My.Kidz:

I think you are sadly misinformed.... Assistance cripples the poor....


moneysaver6
by Gold Member on Nov. 11, 2012 at 10:17 PM

A "refundable credit" is a credit that you can have refunded to you.  What that means is that if someone owes $1,000 in taxes but has a refundable credit of $1,500 that they can get the entire $1500 back.  If it were a non-refundable credit, then they could only get $1,000 of the credit back.

My guess is that eventually, the Democrats will cave to the Republicans demands at the last minute just to keep all of the cuts from expiring at once.

What I THINK should happen is that they should renew all of the cuts for another year, but with a provision that those cuts start getting worked back into use over the course of the year.  For example, first, they could add back in 1/2 of the increase to social security & then 6 months later, add back in the rest.  Next year, they could start reducing the child tax credit by dropping it down.

I just think it will be much too harsh to institute all of the changes at once.  I don't think our economy (or the people of our country) can handle it.

Quoting turtle68:

 what exactly is a refundable credit ?(trying to wrap my head around the terminology) 

Here we have rebates which entitles a taxpayer to a child rebate on top of taxable deductions.  It isnt a cash refund unless you paid tax.  e,g child rebate is 500 per child you paid 300 tax...you will be entitled to 300 refund.  You pay 1500 tax you are entitled to 500 refund.  If you pay no tax...you dont get the 500 dollars.

I thought credits were like our rebates....but now Im not too sure.

What do you think is a compromise worthy of passing the Congress?

Can Obama stop any tax cuts at all?  If they dont allow the other tax reforms to pass then does that mean he cant extend any of them or vice virca...cut any of them?

Quoting moneysaver6:

Yes, that's correct.  The biggest tax credit to be affected (and the one that will hit families the hardest) is the child tax credit.  If the current amount of $1K per child for the first 3 children is not extended, then it will drop down to $500 per child for the first 3 children.  Since that's a refundable credit, that will hit families hard.  That change alone could cost a family with 3 children $1500/year.

Yes, you are correct that division in Congress is why the tax cuts & credits for those making under $250K/year hasn't yet been extended.  As in years past (2010 & 2011), the Republicans are refusing to approve the extension for those making under $250K/year if those making over $250K/year do not also have them extended for them.  They did this in each of the previous 2 years and ended up winning so I expect them to hold on to it until the end again this year...and for them to extend at least most of the cuts again as in years past.

Quoting turtle68:

 so when they say the Bush tax cuts....they are including ALL tax reforms (credits etc) that happened while Bush was in office?

Taking the credits is a big deal because it does affect families in relation to a higher refund which does turn over the economy at the end of the fiscal year.

and from what Im reading...that is because of division in Congress?

Quoting moneysaver6:

No. The middle class starts at around $50K. The tax cuts affected every American who pays income taxes. If they are not extended for the middle class (technically, that refers to those making under $250K/year), then the impact will be huge.

Included in those tax cuts was an increade in income limits for the AMT. If that's not also continued, then those making as little as $42K/year will be subject to the AMT.

Plus, the child tax credit is set to begin reducing along with these tax cuts expiring. That one move alone would cost a family of 5 with 3 children $1500/year.

We're not just talking about those making over $250K/year here. We're talking about all taxpayers.

Quoting turtle68:

 Is middle class a family with an income of 250K per year?  I was under the impression that the taxcuts were given to those earning over 250K IMO that is wealthy....not super rich, but certainly better than middle class.

Quoting moneysaver6:

The tax cuts didn't just benefit the wealthy. The middle class will take a HUGE hit if they aren't extended for them.
Quoting sweet-a-kins:



AMBG825
by on Nov. 12, 2012 at 4:33 AM

 She'll get nowhere if all she is going to do is read half a sentence. She says that is all she read.

Quoting LauraKW:

SSDD, as you have probably already figured out you will get nowhere with her. It's all about deflection and insults with no substance.

Quoting AMBG825:

 Are you seriously a grown up? How the hell did you make it to adulthood without being able to read.


 


Quoting SunshneDaydream:


"IF I told people on welfare that IF they can afford..."  There are two IFs in that sentence. The first IF was followed by a THEN but the second IF wasn't.  IF they can afford beer, cigs, etc THEN...what?  They shouldn't get welfare?  Is that what you were trying to say?  I agree with that.  Or were you saying "IF I told people on welfare THAT (the "that" being one of the things I said in my post...which one?) [THEN] I would have my ass reamed..."


I have a feeling I will agree with your point once you stop being so vague as I am not as liberal on this subject as you probably think I am.  I do feel people who *deserve* assistance should get assistance but I also think there should be strict guidelines like time limits, drug tests, financial counseling, etc.  


Quoting AMBG825:


 It most certainly was a complete sentence. It was an if/then statement. It was perfectly clear. If I say this ...people get pissed. But they can say the same thing and it's perfectly acceptable.


 


The statement I made has nothing to do with who pays what. It had to do with the attitudes people hold. And you are illustrating the hypocrisy I was talking about beautifully.


Quoting SunshneDaydream:


I read your whole post.  Multiple times.  I'm still not sure what you're saying.  What I quoted you had written as a whole sentence but it wasn't complete.  It began as an "if...then..." sentence, but there was no "then".  I'm not understanding how poor people can use the argument of the rich affording taxes and the poor not affording taxes as a way to get more money?  Maybe instead of dragging this thread on and on and on, you could summarize and clarify what you originally tried to say.


Quoting AMBG825:

So you read half a sentence and think you're intelligent. There are several more sentences after that half a sentence you read.


Maybe instead of money the government can hand out free copies of hooked on phonics.



Quoting SunshneDaydream:


What you actually wrote was "If I told someone on welfare that if they can afford cigarettes, beer, candy, soda, etc, I would have my ass reamed for being selfish and self centered", which wasn't really a complete sentence, but I gathered you meant that you don't believe that people should receive welfare if they can afford those things.  I agree with you.  I'm concerned with the people who DON'T spend their money on things like that and still can't afford to get by without that tax return.  


Quoting AMBG825:


 Read what I actually wrote. You are illustrating EXACTLY what I said.



Quoting SunshneDaydream:



 I don't believe that's true.  The wealthy should pay a tax rate they can afford.  The poor shouldn't have to pay the same tax rate as the wealthy because they can't afford it, and have more important things to worry about, like eating and keeping a roof over their heads.  I'm still not seeing they hypocrisy...



Quoting AMBG825:



That paying what you can afford only applies to certain people.



Quoting SunshneDaydream:



 No you really didn't.  What is it?



Quoting AMBG825:



I made my point. Thanks



 



Quoting SunshneDaydream:



 Yes, exactly.  If you can afford extravagent luxuries, you can afford taxes.  Where's the hypocrisy?  Your reply didn't make a lot of sense so maybe I'm just not understanding...



I think what you're saying is that if people on welfare can afford beer/cigs/junk food/etc they shouldn't get welfare (your sentence wasn't complete so I wasn't sure what you were saying) but yes, I agree with you, they shouldn't.  But a goddamn lot of people need welfare and DON'T spend their money on frivolous things.



Quoting AMBG825:



 This argument is so hypocritical. If I told someone on welfare that if they can afford cigarettes, beer, candy, soda etc I would have my ass reamed for being selfish and self centered. But the welfare recipients can use the same damn argument to get more money. Oh you can afford to pay more so you should. Well if you can afford luxuries, then you can afford to pay taxes.



Quoting SunshneDaydream:



Everybody does pay taxes, unless they live in a cave.  True, people who don't even make enough money to survive don't have to pay income taxes, but they still pay sales tax, gas tax, and property tax.  



To the OP, yes, it's fair.  Wealthy people can afford higher taxes, poor people can't afford ANY *income* taxes.  



Quoting Healthystart30:

39% taxes is a lot! But no I think everyone should pay taxes, people should definitely not be getting money out that they never put in!





 



 



 



 



 



 



 






 




 

 






 

AMBG825
by on Nov. 12, 2012 at 4:34 AM

 It would go a lot further if you would read more than half a sentence.

Quoting SunshneDaydream:

This thread is entirely too long and has gone nowhere.  All you have to do is explain what you meant and we can continue to debate, otherwise, I'm done.  I'm sorry I didn't understand your statement. 

And you're the one who isn't acting like a grown-up with your petty insults.  I'm over this. 

Quoting AMBG825:

 Are you seriously a grown up? How the hell did you make it to adulthood without being able to read.

 

Quoting SunshneDaydream:

"IF I told people on welfare that IF they can afford..."  There are two IFs in that sentence. The first IF was followed by a THEN but the second IF wasn't.  IF they can afford beer, cigs, etc THEN...what?  They shouldn't get welfare?  Is that what you were trying to say?  I agree with that.  Or were you saying "IF I told people on welfare THAT (the "that" being one of the things I said in my post...which one?) [THEN] I would have my ass reamed..."

I have a feeling I will agree with your point once you stop being so vague as I am not as liberal on this subject as you probably think I am.  I do feel people who *deserve* assistance should get assistance but I also think there should be strict guidelines like time limits, drug tests, financial counseling, etc.  

Quoting AMBG825:

 It most certainly was a complete sentence. It was an if/then statement. It was perfectly clear. If I say this ...people get pissed. But they can say the same thing and it's perfectly acceptable.

 

The statement I made has nothing to do with who pays what. It had to do with the attitudes people hold. And you are illustrating the hypocrisy I was talking about beautifully.

Quoting SunshneDaydream:

I read your whole post.  Multiple times.  I'm still not sure what you're saying.  What I quoted you had written as a whole sentence but it wasn't complete.  It began as an "if...then..." sentence, but there was no "then".  I'm not understanding how poor people can use the argument of the rich affording taxes and the poor not affording taxes as a way to get more money?  Maybe instead of dragging this thread on and on and on, you could summarize and clarify what you originally tried to say.

Quoting AMBG825:

So you read half a sentence and think you're intelligent. There are several more sentences after that half a sentence you read.


Maybe instead of money the government can hand out free copies of hooked on phonics.


Quoting SunshneDaydream:

What you actually wrote was "If I told someone on welfare that if they can afford cigarettes, beer, candy, soda, etc, I would have my ass reamed for being selfish and self centered", which wasn't really a complete sentence, but I gathered you meant that you don't believe that people should receive welfare if they can afford those things.  I agree with you.  I'm concerned with the people who DON'T spend their money on things like that and still can't afford to get by without that tax return.  

Quoting AMBG825:

 Read what I actually wrote. You are illustrating EXACTLY what I said.


Quoting SunshneDaydream:


 I don't believe that's true.  The wealthy should pay a tax rate they can afford.  The poor shouldn't have to pay the same tax rate as the wealthy because they can't afford it, and have more important things to worry about, like eating and keeping a roof over their heads.  I'm still not seeing they hypocrisy...


Quoting AMBG825:


That paying what you can afford only applies to certain people.


Quoting SunshneDaydream:


 No you really didn't.  What is it?


Quoting AMBG825:


I made my point. Thanks


 


Quoting SunshneDaydream:


 Yes, exactly.  If you can afford extravagent luxuries, you can afford taxes.  Where's the hypocrisy?  Your reply didn't make a lot of sense so maybe I'm just not understanding...


I think what you're saying is that if people on welfare can afford beer/cigs/junk food/etc they shouldn't get welfare (your sentence wasn't complete so I wasn't sure what you were saying) but yes, I agree with you, they shouldn't.  But a goddamn lot of people need welfare and DON'T spend their money on frivolous things.


Quoting AMBG825:


 This argument is so hypocritical. If I told someone on welfare that if they can afford cigarettes, beer, candy, soda etc I would have my ass reamed for being selfish and self centered. But the welfare recipients can use the same damn argument to get more money. Oh you can afford to pay more so you should. Well if you can afford luxuries, then you can afford to pay taxes.


Quoting SunshneDaydream:


Everybody does pay taxes, unless they live in a cave.  True, people who don't even make enough money to survive don't have to pay income taxes, but they still pay sales tax, gas tax, and property tax.  


To the OP, yes, it's fair.  Wealthy people can afford higher taxes, poor people can't afford ANY *income* taxes.  


Quoting Healthystart30:

39% taxes is a lot! But no I think everyone should pay taxes, people should definitely not be getting money out that they never put in!



 


 


 


 


 


 


 



 


 


 






 

Rowdys.Mommy
by Bronze Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 8:53 AM
Oilfield and I say non normal because of the crazy hours and abnormal pay.

Quoting LauraKW:

Not necessarily - what type of non-normal job is he in now?



Quoting Rowdys.Mommy:

At this moment we are being taxed at 30% exactly and we do not make 250000 a year. Also when Dh went from a normal job to what he does now he ended up owing a crazy amount in taxes because of the pay increase. I would assume the only way that would happen that he went into a different tax bracket





Quoting stacymomof2:

That's not how taxes work.  People are all taxes at the same brackets at every level, the rates go up ONLY on the money you make in that tax bracket.

No one is paying 36% in income taxes, and that is not because of write offs.   EVERYONES first 17 thousand is tax free.  Then EVERYONE pays the next level of taxes at the same rate, and so on.  If they raise the rate after $250 thou and above, it's ONLY the amount OVER 250 thou that is taxed at a higher rate.

It is impossible to make more money in income and pay more taxes than your raise.  They will not be taking home $125 thousand or $150 thousand.  Even assuming they couldn't take anything except a standard deduction the rate is more like 20%.

I just typed in a taxable income of 250,000 on this tax calulator, it came up with a 24% tax rate.

"So you’re annoyed that big bonus knocked you into the 33% tax bracket? Well, if it's any consolation, you don't have to pay the 33% tax rate onallyour income. That's because you're only taxed at the 33% rate on income beyond a certain threshold — $178,650 for a single filer in 2012. Those who are married, filing jointly don't reach the 33% mark until $217,450. Income up to that point is taxed at the lower rates of 10%, 15%, 25% and 28%. So, your average tax rate is actually much lower than the highest rate you pay. Here's how it works.

For example, say, you're single and have taxable income of $185,000 in 2012. And let's say your gross income was $210,000. Well, your income up to $8,700 is taxed at 10%. From $8,701 to $35,350 is taxed at 15%. From $35,351 up to $85,650, it's taxed at 25%. From $85,651 to $178,650, the rate is 28%. And you'll pay 33% on the remaining $6,350. (The top rate, 35%, kicks in at $379,150 for singles.) In this case, your average tax rate (the proportion of gross income you'll pay in taxes) is “only” about 22%.

Plug your own numbers into our calculator to find your own average tax rate and see how it changes at different income levels." http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance/taxes/whats-your-average-tax-rate-9548/

Quoting Rowdys.Mommy:

Where did I say they were lazy? I didn't I just said their are ways to make more that everyone could find. I'm all for straight across tax rates? Should it be 39% no I don't think so that is too much maybe 20% is a better number.



At 250000 being taxed 39% I would only take home $125000. That seems like quite a pay decrease to me one that makes all that working up to get that high paying job instead if staying hapoy in a lower paying one seem pointless!








Quoting sweet-a-kins:

 If you are making $250,000 you can buy a house plenty big and still pay your taxes





someone making $50,000 cannot get a nice home in a nice area pay 39% of taxes AND feed their family





I know you people don't CARE about people like that or their children





But I think a SOLDIER, TEACHER , SOCIAL WORKER....are not lazy people like YOU say...they are hard working people who deserve to be able to take care of their family





Quoting Rowdys.Mommy:

What's the point in working hard and making more if you don't reap the benefits and our home is not some ginormous extravagant home. What we have suits us and our family although we are about to outgrow it





 





Posted on CafeMom Mobile
stormcris
by Christy on Nov. 12, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Raising taxes to 39% is not the same as raising tax liability. How much was tax liability actually increased?

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)