>>BTW - they all paid the regressive payroll taxes on 100% of their income.<<
And if they stay at that level they will also reap the greatest benefit for the least amount of contribution.
How many married filing jointly pay zero? Hopefully not many. It's another way we penalize responsible behavior in this country and why we have so many single parents. If there was more money in being married we would have fewer cases of cohabitation going on.
But then again, choosing to raise a family outside a two parent household is again a choice. It's too bad more people don't think through the consequences more thoroughly before deciding to go that route or being careless in their reproduction.
Instead of raging at the wealthy (which incidently are more often married and not divorced than not) perhaps they should direct their rage at a governmental system that doesn't do a very efficient job of insuring non-custodial parents actually assume financial responsiblity for their offspring.
But like most things that are subsidized in life when you subsidize something you get more of it--we subsidize single parenthood. We subsidize the poor. Thus, we have more of both.
Wow. So I guess the wealthy have time to clean their own homes, landscape their own yards, babysit their own children (or do they bring them to the office for board meetings?), educate their children....the list goes on.
nd I won't qualify to receive any Social Security because I have the state pension, even though I have paid 26 years into Social Security and still do through my second job.
The working poor contribute quite a lot. Think of all of the janitors, preschool teachers/child care workers, LVNs, migratory farm workers, bus drivers, etc. without whom our world would be a very different place. Society absolutely relies on the working poor.
Just to add one more perspective to the taxing the rich thread: My husband and I have worked extremely hard to get where we are. While we don't want to pay 50% of our income in taxes, I have to say that it would impact us far less to pay that (in a quality of life sense) than it would many, many hardworking people we know who make less. And a tax cut, would be far less important to our well-being or that of our business than to others. For instance, the meaning of a 15K tax cut for someone making 250K per year (which I wish we made) could be small relative to a 2k tax cut for someone making 20K.
I honestly consider taxes necessary to ensure that national security, infrastructure safety, public education, environmental and public health are protected on a broad scale. Now, that doesn't mean I approve of how the government spends tax dollars a lot of the time. But, they provide some public goods that I simply do not think would be provided (especially not equitably) if it was left to private companies. As a person who has, yes, worked hard but also benefited from what others taxes have provided, I do not mind contributing what I am honestly able to. The tax code as it is could be much better for small businesses that employ A LOT of the population in order to ensure that those businesses can grow and employ others. I am talking more about our personal income taxes.
When he originally made the money that he ended up investing, it was taxed at whatever income tax bracket he was in at the time. Then he invests it, and any money that that money made is taxed at 15%. The only investment that grows tax free is IRAs which are capped. You can only put a small amount into them each year.
Pages
>>BTW - they all paid the regressive payroll taxes on 100% of their income.<<
And if they stay at that level they will also reap the greatest benefit for the least amount of contribution.
How many married filing jointly pay zero? Hopefully not many. It's another way we penalize responsible behavior in this country and why we have so many single parents. If there was more money in being married we would have fewer cases of cohabitation going on.
But then again, choosing to raise a family outside a two parent household is again a choice. It's too bad more people don't think through the consequences more thoroughly before deciding to go that route or being careless in their reproduction.
Instead of raging at the wealthy (which incidently are more often married and not divorced than not) perhaps they should direct their rage at a governmental system that doesn't do a very efficient job of insuring non-custodial parents actually assume financial responsiblity for their offspring.
But like most things that are subsidized in life when you subsidize something you get more of it--we subsidize single parenthood. We subsidize the poor. Thus, we have more of both.
Wow. So I guess the wealthy have time to clean their own homes, landscape their own yards, babysit their own children (or do they bring them to the office for board meetings?), educate their children....the list goes on.
<>
Oh, like the foolish investments and the current bailout?
I just wrote my Senators and Representative myself.
<>
How so?
nd I won't qualify to receive any Social Security because I have the state pension, even though I have paid 26 years into Social Security and still do through my second job.
The working poor contribute quite a lot. Think of all of the janitors, preschool teachers/child care workers, LVNs, migratory farm workers, bus drivers, etc. without whom our world would be a very different place. Society absolutely relies on the working poor.
Just to add one more perspective to the taxing the rich thread: My husband and I have worked extremely hard to get where we are. While we don't want to pay 50% of our income in taxes, I have to say that it would impact us far less to pay that (in a quality of life sense) than it would many, many hardworking people we know who make less. And a tax cut, would be far less important to our well-being or that of our business than to others. For instance, the meaning of a 15K tax cut for someone making 250K per year (which I wish we made) could be small relative to a 2k tax cut for someone making 20K.
I honestly consider taxes necessary to ensure that national security, infrastructure safety, public education, environmental and public health are protected on a broad scale. Now, that doesn't mean I approve of how the government spends tax dollars a lot of the time. But, they provide some public goods that I simply do not think would be provided (especially not equitably) if it was left to private companies. As a person who has, yes, worked hard but also benefited from what others taxes have provided, I do not mind contributing what I am honestly able to. The tax code as it is could be much better for small businesses that employ A LOT of the population in order to ensure that those businesses can grow and employ others. I am talking more about our personal income taxes.
<>
Please give me a break.
When he originally made the money that he ended up investing, it was taxed at whatever income tax bracket he was in at the time. Then he invests it, and any money that that money made is taxed at 15%. The only investment that grows tax free is IRAs which are capped. You can only put a small amount into them each year.
Pages