Upcoming Tax Rebates

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Don't blame me for the idea behind this "economic stimulus". Some economic genius in this administration figured out these limits that would maximize the consumer spending of it. I actually think that NOBODY should be getting this rebate but that's beyond reality at this point.
 
"the fact that you get a deduction for your kids isn't good enough?"



never got a penny of deduction from my kids. Those deductions phased out just as quickly as the rebate check.
 
I sense some of you honestly feel that people making 150K to $300K should pay more than fair share of their tax. I don't have a problem paying the same % of tax. I do have a problem not getting any deductions out of my kids, or not getting any rebates from my kids or not being able to contribute to Roth IRAs. Little things like that adds up. Just because my wife and I invested in good education, and worked hard, doesn't mean we should pay extra tax. I do consider phased out child deduction, no rebates, and phased out Roth IRA contribution an extra unfair tax.
 
Green Cactus, you didn't need to mention that talking about which quintiles of the population pay what percentage of tax receipts confused you for me to know that you are basically innumerate. Your suggestion that having to pay a larger percentage of your income on a larger base already demonstrated your lack of understanding of how numbers work.





Instead of wishing that you could complain about making what you consider to be too much money, why don't you did what I (and many others both on and off this forum did) and work harder.





On a side note, I have seen recent conversations here about "prestigious" high schools like Uni High. I can't help but laugh to myself when I see these conversations. Though I have no doubt that the people engaged in these conversations are well meaning and only want the best for their children, my own experience in public school tells me that the student is far more important than the school. I am a consultant, and have been fortunate enough to work on some very high end projects. As someone who only has a single Master's degree, I am one of the least educated people working in my capacity on my project. I have seen quite a few people with Doctorates come and go simply because they didn't have what it takes to create the technologies we are creating. (DARPA has described the database I am architecting as the most complex distributed system ever conceived.) Though I have an MBA and a BS in CS, I also have a GED. That's right, I am a high school dropout. I dropped out before I took the SAT test, so there was no path through the Ivy league for me. In fact, with the exception of 7th and 8th grade, I went to a different school every year of my public schooling.





If you don't like your lot in life in this country, it's clearly a sign that you aren't working hard enough. Don't try to make up for your own inadequacies by taking things I worked hard for.
 
IRVINE123, I don't know if it will stand, but President Bush was able to get a change related to Roth IRAs enacted in his tax cuts during his first term. Starting in 2010, all income limits for contributions to Roth IRAs will disappear. In addition to opening the plan up to the more productive members of society, you will be able to move monies from your traditional IRA or 401K into a Roth during 2010 and 2011. You will have to pay taxes on any money you move over, and you will be given 2 years to pay those taxes, but you will be able to invest on a tax free basis in the near future.





Unless part of the "tax the rich" crowd decides that a level playing field is unfair...
 
The removal of the cap on Roth IRAs is going to be huge for the wealthy. Tax revenues will be great in 2010 because of all the conversions. If there is any tax change I hope remains permanent, it is this one.
 
As of now, there are no plans to put a cap back on. (Please realize that the cap is the income cap. There will still be a limit to contributions) But it won't just benefit individuals, it will benefit the economy overall.
 
"...people making 150K to $300K...pay more than fair share of their tax."



The Alternative Minimum Tax ensures exactly that.



Higher income, albeit still very middle class families, first get to calculate their taxes like the everyone and then the AMT law says that their just not paying "enough" tax and then deductions are disallowed wholesale. This law was designed to ensure that the rich paid their fair share but because the income threasholds aren't indexed to inflation, wages or any other factor, it now affects the middle class and it totally sucks. Indexing income for AMT purposes is another tax change I'd like to see.
 
> Indexing income for AMT purposes is another tax change I'd like to see.





Why add more complexity to a tax system that needs to be scrapped? My personal preference is for a consumption tax to replace the income tax. It would solve the problem of people in this country not saving enough money, and you would also be able to tax the underground economy. Of course, enacting a consumption tax would require repeal of the 16th amendment and enactment of a new amendment that wasn't based on earnings.





The best system that is actually doable would be a flat tax.
 
Anytime the government purports to give anyone money, it is not giving anyone anything. It is stealing through inflation and it is stealing the most from the poor and those on fixed incomes. In case you haven't benn reading, the federal government is in debt and it does not have any "money" to give anybody. It will electronically print some treasury bills, which it will sell to the Federal Reserve for some electronically printed federal reserve notes. The new money, which in reality is debt, will only dilute the existing currency and have the worst effects on those who can least afford it.<p>


And this is the path anytime and every time the government purports to give anybody money.<p>


The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
 
But the problem is not related to the government not taking enough money in. The budget being proposed for Fiscal Year '09 is about 3.3 trillion dollars. If the Federal government only spent money on things that it is entitled to spend money on, we'd all get to keep a lot more of our own money.
 
>Just give me my GD refund check, like everyone else.





Trooper, like anything involving the government, there is a massive bureaucracy needed to give you that refund check. Wouldn't it just make more sense to tax you at a lower rate?
 
Actually what I would like to see as far as AMT and federal tax calculations is something akin to a "cost of living" factor. How is it that people earning $60K in LA are treated the same way as in say Little Rock, AR? The definition of middle class varies depending on where you are living - some tax policies suffer from this aberration.
 
Trooper, I'm glad you agree that you are over-taxed. (Or at least appear to based on the "thanks" you gave me)





Now let's take a look at what has happened with the Bush tax cuts.







a new 10% bracket was created for single filers with taxable income up to $6,000, joint filers up to $12,000, and heads of households up to $10,000.

the 15% bracket's lower threshold was indexed to the new 10% bracket

the 28% bracket would be lowered to 25% by 2006.

the 31% bracket would be lowered to 28% by 2006

the 36% bracket would be lowered to 33% by 2006

the 39.6% bracket would be lowered to 35% by 2006

>

I don't know how much you make, but believe that you are working hard at two jobs to try to get ahead. I think you mentioned that you are single. If I am correct, then it means your Adjusted Gross Income is over $75,000. You also mentioned earlier in this thread that you are paying down your mortgage at an accelerated rate.





When you combine those two facts, I am guessing that you are probably in the 28% bracket (AGI $77,100 to $160,850).





If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire in 2010, then you will be in the 31% bracket. This isn't a 3% increase in taxes, it is a 10.07% increase in your Federal tax burden.





But it could get worse.





Both Hillary and Obambi are promising to raise taxes on the rich. (Remember, in the first Clinton administration, "rich" was defined as anyone making over $35k a year. Congratulations again, you're rich!) Though you can never be certain that any politician will live up to their campaign promises, you can generally assume that any politician promising to increase your taxes will outdo themselves when it comes time to honor that promise. (Universal Healthcare doesn't grow on trees)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top