Conservatives Trying to Ruin More American Jobs (aka Listen to Craig234 lecture)

[craigsub]

Craigsub, you have yet to answer the facts in post #51, though you were reminded to in my last post.

You did respond to that post, somewhat - why, #51 is the main one for you to answer, if you are wanting a conversation.

I'll withhold comment other than that until I see if you are going to answer it.

With one exception, this last post:




Of course, this is completely wrong.

The minimum wage individual pays all kinds of taxes, from payroll taxes to sales taxes to property taxes, either directly or in their rent.

You can get a little blood from a turnip after all.

As for answering your so-called "facts", I don't answer to you. Are we clear on this ? I read the "facts" you posted, and find them to be the typical rants from guys like you. For example, when a graph is from a source that has one line titled "The top 1%", and another "everybody else", it is no longer credible.

The minimum wage earner pays no taxes to the Federal Government. None. The earned income tax credit takes care of that. The payroll taxes are refunded to this person, yet this same person will benefit from Social Security at age 65.

Let us look at someone making $6 per hour with one child. That is $12,480 per year.

Federal Tax Bill ... $0
Payroll Taxes ..... ($955)
EITC ................. $1648

This individual makes a net "profit" of $693 from the federal government. His net, after tax pay is $13,173. Once again, I am not complaining here - just using actual information available from the IRS.

Sales taxes are set by the state. Property taxes are a local issue. Perhaps you will petition the government to eliminate property taxes on low income housing ?

 

[craigsub]

.....Craigsub....yeah, what he said, haha......

Mulester, perhaps, SOMEDAY, you will have an original thought.

 

[mulester7]

Mulester, The minimum wage individual pays 0% in taxes. Nothing

.....yeah, I stared at the screen on this one too....I did my ex's taxes, and the got back a good percentage for being minimum-wage, but the percentage she got back from federal and state was way below half of what she paid in....Craigsub, I know you worked hard for what you have and bravo, but are you now in a position of sittin' in a tree smoochin' with money?....only you know....shoot, sparky does....I don't know, I might be too if I ever have any big money, but that doesn't appear is going to happen unless I were to go with a restaurant effort with Gussie....oops, let's stay on the thread....

.....edit....Gussie is a Black Woman conductor on a West End regular-turn that I respect huge....she fixes 24 quart pots of stuff for her Church dinners, and would be unbelievable running an 11-2 plate lunch effort......

 

[mulester7]

Mulester, perhaps, SOMEDAY, you will have an original thought.

.....hahahah....hahaha....haha....etc....good man, Craig.....

 

[craigsub]

.....yeah, I stared at the screen on this one too....I did my ex's taxes, and the got back a good percentage for being minimum-wage, but the percentage she got back from federal and state was way below half of what she paid in....Craigsub, I know you worked hard for what you have and bravo, but are you now in a position of sittin' in a tree smoochin' with money?....only you know....shoot, sparky does....I don't know, I might be too if I ever have any big money, but that doesn't appear is going to happen unless I were to go with a restaurant effort with Gussie....oops, let's stay on the thread....

.....edit....Gussie is a Black Woman conductor on a West End regular-turn that I respect huge....she fixes 24 quart pots of stuff for her Church dinners, and would be unbelievable running an 11-2 plate lunch effort......

I would suggest your ex is either working 100 hours per week, or she needs to find a better tax preparer. And, in case this was something of which you are unaware, State taxes are paid to your STATE. The EITC has no bearing here.

As for the rest of your post ... "sittin in a tree smoochin with money?" ... That is a moronic statement.

Personally, I am working on building my businesses. This requires more work, more investment, and more risk taking.

That irony is this: Our most difficult task is finding people who are willing to work to achieve a better life. Our typical sales rep makes $35k to $100K per year. Our Technicians, $45K to $80K per year.

 

[mulester7]

That is a moronic statement.

.....well?....hey, sounds like you're on top of things, Craigsub....working hard is the way to achieve....and your insults just keep bouncing off, Boss.....

 

[craigsub]

.....well?....hey, sounds like you're on top of things, Craigsub....working hard is the way to achieve....and your insults just keep bouncing off, Boss.....

Mulester, your constant whining about how "unfair" things are is bad enough. However, when YOU start the crap like "sittin in a tree smooching money", you are making moronic statements.

Now ... and try to follow along here ... calling your statement moronic is not the same as calling you a moron. Got it ? Are you sure ?

Since you and Mr. 234 think you have some form of knowledge .. let us see if either of you will answer a few questions ...

1. Do you currently own a business ?
2. If the answer is yes, for how long ? And how many employees ?
3. What is the employer's responsibility, in regards to payroll (AKA Social Security and Medicare) taxes?

 

[mulester7]

1. Do you currently own a business ?
2. If the answer is yes, for how long ? And how many employees ?
3. What is the employer's responsibility, in regards to payroll (AKA Social Security and Medicare) taxes?

.....Craig, this has nothing to do with individual income taxes on April 15th from an ownership standpoint.....

.....Craig, I got to go take the youngest daughter some cash to tide her until payday....late evening motorsickle cruise....back later....

 

[craigsub]

.....Craig, this has nothing to do with individual income taxes on April 15th from an ownership standpoint.....

.....Craig, I got to go take the youngest daughter some cash to tide her until payday....late evening motorsickle cruise....back later....

Ok ... I am sure you and 234 will be happy to answer these very simple questions sometime over the next day or 2.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Don't forget, ~2% of the American population is considered upper class. The wealth of the top 1% in the US equals the wealth of the lower 95%. The top 1% are in tight enough with politicians where they influence the laws that govern the tax system. The more accountants can help shelter the earnings of these 1%, the more America has to rely on the lower 95% to make up those taxes.

The wealthiest Americans depend on money to make money, not labor. Money is a much more efficient vehicle to earn income than any type of labor. The mighty tax loophole is a well known term in this 1% tax bracket.

 

[craigsub]

Don't forget, ~2% of the American population is considered upper class. The wealth of the top 1% in the US equals the wealth of the lower 95%. The top 1% are in tight enough with politicians where they influence the laws that govern the tax system. The more accountants can help shelter the earnings of these 1%, the more America has to rely on the lower 95% to make up those taxes.

The wealthiest Americans depend on money to make money, not labor. Money is a much more efficient vehicle to earn income than any type of labor. The mighty tax loophole is a well known term in this 1% tax bracket.

Another myth that the facts refute. The wealth of the top 1% does not equal the wealth of the lower 95%. That is such a ridiculous statement, whoever is teaching this drivel should go back to school. If you want a real picture of wealth ... it is more age related than most realize. People over 65 control most of the wealth. This is a fact. They SHOULD, people ! They worked a lifetime to get the assets they have.

And, in real dollars, the upper 1% pays 34.2 % of all taxes. The upper 5% pays 54.4 %. The upper 1% does NOT make 34.2 % of all income. They make less than 1/2 of that. In every objective applied standard, we have a hugely progressive tax system. This "loophole" cry is another myth. Except, of course, if you are a politician with the connections ro earn 7 % tax free on a huge, inherited fortune.

Stick with facts, and take jealousy out of the equation, and you will get a truer picture.

 

[Tomorrow]

Don't forget, ~2% of the American population is considered upper class. The wealth of the top 1% in the US equals the wealth of the lower 95%. The top 1% are in tight enough with politicians where they influence the laws that govern the tax system. The more accountants can help shelter the earnings of these 1%, the more America has to rely on the lower 95% to make up those taxes.

The wealthiest Americans depend on money to make money, not labor. Money is a much more efficient vehicle to earn income than any type of labor. The mighty tax loophole is a well known term in this 1% tax bracket.

Buck. Below is the U.S household income (before deductions) per the U.S. Census Bureau for income distribution reported in 2005. I don't see that what you are saying is remotely close to the actual facts. (If you were to include 'holdings', e.g. real estate in your definition of wealth, then Craigsub's age comment is on the money..pardon the pun.) But you're exactly correct....it helps to have money to make money. Investment is the engine that has always and still does run the U.S. economy. We'd be a backwater country without it.


Aggregate
(Mil. $)

Income of Household
Total ................... (NA)
Under $2,500............... 81
$2,500 to $4,999........... 2,874
$5,000 to $7,499........... 8,708
$7,500 to $9,999........... 18,716
$10,000 to $12,499......... 30,242
$12,500 to $14,999......... 34,301
$15,000 to $17,499......... 40,328
$17,500 to $19,999......... 44,678
$20,000 to $22,499......... 55,824
$22,500 to $24,999......... 55,600
$25,000 to $27,499......... 69,178
$27,500 to $29,999......... 58,908
$30,000 to $32,499......... 81,449
$32,500 to $34,999......... 65,293
$35,000 to $37,499......... 83,893
$37,500 to $39,999......... 74,668
$40,000 to $42,499......... 97,646
$42,500 to $44,999......... 73,625
$45,000 to $47,499......... 89,809
$47,500 to $49,999......... 83,952
$50,000 to $52,499......... 113,005
$52,500 to $54,999......... 81,358
$55,000 to $57,499......... 101,200
$57,500 to $59,999......... 81,626
$60,000 to $62,499......... 119,072
$62,500 to $64,999......... 87,370
$65,000 to $67,499......... 105,379
$67,500 to $69,999......... 89,751
$70,000 to $72,499......... 109,018
$72,500 to $74,999......... 79,931
$75,000 to $77,499......... 107,601
$77,500 to $79,999......... 80,260
$80,000 to $82,499......... 106,167
$82,500 to $84,999......... 81,849
$85,000 to $87,499......... 99,775
$87,500 to $89,999......... 72,565
$90,000 to $92,499......... 94,592
$92,500 to $94,999......... 67,759
$95,000 to $97,499......... 77,043
$97,500 to $99,999......... 68,119
$100,000 to $149,999....... (NA)
$150,000 to $199,999....... 510,975
$200,000 to $249,999....... 245,865
$250,000 and above......... 636,338

 

[craigsub]

RJ ... I have seen those figures more times than you can imagine, thanks for taking the time to post them.

If memory serves, the 100K to 150K income earners make $810,000 million dollars ... bringing the total income of those under 250K to $4,458,000 million dollars ... vs. $636,000 million for those over $250K.

$250 K is about the top 2 Percentile in 2005.

This means they pay about 43% of the taxes with about 12.4% of the income. By definition, that is a very progressive system.

Many will be surprised at this, too ... At one's work place, your employer has to match your Fica/Medicare tax. In other words, if you make $50,000 per year, you are getting a $3825 "hit". Your employer pays the same amount.

It is too bad fear stopped social security privatization ... because most kids in their 20's could have retired wealthy just by being able to fund their own accounts, rather than paying into a system which will ultimately fail.

 

[warhummer]

I really would like to know what this tax "loophole" is defined as. My wife and I paid approximately $25,000 in taxes last year ...(she was self-employed at the time). We pay the full 12.4% of Social Security into the pot. I'm just a little bit miffed that there's going to be peanuts left we she decides to start withdrawing in 40 years. But there's nothing wrong with the system.

 

[krabapple]

If you don't believe there's an aggressive, politically powerful campaign by the 'haves' to 'have more', you're blind (notice how 'tax cuts' *ALWAYS* seem to be near the top of the agenda, no matter what the circumstances these days?)...and you've somehow missed that growing gap between richest and poor.

Here's some great supplementary info on the Johnston book:

http://www.faireconomy.org/order/books/PL.html

interviews with Johnston
http://www.forbes.com/ceonetwork/2004/02/12/0212chat_transcript.html

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/03/int04016.html

 

[craigsub]

If you don't believe there's an aggressive, politically powerful campaign by the 'haves' to 'have more', you're blind (notice how 'tax cuts' *ALWAYS* seem to be near the top of the agenda, no matter what the circumstances these days?)...and you've somehow missed that growing gap between richest and poor.

Here's some great supplementary info on the Johnston book:

http://www.faireconomy.org/order/books/PL.html

interviews with Johnston
http://www.forbes.com/ceonetwork/2004/02/12/0212chat_transcript.html

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/03/int04016.html

If you look at factual information, you will come to the conclusion that the higher your income, the more taxes you pay, both in percentages and in absolute dollars. That is a progressive tax system.

In other words, as with most things, you are again wrong. The tax cuts resulted in the burden of taxes being cut, by a much larger percentage, in lower to middle class incomes, than to higher income people. That is not an opinion, it is a verifiable fact.

If you want accuracy, try staying away from lunatic sites like "FaireconomyDOTorg". Go to the IRS, and look at the raw data. Of course, facts will not "prove" the so called "inequities" in the tax system.

 

[craigsub]

I really would like to know what this tax "loophole" is defined as. My wife and I paid approximately $25,000 in taxes last year ...(she was self-employed at the time). We pay the full 12.4% of Social Security into the pot. I'm just a little bit miffed that there's going to be peanuts left we she decides to start withdrawing in 40 years. But there's nothing wrong with the system.

Here are the current available loopholes ...

1. Tax Free bonds

Anyone else want to post some other loopholes which are proveable ?

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Here are the current available loopholes ...

1. Tax Free bonds

Anyone else want to post some other loopholes which are proveable ?

2. The latest and greatest - An ebay business
3. Real Estate
4. Business - there are endless deductions
5. Job Creations Act of 2004
6. Disaster Relief
7. Insurance and Medical
8. Reporting lower than actual profits (artifically inflating cost of goods, family labor, etc...)

There are hundreds, if not thousands of books of tax loopholes. Your accountant most likely has a few dozen books on the topic.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Craigsub: If you want a real picture of wealth ... it is more age related than most realize. People over 65 control most of the wealth. This is a fact. They SHOULD, people ! They worked a lifetime to get the assets they have.

I guess I should have been more clear. Wealth is very different than income and how much in taxes are being paid annually. Craig is right. A retired couple with acres of land in the Hamptons and a moderate retirement income won't pay the same taxes as someone bringing home $250,000 a year. Yet their wealth may be 100x that of the individual making $250,000 a year.

One can buy and sell homes and make a small living doing this, but what they will realize is equity. Equity is a form of wealth. So while this person may only claim $50,000 a year in income, they are become very wealthy through real estate transactions. They don't fit into the earlier income brackets (they don't want to). That's a red flag straight to the IRS.

 

[craigsub]

2. The latest and greatest - An ebay business
3. Real Estate
4. Business - there are endless deductions
5. Job Creations Act of 2004
6. Disaster Relief
7. Insurance and Medical
8. Reporting lower than actual profits (artifically inflating cost of goods, family labor, etc...)

There are hundreds, if not thousands of books of tax loopholes. Your accountant most likely has a few dozen books on the topic.

Buckeyeman ... There is a difference between a loophole and tax fraud. Under-reporting or non reporting income is not a loophole, it is a felony ... ... let's look at your list again ...

2. Any profits are taxable income. Tax fraud, not loophole.
3. Any profits are again, taxable. The only exception is profits from one's primary residence can be delayed, and long term, $500,000 in gains will be untaxed. This is another law that helps the middle class, while the "rich guy" with a $15,000,000 property gets no benefit. Yes, a loophle, but for the middle class.
4. Deductions are only for the cost of doing business. All actual profits are taxable.
5. This is a good example of loopholes. This is also one of the reason employers have added appx. 3.5 million jobs in 2 years .. if you look at the inderlying costs of employees, this helps lower the cost. In other words, this is a GOOD loophole. A BAD loophole example is the infamous "mohair" loophole of the 1980's ... Where profits from mohair were never enough to exceed deductions and credits ... it was laughable.
6. Charitable contributions are a loophole ?
7. If insurance and medical are a loophole, should they then be taxable income ? Explain THAT to a union worker. (that his company paid insurance is taxable income). You are correct, this is a loophole, but one which benefits the lower and middle classes, not the guy making $1.5 mill.
8. Again, this one is tax fraud.

Overall, good examples, Buckeyefan.