What Do You Mean I Can't!

[Atrocities]

These are frightening statistics to be sure.

The issue now is that most familys cannot aford the expense of today. They must spend more time working, and more of the money they earn is taken out in tax (Thank you Bill Clinton) than before.

Oh sure Bush reduced some tax, but he increased other taxes to compensate so really there was no tax cut.

The effect of parents working more hours directly reflects the growing problem we see in youth crime these days. And society, namely the rich, blame crime on the poor, well no duh...

When your poor, and both parents are both working two jobs each to support the house hold and stay in food, you can bet your sweet arse that the kids are going to be effected. This goes without saying.

The wealth bell curve is no longer a bell curve. It is now only a matter of time before people both here in the US as well as else where, begin to demand changes. However if history is any guide, nothing will ever come of it until someone starts blowing crap up. God help us all when that happens. In the mean time we will just have to endure the rising cost of comodities, the increase in crime, the decrease in free time, and the increased presure of a stagnate and suffocating economy that despite claims, is NOT improving.

Well not improving the job market that is unless you want to flip burgers for $7.13 an hour 80 hours a week.

[Atrocities]

Just for the record, when I worked a lot of OT it was actually counter productive as I paid the additional Tax on my wages. Thanks to Bill Clintons tax increase which taxed wages over your norm at a greater percentage, working OT became far more expensive for people like me to work and we saw far less profit for our work. I made less money in the later part of the 90's than I did in the on set of the 90's, and I worked more and was paid a higher wage. Figure that one out.

(On the plus side, the tax increase did help to improve the deficate and that is a small price to pay. But now all that money and work has gone to pot and I fear what Kerry will do to correct the problem.)

And for the record, this was not pulled out of my butt. I have the tax paper and check stubs to prove it.

[ April 27, 2004, 16:56: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[rextorres]

Actually it sounds like you simply went up to a higher tax bracket or you got hit with the AMT. Unless of course you made over $100,000 then you yes you should blame Clinton for your higher tax.

Anyway as far as taxes/revenues go:

- The government should not run outrageous deficits

it is simply a tax on the future because we and our children will have to pay back what is borrowed plus the interest

- Social Security taxes should not be used to pay for non-social security items.

I don't know why it was OK for Bush to give an income tax cut that went mostly to people making over $200,000 and use the money collected to pay for social security to pay for this tax cut.

[ April 27, 2004, 19:00: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Atrocities]

Yes and no.

Yes working OT will put you into a higher tax bracket at the end of the year but any money earned above your normal wage was taxed at something like 40%. I do not recall sepcifically, but it was a significant amount.

Add that to the higher tax bracket at the end of the year and the incentive for working OT was erased and working OT became a penalty rather than an assest.

[rextorres]

Umm . . . I'm not going to explain why your overtime was taxed at a higher rate.

The important thing, though, is when you sent in your tax return. On line 22 of the 1040 is your total gross income regardless of how you got it. Your tax rate is based on this income minus deductions which is line 39. On the EZ it would be line 4 and 6.

You may have have had money deducted at a higher rate throughout the year but the tax rate on your tax form is what you should be looking at. Not what was deducted from your pay check.

Anyway that's the whole point of filing tax returns. What's deducted from a paycheck is not necessarily what we should be paying in taxes.

[ April 27, 2004, 19:44: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Krsqk]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Anyway that's the whole point of filing tax returns. What's deducted from a paycheck is not necessarily what we should be paying in taxes.

Which is a valid argument for returning to the pre-WWII state of "pay lump sum at the end of the year" method:
1) You understand exactly how much you're paying.
2) Taxes have to drop dramatically due to popular demand.
Unforunately, in today's culture:
1) People would not save money for their tax bill--gotta keep up with the neighbors, dontcha?
2) People would complain about the lack of government services due to decreased tax income.

Quote from Fyron's tax history link:

Reductions in exemption levels meant that taxpayers with taxable incomes of only $500 faced a bottom tax rate of 23 percent, while taxpayers with incomes over $1 million faced a top rate of 94 percent. These tax changes increased federal receipts from $8.7 billion in 1941 to $45.2 billion in 1945. Even with an economy stimulated by war-time production, federal taxes as a share of GDP grew from 7.6 percent in 1941 to 20.4 percent in 1945. Beyond the rates and revenues, however, another aspect about the income tax that changed was the increase in the number of income taxpayers from 4 million in 1939 to 43 million in 1945.

Now that's insane. Let's not give any incentive to improve your life or anything. 94%?!?!? That's not even including any state or local taxes.

[Atrocities]

never mind

[ April 28, 2004, 05:43: Message edited by: Atrocities ]