McGentrix wrote:maporsche wrote:McGentrix wrote:maporsche wrote:McGentrix wrote:I don't think I have ever actually paid taxes other then to loan the gov't some money every year which is really my fault for not getting my W-2 at the right number of deductions. I just haven't made enough money to owe taxes I guess.
You pay taxes on every check. I think what you meant to say is you've never UNDERPAID your taxes. If you're not paying taxes then something is wrong with they system. My neighbor has 3 kids and only paid something like $500 in taxes for the entire year. That is a problem when I'm paying $7000 and we make the same amount of money. What does a child have to do with income taxes?
Children need food and clothes and toys and care and doctor care, etc. The government recognizes that children cost more so they allow a deduction on your taxes.
If you want the deduction, I would suggest getting busy. If you start now, you could have a deduction of your very own next year.
Right..............you support the government subsidizing childrens clothes, toys and care and doctor care, etc. I thought you were against government handouts. Isn't the phrase I hear most, "If you can't afford them, don't have them (re: kids)" or something to that effect.
Someones family life has nothing to do with INCOME taxes. If were were taking about food taxes, or diaper taxes, or something like that I could see a deduction.
hold the phone there sparky. It's my money, not a government subsidy.
Don't confuse a tax deduction with a welfare check.
You get a subsidy that I don't qualify for because you chose to have children and I haven't yet. Your family is being subsidized BY ME and MY MONEY via the federal government.
There is little difference.
Also, I am subsidizing your religion through the deductions your claim for your (alleged) contributions to your church. This particularly ticks me off inasmuch religion is the cause of much of the turmoil in the world.
maporsche wrote:You get a subsidy that I don't qualify for because you chose to have children and I haven't yet. Your family is being subsidized BY ME and MY MONEY via the federal government.
There is little difference.
That doesn't make any sense.
I have dependents that require more of the money I make to go to them then you. In order to feed, shelter and cloth them I need to keep more of the money I make. Note that it is MY money I am keeping.
As a single person, you do not have dependents that require you to keep more of your own money and therefore pay a larger tax burden.
You obviously have no notion of the what the word subsidy means, I would suggest you look it up.
McGentrix wrote:maporsche wrote:You get a subsidy that I don't qualify for because you chose to have children and I haven't yet. Your family is being subsidized BY ME and MY MONEY via the federal government.
There is little difference.
That doesn't make any sense.
I have dependents that require more of the money I make to go to them then you. In order to feed, shelter and cloth them I need to keep more of the money I make. Note that it is MY money I am keeping.
As a single person, you do not have dependents that require you to keep more of your own money and therefore pay a larger tax burden.
You obviously have no notion of the what the word subsidy means, I would suggest you look it up.
Let's say the governmen needs 10,000 for this fiscal year (I'm aware that these numbers are not accurate, but will work for this example.
Let's say only you and I are paying taxes. Let's also assume we make the same amount of money, and have all of the same deductions except for the child credit.
The fair share would be I pay 5,000 and you pay 5,000. But instead of that you get a 1,500 tax credit for your children and you have 3 of them. Now the government still needs 10,000, but you're only going to have to pay 500, and I'm going to have to make up the difference.
My tax rate is higher, more of my money is taken from me because you have children.
I need to keep more of the money I make so I can afford a bigger boat or a faster dirt bike.
If you can't afford to have children without a tax break then I suggest you stop having children. This is exactly what you'd say to a welfare mom, you'd just replace "tax break" with "welfare check".
Do you deny that my tax rate is higher because of the child tax credit. Or the mortage interest credit. Or the charitable contributions credit.
None of these things have any business being in our tax code. We just happened to be specifically talking about the child credit.
maporsche wrote:McGentrix wrote:maporsche wrote:You get a subsidy that I don't qualify for because you chose to have children and I haven't yet. Your family is being subsidized BY ME and MY MONEY via the federal government.
There is little difference.
That doesn't make any sense.
I have dependents that require more of the money I make to go to them then you. In order to feed, shelter and cloth them I need to keep more of the money I make. Note that it is MY money I am keeping.
As a single person, you do not have dependents that require you to keep more of your own money and therefore pay a larger tax burden.
You obviously have no notion of the what the word subsidy means, I would suggest you look it up.
Let's say the government needs 10,000 for this fiscal year (I'm aware that these numbers are not accurate, but will work for this example.
Let's say only you and I are paying taxes. Let's also assume we make the same amount of money, and have all of the same deductions except for the child credit.
The fair share would be I pay 5,000 and you pay 5,000. But instead of that you get a 1,500 tax credit for your children and you have 3 of them. Now the government still needs 10,000, but you're only going to have to pay 500, and I'm going to have to make up the difference.
My tax rate is higher, more of my money is taken from me because you have children.
No, your tax rate remains where it is. You don't pay more because I got a deduction. Instead, wealthier people are taxed at a higher amount to make up the difference. Your taxes are unaffected by others taking a dependent deduction. You pay what you owe.
Quote:I need to keep more of the money I make so I can afford a bigger boat or a faster dirt bike.
If you can't afford to have children without a tax break then I suggest you stop having children. This is exactly what you'd say to a welfare mom, you'd just replace "tax break" with "welfare check".
nonsense. It's not a matter of needing a tax break to have children, trust me it doesn't come close to the amount needed, it's that the tax deduction is designed to allow me to keep more of my money.
Getting a welfare check is a far cry from a tax deduction.
Quote:Do you deny that my tax rate is higher because of the child tax credit. Or the mortage interest credit. Or the charitable contributions credit.
None of these things have any business being in our tax code. We just happened to be specifically talking about the child credit.
Your tax rate is unchanged if anyone else gets a dependent deduction. You don't pay more because I claim a deduction. It's not really that hard to understand.
McGentrix wrote:maporsche wrote:McGentrix wrote:maporsche wrote:You get a subsidy that I don't qualify for because you chose to have children and I haven't yet. Your family is being subsidized BY ME and MY MONEY via the federal government.
There is little difference.
That doesn't make any sense.
I have dependents that require more of the money I make to go to them then you. In order to feed, shelter and cloth them I need to keep more of the money I make. Note that it is MY money I am keeping.
As a single person, you do not have dependents that require you to keep more of your own money and therefore pay a larger tax burden.
You obviously have no notion of the what the word subsidy means, I would suggest you look it up.
Let's say the government needs 10,000 for this fiscal year (I'm aware that these numbers are not accurate, but will work for this example.
Let's say only you and I are paying taxes. Let's also assume we make the same amount of money, and have all of the same deductions except for the child credit.
The fair share would be I pay 5,000 and you pay 5,000. But instead of that you get a 1,500 tax credit for your children and you have 3 of them. Now the government still needs 10,000, but you're only going to have to pay 500, and I'm going to have to make up the difference.
My tax rate is higher, more of my money is taken from me because you have children.
No, your tax rate remains where it is. You don't pay more because I got a deduction. Instead, wealthier people are taxed at a higher amount to make up the difference. Your taxes are unaffected by others taking a dependent deduction. You pay what you owe.
Quote:I need to keep more of the money I make so I can afford a bigger boat or a faster dirt bike.
If you can't afford to have children without a tax break then I suggest you stop having children. This is exactly what you'd say to a welfare mom, you'd just replace "tax break" with "welfare check".
nonsense. It's not a matter of needing a tax break to have children, trust me it doesn't come close to the amount needed, it's that the tax deduction is designed to allow me to keep more of my money.
Getting a welfare check is a far cry from a tax deduction.
Quote:Do you deny that my tax rate is higher because of the child tax credit. Or the mortage interest credit. Or the charitable contributions credit.
None of these things have any business being in our tax code. We just happened to be specifically talking about the child credit.
Your tax rate is unchanged if anyone else gets a dependent deduction. You don't pay more because I claim a deduction. It's not really that hard to understand.
I do pay more because people take a child deduction.
If there was no child deduction for anyone, and the government still wanted to take in the same amount of money in each year for taxes, you would end up paying more and I would end up paying less.
Is this a true or false statement?
McGentrix wrote:
nonsense. It's not a matter of needing a tax break to have children, trust me it doesn't come close to the amount needed, it's that the tax deduction is designed to allow me to keep more of my money.
You said:
Quote:
In order to feed, shelter and cloth them I need to keep more of the money I make.
Nuff said....now you are a liar too.
Quote:
Getting a welfare check is a far cry from a tax deduction.
Not really, except that your children probably need the tax deduction LESS than the other children need the welfare check.
Quote:
Your tax rate is unchanged if anyone else gets a dependent deduction. You don't pay more because I claim a deduction. It's not really that hard to understand.
I don't directly pay more because you claim a deduction. But the government is forced to raise taxes because it's not bringing in enough revenue to manage the country partially because it is giving you a tax credit. It's not a direct relationship, but it is indeed a relationship, and a costly one.
For every $ that is given in a tax deduction it comes from an overall increase in the percentage of income taxed. If there were no approved deductions then the percentage of income taxed would be lower to get the same amount of money.
Simple math, therefore I'm not suprised you don't understand it. They do offer tuition credits on your taxes to McG, you might want to use them.
The Dems take the initiative on taxes, shifting more taxes to the wealthy.
Democrats Craft New Tax Rules, New Image
Plan Tries to Shield Middle Class From Paying High Rates
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 23, 2007; Page A01
House Democrats, aiming to seize taxes from Republicans as a political issue, have come up with a plan to shift the burden of the hated alternative minimum tax onto the shoulders of the nation's richest households.
The proposal, still in its preliminary stages, would attempt to restore the original purpose of the parallel tax structure, which was created in 1969 to nab 155 super-rich tax filers who were using loopholes and deductions to wipe out their tax bills.
Because it was not indexed for inflation, the AMT delivered a significant tax increase to an estimated 3 percent of households this year. Unless the law is changed, it is projected to strike nearly 20 percent of taxpayers when they file returns next spring, many earning as little as $50,000 a year.
House Democrats are trying to craft legislation that would spare those households while providing relief to many current AMT payers. Under a proposal presented last week to Democrats on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, families making less than $250,000 a year -- about 98 percent of taxpayers -- would be exempt from the tax. Those earning between $250,000 and about $500,000 would see lower AMT bills, according to Democratic sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan is not final.
To make up the lost revenue, families earning more than $500,000 a year would take a much harder hit from the AMT, as well as other adjustments to the tax code, the sources said. Democrats haven't finalized that part of the proposal. But an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, suggests that the nation's wealthiest families -- less than 1 percent of all taxpayers -- would have to pay 5 to 13 percent more to offset the revenue lost by exempting the middle class from the AMT, with families who make more than $1 million paying an extra $52,000, on average, each year.
The final package could contain smaller measures, such as raising the standard deduction for married couples, to spread tax relief to 90 million families. That, Democrats said, would establish their credentials as tax-cutters while strongly contrasting with the Republican Party, whose tax cuts since 2001 have disproportionately benefited the wealthy and added billions of dollars to the federal debt.
"A huge number of families will receive tax relief as the result of this. It's something like 87 million to one million," said Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "It is a great message of fiscal responsibility and economic fairness."
"Taxes can be a winning issue for Democrats," added Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. "And the AMT will be the door through which everyone walks to deal with taxes."
Republicans, who also advocate repealing or substantially rewriting the AMT, dismiss Democratic ideas as "class warfare." Wisconsin Rep. Paul D. Ryan, senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, said raising taxes for the wealthiest Americans would punish small-business owners. He dubbed the idea a "job killer."
Republicans also question the potency of the tax as a political issue, given that most of the people Democrats hope to rescue have yet to feel its bite.
Louisiana Rep. Jim McCrery, the senior Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, said the Democratic proposal would avoid a tax increase for some, but those people "won't see any more money in their pockets." Meanwhile, "the people who get the tax increase certainly would feel that," McCrery said. "So their proposal could be characterized as a tax increase, and a big one."
Some Democratic strategists also question whether the proposal carries a political advantage. John Irons, director of tax and budget policy at the Center for American Progress, said overhauling the AMT may hold "more danger in it than credit." And pollster Celinda Lake, who has argued that Democrats should develop more cogent economic policies to appeal to middle-class voters, said the AMT is "a little esoteric."
maporsche wrote:McGentrix wrote:
nonsense. It's not a matter of needing a tax break to have children, trust me it doesn't come close to the amount needed, it's that the tax deduction is designed to allow me to keep more of my money.
You said:
Quote:
In order to feed, shelter and cloth them I need to keep more of the money I make.
Nuff said....now you are a liar too.
Quote:
Getting a welfare check is a far cry from a tax deduction.
Not really, except that your children probably need the tax deduction LESS than the other children need the welfare check.
Quote:
Your tax rate is unchanged if anyone else gets a dependent deduction. You don't pay more because I claim a deduction. It's not really that hard to understand.
I don't directly pay more because you claim a deduction. But the government is forced to raise taxes because it's not bringing in enough revenue to manage the country partially because it is giving you a tax credit. It's not a direct relationship, but it is indeed a relationship, and a costly one.
For every $ that is given in a tax deduction it comes from an overall increase in the percentage of income taxed. If there were no approved deductions then the percentage of income taxed would be lower to get the same amount of money.
Simple math, therefore I'm not suprised you don't understand it. They do offer tuition credits on your taxes to McG, you might want to use them.
I don't believe you have enough understanding of the American tax code to continue this.
First: economically, a nation needs children, thus the deduction makes sense--to a point.
Second: Yes, this deduction does amount to a government subsidy; children, like adults, are consumers of government services (they are transported on public roads, protected by civil employees, usually educated by civil employees, eat food inspected by civil employees, etc.), but not only are they not productive and tax-paying members of society, their parents are able to pay less in taxes. The deduction for children is most certainly a government subsidy of the family.
no they aren't.
Not every dollar you earn gets taxed. That's the standard deduction. As your wealth increases, your tax bracket raises with you.
To add to your standard deduction of taxable money, you can get married and include your spouse as an additional deduction. That means more of the money you earn does not get taxed. Dependents further increase your deductions which means less of your money gets taxed.
It is not a government subsidy, it is the way the tax program was designed. You are allowed to live with a certain amount of non-taxable monies. That is why, in general, poor people do not pay any federal taxes.
McGentrix wrote:no they aren't.
Not every dollar you earn gets taxed. That's the standard deduction. As your wealth increases, your tax bracket raises with you.
To add to your standard deduction of taxable money, you can get married and include your spouse as an additional deduction. That means more of the money you earn does not get taxed. Dependents further increase your deductions which means less of your money gets taxed.
It is not a government subsidy, it is the way the tax program was designed. You are allowed to live with a certain amount of non-taxable monies. That is why, in general, poor people do not pay any federal taxes.
I don't believe you have enough understanding of common sense to continue this.
Mills75 wrote:First: economically, a nation needs children, thus the deduction makes sense--to a point.
Second: Yes, this deduction does amount to a government subsidy; children, like adults, are consumers of government services (they are transported on public roads, protected by civil employees, usually educated by civil employees, eat food inspected by civil employees, etc.), but not only are they not productive and tax-paying members of society, their parents are able to pay less in taxes. The deduction for children is most certainly a government subsidy of the family.
Mills75....thanks again. I was going a little nuts trying to reason with McG....
And McG.....from
www.dictionary.com
Quote:Subsidy - A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public.
Sounds a little like welfare for the middle class doesn't it?
McGentrix wrote:no they aren't.
Yes, they
are. I teach high school students; I can keep this up all week. :wink:
Maporsche's dictionary definition seems to put an end to the back-and-forth. Deductions are tax reductions, thus subsidies.
maporsche: And once again: no problem.
Mills75 wrote:First: economically, a nation needs children, thus the deduction makes sense--to a point.
Second: Yes, this deduction does amount to a government subsidy; children, like adults, are consumers of government services (they are transported on public roads, protected by civil employees, usually educated by civil employees, eat food inspected by civil employees, etc.), but not only are they not productive and tax-paying members of society, their parents are able to pay less in taxes. The deduction for children is most certainly a government subsidy of the family.
Some think that the country has too many children. There is no doubt that the country is getting over-populated. Thus, we don't need a tax code that encourages more children.
Further, everyone gets the deduction, regardless of their weallth. Thus, in some cases, it amounts to welfare for the wealthy.
The reason that the code is so complicated is that our leaders use it to subsidize, regulate, or punish this or that group. There is no grand scheme of taxation to speak of. The leaders love the code because these things can be done without increasing the bureaucracy. When Gore and Bush squared off, almost 100 % of their platforms amounted to changes in the code.
Mills75 wrote:McGentrix wrote:no they aren't.
Yes, they
are. I teach high school students; I can keep this up all week. :wink:
Maporsche's dictionary definition seems to put an end to the back-and-forth. Deductions are tax reductions, thus subsidies.
maporsche: And once again: no problem.
Maporsche's definition comes from one far down the list and is actually from Investopedia, not the dictionary.
The actual definition is:
Quote:sub·si·dy /ˈsʌbsɪdi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[suhb-si-dee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun, plural -dies.
1. a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
2. a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.
3. a grant or contribution of money.
4. money formerly granted by the English Parliament to the crown for special needs.
A tax deduction is not a subsidy, which would be aid granted by the government. Allowing you to keep your own money is not aid and is not a sum paid to you.
If you are interested, the definition of deduction can be found
here.
McG, money is fungible. If you give a certain group a deduction, which reduces its tax liability, economists call that a "tax expenditure." That expenditure is a subsidy in the real world.
Advocate wrote:The reason that the code is so complicated is that our leaders use it to subsidize, regulate, or punish this or that group. There is no grand scheme of taxation to speak of. The leaders love the code because these things can be done without increasing the bureaucracy. When Gore and Bush squared off, almost 100 % of their platforms amounted to changes in the code.
I find this funny. President Bush did what he said.
