47% will pay no federal income tax

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

mawilson - i just noticed your member title... i think you may be watching too much cspan!

[SMR 368]

It's shocking to me that 69.5% of household now earn under $50K. If anyone thinks outsourcing and cheap prices has been good for America, they seriously need a smack in the head. Or they're in the top 1.5% bracket that are profiteering from it.

Any other country that wants to see what happens when you replace local stores and line your country with cheap walmarts, here you go. Not only does the bottom 47% pay not taxes but they probably use the majority of public services too.

It only gets better when you think of all the illegal aliens both entering and still here that are driving salaries down even more. Give it another 20 years and 80% of American households will be earning under $50K.

Actually, you are reading the article wrong. It says that 69.5% of households making under 50K pay no taxes.

[mawilson 2,133]

And now you want to hit those very Americans with an added sales tax? Why not go after those who can actually afford it?

Taxes need to be regressive and follow a bell curve so as to not penalize success.

You won't collect much from the poor so they can be exempt.

The middle class is where the big bucks are and should pay the highest effective tax rate.

The rich should be taxed at a lower tax rate (than the middle class) - they deserve a break.

[rika60607 215]

Why do the rich people deserve a break?

Taxes need to be regressive and follow a bell curve so as to not penalize success.

You won't collect much from the poor so they can be exempt.

The middle class is where the big bucks are and should pay the highest effective tax rate.

The rich should be taxed at a lower tax rate (than the middle class) - they deserve a break.

[mawilson 2,133]

Why do the rich people deserve a break?

Because they create jobs and wealth.

[Heracles 417]

Actually, you are reading the article wrong. It says that 69.5% of households making under 50K pay no taxes.

You're right, I looked at the pic incorrectly. Nearly 50% of US households pay no income tax.

54% of American households earn under $50k.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_inc...e_United_States

Edited September 30, 2009 by Booyah!

[dalegg 143]

It's shocking to me that 69.5% of household now earn under $50K. If anyone thinks outsourcing and cheap prices has been good for America, they seriously need a smack in the head. Or they're in the top 1.5% bracket that are profiteering from it.

Any other country that wants to see what happens when you replace local stores and line your country with cheap walmarts, here you go. Not only does the bottom 47% pay not taxes but they probably use the majority of public services too.

It only gets better when you think of all the illegal aliens both entering and still here that are driving salaries down even more. Give it another 20 years and 80% of American households will be earning under $50K.

Yeah but if you didn't have Walmarts people's higher salaries would be worthless because their buying power would be lower. And if we didn't have illegal aliens doing work cheaper, then food at restaurants or whatever they are working on would cost more money, and if we didn't have outsourcing the same thing would happen- plus you'd have foreign nations with higher unemployment and there would be less exporting of US goods going on, plus a bigger incentive to become an illegal alien. You just can't win.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Dated 3/27/2008

Invest your entire wad in the right kind of munis and you can wipe out your income tax bill when you live off your savings in retirement (earn too much, though, and your Social Security may be taxed).

...

Despite constant loophole tightening, owning a small business is still a license to deduct. Just a partial list of what can be subtracted from income is dazzling: overhead, salaries and depreciation for equipment; a deduction just for making products in the U.S.; and a $2,400 tax credit in the first year after hiring certain disadvantaged workers.

...

But can all of this add up to zero? Brent Kessel, co-founder of Abacus Wealth Partners in Los Angeles and author of "It's Not About the Money," shared a client's return (without revealing the name). In 2006 the income from his client's business was $749,000, with another $226,000 in interest and rental income making the total taxable income $975,000.

But the owner contributed $733,000 to his own defined-benefit pension plan (which will pay him a taxable income in retirement). After deductions, his income tax came to $30,000, just 3% of his total earnings. "That's not zero, but it's pretty good," says Kessel.

That right there...is outrageous. Why would a small business owner be able to contribute that much more than an individual?

[dalegg 143]

Dated 3/27/2008

Invest your entire wad in the right kind of munis and you can wipe out your income tax bill when you live off your savings in retirement (earn too much, though, and your Social Security may be taxed).

...

Despite constant loophole tightening, owning a small business is still a license to deduct. Just a partial list of what can be subtracted from income is dazzling: overhead, salaries and depreciation for equipment; a deduction just for making products in the U.S.; and a $2,400 tax credit in the first year after hiring certain disadvantaged workers.

...

But can all of this add up to zero? Brent Kessel, co-founder of Abacus Wealth Partners in Los Angeles and author of "It's Not About the Money," shared a client's return (without revealing the name). In 2006 the income from his client's business was $749,000, with another $226,000 in interest and rental income making the total taxable income $975,000.

But the owner contributed $733,000 to his own defined-benefit pension plan (which will pay him a taxable income in retirement). After deductions, his income tax came to $30,000, just 3% of his total earnings. "That's not zero, but it's pretty good," says Kessel.

That right there...is outrageous. Why would a small business owner be able to contribute that much more than an individual?

What's the difference? He'll be taxed on that money once he starts drawing it out.

[Heracles 417]

Yeah but if you didn't have Walmarts people's higher salaries would be worthless because their buying power would be lower. And if we didn't have illegal aliens doing work cheaper, then food at restaurants or whatever they are working on would cost more money, and if we didn't have outsourcing the same thing would happen- plus you'd have foreign nations with higher unemployment and there would be less exporting of US goods going on, plus a bigger incentive to become an illegal alien. You just can't win.

Maybe their buying power should be less. People with money don't shop at walmart anyway. Same goes with the mentality that if you cut the taxes of the wealthy they will buy American. That is simply not true. Who wants to buy low quality? Most people I know who are wealthy here, holiday overseas, drive European cars, buy European clothes, buy foreign food and wine, buy foreign appliances and so on.

Illegal aliens provide no benefit to the average America. The only people who benefit from them are the minority of business owners that are exploiting them. Business owners who would have otherwise had to hire Americans and pay them a legitimate wage. Who in turn would be paying their fair share of tax and contributing to the economy. Instead they are now on welfare, and living in ghettos and trailers. Which is a net drain for the country but a gain for the few that are rich and able to hirer cheap blue collar workers.

Australia's unemployment is at 5.8% and their minimum wage is over $12.70. However, people in the restaurant industry usually get about $15. The difference is that Australia has stopped businesses from profiteering, from cheap illegal aliens. End result is that due to supply restrictions, salaries are higher for all and the demand is there to keep the salaries high. To keep people employed. What's going on in the US market is nothing new. It can actually be seen in numerous 2nd and 3rd world countries. That is, a flood of cheap unskilled labor, combined with the unlivable salaries, which just keep the poor poor. The way the country is heading, eventually the middle class will completely disappear and the economy will transition into rich and poor.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Booyah!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Dated 3/27/2008

Invest your entire wad in the right kind of munis and you can wipe out your income tax bill when you live off your savings in retirement (earn too much, though, and your Social Security may be taxed).

...

Despite constant loophole tightening, owning a small business is still a license to deduct. Just a partial list of what can be subtracted from income is dazzling: overhead, salaries and depreciation for equipment; a deduction just for making products in the U.S.; and a $2,400 tax credit in the first year after hiring certain disadvantaged workers.

...

But can all of this add up to zero? Brent Kessel, co-founder of Abacus Wealth Partners in Los Angeles and author of "It's Not About the Money," shared a client's return (without revealing the name). In 2006 the income from his client's business was $749,000, with another $226,000 in interest and rental income making the total taxable income $975,000.

But the owner contributed $733,000 to his own defined-benefit pension plan (which will pay him a taxable income in retirement). After deductions, his income tax came to $30,000, just 3% of his total earnings. "That's not zero, but it's pretty good," says Kessel.

That right there...is outrageous. Why would a small business owner be able to contribute that much more than an individual?

What's the difference? He'll be taxed on that money once he starts drawing it out.

Why should he be able to set aside more into his retirement plan than any other individual? It doesn't make sense that the individual maximums are substantially less than what a small business owner can contribute.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Most people I know who are wealthy here, holiday overseas, drive European cars, buy European clothes and so on.

This is true.

While the middle class slob like me drinks made in China green tea, drives a Japanese car and types about it on a Lenovo laptop.

[Heracles 417]

That right there...is outrageous. Why would a small business owner be able to contribute that much more than an individual?

Big difference as he is able to put so much away tax free. Do I get the same luxury?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Why should he be able to set aside more into his retirement plan than any other individual? It doesn't make sense that the individual maximums are substantially less than what a small business owner can contribute.

Small business owners don't have the regular cash flow people with paychecks do.

Quit hatin!

[dalegg 143]

Dated 3/27/2008

Invest your entire wad in the right kind of munis and you can wipe out your income tax bill when you live off your savings in retirement (earn too much, though, and your Social Security may be taxed).

...

Despite constant loophole tightening, owning a small business is still a license to deduct. Just a partial list of what can be subtracted from income is dazzling: overhead, salaries and depreciation for equipment; a deduction just for making products in the U.S.; and a $2,400 tax credit in the first year after hiring certain disadvantaged workers.

...

But can all of this add up to zero? Brent Kessel, co-founder of Abacus Wealth Partners in Los Angeles and author of "It's Not About the Money," shared a client's return (without revealing the name). In 2006 the income from his client's business was $749,000, with another $226,000 in interest and rental income making the total taxable income $975,000.

But the owner contributed $733,000 to his own defined-benefit pension plan (which will pay him a taxable income in retirement). After deductions, his income tax came to $30,000, just 3% of his total earnings. "That's not zero, but it's pretty good," says Kessel.

That right there...is outrageous. Why would a small business owner be able to contribute that much more than an individual?

What's the difference? He'll be taxed on that money once he starts drawing it out.

Why should he be able to set aside more into his retirement plan than any other individual? It doesn't make sense that the individual maximums are substantially less than what a small business owner can contribute.

All I know is that my maximum contribution to my 401K plan (which is tax free right now) is far more than I can afford. Most people really don't have that issue.