The Obama Administration thread

[Drew]

And yet my federal taxes went thru the roof! Not a year ago. Not five years ago. Not ten years ago. But now in 2010, I'm paying an insane amount of federal taxes. My salary did not change. It's NOT bullshit! I'm having to pay a higher federal tax now. You can waste your time and post as many brackets and articles as you want but the fact still remains, it's NOT tax bullshit that I'm talking about.

I make no where near $50,000 a year.

[freedom78]

I won't make any assumptions about what you make, but for this to have happened you (or your spouse...the above brackets were for single people, but the married brackets mimic them very well) have to either be making more money or taking fewer deductions (perhaps a dependent moves away, you've finished paying off student loans, you qualified for a tax credit in a prior year but it's a one shot deal, etc.).  If your taxes went up but none of those exceptions applies, then I have no idea what the trouble is.  Personally, I'd check to make sure I hadn't made a mistake. 

All the brackets I posted can be verified from multiple sources.   

[JuicySwoos]

And yet my federal taxes went thru the roof! Not a year ago. Not five years ago. Not ten years ago. But now in 2010, I'm paying an insane amount of federal taxes. My salary did not change. It's NOT bullshit! I'm having to pay a higher federal tax now. You can waste your time and post as many brackets and articles as you want but the fact still remains, it's NOT tax bullshit that I'm talking about.

I make no where near $50,000 a year.

Get married, have kids, get a mortgage, and the goverment might actually pay you! 

[JuicySwoos]

...unless you're born rich.

An important distinction to make. There is a big difference between trust fund babies living off old money and someone who actually "earns" the income.

[freedom78]

...unless you're born rich.

An important distinction to make. There is a big difference between trust fund babies living off old money and someone who actually "earns" the income.

Very true.  And I don't have a problem with those who make their own way and are successful.  I have a problem with them then taking home half a mil in salary while paying their workers $10/hour. 

[JuicySwoos]

...unless you're born rich.

An important distinction to make. There is a big difference between trust fund babies living off old money and someone who actually "earns" the income.

Very true.  And I don't have a problem with those who make their own way and are successful.  I have a problem with them then taking home half a mil in salary while paying their workers $10/hour. 

Are you talking CEO's or actually founders/owners of the company?   Another distinction that could be made. Owners took the risk to start the business, probably going bankrupt several times prior to making it, risking feast or famine while the rest of us go get our college degrees and take the safe way through life.  High risk, high reward.  Those people deserve every cent they earn. 

I have a problem with worker's getting paid poorly too, who doesn't.  I think where people differ is what works to solve that problem.

[freedom78]

...unless you're born rich.

An important distinction to make. There is a big difference between trust fund babies living off old money and someone who actually "earns" the income.

Very true.  And I don't have a problem with those who make their own way and are successful.  I have a problem with them then taking home half a mil in salary while paying their workers $10/hour. 

Are you talking CEO's or actually founders/owners of the company?   Another distinction that could be made. Owners took the risk to start the business, probably going bankrupt several times prior to making it, risking feast or famine while the rest of us go get our college degrees and take the safe way through life.  High risk, high reward.  Those people deserve every cent they earn. 

I have a problem with worker's getting paid poorly too, who doesn't.  I think where people differ is what works to solve that problem.

What works is to pay them more.  I understand there are those periods where a business is walking the razor's edge, but when things are going well, you should reward the people who are working to make that so.

[COMAMOTIVE]

...unless you're born rich.

An important distinction to make. There is a big difference between trust fund babies living off old money and someone who actually "earns" the income.

Very true.  And I don't have a problem with those who make their own way and are successful.  I have a problem with them then taking home half a mil in salary while paying their workers $10/hour. 

Are you talking CEO's or actually founders/owners of the company?   Another distinction that could be made. Owners took the risk to start the business, probably going bankrupt several times prior to making it, risking feast or famine while the rest of us go get our college degrees and take the safe way through life.  High risk, high reward.  Those people deserve every cent they earn. 

I have a problem with worker's getting paid poorly too, who doesn't.  I think where people differ is what works to solve that problem.

What works is to pay them more.  I understand there are those periods where a business is walking the razor's edge, but when things are going well, you should reward the people who are working to make that so.

The problem with this, is that once you raise them and pay a higher rate, there's usually no going back - Unless you're in a recession proof business, what happens when your profits sink?  Think the folks you were so kind-hearted to are going to come over, put an arm on your shoulder and tell you they will take a cut back to the original rate?

[pilferk]

And yet my federal taxes went thru the roof! Not a year ago. Not five years ago. Not ten years ago. But now in 2010, I'm paying an insane amount of federal taxes. My salary did not change. It's NOT bullshit! I'm having to pay a higher federal tax now. You can waste your time and post as many brackets and articles as you want but the fact still remains, it's NOT tax bullshit that I'm talking about.

I make no where near $50,000 a year.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.  Are you talking about your 2010 withholdings in your PAY CHECK?  Or are you talking your 2009 taxes, which you're just getting around to filing?

If you're talking withholdings then you're either fucking up your tax estimates, you've changed the number of exemptions (meaning, either someone can claim you as a dependant or you CAN'T claim someone, a tax credit expired..something changed), or someone screwed with your W-4 down in HR/payroll and is withholding more than they're supposed to.

If you're talking about your filings..you're either fucking up your taxes, or you've changed the number of exemptions (meaning, either someone can claim you as a dependant or you CAN'T claim someone, a tax credit expired, you didn't pay interest on a mortgage that you used to,..something changed),

But the tax rates have not changed enough to really be all that noticeable.  I make low 6 figures, and I've not seen any more taken out (well, other than the "more" my annual raise would necessitate) than in years past.  Exactly the same withholding amounts, and almost exactly the same dollar amounts.  Heck, I just compared by pay stubs for the first pay check in April '09 vs April '10.  They kept exactly 13 dollars more this year over last in Federal Income taxes...and that's after a 3.5% annual raise.

[freedom78]

...unless you're born rich.

An important distinction to make. There is a big difference between trust fund babies living off old money and someone who actually "earns" the income.

Very true.  And I don't have a problem with those who make their own way and are successful.  I have a problem with them then taking home half a mil in salary while paying their workers $10/hour. 

Are you talking CEO's or actually founders/owners of the company?   Another distinction that could be made. Owners took the risk to start the business, probably going bankrupt several times prior to making it, risking feast or famine while the rest of us go get our college degrees and take the safe way through life.  High risk, high reward.  Those people deserve every cent they earn. 

I have a problem with worker's getting paid poorly too, who doesn't.  I think where people differ is what works to solve that problem.

What works is to pay them more.  I understand there are those periods where a business is walking the razor's edge, but when things are going well, you should reward the people who are working to make that so.

The problem with this, is that once you raise them and pay a higher rate, there's usually no going back - Unless you're in a recession proof business, what happens when your profits sink?  Think the folks you were so kind-hearted to are going to come over, put an arm on your shoulder and tell you they will take a cut back to the original rate?

Yes.  That happens all the time.  Business suffers due to an economic downturn and wages are trimmed back.  Seems like airlines, for example, have been slowly cutting pay for the better part of two decades.

[COMAMOTIVE]

...unless you're born rich.

An important distinction to make. There is a big difference between trust fund babies living off old money and someone who actually "earns" the income.

Very true.  And I don't have a problem with those who make their own way and are successful.  I have a problem with them then taking home half a mil in salary while paying their workers $10/hour. 

Are you talking CEO's or actually founders/owners of the company?   Another distinction that could be made. Owners took the risk to start the business, probably going bankrupt several times prior to making it, risking feast or famine while the rest of us go get our college degrees and take the safe way through life.  High risk, high reward.  Those people deserve every cent they earn. 

I have a problem with worker's getting paid poorly too, who doesn't.  I think where people differ is what works to solve that problem.

What works is to pay them more.  I understand there are those periods where a business is walking the razor's edge, but when things are going well, you should reward the people who are working to make that so.

The problem with this, is that once you raise them and pay a higher rate, there's usually no going back - Unless you're in a recession proof business, what happens when your profits sink?  Think the folks you were so kind-hearted to are going to come over, put an arm on your shoulder and tell you they will take a cut back to the original rate?

Yes.  That happens all the time.  Business suffers due to an economic downturn and wages are trimmed back.  Seems like airlines, for example, have been slowly cutting pay for the better part of two decades.

All the time, may be taking it a bit far. Unionized shops are not going to play ball and in many cases an independent worker will resist a cutback and then guess what?
His ass is booted out the door for............cheaper help
Not saying it's good, but it is , in fact, reality

[freedom78]

...unless you're born rich.

An important distinction to make. There is a big difference between trust fund babies living off old money and someone who actually "earns" the income.

Very true.  And I don't have a problem with those who make their own way and are successful.  I have a problem with them then taking home half a mil in salary while paying their workers $10/hour. 

Are you talking CEO's or actually founders/owners of the company?   Another distinction that could be made. Owners took the risk to start the business, probably going bankrupt several times prior to making it, risking feast or famine while the rest of us go get our college degrees and take the safe way through life.  High risk, high reward.  Those people deserve every cent they earn. 

I have a problem with worker's getting paid poorly too, who doesn't.  I think where people differ is what works to solve that problem.

What works is to pay them more.  I understand there are those periods where a business is walking the razor's edge, but when things are going well, you should reward the people who are working to make that so.

The problem with this, is that once you raise them and pay a higher rate, there's usually no going back - Unless you're in a recession proof business, what happens when your profits sink?  Think the folks you were so kind-hearted to are going to come over, put an arm on your shoulder and tell you they will take a cut back to the original rate?

Yes.  That happens all the time.  Business suffers due to an economic downturn and wages are trimmed back.  Seems like airlines, for example, have been slowly cutting pay for the better part of two decades.

All the time, may be taking it a bit far. Unionized shops are not going to play ball and in many cases an independent worker will resist a cutback and then guess what?
His ass is booted out the door for............cheaper help
Not saying it's good, but it is , in fact, reality

Unions do play ball.  They don't like it, but it happens when they're faced with massive layoffs.  Contracts get renegotiated.  The individual doesn't usually have that power and, yes, some people are fired.  I'd say that counts as "cutting pay". 

If workers were given a base salary plus real profit sharing (not company shares, because when the company tanks so does the value of those), knowing that as the business becomes more profitable the more the workers will make (and vice versa), then I think most people could accept that as fair.  Unfortunately, for now, when the business tanks they fire tens of thousands of employees while some CEO takes a $10M buyout. 

It seems as though the person to pay is almost always the worker while the person who gets rewarded is almost always someone near the top.

Some will say that risk begets reward, but the worker risks a great deal as well.  They have (1) very little say in what a company will do (2) have to trust that it will do well and (3) can be out of a job with NO parachute if the company fails.     

[COMAMOTIVE]

Unions do play ball.  They don't like it, but it happens when they're faced with massive layoffs.  Contracts get renegotiated.  The individual doesn't usually have that power and, yes, some people are fired.  I'd say that counts as "cutting pay". 

If workers were given a base salary plus real profit sharing (not company shares, because when the company tanks so does the value of those), knowing that as the business becomes more profitable the more the workers will make (and vice versa), then I think most people could accept that as fair.  Unfortunately, for now, when the business tanks they fire tens of thousands of employees while some CEO takes a $10M buyout. 

It seems as though the person to pay is almost always the worker while the person who gets rewarded is almost always someone near the top.

Some will say that risk begets reward, but the worker risks a great deal as well.  They have (1) very little say in what a company will do (2) have to trust that it will do well and (3) can be out of a job with NO parachute if the company fails.     

I know it all too well - you're right and it is terrible and a difficult fix - all I'm saying is that if you're looking for fairness and equality to ring true in the business world, your search will go on forever.  I've been fortunate to be treated well by my company, but I've lost co-workers who were not so fortunate - and now they're on the street, with families to provide for - and the reasons have nothing to do with job performance or dedication - it was strictly a matter of a company takeover, new people in charge - out with the old, in with the new - saving labor dollars and establishing turf

[Axl4Prez2004]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Behind-the-47-Talking-nytimes-3001426762.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=6&asset=&ccode=

This a pretty good article concerning the false hysteria over taxes.  Interesting, quick read.

[D]

Cant believe when i win that 175 million powerball tonight.. Im only gonna see about 90 million... how do those bastards expect me to live on that anyway?


I hate how people have this superiority complex.

I am a DR, u work at Wendy's so I am superior to u!



People need to stop and think for a minute how these little shit jobs impact us and make our lives easier etc. If everyone were successful, who would pick up the garbage? who would cook meals, who would do all the jobs that are necessary but we don't give a second thought about?

while starting my physical therapist assistant program, I worked an 8 buck an hour job in a deli... I couldn't afford medical insurance.. barely could pay the bills and eat while going to school

so yeah, taxes suck, but Id much rather be in the 25% bracket than back in the 10% percent.

[Drew]

Axl4Prez2004, the problem is, it's not hysteria. It's a true fact! More taxes are now being taken out of my check and now my federal tax that I owe has shot up very high. How is that hysteria. Outrage is more closer to how I'm feeling. My income did not change nor anything else.

[Axl4Prez2004]

Axl4Prez2004, the problem is, it's not hysteria. It's a true fact! More taxes are now being taken out of my check and now my federal tax that I owe has shot up very high. How is that hysteria. Outrage is more closer to how I'm feeling. My income did not change nor anything else.

Drew, the only outrage you should have is that you didn't have Timothy Geithner do your taxes for you!  You'd have saved thousands!     I kid, I kid.

Seriously, something's not right with your specific case.  If I was you, I'd get somebody to take a second look at your taxes.  Back in the day I had to file a 1040X because I f'd something up...I too screwed myself, but it can be remedied.


    ? The top 400 U.S. individual taxpayers got 1.59% of the nation?s household income in 2007 ? 3X the p% they got in the 1990s.

    ? The top 400 paid 2.05% of all individual income taxes in 2007.

    ? Only 220 of the top 400 were in the top marginal tax bracket.

    ? Average tax rate of the 400 = 16.6% ? the lowest since the IRS began tracking the 400 in 1992.

    ? Minimum annual income to make the top 400 =  $138.8 million.

    ? Top 400 reported $137.9 billion in income; they paid $22.9 billion in federal income taxes.

    ? 81.3% of income was from capital gains, dividends or interest. Salaries and wages? Just 6.5%.

    ? The top 400 list changes from year to year: 1992-2007, it contained 3,472 different taxpayers (out of a maximum 6400).
-source:  http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/04/top-400-taxpayers/

Drew, Freedom and Pilferk made some excellent points earlier.  Check 'em out. 

[freedom78]

Axl4Prez2004, the problem is, it's not hysteria. It's a true fact! More taxes are now being taken out of my check and now my federal tax that I owe has shot up very high. How is that hysteria. Outrage is more closer to how I'm feeling. My income did not change nor anything else.

How much your work takes out is NOT the same as how much you owe.  If they take more but you get a bigger refund, then that's a problem with your employer and their way of doing this. 

Perhaps your employer bought into the "he's a socialist" garbage and just decided to preemptively take more...who knows?!?!  But either way, the tax rates haven't changed so if you owe more then there's something out of order here.

[sandman]

before you crucify anyone for only paying 16.6%, remember, there's a significant amount of money being invested to generate these billions of dollars in capital gains. and the principal being invested is "at risk." AND that money being invested is benefitting all of us. if you start taxing capital gains at say, 50%, these investors will think "why risk losing my money when i am only going to keep 50% of my ROI?" it wouldn't make much sense. so they would invest in other things such as real estate overseas, and our economy would suffer as a result.

[JuicySwoos]

The whole marginal brackets have been of great interest to me as of late.  When you're single, it is what is for the most part.  Have a family and a house, things get interesting since you have all the deductions, credits, etc.  The biggest kick in the nuts is between the 15% and the 25% tax backets.  Which this year begin and end at $67k and some change.

You compare that to the 25% and 28% tax brackets it does not make much sense.  Because the 15% to 25% brackets are essentially your "middle class", but yet they are getting taxed an extra 10 percent on additional income versus an extra 3% between the 25% and 28% bracket.  So lets say a worker puts in extra overtime, gets a bonus, sells a few more widgets, etc, and that puts them into the 25% bracket, they get taxed an extra 10% on that income over $67k.   But if you have an instance were extra income puts you into the 28% bracket, it is only 3% of the extra income over $137k.   So if you have a family that makes extra income of $50k over the $67k bracket, they pay an extra $5k on that money.  If you have a family that makes an extra $50k over the $137k, they pay an extra $1500 on that extra money. 

I am not a fan of the marginal rates in general, but you'd think the jumps between the lower brackets would be less, and the jumps between the higher brackets would be higher, not the other way around.