Tax codes, myths all over the place!

RADAR1797 · January 31st, 2003, 01:42 AM

The news media constantly misrepresent the tax code and President Bush's tax cuts. Many have seen this break out for the new tax program (BTW the 2000 rates are the original rates).

Code:

                  $27,049            >65,550   >$136,750  >$297,350  >$297,351
2000               15%                 28%          31%              36%           39.6%
01-03     10%         15%          27%          30%              35%    38.6 percent 
        <$12,000  <$27,050  >65,550    >$136,750  >$297,350  >$297,351
04- 05     10%        15%          26%          29%              34%  37.6% 
06            10%        15%         25%          28%               33%        35%

Well this is not exactly the case. Unfortunately there is too much social engineering in the tax code, so providing specific examples that apply to all is impossible. But what we can do is correct some fallacies. First, if you are single and earn less than $7,700 you do not pay a dime in taxes. Your taxes at the rates above start at $77,001 and up. If you are married and earn less than $13,850 you do not pay a dime. Your rates (different than above, but I will get those later) start at $13,851. So what everyone seems to miss is they all earn thousands of dollars every year tax free. The more you make the less in percentage you get to keep. So if you start a successful lawn care business and move from earning $20,000 a year to $100,000 a year, you not only suffer from losing buying power to inflation, but also the federal government takes an extra 5% from over $12K, an additional 12% from the dollars over $27,050, and an additional 3% over $65,550. Does that make sense to punish someone for doing well?

I am thoroughly conviced the news media has not calculated their own taxes. If they had, they would have reported the actual tax code correctly. Of course if you use creative accounting you can pay as little as you want. Now many Americans think they pay taxes and they infact do not or pay much less than the media suggests.

-RADAR

RADAR1797 · January 31st, 2003, 01:46 AM

BTW, please help with the formatting. I spent too much time trying move spaces to have the engine ignore them.

-RADAR

vass0922 · January 31st, 2003, 02:07 AM

you could use the [ code ] tag, it doesn't ignore spaces

addendum to previous suggestion

In the code tag it uses font Courier New which is a fixed width font, great for programming. So the easiest way to tweak would be to put it into notepad (MS Word SUCKS for any sort of programming stuff so don't bother with it). Obviously its not programming, but the point is asthetics

I believe roughly what you're looking for is something like...

Code:

          <$12,000??    $27,049    >65,550   >$136,750  >$297,350  >$297,351
2000        15%          28%        31%        36%        39.6%     ????
01-03       10%          15%        27%        30%        35%       38.6 percent 

          <$12,000  <$27,050  >65,550    >$136,750  >$297,350  >$297,351
04- 05     10%        15%      26%         29%        34%        37.6% 
06         10%        15%      25%         28%        33%        35%

RADAR1797 · January 31st, 2003, 02:25 AM

Vass,

Much better, I will tweak later.

Thanks,

RADAR

osprey4 · February 1st, 2003, 09:02 AM

See, that proves that the tax cut is a hand out to the rich!

Harold7 · February 1st, 2003, 10:08 AM

Hmm... it seems that the concept of the law applying equally to everyone (14th Amendment- equal protection under the law) applies to everyone except where taxes are concerned.

**RobRich** · February 1st, 2003, 04:00 PM

I support a properly structured flat tax myself.

Kuasimodem · February 1st, 2003, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by osprey4
See, that proves that the tax cut is a hand out to the rich!

Nooo...

The tax cuts are going to those people who actually pay taxes

RADAR1797 · February 3rd, 2003, 10:41 PM

osprey4,

You don't seem to get it. Taxes are a fee we pay to support the freedom and common defense (This is military and legal) we enjoy. By forcing the rich to bear the huge burden, you actually diminish your voice. The top 50% of wage earners in this country pay 96.09% of taxes. Does that seem fair? Hmm, half of the countries wage earners do not have any financial ownership in the country. Makes you wonder why voter turn out is so low. Taxes are necessary, but abusing the middle class and success is quite evil. No a flat tax makes every wage earner in the US a "shareholder" of the US government. This will increase accountability. The old phrase "I pay my taxes" is not true for almost have of wage earners, and Congress knows it.

Thanks Vass for fixing the table.

-RADAR

MTAtech · February 4th, 2003, 12:33 AM

First, equal protection, under the constitution, doesn't mean there can't be a sliding tax scale. The constitution says, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The operative wording is "without due process of law."

Second, this tax code % doesn't take into account new deductions, such as no taxes on dividends - which does favor those in the upper earning range. So, yes, the upper incomes pay a higher percent of taxes but also get more deductions, lowering their overall tax.

"The top 50% of wage earners in this country pay 96.09% of taxes." This is a bit misleading, as the lower end of the 50% of the wage earners are ordinary workers. What percent of overall taxes does the top 2% pay of all taxes? I suspect less than 2%.