OT Tax rant.

Wait a minute! "Owed money on their tax returns" could be interpreted two ways. It COULD meant they owed no tax at all, or it COULD mean they got a refund of some of the withholding that had been taken out of their salary over the year. I know a LOT of people get refunds, but most of them DID pay some tax, just less than was withheld.

The article is not clear which case it is.

Jon

I saw that too, but as you say it is not clear. Not saying they aren't saying what people think they are saying, but they sure don't make it clear. This link refers to another article at politifact.com. I don't know if either of these web sites have any bias, but both articles are old citing numbers from 2011 and older. The Politifacts page is dates 2011.

Here they make it a little more clear pointing out for one thing, that the number moves around a lot from one year to the next. But I think they are saying what it seems like they are saying.

"Estimates by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center project that for tax year 2011, 46.4 percent of households won?t have any income tax liability. However, of this number, 28.3 percent will pay payroll taxes, the center projects. Of the remaining 18.1 percent with neither income nor payroll tax liability, 10.3 percent are elderly and 6.9 percent are not elderly but have incomes lower than $20,000. In other words, all but a tiny sliver of Americans without either income tax or payroll tax liability are either elderly or poor."

The question is, what does it mean. If the tax laws allow deductions and exemptions so many don't have to pay any income tax, isn't that what the tax laws are supposed to be doing? Are we complaining that they are working too well? I don't think so. Here are some more facts...

"the top 20 percent of Americans earn 53.4 percent of the total U.S. income, but pay 67.2 percent of total income tax"

Given the top income tax rates are pretty high, this does not seem out of whack to me. Do we expect the low wage earners to be paying the same tax rate as everyone else?

People get excited by some stray fact or number, just like Mitt Romney tried to stir us up over his 47% figure until it backfired on him when people realized that group included grandmothers on Social Security and Veterans on disability, etc.

If there is a problem, get to the root of the problem. Don't get overly excited about some number from half a decade and two elections ago.

--

Rick C 

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, 
on the centerline of totality since 1998

Ok, I could be wrong, but this is what I was told by my cousin who's friend was told "no increase in benefits" even though he was paying more into the fund. Is your wife drawing benefits?

How would her benefits be reduced by your having worked? I know there can be complicated interplay from being married, but I don't get this at all.

--

Rick C 

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, 
on the centerline of totality since 1998

The exact number is going to change with how you define the ratio. (obviously) My point is that for a lot of American's, payroll taxes are the only taxes they pay to the federal gov. And for more, the largest fraction of their federal tax burden. My biggest bitch with government, is that they are not even talking about what is important. Like in science, you can't make progress, unless you ask the right questions. I care less about providing health care for more people, and much more about reducing costs for everyone. If we cut costs by 1/2 it would be easier to pay for those who are less fortunate.

George H.

ks and last week got her Social Security letter which had the fig

on her increase in benefits due to her working. Well actually it was how her ben efits increased ,but were off set by a reduction in benefits she gets from my having worked

nd

e

My wife is drawing benefits.

n

There is a provision in the SS law that a wife can get half of the amount h er husband gets even though she has never paid any FICA.

So my wife works , but the amount she would get based on her earnings is le ss than one half of my benefits. So she gets an amount based on her earnin gs and then some more so the total is one half of my benefits. Every year she gets a letter saying she qualifies for more money based on her earnings , but she will get the same amount of money ( One half of what my benefits are ).

There are a lot of little things that eat into what you get from Social Sec urity. I get an amount, but then they subtract for Medicare Part B. And t hen some more for Part B because I have too much income. Then a deduction for Medicare part D and more because I have too much income. And some more deducted for Medicare Advantage. Plus having to pay income tax on 85 perc ent of my Social Security benefits because my income is too high. My wife a lso gets all these deductions too. Dan

They say it's because you will be able to do your taxes on a postcard ;-) Not me! Mikek

orks and last week got her Social Security letter which had the fig

on h er increase in benefits due to her working. Well actually it was how her b enefits increased ,but were off set by a reduction in benefits she gets fro m my having worked

iend

the

can

l.

her husband gets even though she has never paid any FICA.

less than one half of my benefits. So she gets an amount based on her earn ings and then some more so the total is one half of my benefits. Every yea r she gets a letter saying she qualifies for more money based on her earnin gs , but she will get the same amount of money ( One half of what my benefi ts are ).

ecurity. I get an amount, but then they subtract for Medicare Part B. And then some more for Part B because I have too much income. Then a deductio n for Medicare part D and more because I have too much income. And some mo re deducted for Medicare Advantage. Plus having to pay income tax on 85 pe rcent of my Social Security benefits because my income is too high. My wife also gets all these deductions too.

Damn, Dan, if you have too much income you should give some more away.

Well that's what I'd do, (who's soon to have two kids in college.)

George H.

Ok, do you have a point? I find that many people who complain about the government are so wrapped up in their argument that they never actually explain what they are talking about. They think when they point out some detail the rest is totally obvious.

I have no idea where you are trying to go with this. I don't think you are asking the right questions. You seem to be saying that by not giving health care to everyone, we will be better off to pay for the healthcare for those who can't pay for it themselves. Either you aren't explaining what you mean or you have a bizarre way of thinking. I like to discuss health care by asking questions. Not too long about someone in this group was complaining about the current state of affairs. I asked how he would provide for universal health care and the response was to let the states pay for it! Lol, as if that would somehow make everything cheaper or better in any way. If we want to save money, we can save a *huge* amount by ending Medicare. How about doing that? Is that a good idea?

Apparently unlike you, I feel any conversation on healthcare starts with the premise that access to healthcare is a basic human right for all. Then we can figure out how to pay for it. It can't be that hard. Many other countries have done it. As is often the case in issues that don't have to do with building bombs or making profits, we are lagging the rest of the world and don't even know it.

--

Rick C 

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, 
on the centerline of totality since 1998

Ok, just wanted to be sure. I'll tell my cousin.

Ok, but her benefits aren't reduced by your working, they are increased. Until she gets enough that it exceeds what she is receiving now she won't see any of her increased benefit.

So you pay for Medicare and they take that right out of your monthly check. Ok, do you prefer to pay it yourself? What's wrong with anything above? I'm surprised we get anything if we are doing well without it. It was originally intended to be a safety net and not a pension. Today many people rely on it as their only source of retirement income.

--

Rick C 

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, 
on the centerline of totality since 1998

Question 1: How much did you make? Question 2: How soon can we have all of it?

Not as much as many on here, but since starting a small business our income has increased by a factor of three or four, but we weren't earning much to start with. When I moved from the midwest to the Redneck Riviera (Florida Panhandle), our income dropped considerably, after about 8 years my wife started a side hustle which turned into our sole income.

Sorry, I think the estate tax starts at $5.3 million per person, we're not even close, so it should all go to the the kids. Even though we have a simple business, our tax form is 40+ pages, I don't see that on a post card.

Mikek

What do you consider too much money, especially interested in how much is too much going into a 30 year retirement. Mikek

Another lefty government and you won't have to bother thinking about the death tax. They'll confiscate everything and give you a "pension" that they think is enough for you to "live" on. At least enough for Venesualian levels of "live". It's only "fair".

I have " too much " income because I did various things to make sure I had enough.

When we wore first married , we lived on my salary and invested her salary. That was so we would not get use to having two salaries. When we had a k id, my wife pretty much stopped working.

Later I thought there would be a bunch of layoffs as the design was finishe d. So When we wore first married , we lived on my salary and invested her salary. That was so we would not get use to having two salaries. I found a job in Alaska with some bonuses to attract workers. There was a reasona ble amount of overtime too. And most of that was invested.

And later still, I built a house while working another job. This enabled m e to have no mortgage and I just put that money into investments.

So it isn't as When we wore first married , we lived on my salary and inves ted her salary. That was so we would not get use to having two salaries. if I had just sat on my duff.

"too much income " just means that the government took more because I had income above what the average retiree has.

I am looking forward to having a couple of grandkids in college starting in two years.

Dan

ad enough.

y. That was so we would not get use to having two salaries. When we had a kid, my wife pretty much stopped working.

hed. So When we wore first married , we lived on my salary and invested he r salary. That was so we would not get use to having two salaries. I foun d a job in Alaska with some bonuses to attract workers. There was a reaso nable amount of overtime too. And most of that was invested.

me to have no mortgage and I just put that money into investments.

ested her salary. That was so we would not get use to having two salaries. if I had just sat on my duff.

d income above what the average retiree has.

in two years.

Sounds good. (I was mostly just poking fun at you for appearing to complain about having too much.) I don't pay enough attention to my investments. I hope I can spend the rest of my life designing, building, testing instruments of some sort. (and have someone pay me to do it. :^)

George H.

? If

rate

es.

gram and a retirement

to SS, I could and

ther

e

so I like

g, although

with all

d then

y

ow.

t lots of

e able to do your taxes on a

Krw can't tell the difference between failed states, of which Venezula is a prime example, which pay lip service to socialist principles and actual so cialists states like the Scandinavian countries, where the governments actu ally work (and rather better than the US government, which looks rather lik e a kleptomaniac oligarchy paying lip service to democratic principles at t he moment).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

I consider SS taxes a disability insurance policy, a limited term income for your children if you die and retirement fund. All something most people would not do for themselves. So they need to be forced. The program has been expanded so much there is not chance that we could reduce the rate. Be happy you don't get to write a check for both halves. Last year I paid about $11,000 in SS taxes and $870 in federal income taxes. At my age I'm content paying SS taxes, because I'm knocking off $0 earning years increasing what I will collect. You can ask me how I got my Federal taxes so low, it will start with you must live on less than you earn.

I think it's a lousy idea, I'm positioning myself to be in a position to pay no taxes, Fed or SS. (Biggest problem I can't get my wife to stop working.) With the new tax law there will be some changes but the tax free number is much higher than the income I need to live comfortably. The new number for maximum tax free capital gains and dividends is $77,200 for married couples. Not a tax expert but I think with your $24,000 standard deduction, you could have $101,200 of tax free income, way more than I need. Plus if you have kids, you can earn another $8,333 per child, but depending on how you earn that, there may be SS taxes.