$249,999.00 Is the Goal

[Ravi]

Fair enough.

Single (39%) = $73,916
Married (39%) = $64,950

Immie

how come my caluclator says 39% of 250 is 97.5???

Because you are taxing the entire amount at 39%. The way the tax tables work is that the first X dollars are taxed at Y rate, the next bracket is taxed at another rate and so on until you get to the highest bracket.

Here are the tax tables for 2007:

2007 Federal Tax Rate Schedules

Don't feel bad though, most people who do not work on taxes, do not understand the bracketing system. Hell, most people who write tax laws don't understand.

Immie

Exactly right...which this attorney should know. So, she's either extremely stupid or she's a big fat liar.

 

[Care4all]

Okay, I've got to be honest here; this woman is not real bright. That's her perogative though. I'm not thrilled with the tax increase on the wealthy. I'm not too upset though, but I do think that $250,000 is too low of a number. This starts the tax increase at a much lower level than it did under Clinton. I believe Clinton started the highest bracket at $280,000 to $290,000. When it was first put in place, the number was lower, but those levels were raised yearly to account for inflation. Based on that, the number should be closer to $350,000 now.

Here's the thing. The rate increase only effects income over $250,000. If this woman makes $350,000, she will be taxed an additional $4600. On the additional $100,000 of income over the $250,000, she'll pay $39,600 instead of the current $35,000. On the first $250,000, she'll pay what she paid before. So, in this example, she would be choosing to give up $60,400, less her state taxes, just so she doesn't have to pay the extra $4600 in taxes.

I know if I was in her shoes, I'd be upset about having to pay more. But I sure as hell wouldn't choose to reduce my income by such a large amount just because I had to pay an extra $4600.

I also suggested this yesterday and the day before, i also believe the threshold shold be a little higher...i was willing even to go up to a million bucks before kicking in because i felt many of these people earning these incomes were in metropolitan cities on the east and west coast, and I felt the cost of living was so high in these spots that the threshold needed to be higher to accomodate such....

But none the less, i still say the lawyer doesn't have a lightbulb on, at least when it comes to her own tax situation with a progressive tax structure.

Care

Lets figure this out together, Care. Obama is going to borrow 2 trillion dollars, $250k↑ income taxe rates are going up, your chartiable tax deductions are greatly reduced and you have been demonized by this President as “Rich”. Who will this President go after, in large part, to repay that 2 trillion or a 1 trillion dollar government ran healthcare, etc........
I can't understand either.....lol

jr,
there is no mistake that $25,000 a MONTH net income for an individual is an aweful lot of money....

for the past 2 years in a row.....Matthew and I have lived off of less money in a year, than the money these people net in an entire month.....

People making $20-$25k a MONTH NET, are Rich people.

And honestly, no one on the left started calling this "class warfare" ....it is the right that started saying we were punishing them and deamonizing them and putting down success and all of that SHIT.....

if anything i see it as the wealthiest getting their pawns, the lowly on the totem poll, to fight this battle against the poor for them..... Now there is class warfare comments all over the place from left and right...but the left did not start this...

progressive income taxes have always been accepted, you pay according to your means...this is what made us a strong middle class over the years...

so if there is this division and bad conotation towards people in our upper classes....the right saw to this happening as far as i've seen.

care

PS. jr, is the Trillion dollar health care plan the cost of it for 10 years, 5 years or one? Do you know?*

 

[Ravi]

Rereading the story I see the "lawyer" asked not to be named...and she's probably thankful that she did a this point.

There is a dentist that is named, and if I were a dentist working in Boulder I'd put her words in an ad, "It would mean working fewer days which means having fewer employees, seeing fewer patients and taking time off." "Generally it means being less productive," she said" and get busy siphoning off her customers.

 

[Care4all]

it certainly is not enough of a tax increase to cause a disincentive for a small business to pare down its business, which is the republican mantra and garbage that is continually touted.

Sorry, I didn't realize that the world voted you to be the spokesperson for everyone. I'd like to recast my ballot, at least.

The point is, care, that you can't say what is enough of a tax increase to discourage business owners. Everyone is different. What's valuable to you may not be valuable to others. Like I said, I'd be perfectly happy with my $249,999 (less taxes, of course) if I could spend more time at home. You don't feel the same way? Great. You work and make the extra cash. Oh, wait, this income increase doesn't affect you, so you don't have to worry about the tough decision.

What it's going to do is force the wealthy to pull their capital out of the United States, and put it to work elsewhere. I know I will. That is capital that would otherwise be used to investing in growth in the US that will now be put to work in places like Singapore and India to fuel growth there.

I cannot fathom how idiots can believe that raising taxes on the wealthy EVER is a positive thing. They are the ONLY people on the planet with the ability to impact the economy in a big enough way for anyone to notice. We'll will simply choose to invest in parts of the world that allow us keep our returns. I like Malaysia and Singapore a LOT more, these days, than the United States. That's where people like me choose to "stimulate" economic activity, well beyond the reach of Saint Obama...

Does raising taxes on the middle class or the lower classes do anything?

Or are those two classes just stuck with their higher tax rates if raised on them... and have no means to be a traitor and move all of their money to singapore while enjoying all the benefits that America has given them?

Care

 

[American Horse]

Okay, I've got to be honest here; this woman is not real bright. That's her perogative though. <SNIP>......
Here's the thing. The rate increase only effects income over $250,000. If this woman makes $350,000, she will be taxed an additional $4600. On the additional $100,000 of income over the $250,000, she'll pay $39,600 instead of the current $35,000. On the first $250,000, she'll pay what she paid before. So, in this example, she would be choosing to give up $60,400, less her state taxes, just so she doesn't have to pay the extra $4600 in taxes.

I know if I was in her shoes, I'd be upset about having to pay more. But I sure as hell wouldn't choose to reduce my income by such a large amount just because I had to pay an extra $4600.

I also suggested this yesterday and the day before, i also believe the threshold shold be a little higher...i was willing even to go up to a million bucks before kicking in because i felt many of these people earning these incomes were in metropolitan cities on the east and west coast, and I felt the cost of living was so high in these spots that the threshold needed to be higher to accomodate such....

But none the less, i still say the lawyer doesn't have a lightbulb on, at least when it comes to her own tax situation with a progressive tax structure.

Care

Lets figure this out together, Care. Obama is going to borrow 2 trillion dollars, $250k&#8593; income taxe rates are going up, your chartiable tax deductions are greatly reduced and you have been demonized by this President as “Rich”. Who will this President go after, in large part, to repay that 2 trillion or a 1 trillion dollar government ran healthcare, etc........
I can't understand either.....lol

Many times, with a prompt like what they see going on now in marginal tax rates, people simply take a look at what they've been doing, and realize it's not worth it. If they cut back, they'd enjoy their lives more, and work less for "the man". Incentives are not always rational, nor linear, so the tipping point to do less and keep more can't be formulized. For that and other reasons, and I can think of a couple others, increases in the marginal tax rate cause people to back off of and take stock of their life's inertia.

Once they've reached the tipping point people begin to flee states with high tax rates and head for those with lower tax rates and the less demanding life style they can enjoy there. That accounts for the emmigration from states like New York and California by high income earners. They can live well where ever they go.

 

[Care4all]

yes and for those of us that have a salary sometimes lees than our employees and work our ass off all year to make a profit so that at the end of the year that risk and effort will results in a bonus......then to have that money taxed at a higher rate simply because my effort and risk paid off .... and that money given to those that couldn't is a real pisser......especially when i started from nothing with nothing......

if an employe looses their job they get unemployement and hand outs.....if a business owner does.....the bank takes their house and all their shit and guess what the self employed don't get unemployment.....

but hey ... who gives a shit there isn't that many of us......

Manu,

First you say you pay yourself a measley salary and take what profits you make in the end-

Why do you do such? So that you can SAVE money by AVOIDING FICA taxes, no? This is an advantage a salary worker does not have....no? But YOU as an owner, gets to do.

Then you say that if a person is unemployed, they get unemployment benefits.

Since you paid yourself a salary, you get unemployment benefits as well....but since you chose to pay yourself very little in salary and chose to pay yourself out of your profits instead because you could AVOID SS taxes/FICA taxes, you will not draw much in unemployment, BUT YOU WILL DRAW SOME, and you saying you would get nothing in unemployment is simply not true under the scenario you gave.

Then you go on to say the business owner is then liable to lose his house and everything he owns if the business goes down....BUT WE ESTABLISHED ALREADY that this is why people going in to business go the Scorp, LLC etc, so that their personal wealth is not affected by a business failure, and their home CAN'T be taken away from them....so the business owner DOES NOT risk his home or his personal wealth outside of the business, IN MOST CASES.

I just wanted to make this clear...

Care

 

[Ravi]

yes and for those of us that have a salary sometimes lees than our employees and work our ass off all year to make a profit so that at the end of the year that risk and effort will results in a bonus......then to have that money taxed at a higher rate simply because my effort and risk paid off .... and that money given to those that couldn't is a real pisser......especially when i started from nothing with nothing......

if an employe looses their job they get unemployement and hand outs.....if a business owner does.....the bank takes their house and all their shit and guess what the self employed don't get unemployment.....

but hey ... who gives a shit there isn't that many of us......

Manu,

First you say you pay yourself a measley salary and take what profits you make in the end-

Why do you do such? So that you can SAVE money by AVOIDING FICA taxes, no? This is an advantage a salary worker does not have....no? But YOU as an owner, gets to do.

Then you say that if a person is unemployed, they get unemployment benefits.

Since you paid yourself a salary, you get unemployment benefits as well....but since you chose to pay yourself very little in salary and chose to pay yourself out of your profits instead because you could AVOID SS taxes/FICA taxes, you will not draw much in unemployment, BUT YOU WILL DRAW SOME, and you saying you would get nothing in unemployment is simply not true under the scenario you gave.

Then you go on to say the business owner is then liable to lose his house and everything he owns if the business goes down....BUT WE ESTABLISHED ALREADY that this is why people going in to business go the Scorp, LLC etc, so that their personal wealth is not affected by a business failure, and their home CAN'T be taken away from them....so the business owner DOES NOT risk his home or his personal wealth outside of the business, IN MOST CASES.

I just wanted to make this clear...

Care

Beautifully said, Care.

 

[Care4all]

I also suggested this yesterday and the day before, i also believe the threshold shold be a little higher...i was willing even to go up to a million bucks before kicking in because i felt many of these people earning these incomes were in metropolitan cities on the east and west coast, and I felt the cost of living was so high in these spots that the threshold needed to be higher to accomodate such....

But none the less, i still say the lawyer doesn't have a lightbulb on, at least when it comes to her own tax situation with a progressive tax structure.

Care

Lets figure this out together, Care. Obama is going to borrow 2 trillion dollars, $250k&#8593; income taxe rates are going up, your chartiable tax deductions are greatly reduced and you have been demonized by this President as “Rich”. Who will this President go after, in large part, to repay that 2 trillion or a 1 trillion dollar government ran healthcare, etc........
I can't understand either.....lol

Many times, with a prompt like what they see going on now in marginal tax rates, people simply take a look at what they've been doing, and realize it's not worth it. If they cut back, they'd enjoy their lives more, and work less for "the man". Incentives are not always rational, nor linear, so the tipping point to do less and keep more can't be formulized. For that and other reasons, and I can think of a couple others, increases in the marginal tax rate cause people to back off of and take stock of their life's inertia.

Once they've reached the tipping point people begin to flee states with high tax rates and head for those with lower tax rates and the less demanding life style they can enjoy there. That accounts for the emmigration from states like New York and California by high income earners. They can live well where ever they go.

If there are people like that in the world, that would make this decision to not make $260k in net taxable income because of the $700 bucks extra they are going to have to pay on that $10k earned then......so be it! That is their choice, though i still find it HIGHLY UNLIKELY and know that MOST PEOPLE making $250k will not want to stop there in their making money.

BUT IF THEY DO, and decide it is not worth making more than the $250k as you presume and they pare their business down so that they can not go over the $250k net....

THEN SOMEONE ELSE in our country will pick up the SLACK of the person paring down their business and grow their own business off of the demand that is still out there for the product or service being pared down by the other business owner.

IT WOULD STILL be very good for the country....

Care

 

[WillowTree]

Rereading the story I see the "lawyer" asked not to be named...and she's probably thankful that she did a this point.

There is a dentist that is named, and if I were a dentist working in Boulder I'd put her words in an ad, "It would mean working fewer days which means having fewer employees, seeing fewer patients and taking time off." "Generally it means being less productive," she said" and get busy siphoning off her customers.

If you had one ounce of walking around sense you would know these people are affected by an increase in their taxes,, know why? cause they are reacting to the pain just like your suppodesly brainless azz would react if somebody took half of your marlbes.. If it didn't affect them they would go merrily on their ways.. that's called common sense.

 

[WillowTree]

I also suggested this yesterday and the day before, i also believe the threshold shold be a little higher...i was willing even to go up to a million bucks before kicking in because i felt many of these people earning these incomes were in metropolitan cities on the east and west coast, and I felt the cost of living was so high in these spots that the threshold needed to be higher to accomodate such....

But none the less, i still say the lawyer doesn't have a lightbulb on, at least when it comes to her own tax situation with a progressive tax structure.

Care

Lets figure this out together, Care. Obama is going to borrow 2 trillion dollars, $250k&#8593; income taxe rates are going up, your chartiable tax deductions are greatly reduced and you have been demonized by this President as &#8220;Rich&#8221;. Who will this President go after, in large part, to repay that 2 trillion or a 1 trillion dollar government ran healthcare, etc........
I can't understand either.....lol

jr,
there is no mistake that $25,000 a MONTH net income for an individual is an aweful lot of money....

for the past 2 years in a row.....Matthew and I have lived off of less money in a year, than the money these people net in an entire month.....

People making $20-$25k a MONTH NET, are Rich people.

And honestly, no one on the left started calling this "class warfare" ....it is the right that started saying we were punishing them and deamonizing them and putting down success and all of that SHIT.....

if anything i see it as the wealthiest getting their pawns, the lowly on the totem poll, to fight this battle against the poor for them..... Now there is class warfare comments all over the place from left and right...but the left did not start this...

progressive income taxes have always been accepted, you pay according to your means...this is what made us a strong middle class over the years...

so if there is this division and bad conotation towards people in our upper classes....the right saw to this happening as far as i've seen.

care

PS. jr, is the Trillion dollar health care plan the cost of it for 10 years, 5 years or one? Do you know?*

Yes,, Care your side did,, they have played the race card and the victim card,, and now demonizing the rich,, it most certainly is a classl war and your guy called it,, and guess what? just like I predicted people who earn their money are going to move to protect their right to keep it..
shame on you guys.. you have managed to divide this country now by race and by class.. I hope you are happy.

 

[xsited1]

Lets figure this out together, Care. Obama is going to borrow 2 trillion dollars, $250k&#8593; income taxe rates are going up, your chartiable tax deductions are greatly reduced and you have been demonized by this President as “Rich”. Who will this President go after, in large part, to repay that 2 trillion or a 1 trillion dollar government ran healthcare, etc........
I can't understand either.....lol

Many times, with a prompt like what they see going on now in marginal tax rates, people simply take a look at what they've been doing, and realize it's not worth it. If they cut back, they'd enjoy their lives more, and work less for "the man". Incentives are not always rational, nor linear, so the tipping point to do less and keep more can't be formulized. For that and other reasons, and I can think of a couple others, increases in the marginal tax rate cause people to back off of and take stock of their life's inertia.

Once they've reached the tipping point people begin to flee states with high tax rates and head for those with lower tax rates and the less demanding life style they can enjoy there. That accounts for the emmigration from states like New York and California by high income earners. They can live well where ever they go.

If there are people like that in the world, that would make this decision to not make $260k in net taxable income because of the $700 bucks extra they are going to have to pay on that $10k earned then......so be it! That is their choice, though i still find it HIGHLY UNLIKELY and know that MOST PEOPLE making $250k will not want to stop there in their making money.

BUT IF THEY DO, and decide it is not worth making more than the $250k as you presume and they pare their business down so that they can not go over the $250k net....

THEN SOMEONE ELSE in our country will pick up the SLACK of the person paring down their business and grow their own business off of the demand that is still out there for the product or service being pared down by the other business owner.

IT WOULD STILL be very good for the country....

Care

We are all praying for you Care.

 

[WillowTree]

Dosen't the average working, tax paying man have to work for the first 4 months to pay his taxe bill???

 

[Care4all]

Many times, with a prompt like what they see going on now in marginal tax rates, people simply take a look at what they've been doing, and realize it's not worth it. If they cut back, they'd enjoy their lives more, and work less for "the man". Incentives are not always rational, nor linear, so the tipping point to do less and keep more can't be formulized. For that and other reasons, and I can think of a couple others, increases in the marginal tax rate cause people to back off of and take stock of their life's inertia.

Once they've reached the tipping point people begin to flee states with high tax rates and head for those with lower tax rates and the less demanding life style they can enjoy there. That accounts for the emmigration from states like New York and California by high income earners. They can live well where ever they go.

If there are people like that in the world, that would make this decision to not make $260k in net taxable income because of the $700 bucks extra they are going to have to pay on that $10k earned then......so be it! That is their choice, though i still find it HIGHLY UNLIKELY and know that MOST PEOPLE making $250k will not want to stop there in their making money.

BUT IF THEY DO, and decide it is not worth making more than the $250k as you presume and they pare their business down so that they can not go over the $250k net....

THEN SOMEONE ELSE in our country will pick up the SLACK of the person paring down their business and grow their own business off of the demand that is still out there for the product or service being pared down by the other business owner.

IT WOULD STILL be very good for the country....

Care

We are all praying for you Care.

HEH! I'll TAKE THEM! I can use all the prayers I can get!!!! lol

 

[Care4all]

Dosen't the average working, tax paying man have to work for the first 4 months to pay his taxe bill???

the average tax payer, yes.

this includes all taxes though, including SS taxes, which those making over $100k don't pay any over the $100k so, although their income tax burden may go up their overall tax burden does NOT.

 

[WillowTree]

well, I don't think you guys are going to win this class warfare,, we'll see, but I don't think so.

 

[Red Dawn]

Dosen't the average working, tax paying man have to work for the first 4 months to pay his taxe bill???

the average tax payer, yes.

this includes all taxes though, including SS taxes, which those making over $100k don't pay any over the $100k so, although their income tax burden may go up their overall tax burden does NOT.

I think we've come to a general consensus that this thread was another hilarious example of some dittohead making up and inventing a story about themselves to advance the rush limbaugh/george bush agenda.

Much like the girl in pennsylvania who made up a story about an imaginary scary black obama supporter attacking her, and much like joe the war correspondent making up a story about being a plumber who was buying a business.

 

[WillowTree]

Dosen't the average working, tax paying man have to work for the first 4 months to pay his taxe bill???

the average tax payer, yes.

this includes all taxes though, including SS taxes, which those making over $100k don't pay any over the $100k so, although their income tax burden may go up their overall tax burden does NOT.

I think we've come to a general consensus that this thread was another hilarious example of some dittohead making up and inventing a story about themselves to advance the rush limbaugh/george bush agenda.

Much like the girl in pennsylvania who made up a story about an imaginary scary black obama supporter attacking her, and much like joe the war correspondent making up a story about being a plumber who was buying a business.

Yes! we can just imagine that's the conclusion you would come to cause it fits in with your fairy tale... Kerry on!

 

[American Horse]

yes and for those of us that have a salary sometimes lees than our employees and work our ass off all year to make a profit so that at the end of the year that risk and effort will results in a bonus......then to have that money taxed at a higher rate simply because my effort and risk paid off .... and that money given to those that couldn't is a real pisser......especially when i started from nothing with nothing......

if an employe looses their job they get unemployement and hand outs.....if a business owner does.....the bank takes their house and all their shit and guess what the self employed don't get unemployment.....

but hey ... who gives a shit there isn't that many of us......

Manu,

First you say you pay yourself a measley salary and take what profits you make in the end-

Why do you do such? So that you can SAVE money by AVOIDING FICA taxes, no? This is an advantage a salary worker does not have....no? But YOU as an owner, gets to do.

Then you say that if a person is unemployed, they get unemployment benefits.

Since you paid yourself a salary, you get unemployment benefits as well....but since you chose to pay yourself very little in salary and chose to pay yourself out of your profits instead because you could AVOID SS taxes/FICA taxes, you will not draw much in unemployment, BUT YOU WILL DRAW SOME, and you saying you would get nothing in unemployment is simply not true under the scenario you gave.

Then you go on to say the business owner is then liable to lose his house and everything he owns if the business goes down....BUT WE ESTABLISHED ALREADY that this is why people going in to business go the Scorp, LLC etc, so that their personal wealth is not affected by a business failure, and their home CAN'T be taken away from them....so the business owner DOES NOT risk his home or his personal wealth outside of the business, IN MOST CASES.

I just wanted to make this clear...

Care

Beautifully said, Care.

It may be beautifully said, but it may not be fair nor accurate to say. This may or may not be the case with Manu (and maybe he will answer for himself here), but I know it's not the case with people who operate as Sole Proprietors.

Many Sole Proprietors, out of a sense of frugality and uncertainty take small advance draws against their work or contract. They 'casually' call that a "salary" simply regarding it as such, fearful that it will have disappeared when the project or contract is completed. They hedge against that possibility by drawing as little as possible as the project progresses.

They are not entitled to unemployment benefits, and they DO pay FICA on their whole "profit" up to the required limit as it is reported on Schedules C and SE.

I know that was how I worked, drawing as little as possible just in case the "profits" didn't pan out as I'd hoped when I originally bid the work. Profits are all about risk and are never a certainty, and that is too often the case when the project is completed and costs and income have to be reconciled. Sometimes the so called salary that has been drawn is zero'd out because the profit is nil. Profits are almost never a certainty.

For Sole Proprietors the IRS regards all in excess of costs and expenses to be reported as a "profit" on Sched C and no wages paid to him/herself by the proprietor are tax deductible nor are they recognized as salary.

When You all in New York State and California get fed up with your total tax burden, come to Indiana where you can relax and enjoy life.

...

 

[Care4all]

Manu,

First you say you pay yourself a measley salary and take what profits you make in the end-

Why do you do such? So that you can SAVE money by AVOIDING FICA taxes, no? This is an advantage a salary worker does not have....no? But YOU as an owner, gets to do.

Then you say that if a person is unemployed, they get unemployment benefits.

Since you paid yourself a salary, you get unemployment benefits as well....but since you chose to pay yourself very little in salary and chose to pay yourself out of your profits instead because you could AVOID SS taxes/FICA taxes, you will not draw much in unemployment, BUT YOU WILL DRAW SOME, and you saying you would get nothing in unemployment is simply not true under the scenario you gave.

Then you go on to say the business owner is then liable to lose his house and everything he owns if the business goes down....BUT WE ESTABLISHED ALREADY that this is why people going in to business go the Scorp, LLC etc, so that their personal wealth is not affected by a business failure, and their home CAN'T be taken away from them....so the business owner DOES NOT risk his home or his personal wealth outside of the business, IN MOST CASES.

I just wanted to make this clear...

Care

Beautifully said, Care.

It may be beautifully said, but it may not be fair nor accurate to say. This may or may not be the case with Manu (and maybe he will answer for himself here), but I know it's not the case with people who operate as Sole Proprietors.

Many Sole Proprietors, out of a sense of frugality and uncertainty take small advance draws against their work or contract. They 'casually' call that a "salary" simply regarding it as such, fearful that it will have disappeared when the project or contract is completed. They hedge against that possibility by drawing as little as possible as the project progresses.

They are not entitled to unemployment benefits, and they DO pay FICA on their whole "profit" up to the required limit as it is reported on Schedules C and SE.

I know that was how I worked, drawing as little as possible just in case the "profits" didn't pan out as I'd hoped when I originally bid the work. Profits are all about risk and are never a certainty, and that is too often the case when the project is completed and costs and income have to be reconciled. Sometimes the so called salary that has been drawn is zero'd out because the profit is nil. Profits are almost never a certainty.

For Sole Proprietors the IRS regards all in excess of costs and expenses to be reported as a "profit" on Sched C and no wages paid to him/herself by the proprietor are tax deductible nor are they recognized as salary.

When You all in New York State and California get fed up with your total tax burden, come to Indiana where you can relax and enjoy life.

...

well mustang,
4 scorp business owners in a row came on this thread or the other one about the same thing, that they DO NOT PAY SS/Fica taxes on their profit of the business in which they take as income, on their tax returns?

So what is it? Do they or do they not have to payy SS taxes on the money they take as profit and report as such on their income tax returns?

 

[Care4all]

it's not class warfare...

taxes also went up on the middle and the poor with the added cigarette taxes he's adding to them ....but nooooooooo, that doesn't count because it is not income tax? Bulloney!

How many of the poor will be able to take advantage of the new car credit they are offering? near none, because even with the credit, they can't afford the new car....but the middle and the upper classes can take advantage of this credit....

All I am trying to say is that these bills are filled with all kinds of things that help or advantage those that earn more, along with advantages to those who earn less...

If everything is taken on the whole, this plan is not as lopsided and focussed on "taxing" the rich and stealing from them as you claim....thus the mantra on the right, for soley POLITICAL PURPOSES....

ALL of our workers SS Surplus moneys are being used to pay for what income taxes are suppose to pay....that is nearly 300 billion a year now of the lower and middle classes money being STOLEN to pay for what these income tax payers are suppose to pay.....

to say that the poor do not support or pay taxes to support this country is nothing but a lie....

Care