|
As we get closer to the elections of 2008, it is almost a foregone conclusion that Obama will win the election. Under his new tax policy, married couples making more than $250,000 will have to pay an additional 3% on their taxes, for a total of 36%. For families like mine, which are barely making over $250,000, that's 90,000$ going to Uncle Sam alone, not to mention our state's relatively high taxes and our town's high property tax, and you're looking at over $125,000 in taxes not including social security and medicare and all the other things the government pig takes from us. Now factor in the cost of a college/medical school tuition these days. $60,000 including tuition, room and board, fees, and expenses. Because of our "high" income, we get 0$ of financial aid, while other much wealthier families in our town can hide their assets and pay 15% tax and get financial aid. In other words, because I have to go to college next year, my family's monetary revenue per year after taxes and social security and whatnot is $50,000 to support a family of 4. Where the hell is the justice in the world? Not to mention that my family had planned to have kids 5 years from each other so they would only have to support one kid's college tuition at a time. Well apparently, having concurrent kids in college gives you financial aid. Bullocks.
For comparison, some of my friends' parents can hide their assets in privately owned companies and pay 15% on capital gains tax while hiding everything they spend under business expenses and reinvestment into their firm (bullocks) and they get financial aid and federal grants. Bullocks.
This is another reason why I hate the current system and Obama.
   
|
Uhhhh... My house hold doesn't even make more than 60k a year(together). -_- Stop crying, your parents can afford your schooling.
|
On June 29 2008 01:27 JudgeMathis wrote: Uhhhh... My house hold doesn't even make more than 60k a year(together). -_- Stop crying, your parents can afford your schooling.
I understand on the other hand how is it fair that other people can hide all their assets and make off like bandits anyways
|
I don't know. Don't people get their taxes reduced if they donate(clothes, money, etc)?
|
If your family makes $250k a year, and you're really worried that it's not enough to live on, how can you possibly complain when Obama wants to lower taxes on the vast majority of families that make a fraction of that
The problem you have is not with Obama, it's with your friends who are tax cheats. If everyone paid their fair share we wouldn't have these huge deficits and the weak dollar, etc.
If your family can't afford college, you should get student loans. Lots of us have been there, it's not that bad. But good luck, since the Republicans have been on a mission to make that a lot harder.
The 36% is a MARGINAL tax rate. The 36% rate would only kick in for a married couple at $200k. What that means is that under Obama, you'd be paying only (250k-200k)*(0.03) = $1,500 more than you are now. That's a little over half a percent of your parents total income. You really think that's enough of a difference to not vote for Obama??? See here:
2008 Income Tax Rates
p.s. I _highly_ doubt your family pays more than 50% of its income in taxes before payroll taxes. I'd be interested to see the actual breakdown.
|
On June 29 2008 01:41 Clutch3 wrote:If your family makes $250k a year, and you're really worried that it's not enough to live on, how can you possibly complain when Obama wants to lower taxes on the vast majority of families that make a fraction of that The problem you have is not with Obama, it's with your friends who are tax cheats. If everyone paid their fair share we wouldn't have these huge deficits and the weak dollar, etc. If your family can't afford college, you should get student loans. Lots of us have been there, it's not that bad. But good luck, since the Republicans have been on a mission to make that a lot harder. The 36% is a MARGINAL tax rate. The 36% rate would only kick in for a married couple at $200k. What that means is that under Obama, you'd be paying only (250k-200k)*(0.03) = $1,500 more than you are now. That's a little over half a percent of your parents total income. You really think that's enough of a difference to not vote for Obama??? See here: 2008 Income Tax Ratesp.s. I _highly_ doubt your family pays more than 50% of its income in taxes before payroll taxes. I'd be interested to see the actual breakdown. i would love to post it but thats personal information T_T
|
You should come to Sweden Here anyone with a good income pays around 50% taxes
|
Poor disadvantaged $250k-earners...
|
the democrats champion the poor the republicans champion the rich the middle class pays all the taxes
thats how it is i wish i could complain about making $250 thousand a year my god, it must be impossible for you to live on ONLY $50,000 theres only a majority of people making less than your household in the united states
i feel for you man.
|
|
On June 29 2008 01:57 DrainX wrote:You should come to Sweden  Here anyone with a good income pays around 50% taxes 
yeah but then you all get free insurance and college fees?
|
I wish I had a problem like making too much money
|
On June 29 2008 01:27 JudgeMathis wrote: Uhhhh... My house hold doesn't even make more than 60k a year(together). -_- Stop crying, your parents can afford your schooling. Exactly.
My parents barely make 50k. Seriously Stop Bitching
Ok sorry for that comment, but when I saw how much money you guys make it made me angry. How about State Universities? They are considerably cheaper than Private.
|
Don't be supported by your parents then take out all loans in your own name, whether or not you actually pay them off is another story but when you apply if you stipulate that you aren't going to get any assistance from your family for college I think you should have a much easier time getting grants and loans
And Clutch3 is right, only the portion in the highest bracket gets taxed at the highest rate and honestly, even if obama is president, that tax raise has to go through congress, and who knows if that'll work
if anything obama will work to remove that bullshit capital gains tax, so you should be happy
|
Baltimore, USA22251 Posts
Wow @ this blog... you don't know how good you have it, and you still complain. TBH you sound a bit spoiled to me.
Like everyone has said, if you're so concerned about the wellbeing of your family, man-up and take out loans yourself.
|
Your household makes almost four times above the median income in the United States.
What are you complaining about again?
|
|
i'm not complaining about the fact that there's high income
i'm complaining about the fact that other people are hiding their assets and getting away scot free from it
that was an example of criticizing obama's policies..
We don't actually make 250,000. We make something less than that. A lot less. But we still don't get any help and I can apply to like... 0 scholarship foundations.
in the mean time my parents work 14 hours a day 7 a week on work alone while other parents are coaching baseball teams and still earning money
|
Oh yeah, there is no justice in the world. When I was about to go to "college" my family earned neer $2500 a year (two thousand five hundred after tax, that's one hundred times less than yours earns now before tax).
And like Clutch3 said, you are getting the situation wrong. USA has progressive tax system, that means the higher tax % is applied only to the value of income which is above some limit. If you earn only slightly above 250000 u won't feel the difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax If taxable income falls within a particular tax bracket, the individual pays the listed percentage of income on each dollar that falls within that monetary range. For example, a person who earned $10,000 in taxable income (income after adjustments, deductions, and exemptions) for 2006 would be liable for 10% of each dollar earned from the 1st dollar to the 7,550th dollar, and then for 15% of each dollar earned from the 7,551st dollar to the 10,000th dollar, for a total of $1,122.50. This ensures that every rise in a person's salary results in an increase of after-tax salary
And you should not react so painfully to tax changes. Want a change - find a way to cover your income like the others do of which you talk about, but for god's sake stop whining.
|
after all the posts that have rebuked the nonsense you wrote in your OP, you are still putting some blame on obama? do you not possess an ounce of logic or what.
your "friends" and their parents hiding their money has nothing to do with obama, go whine to them.
|
On June 29 2008 03:36 tiffany wrote: after all the posts that have rebuked the nonsense you wrote in your OP, you are still putting some blame on obama? do you not possess an ounce of logic or what.
your "friends" and their parents hiding their money has nothing to do with obama, go whine to them.
actually it does
obama's "tax reform" doesn't target those areas at all he increases estate tax exemption-which only serves to aid those people whom can hide their assets as its hard to hide property values increases reported income brackets to 250k+ which only serves to slightly increase the amount of reported income these people can pay
he's barking up the wrong tree for funds if he wants funds he needs to go after the tax cheaters, like the people that claim pets are dependents, et. al not tax a rapidly shrinking group more money
|
United States24612 Posts
The goal of Alternative Minimum Tax is to make sure rich people claiming lots of exemptions still owe their fair share. If you are not familiar with it, make sure you read up on it (and I wouldn't go just by wikipedia).
Edit: my coworker is going to hit 6 figures soon as a teacher, as will his wife, and they are starting to get screwed over by AMT even though they aren't wealthy at all after they pay off their house :p
|
On June 29 2008 03:55 micronesia wrote:The goal of Alternative Minimum Tax is to make sure rich people claiming lots of exemptions still owe their fair share. If you are not familiar with it, make sure you read up on it (and I wouldn't go just by wikipedia). Edit: my coworker is going to hit 6 figures soon as a teacher, as will his wife, and they are starting to get screwed over by AMT even though they aren't wealthy at all after they pay off their house :p
but isn't there going to be all that "AMT" reform nonesense that both Obama and Mccain are sprouting? granted probably everybody is being screwed over by AMT one way or another but still it doesn't prevent people from geting full financial aid from colleges or applying for "need-based" scholarships, which is bullshit b/c less fortunate people that could be applying are being shut out by asset hiders with "low income" and superior credentials due to more opportunity.
|
On June 29 2008 02:36 il0seonpurpose wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2008 01:57 DrainX wrote:You should come to Sweden  Here anyone with a good income pays around 50% taxes  yeah but then you all get free insurance and college fees? Yes ofc. But so would the US if they had higher taxes.
|
On June 29 2008 04:11 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2008 02:36 il0seonpurpose wrote:On June 29 2008 01:57 DrainX wrote:You should come to Sweden  Here anyone with a good income pays around 50% taxes  yeah but then you all get free insurance and college fees? Yes ofc. But so would the US if they had higher taxes.
or we could fight more wars O.O
|
On June 29 2008 03:44 Caller wrote:
he's barking up the wrong tree for funds if he wants funds he needs to go after the tax cheaters, like the people that claim pets are dependents, et. al not tax a rapidly shrinking group more money Your logic is flawed. 1) As long as gov has enough dogs (sources for funds) it can bark up as many trees as possible as long as every barking brings the result. 2) The fact you can't hear barking at the tax-cheaters tree doesn't mean there is none. 3) USA economy is in trouble. Taxes are to rise, that's enevatable. The rich are the first ones. So far so fair.
|
On June 29 2008 04:17 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2008 03:44 Caller wrote:
he's barking up the wrong tree for funds if he wants funds he needs to go after the tax cheaters, like the people that claim pets are dependents, et. al not tax a rapidly shrinking group more money Your logic is flawed. 1) As long as gov has enough dogs (sources for funds) it can bark up as many trees as possible as long as every barking brings the result. 2) The fact you can't hear barking at the tax-cheaters tree doesn't mean there is none. 3) USA economy is in trouble. Taxes are to rise, that's enevatable. The rich are the first ones. So far so fair.
1) not true, b/c of the way the progressive tax system works and b/c different trees give different results 2) the barking at the tax cheaters tree evidently isn't loud enough b/c there's a lot more stuff in that tree than in other trees that hasn't been tapped 3) the rich aren't being taxed, its mostly the nouveau riche/the upper middle class atm.
|
I think we should tax everyone at the same rate. 36% for all. That's fair to the man making minimum wage and the man making 250,000, right?
(/sarcasm)
|
For each new bracket, you're only taxed that much for income over that amount. Like if at <$60,000 it's 10% and >$60,000 it's 15%, you only pay 15% on income above and beyond $60,000, for everything below $60,000 it's 10%. Does this new system somehow work differently than that? Because income tax has always worked that way.
|
On June 29 2008 01:22 Caller wrote: As we get closer to the elections of 2008, it is almost a foregone conclusion that Obama will win the election. Under his new tax policy, married couples making more than $250,000 will have to pay an additional 3% on their taxes, for a total of 36%. For families like mine, which are barely making over $250,000, that's 90,000$ going to Uncle Sam alone, not to mention our state's relatively high taxes and our town's high property tax, and you're looking at over $125,000 in taxes not including social security and medicare and all the other things the government pig takes from us. Now factor in the cost of a college/medical school tuition these days. $60,000 including tuition, room and board, fees, and expenses. Because of our "high" income, we get 0$ of financial aid, while other much wealthier families in our town can hide their assets and pay 15% tax and get financial aid. In other words, because I have to go to college next year, my family's monetary revenue per year after taxes and social security and whatnot is $50,000 to support a family of 4. Where the hell is the justice in the world? Not to mention that my family had planned to have kids 5 years from each other so they would only have to support one kid's college tuition at a time. Well apparently, having concurrent kids in college gives you financial aid. Bullocks.
For comparison, some of my friends' parents can hide their assets in privately owned companies and pay 15% on capital gains tax while hiding everything they spend under business expenses and reinvestment into their firm (bullocks) and they get financial aid and federal grants. Bullocks.
This is another reason why I hate the current system and Obama.
Maybe your parents should hide their money in privately owned companies...
EDIT: like, seriously.
|
On June 29 2008 05:24 UmmTheHobo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2008 01:22 Caller wrote: As we get closer to the elections of 2008, it is almost a foregone conclusion that Obama will win the election. Under his new tax policy, married couples making more than $250,000 will have to pay an additional 3% on their taxes, for a total of 36%. For families like mine, which are barely making over $250,000, that's 90,000$ going to Uncle Sam alone, not to mention our state's relatively high taxes and our town's high property tax, and you're looking at over $125,000 in taxes not including social security and medicare and all the other things the government pig takes from us. Now factor in the cost of a college/medical school tuition these days. $60,000 including tuition, room and board, fees, and expenses. Because of our "high" income, we get 0$ of financial aid, while other much wealthier families in our town can hide their assets and pay 15% tax and get financial aid. In other words, because I have to go to college next year, my family's monetary revenue per year after taxes and social security and whatnot is $50,000 to support a family of 4. Where the hell is the justice in the world? Not to mention that my family had planned to have kids 5 years from each other so they would only have to support one kid's college tuition at a time. Well apparently, having concurrent kids in college gives you financial aid. Bullocks.
For comparison, some of my friends' parents can hide their assets in privately owned companies and pay 15% on capital gains tax while hiding everything they spend under business expenses and reinvestment into their firm (bullocks) and they get financial aid and federal grants. Bullocks.
This is another reason why I hate the current system and Obama. Maybe your parents should hide their money in privately owned companies... EDIT: like, seriously.
please read entire thread
namely part where i say we dont actually make that much
|
Korea (South)11570 Posts
steal from the rich, give to the poor. Fucking robbin hood shit.
My dad makes $450k a year and he has to support 4 kids through college next year, insurance, house payments, taxes, and all of that shit. All in all, he has to pay about $260,000 next year if Obama wins election... not including medicare etc...
|
On June 29 2008 05:54 CaucasianAsian wrote: steal from the rich, give to the poor. Fucking robbin hood shit.
My dad makes $450k a year and he has to support 4 kids through college next year, insurance, house payments, taxes, and all of that shit. All in all, he has to pay about $260,000 next year if Obama wins election... not including medicare etc...
How much does he have to pay yearly for drug tests?
|
On June 29 2008 06:03 BuGzlToOnl wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2008 05:54 CaucasianAsian wrote: steal from the rich, give to the poor. Fucking robbin hood shit.
My dad makes $450k a year and he has to support 4 kids through college next year, insurance, house payments, taxes, and all of that shit. All in all, he has to pay about $260,000 next year if Obama wins election... not including medicare etc... How much does he have to pay yearly for drug tests?
Probably 190k.
|
(450k-200k) = 250k*.03 = 7500$ more under obama. So $260,000 instead of $252,500? Not as bad as you'd think.
|
|
The problem is the loopholes people use to hide their income. All the taxrates can come down if no-one can dodge the system.
|
On June 29 2008 05:54 CaucasianAsian wrote: steal from the rich, give to the poor. Fucking robbin hood shit.
My dad makes $450k a year and he has to support 4 kids through college next year, insurance, house payments, taxes, and all of that shit. All in all, he has to pay about $260,000 next year if Obama wins election... not including medicare etc...
Just out of curiosity, what does your dad do?
|
I fucking hate people who bitch about taxes. Would you rather everything were privately owned, and you had to pay ridiculous toll fees instead? Government doesn't make money off of building roads, they just use however much it costs to build and maintain them. If they were privately owned, you could sure as hell bet whoever owned it would milk it for all they could.
My dad makes $450k a year Your poor fucking dad. Let's all have a moment of silence for the plight of the rich and powerful. For fucks sake.
|
Maybe taxes aren't done perfectly, and too much is spent, and they are too high, but really, do you think you should pay the same % as someone who makes 60k a year? That's hardly practical. They can't eat, go to school, have a car, have savings, and clothes, with 1 kid. What are you losing when u are making 400k a year? The same % won't effect you the same. Now i'm not even asking for the effect to be made equal, only that the effect on you isn't trivial while for others the effect is relatively devastating. To achieve that, don't you think we need the rich to pay more? Everyone always wants to say "well if only i got more of that money" but really if the government is going to take X$ from the population, what is your advice for distributing the burden? I dn't see how a flat % for instance would be fair at all for reasons stated above. If the gov needs more $ they can't take more from the people already being fucked. BTW the people being fucked generally their money is moving out of their hands and into yours (ppl making the most). Sure it's "their own fault" but the point is why screw them even more.
|
I'm still debating with myself whether the few (3 I think?) people in this thread who are having money woes when they/their families make hundreds of thousands of dollars are actually serious or doing it for the 'internet lulz'
|
Oh they're serious. The only thing people want when they have money, is more money.
|
United States24612 Posts
On June 29 2008 13:03 PsycHOTemplar wrote: Oh they're serious. Agree. The only thing people want when they have money, is more money. I believe this to be irrelevant to the first sentence.
|
Taxes are completely necessary.
QQ more
|
Don't go to a private college if your parents can't afford the $45,000 to $50,000 that it will cost per year
|
On June 29 2008 13:28 -orb- wrote: Taxes are completely necessary.
QQ more not completely !
|
|
CA10824 Posts
my family made 30K for a family of 4. now we make much less due to some circumstances.
go cry somewhere else, ok? thanks.
|
Yeah really, I'm busting my ass for $20k/yr, no health insurance, no dental, no car insurance, no energy to do anything but work, and i could really use some of that money the gov takes out of my checks, hate to say it, probably more than you silver spoons.
|
i like how OP posts to criticize tax policies, or to criticize his tax cheating friends, makes an innocent statement regarding his household income, and buttloads of people jump in to tell him to stfu because they are making less money than he is. Not many people seems to be taking a close look at the numbers OP took the time to dig out and analyze those.
So he's born into a good family, its not like its his fault. stop giving him shit about that
|
United States24612 Posts
On June 29 2008 15:51 LosingID8 wrote: go cry somewhere else, ok? thanks. If he wants to cry about how he only is 99% fortunate instead of 100% fortunate in his blog, then he can do that and you/we can ignore it as appropriate. Of course, I think the issue he is discussing is more complex than simply him victimizing himself, the one who is least victimized in the world.
|
On June 29 2008 13:02 JeeJee wrote: I'm still debating with myself whether the few (3 I think?) people in this thread who are having money woes when they/their families make hundreds of thousands of dollars are actually serious or doing it for the 'internet lulz'
|
So he's born into a good family, its not like its his fault. stop giving him shit about that It's just hard to get over the irony of people with lots of money complaining about their money woes for most people. If he wanted to talk facts, it would have been a good idea to leave that part out lol. He says "$250,000, minus $90,000" like everyone is supposed to be shocked and horrified. Sorry, but no one cares. That's 90,000 dollars that everyone from a low income family will be glad to see put to services they can use too.
In a system without government or taxes, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Genetics hold less value, and it becomes more about who was born where. Personally, I prefer a system where poor people (due to public programs) can climb the ladder a little, and rich people can't stomp on their hands at every step. If your complaint is about loopholes, you should be making suggestions to fix them, not disowning the system all together.
|
On June 29 2008 07:10 Slayer91 wrote: (450k-200k) = 250k*.03 = 7500$ more under obama. So $260,000 instead of $252,500? Not as bad as you'd think. This. People just like to get angry about things, they hear some figure and freak out, when it's not even a very big difference. The only part of the story they tell is how much they're supposedly going to have to pay, not how much the difference is between tax policies. But I guess that's how politics work, half-truths and slandering the other side.
|
|
|
|