Tea Terrorists

I used the net figure of what i actually paid, vs my total gross income. Nobody in the 25% bracket pays 25%.

My guess is if you asked people what total percentage of their income goes towards taxes, they'd answer similar to what Olivia came up with. And if you then asked them what was fair, they'd probably answer with what they actually pay. Then if you told them what they actually pay (it being what they said was fair), they'd then say that was too much.

I used the net figure of what i actually paid, vs my total gross income. Nobody in the 25% bracket pays 25%.

My guess is if you asked people what total percentage of their income goes towards taxes, they'd answer similar to what Olivia came up with. And if you then asked them what was fair, they'd probably answer with what they actually pay. Then if you told them what they actually pay (it being what they said was fair), they'd then say that was too much. Originally Posted by Doove

That is probably an accurate statement. However, for every additional dollar you or anyone in your situation makes it is also probably fair to say they will pay 40 to 60% in total taxes. That is why people get frustrated. They work their asses of to make more money to try and improve their lives and the government steals half of it. At the same time people that pay far less in taxes say that they are not paying their fair share and the idiot politicians that are stealing the money they make are demonizing them for being successful and accusing them of not paying enough when they are paying far more than any other group.

Until the government gets its own house in order it has no right to tell anyone they are not paying enough nor do they have the moral right to steal more. If you do not like the use of the word steal then to bad. It is accurate when force is used to ensure cooperation just like a thief.

Sales tax – In Houston, Texas that’s 8.25% of everything I spend retail, restaurant, etc. type of things. So I’ll ballpark it at 15% of my gross. I’m sure it’s a lowball number. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

How can you run up 15% of your gross income paying an 8.25% tax? You'd have to spend 182% of your gross income on taxable items?

I've never really figured mine out, I probably should after reading these posts. But 55% seems awfully high . I recently retired four years ago after a 25 yr career. Strange as it may sound my retirement benefits are 295.00 more than what my last year on the job was. I also don't pay State income tax on my benefit. I worked a few years after retirement. I worked a lot of over time hours for this employer and I had to pay over 1900 in taxes in 2009. I didn't work at all in 2010 and got a refund. I was told by a CPA that if I go back to work to keep the hours low. Its all so maddening.

How can you run up 15% of your gross income paying an 8.25% tax? You'd have to spend 182% of your gross income on taxable items? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Easy, use your credit card

That is probably an accurate statement. However, for every additional dollar you or anyone in your situation makes it is also probably fair to say they will pay 40 to 60% in total taxes. That is why people get frustrated. Originally Posted by Laz

But keep in mind, just going by tax bracket percentages alone, before your rate jumps 10% from 25% to 35%, it drops 7% with the cap on SS.

Since I was using 25% the 40 to 60% Still applies. Also remember that the benefit you recieve from SS is skewed so that the lower income recipiants recieve a larger amount in relation to how much they paid that those in the higher income brackets do.

All nice arguments in a philosophical world. But the reality is most people want government to spend less, just make sure you cut the things they don't care about. It is very easy for those doing well to want to cut entitlements for everyone else. It is great for 70 y/o retierees to vote against property taxes for schools. In their minds (and all the other special interest tax payers) ecomomics and running a country is SOOOOO simple.

Some (not all) the aritmetic above about tax % is so far off it's laughable. People can't look at theier own gross income and taxes paid, estimate sales taxes, and figure out what they are REALLY paying? Than how do you know it is too much or not? And whatever the number in dollars (a more important figure than in percentage) why no discussion on what they are receiving back? A cost/benefit discussion needs to look at more than costs.

One brainless TP fanatic keeps saying she is tired of supporting big government by paying more than her fair share of taxes. I don't know her whole life story but I do know she and her big business husband were extracted by the military from a very unfriendly foreign situation years ago--and they were not sent a bill. And she had a heart transplant almost completely covered by her husband's company--guess who paid for that medical insurance since it's an almost totally gov't support company?

Of course in her eyes those are completely VALID gov't expenses and it's welfare and medicaid that should be cut.

Good to know some folks see things so clearly.

All nice arguments in a philosophical world. But the reality is most people want government to spend less, just make sure you cut the things they don't care about. It is very easy for those doing well to want to cut entitlements for everyone else. It is great for 70 y/o retierees to vote against property taxes for schools. In their minds (and all the other special interest tax payers) ecomomics and running a country is SOOOOO simple.

Some (not all) the aritmetic above about tax % is so far off it's laughable. People can't look at theier own gross income and taxes paid, estimate sales taxes, and figure out what they are REALLY paying? Than how do you know it is too much or not? And whatever the number in dollars (a more important figure than in percentage) why no discussion on what they are receiving back? A cost/benefit discussion needs to look at more than costs.

One brainless TP fanatic keeps saying she is tired of supporting big government by paying more than her fair share of taxes. I don't know her whole life story but I do know she and her big business husband were extracted by the military from a very unfriendly foreign situation years ago--and they were not sent a bill. And she had a heart transplant almost completely covered by her husband's company--guess who paid for that medical insurance since it's an almost totally gov't support company?

Of course in her eyes those are completely VALID gov't expenses and it's welfare and medicaid that should be cut.

Good to know some folks see things so clearly. Originally Posted by Old-T

Now we are talking. These are all good points and there is an audience for every government program out there. So how do we get to the point where people will accept that even though it might be a worthwhile expendature it is not the responsibility of the federal government and should not be done at that level.

Until that happens and we draw a line that sets out a criteria there will always be people wanting more. At some point we have to say no. I would argue that we passed that point several years ago.

The reason so many people say we should follow the constitution is because it does not create a massive federal government that controls everything. People have used various clauses in the constitution to justify massive overreaching. Also politicians have gone to Washington to get all of the pork they can to help with reelection which has also added to the problem.

Bottom line is that until people are willing to accept cuts that affect them nothing will change. The time for fairness in the entitlement programs passed 20 years ago. Now it will be how to hurt people the least. That means things like higher medicare and social security taxes, raising the benefits age, means testing, higher co pays and god knows what else. The only thing that is certain is that you cannot raise taxes enough to solve the problem without destroying the opportunities of the next 3 to 4 generations or more.

As a final thought I wish people could know exactly how much of their money goes to fund various governments. I think that becase it is taken from their paycheck it is out of site and out of mind and that is the easy one. If they knew how much they were spending through all of the other taxes as well and added it up meybe they would quit insisting on supporting their own pet program.

Since I was using 25% the 40 to 60% Still applies. Originally Posted by Laz

40 to 60% is a pretty wide range that i think is misleading. I think it would be closer to 40% than 60. Low 40's most likely.

Even paying the full 25% income on every additional dollar, that's 25% plus 5% state plus 9% SS/Medicare and 4% sales taxes.

Since my deductions are used up which throws my income tax rate to the full 25%, then we need to accept that my property taxes are already paid. As well as my fees. So we're at 43%, give or take. And admittedly, that's just going by the numbers as they apply to me.

How can you run up 15% of your gross income paying an 8.25% tax? You'd have to spend 182% of your gross income on taxable items? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

.................By the way, i'm drawing a blank. At an 8% sales tax rate, in order to spend 15% of your gross income in sales taxes, wouldn't you need to spend 200% of your gross income on taxable items alone? Or am i factoring that all wrong?

Anyways, subtracting what i need to pay my mortgage, insurances, car payments, etc, let's figure i pay 4% in sales taxes. An additional 2% for fees (which sounds high, but whatever) brings my total to 34.5%. A far cry from 55%. Originally Posted by Doove

You’re right. I did the cipher on percentage of my gross income not percentage of my retail spend. I’d say I pay about 4 – 5% in sales tax. Amended, I’d say I pay 44% of what I make in taxes. That’s a big chunk of what I make. That’s a big chunk of what anybody makes.

Actually, I think sales tax is a very unfair tax to the poor. I’m not taxed on nearly everything I spend; the poor are because they spend nearly every dime they make to survive. The more money a person makes, the more they spend on assets, investments and the like. I think it is a demonstratively unfair tax.

Until recently, I’ve paid employment taxes. That’s where Bush should have directed his tax cuts. No individuals, in the bell curve, really noticed the small amount of money that wasn’t taken in withholding in their paychecks. Small businesses on the other hand, could have expanded or hired another person with a reduction in 940 and 941 taxes.

40 to 60% is a pretty wide range that i think is misleading. I think it would be closer to 40% than 60. Low 40's most likely.

Even paying the full 25% income on every additional dollar, that's 25% plus 5% state plus 9% SS/Medicare and 4% sales taxes.

Since my deductions are used up which throws my income tax rate to the full 25%, then we need to accept that my property taxes are already paid. As well as my fees. So we're at 43%, give or take. And admittedly, that's just going by the numbers as they apply to me. Originally Posted by Doove

In your case you are probably right. For other people it could be higher but it really does not matter. I know it is only my opinion but I think 40+% of every additional dollar earned is a lot.

Until recently, I’ve paid employment taxes. That’s where Bush should have directed his tax cuts. No individuals, in the bell curve, really noticed the small amount of money that wasn’t taken in withholding in their paychecks. Small businesses on the other hand, could have expanded or hired another person with a reduction in 940 and 941 taxes. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Temporary reductions are not effective since the business owner has to plan on the long term. Reducing any income to the social security trust fund is a bad idea. It is already massively underfunded and that just makes it worse. Remember Congress has squandered all of the money that was supposed to be available for the next two to three decades to cover the funding shortfalls during the baby boomer retirements.

You’re right. I did the cipher on percentage of my gross income not percentage of my retail spend. I’d say I pay about 4 – 5% in sales tax. Amended, I’d say I pay 44% of what I make in taxes. That’s a big chunk of what I make. That’s a big chunk of what anybody makes. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

One more quibble. I'm assuming you're basing the 44% figure on the idea you pay 25% in income taxes.

Just for shits and giggles, pull out your most recent tax return and see if the actual calculation lines up with that.

Ok, since it is difficult to come up with a percentage, what do you think the percentage SHOULD be?

The U.S. tax system is somewhat progressive. Income taxes, especially, are progressive, slightly more than offsetting regressive taxes such as Social Security and sales taxes. Therefore, I would expect that the percentage of tax paid for any given individual on this board, whose membership seems to be a good bit wealthier than the average household in the U.S. (where Average Household Income is $50,221) would be somewhat higher than the average.

But the total tax burden in the U.S. as a percentage of GDP is 27.1%. So when you take all the poor who pay a good portion of their income in sales taxes and payroll taxes, average with all us millionaires, the final number has to come out to 27.1%. There can't be many 60% folks in the deck, or that average won't work out.



Average household income source: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Likewise, it is not relevant what our tax rate is in the abstract. The relevant inquiry is what it is in relation to other countries who are similarly situation to the United States and with whom the U.S. is competing. Clearly, out taxes are very low (as are our government services) compared to comparable countries.

And clearly the much lower taxes that we (and Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Turkey) are enjoying aren't doing us much good economically. Otherwise, we'd be beating the pants of countries like Germany, France, Finland, etc. who are kicking our ass all over the place economically.