This just in from IRS

[Guest CigarGuy]

"2. Earned Income Tax Credit.  If you worked but earned less than $50,270 last year, you may qualify for EITC. EITC is a refundable tax credit; which means if you qualify you could receive EITC as a tax refund. Families with qualifying children may qualify to get up to $5,891 dollars. You can’t get the credit unless you file a return and claim it. Use the EITC Assistant to find out if you qualify"

 

"Earned less then $50,270"........  Make sure you get what's comin' to ya', fellas! ;)

[Wingshooter]

Hmm, I guess I'll have to "donate" a little more this April to support that program. "Spread The Wealth" is alive and well

Edited January 28, 2013 by Batman

[Guest CigarGuy]

I would suspect there is as much abuse in this program as in any, but I also suspect it is a sacred cow to our legislators?!

[No_0ne]

I would suspect there is as much abuse in this program as in any, but I also suspect it is a sacred cow to our legislators?!

Hmmm.  Since many Federal programs seem to be sacred cows to most of our legislators, does that mean they are really closet Hindus?

[Rowdy]

This is how many pay no taxes. They work and X is withheld from their paycheck and then by the magic of EITC they get a refund of
X x 2! How great is that? What a country!

[Guest 556or762]

I get raped by the IRS for trying to make money and earn what I have, and "others" just hold out their hand and take. I make less than $100k/yr but yet my taxes went up this year even though it was only supposed to be over $400k. I am out another $300/mo more this year in fed taxes, Medicare and retirement increases. I now realize why so many try so little, I try to earn a living and its taken away, they take a living and just sit on the porch I paid for, talking on a cell phone I paid for, eating food I paid for and call me a sucker. I know bring home less than 2/3 of what I gross and in my book that does.make me a sucker! WTF man?

[mcurrier]

Its just a wealth redistribution program. There is no "refund".

[Erik88]

I don't qualify. Last year I was apparently a "poor" college student because I got over $4,000 back. This year I'm only getting back $1,000. 

 

I learned a valuable lesson this year when it comes to taxes and what to expect. 

[Guest sL1k]

I have the minimal amount taken out and pay In at the end of the year, I hate giving the government an interest free loan. looks like I qualify for the EITC this year though.

[Guest 556or762]

I don't qualify. Last year I was apparently a "poor" college student because I got over $4,000 back. This year I'm only getting back $1,000.

I learned a valuable lesson this year when it comes to taxes and what to expect.

I hate to say it, but the tax code is so confusing and rediculously difficult to understand I haven't figured it out yet and I've been payin em for almost two decades now.

[Currently]

[quote name="sL1k" post="898937" timestamp="1359430303"]I have the minimal amount taken out and pay In at the end of the year, I hate giving the government an interest free loan. looks like I qualify for the EITC this year though.[/quote] There is also the part where you pay taxes again on your refund the following year.

[Oh Shoot]

There is also the part where you pay taxes again on your refund the following year.

 

No way. It's withheld income you already filed on coming back to you.

 

If you did that, not only have you loaned the government interest free money, but you've claimed the same dollars as income in two different years.

 

Tell me you're not doing that?

 

- OS

Edited January 29, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The EIC wasn't as "generous" when I might have been able to qualify, or maybe in reality it ain't so generous even today, dunno.

 

Back when I was po as a church mouse never managed to qualify for EIC. Somebody would have needed to be even more po as a church mouse than I was. It is hard to get a grasp of the income levels and such because of continuous drastic inflation over the decades. The BLS by all accounts severely underestimates inflation, but even using the BLS inflation calculator, a figure of $50,270 in 2012 is the same as $10,794 in 1974 when I was closest to being qualified for EIC.

 

In 1974 an income in the $10,000 ballpark got you over the poverty line but not by much. Old dad was pulling down in the ballpark of $50,000 as an electronic engineer for the railroad back then, ferinstance. Putting him solidly in the middle class. $10,000 was hanging on to the lower fringes of the middle class.

 

The EIC also had to do with the number of kids in the household. If you only had as many kids as you could afford, it was harder to benefit from the EIC than compulsive breeders with a scad of kids they couldn't support, working minimum wage. I'm a guessing that unless you have a scad of kids, you ain't gonna get an EIC nowadays with $50,000 income, and if you do it will be a token hundred bucks or whatever. The very poorest with the biggest families will get the full double-barrel credit.

 

But the system is calibrated against "typical americans" I guess. Fer instance, I've always been allergic to debt, never had a house mortgage. Paid the house short term in another fashion. Without a mortgage, not once has itemized deductions been as good a break as the standard deduction, though supposedly lots of "typical middle class americans" make out like gangbusters with itemized deductions.

[JayC]

Best investment I make all year long is paying a top notch CPA to do my taxes and provide me advice on how to structure my income to pay the least amount in taxes.

 

I hate to say it, but the tax code is so confusing and rediculously difficult to understand I haven't figured it out yet and I've been payin em for almost two decades now.

 

 

[TMF]

With the tax increase I just got ('bout 4k up from last year) I'm having to adjust expenditures on certain things I was planning on this year, meaning that the 4k that would have been reinvested back into the economy will not be. I assume this is true across the board with folks who are seeing tax increases (folks that work).

Liberal Democrats have to be the dumbest effing people on the planet to let this happen in an already failing economy. Do they not understand that in order for the economy to turn around people need to spend money? This is the primary reason I voted for Romney. Say what you want, but he wouldn't be trying to take our guns right now and he actually understands that the economy runs on people spending and businesses hiring/producing. Edited January 30, 2013 by TMF

[mcurrier]

Liberal Democrats have to be the dumbest effing people on the planet to let this happen in an already failing economy. 

 

I don't think it was a matter of "LET"-ing it happen, they WANTED it to happen, hence they CAUSED it to happen.  It is their agenda to destroy America.  Hannity constantly says that he doesn't think that liberals are unpatriotic, that they love America just as much as we do.  I wonder what the heck he is smoking?  He's just walking on egg shells if he can't call out the truth like Levin, Limbaugh or Savage.

[Guest MilitiaMan]

 I work in a state prison. My job is incredibly demanding. Physically and psychologically. I make a mere $24,852.00 and I get absolutely molested with the taxes witheld from my paycheck. So what do I know.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

 I work in a state prison. My job is incredibly demanding. Physically and psychologically. I make a mere $24,852.00 and I get absolutely molested with the taxes witheld from my paycheck. So what do I know.

 

No, no, no! Romney, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity pay all the taxes. Just ask em, they'll tell ya. :)

 

Inflation is masking a gradual general deterioration in the situation of the common man. As earlier mentioned, according the the federal gubmint, a figure of $50,270 in 2012 is the same as $10,794 in 1974. As best I recall, it seemed easier to find people making $10,000+ in 1974 than it is to find people making $50,000+ in 2013. If so, indicative of the thang going downhill.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[Guest 556or762]

I don't understand why a flat tax is such a bad idea, I see no issues with anyone with a job paying the same amount. I read an article that I can't find to link here last year, the article had several calculations that showed a flat tax from 10-20% and the funny thing was at 10% there was almost the exact same amount of tax revenue as the year it was written. I realize if everyone paid 15% it would make it extremely easy and the number of audits would drop exponentially for a few years, and all those fighting against the tax hikes for the top 10% would be out more money, but why is that bad? I am expected to pay twice the percentage as the top earners seems like I'm being punished for not running a fortune 500. I love the argument that the top earners already pay a large portion of tax revenue, but to me that shouldn't matter, why should it be ok to pay in a third of what I earn when I am outside working hard all day and they pay in 10% or less sitting in an office 3 days a week. I guess I'm just not that smart seems it would even the field a little to me and isn't that what Washington wants for us?

[Oh Shoot]

... I am expected to pay twice the percentage as the top earners ...

 
You pay significantly less percentage that the top on taxable income:
 
Tax brackets for 2013:

 
If you want to discuss the tax rates on certain investment income, that's a totally different argument. But you'd not pay higher rate on that than the big rich either.
 
Methinks you have been convinced otherwise by the Dems?
 
- OS Edited January 31, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Guest ThePunisher]

I don't understand why a flat tax is such a bad idea, I see no issues with anyone with a job paying the same amount.

That would be called EQUITABLE and FAIR TAXATION. The democrat commies don't believe in fair taxation, because that would mean they couldn't use their mantra of " tax the rich " in their class warfare strategy of buying votes from the " poor or the oppressed ". They hated Reagan for his massive tax cuts that proved that you can let the people have more of their hard earned money and still bring in more revenues than ever to the Treasury Department. All classes of people prospered after Reagan's tax cuts and his economic policies, and the liberal commies hated him and still do because his tax cutting policies helped make America more prosperous than ever before. We could of had a flat tax thirty years ago if not for the Democrats. Edited January 31, 2013 by ThePunisher

[Oh Shoot]

... The democrat commies don't believe in fair taxation,...

 

Neither does the GOP. Both sides jockey the tax code through the years to further reelection. Would posit more loopholes are in there due to Republicans.

 

- OS

Edited January 31, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[1pointofview]

My wife made a few grand more this year and after a refinance we had a few thousand less in mortgage interest to deduct and all of a sudden i am owing what i got back last year after paying more in taxes.

I think the unintended consequences of the social security cut that put more money in your wallet but also made your taxable income more.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

OS Said

You pay significantly less percentage that the top on adjusted gross income:

 

Tax brackets for 2013:

 

If you want to discuss the tax rates on certain investment income, that's a totally different argument. But you'd not pay higher rate on that than the big rich either.

 

Methinks you have been convinced otherwise by the Dems?

 

- OS

Just looking at the rates, the tax rate is already surprisingly flat. If one ignores such confounding factors as capital gains tax. And if one doesn't try to figure out whether tax dodges of the rich'n'famous are more or less "deserved" than child care credits or earned income credits taken by po folks, or mortgage interest deductions taken by middle class folks and yuppies.

 

Here is a numeric example-- Postulate three single self-employed fellas who don't have much in the way of deductions. One fella makes $900,000, the second fella makes $90,000, and the third makes $9,000.

 

So the fella with $900,000 income pays $314,163 income tax. He pays 12.4 percent social security on the max ceiling of 113,700 = $14099, and he pays 2.9 percent medicare tax on $900,000 = $26,100. His total tax bill is therefore $354,362. Divide that by $900,000 to give a total tax rate of 39.4 percent.

 

Now the fella with $90,000 income pays $18,493 income tax plus $11,160 social security and $2610 medicare. Note that his social security bill is almost as much as the fella who made $900,000, but his income is a tenth as much. That is the trick part of the equation. The fella has a total tax bill of $32,263. Giving a total tax rate of 35.8 percent.

 

The self-employed fella with only $9000 income has $904 of income tax and $1377 of social security/medicare, totaling a tax bill of $2281 and a total tax rate of 25.3 percent.

 

So we see in this case there is only about a 15 percent spread between rich and poor, and the fella in the middle has about a 4 percent spread going up and 11 percent spread going down. Pretty dang flat.

 

There are other factors that tend to flatten it even more, sales tax ferinstance. The poor fella and the middle class fella both pay sales tax on just about every penny of their incomes, but the rich guy is probably spending a good bit of his money on things that are not sales-taxable, such as stocks and bonds. Which would tend to raise the total tax rate of the po and middle class more than it would the rich guy, and bring the actual rates even closer.

 

Note that ALL the fellas above, even the poor guy, have a MUCH higher tax rate than Mitt Romney's 14.1 percent.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[Guest 556or762]

I am the middle guy at $90k and taking all into consideration including the tax breaks the rich get and the not taxable ways they distribute their money is my issue once you get it all figured out it comes out like your math I pay 35.8 and the Rich pay 14.1, makes me throw up alittle in my mouth, that and the dog behind me just farted!