Why is it selfish?

[dsc]

For a single person making $12,500 a year to be upset over paying more in taxes than a family of four making $50,000? I do know raising children can be expensive. I have no problem providing governemnt services to make raising children easier such as universal health care, great public schools, and help for honestly poor parents. But I do have a problem with this.

The per capita income is the same in both cases but the second family has significant advantages. They are way more likely to have health insurance (especially if the 50k is from one job), they don't pay 4 times the rent or utilities of a single person, and they can buy stuff in bulk. Their 50k is likely to go further in many cases. Yet they should pay less in taxes? That seems unfair and I don't think it is selfish to say so.

[Forkboy]

1. Anyone who thinks it's selfish

has most likely never made that small an amount.The tune would change fast if they did.

[dsc]

3. Bigtime

I have had some rough years lately and have to say it is differnt in practice than in theory. I make more that that but not by much and am very angry that people making over 3 times what I do would be paying no taxes at all while I still would be.

[JI7]

4. compare to corporate execs

corporate execs pay shit. they rip off people. people tend to blame those who don't deserve it, or are angry at the wrongpeople. how about the corrupt like bush, cheney and ken lay ?

[JI7]

2. the wealthy don't pay their fair share

if they did we would decrease the problems by a large amount.

[Gore1FL]

30. Yes they do

They pay more than their fair share. They have to though, because in doing so they reap the rewards of more income.

The rich are just as patriotic as anyone. The answer is to appeal to that patriotism, because they are in a unique position to help the country in a way that many of us cannot.

We need to stop demonizing the rich, they do pay the bulk. We need them to do more, to be sure. They can afford it betetr than the middle class and the poor, obviously.

Because of this need, we need to embrace them, and appeal to their patriotism and generosity. There are good rich people. There are patriotic rich people. We need them, because they can best afford to carry more of the burden.

L:et's not say the rich aren't doing their fair share -- They are -- it just seems like their load is smaller because many of use carry the burden in a Yugo and they carry theirs in an 18-wheeler.

They have much much more capacity and are much more easily able to carry more of the tax burden -- And they should -- because that is the only way it is going to work.

[Tinoire]

5. I don't think it's selfish at all

You work as hard for your money as the people who decided to have kids. There are other solutions. Making the wealthy pay their fair share would seem like a good start to me!

[Dookus]

6. would

somebody making $12,500/year pay ANY income taxes?

[dsc]

8. Yes they would

The standard deduction and exemption total $7700. That would leave $4800 being taxed at 10%. That is $480.

[Dookus]

13. thanks...

that number oughtta be raised a lot, imo.

[Forkboy]

14. $480

almost exactly what we owe in rent!

[dsc]

15. In fairness

that is a year not a month.

[Forkboy]

17. I know

the number was just too similiar to what I really do owe my landlord :)

[dsc]

19. and actually that helps make my point

you said we so that is 2 or more people. My rent is somewhat over half yours. So even as a couple you have a lower percapita rent than I do.

[Gore1FL]

31. I reiterate

They do pay their fair share. Realistically, they need to pay more, however, because it is better for them and their country to do so. In many ways, taxes are an investment. Much of the money the rich contribute in taxation is directly realized in economic growth that benefits them as much, if not more, than those of less wealth.

[Kathleen04]

7. Theres a credit for single adults too.

"Expanded benefits for low-income adults without children. Clark's Tax Reform builds on the existing EITC for childless adults, raising the maximum credit from $382 to $500." They get a credit too, granted it's not everything but it's more than what they're getting now.

He also plans to raise the minimum wage..

It's not possible to give everything at once, families are a good start.

On edit: I'm quoting Clark's plan.

[dsc]

10. The EIC

is negligable at that income level. A singler person has to make less than 10k before getting any real EIC and this would only help the very poor end of that.

[SahaleArm]

23. 2k3 EITC tax rate for singles is $11k (AGI)

Adjusted gross income is after student loan, IRA, and tuition/fee deductions. Currently anyone making $15k pays about $730 in income tax, less than 5% effective tax rate. The first step isn't the last step.

[dsc]

34. Two things

One I didn't say non existent I said negligitable. I would have gotten $7 EIC had I bothered. I didn't.

Two your figure is actually more than mine. I am sure I am right. You are in a different situation in that you have stuff off the top I don't. I am using my rough income as an example (mine is somewhat higher than the figure here). But, most people in that class don't have an IRA and not everyone has student loans.

[bearfartinthewoods]

25. retaining progressivity would be a better start

any plan that taxes the poor working couple earning 25,000 and does not tax people making twice that much at all because they have a child is unfair.

25,000 for two means 11,750 per person AFTER TAX
50,000 for four means 12,500 per person with NO TAX DUE

that's almost 750 dollars more to spend, per person, in the family of four. yet they need our help when we are living on 11,750 per person?

we don't mind paying a little more than families with kids in our income range but when we pay 1,500 on our 25,000 income yet some guy making 50,000 pays nothing, that's ass backwards.


on edit ...corrected for family of four

[SahaleArm]

28. False Premise...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=68706#69035

[eileen_d]

9. It's not selfish.

Did someone say it was?

[dsc]

11. Yes

in the thread on the Clark tax plan it was indeed called selfish. Full disclosure it was a peron in a couple making 25k but the idea was the same.

[eileen_d]

12. Well, I support your right to disagree with that person. n/t

[bearfartinthewoods]

27. that would be me...(raises hand)

i am deemed selfish because i feel it's not progressive to tax my 25,000 to help support a family with an income of twice what i make who pay no taxes. it was also implied that the amount we pay was no big deal.

we'll pay about 1500 this year.
that's the total of our electric and heat bill for the year ( we keep the the house at 60 degrees, tops).

that's half the price of the newer minivan that we have been looking at.

and someone says it's no big deal and we're selfish because we resent the fact that people who earn twice what we do and who have 750.00 more per person, to live on, pay nothing.

decent, thinking people pay their taxes. i don't even mind paying a little more than the guy down the road with the SAME income because he has kids. BUT when it gets to the point where someone is paying to help support people who have twice the income, yet pay nothing,
that's screwed.

[preciousdove]

16. They want us to turn on each other...

I admit I didn't read the details, as it is pretty clear most Americans are being screwed lets not argue about degree.Our problem the other poor and middle class people it is those in the top 10% who pay nothing and are draining the US with off shore tax scams, money laundering, fraud and feeding at the govt trough.

Don't fall for the scapegoating. Fight the real enemy.

[Forkboy]

18. Good points

[REP]

20. It Isn't Selfish

It's outrageous! A single person would not be able to live indoors where I live on $12,500.00 a year. but a family of four can live indoors with utilities, food and clothing for $50,000. Why should the poor subsidize them?

[rogerhall]

22. The poor do not even pay for their own way, much less subsidize anyone

Your hypothetical single person needs to find a room-mate, dontcha think?

BTW, If you make less than $20k annually, you don't even pay for the services that you use!

But it's not selfish to question the idea. It's never selfish to disagree with taxes. It's politics. It's policy. It's life.

But it is ridiculous to think that $50k (or even $100k) is some large amount of money. It's wrong to say that the economies of scale fixes everything.

And it is especially wrong to think that you are somehow paying my way.

I used to make $12k annually as a young 20-something single-person pizza-cook.

I'm now a married mid 30-something with kids, and even though I make 5 times as much, I have far less discretionary income than I used too!

Middle class is *defined* as someone making less than $200,000 per year.

Clark believes (as do I) that those people who gain the most from America should shoulder the most burden.

I know, it's a real shame that someone with a $2,000,000 salary will be forced to live on only about $1,250,000 a year. Maybe we can take up a collection from all those lower and middle class people to help them out ... no wait. That's what happening right now!

[REP]

29. No, They Need Unions and Jobs that Pay

As for your new income, you don't have "less discretionary income" than you used to. I am assuming that the children in your care weren't a surprise dumped on your doorstep, and that you chose to have them. When you did that, you chose to spend your money on them.

By the way, in case you were hoping that I fit the low income criteria being discussed, I'm sorry to break it to you that I don't.

I also see that you make strawman arguments as a matter of course. Nowhere did I mention someone making 2M or that they deserved a tax break. And as for the middle class - you must be new here. There is no middle class left; only those who like to believe that they are.

[rogerhall]

36. I agree

Unions and Jobs are great things to have.

As for your finances, I don't particularly care where you are in the spectrum. But you were the one that asked why "the poor" should "subsidize" families? How do you define poor? I usually think of it as someone making less than $20,000 (which around here, includes teachers, police, and anyone creative :).

My point - they don't. It is not a straw man to point out that the super wealthy can, in fact, afford to subsidize the poor. And they do. And they should!

As for my level of 'discretionary income' ... yes, I made that choice to have kids. Just like your hypothetical single person made that choice to work for $12,000 a year. I would never do that.

Having made that choice, I have no responsible, ethical, or moral way to undo it. I have to feed, clothe, and educate them. So my income is spoken for. It is no longer 'discretionary'.

[flaminbats]

21. first we had the me-generation...

then we had the YOUSUCK-generation (beavis and buttmunch). Now we're stuck with the YOU'REDEAD-generation (you messin with my sister..boy?).:spank: These are the cut little grandkids of the me-generation, me first...and you last! :hippie:

[Justice]

24. How Is This Different Than Dean's Approach On Children?

It is only looking at the situation from one perspective and to look at it short term. It is also being a little fuzzy with some of Dean's initiatives.

Dean has plans that provide benefits to some at the expense of the whole, or at the expense of others. One says, provide healthcare for all. Before we fix the system, let's get everyone in the system. Sounds Great. Well, by adding everyone into the system, which is already overburdened, with strained resources - you are going to burden the system more. Right now I have great health care. Perhaps the quality of my health will suffer as a result of this new people being covered. There will be a period of time were the system will be busting at the seams before reforms take place to make the system better.

Do I say, you must fix the system before allowing anyone else in? Do I say, I am not going to suffer so that others may be let in the system? No - I think the goal is an admirable one, and am willing to suffer in the shorter term for what I believe is a great objective.

Dean also focuses on education and children's healthcare, and talks about a 20 year view. Why is that okay - doesn't that discriminate against young adults or older adults? Dean plans for the future, he is not looking just at today.

Having a better tax system so that parents with children shoulder less burden will create a better tomorrow for you and me. Look at this from a longer term perspective, and you will see the benefits.

[JNelson6563]

26. I see a big difference

The "suffering" you attribute to yourself in the Dean scenario is you maybe paying bit more for your "great health care". What the original poster is talking about is paying more taxes on a low income because of not being married with kids.

That sort of thing could result in real suffering. As in not making the rent, not affording groceries, maybe not making the heat bill...

I see a big difference in someone not being able to afford the basics over someone in a cushy position maybe having to pay more for it.

Julie

[Justice]

33. No Difference

You assume that everyone who has health care today is in a cushy position - which is not true. In fact, it may be one benefit that even folks making less than $20,000 have.

Also, it is not about paying more for health care - you completely missed my point. It is about a reduced quality because of strained resources (in a system that is already strained) - having to wait longer for appointments, elective surgery, hospitals and doctors, having emergency rooms shut for periods of time due to overloads etc. Real suffering there too.

There is a real similiarity between the two issues.

[sandnsea]

32. It defines working income from upper middle class

This is the best political move any Democrat has made in years. When working people know the exact income figure of who is paying what tax, they can stop voting on illusive tax cuts and vote on health care, education, and jobs. This type of proposal takes the Republican Party tax cut carrot away from all those lower income workers. It is truly a stroke of genius, no matter which candidate came up with it.

[forgethell]

35. Nobody making $12K

should be paying any taxes. But it just goes to show one of the benefits of marriage, which is that it is an economic patnership. It always has been. Primitive societies, or so they taught me in my anthropology classes many years ago, knew of "romantic" love, but never, ever considered it as the basis of marriage.

Even the primitive Digger Indians (hey, no comments please on whatever the current PC designation is, this is from 40 year old memories) knew that neither a man nor a woman was capable of living alone and surviving in the harsh conditions they lived in.

But back to the tax question. Taxes are way too high in America. This is a sticky question because there are numerous functions that need to be funded. I am not disputing that. Yet I see numerous examples of waste, not counting the military. Excessive salaries for top administrators, fraud and corruption in building and construction, projects that are not needed, simply pork.

But worse than the amount or rates of the taxes is the enforcement by the IRS. I will repeat what I have said numerous times elsewhere on this board: the IRS is the closest institution to the SS that wwehave in America.