Make sense of this teabagger's rant about taxes...

[Erose999]

So I'm arguing with this teabagger on a forum about how shifting the tax burden up to the other brackets and away from the middle and working classes would create growth by creating more demand for goods and services. Then he posts this, which I can't really make sense of:


Do you understand that not everyone pays in the same rate? It seems that you do not understand that simple concept. Since they do not, why do you think that everyone would get the same tax cut, or those that paid in less should get the same cut? See the table below and see that not everyone pays in the same. Why should someone who is in the 25% bracket get the same tax break as someone that is in the 35% bracket? How is that providing equality for all? Just because you work smarter, you should be penalized?

If in 2010, your taxable income was $100K:
( $ 8,025 minus 0 ) x .10 : $ 802.50
( 32,550 minus 8,025 ) x .15 : 3,678.75
( 65,725 minus 32,550 ) x .25 : 8,293.75
( 100,000 minus 65,725 ) x .28 : 9,597.00
Total: $ 22,372.00 in taxes.


Do you happen to realize that if the tax cuts are not passed, that those who are at the very bottom, and only pay 10% now, will revert to 2000 rates, which are 15%? Do you realize that affects all US taxpayers?




Single Filing Status



* 10% on income between $0 and $8,375
* 15% on the income between $8,375 and $34,000; plus $837.50
* 25% on the income between $34,000 and $82,400; plus $4,681.25
* 28% on the income between $82,400 and $171,850; plus $16,781.25
* 33% on the income between $171,850 and $373,650; plus $41,827.25
* 35% on the income over $373,650; plus $108,421.25

Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er) Filing Status



* 10% on the income between $0 and $16,750
* 15% on the income between $16,750 and $68,000; plus $1,675
* 25% on the income between $68,000 and $137,300; plus $9,362.50
* 28% on the income between $137,300 and $209,250; plus $26,687.50
* 33% on the income between $209,250 and $373,650; plus $46,833.50
* 35% on the income over $373,650; plus $101,085.50

Married Filing Separately Filing Status



* 10% on the income between $0 and $8,375
* 15% on the income between $8,375 and $34,000; plus $837.50
* 25% on the income between $34,000 and $68,650; plus $4,681.25
* 28% on the income between $68,650 and $104,625; plus $13,343.75
* 33% on the income between $104,625 and $186,825; plus $23,416.75
* 35% on the income over $186,825; plus $50,542.75

Head of Household Filing Status



* 10% on the income between $0 and $11,950
* 15% on the income between $11,950 and $45,550; plus $1,195
* 25% on the income between $45,550 and $117,650; plus $6,235
* 28% on the income between $117,650 and $190,550; plus $24,260
* 33% on the income between $190,550 and $373,650; plus $44,672
* 35% on the income over $373,650; plus $105,095



I don't think any of these tables and rates he quotes account for deductions, and the standard deduction for an individual filing single is something like 5 grand, correct? I have seen other tables that showed me that I saved a whopping $5 thanks to the "Bush Tax Cuts".

[Drale]

1. Don't even try to make sense of a tea baggers ranting

you'll have more success talking to a tree.

[RonReagan]

2. No, I cannot

>Do you understand that not everyone pays in the same rate?
Isn't that exactly what we're discussing?

>It seems that you do not understand that simple concept.
Of course it does

>Since they do not, why do you think that everyone would get the same tax cut, or those that paid in less should get the same cut?
Again, isn't the entire premise that different income levels get different tax cuts? He's arguing something no one has ever denied.

>See the table below and see that not everyone pays in the same.
Again and again and again. Everyone knows different income levels have different tax rates.

>Why should someone who is in the 25% bracket get the same tax break as someone that is in the 35% bracket?
They shouldn't, it should be different.

[brewens]

3. My taxable income was in the 15% bracket last year.

I was actually over $34,000 plus a little under the radar action. Effective federal tax rate was 7.6%. That is single, no kids, no mortgage. Very few deductions. Add about 4.5% effective tax rate for the state and I actually had to pay about 12%.
I can handle that, and I'm lucky enough to not have to worry if it goes up a few percent. I'd like to see the cuts extended for everyone but those at the top, or not at all.

[bbgrunt]

4. progressive income tax rates are justified

on 2 bases:

1) those with higher incomes also receive higher benefits from government. Those who are rich have much more to lose if civil law breaks down or if the country were invaded. The people at the lowest incomes are not all that worried about things like airports (can't afford to fly), state universities (mostly a subsidy to the middle classes) and the police state that is used to keep them under control. Likewise, while people are aghast at using "their money" to pay "welfare cheats" to sit on their butts, they have no comprehension that much higher subsidies are given to corporations. These subsidies and tax abatements get filtered into the ceo pay packages.

2) the philosophical idea that a dollar is worth more to a poor person (allows him/her to get a cup of soup) than to a rich person (provides fuel to light the next cigar). While it might not be true for every individual, the assumption that there is a declining marginal utility of money is generally accepted to be true. "Fair" taxes requiring people make equal sacrifices means that the rich person would have to give up more dollars to equal the sacrifice of one dollar that a poor person pays in taxes.

[CLANG]

5. He's not arguing anything, just trying to confuse.

Typical RW bullshit - no real research or understanding - just BULLSHIT.

[provis99]

6. he has no interest in debate. He's got his tax prejudices, and he's sticking to them.

Doesn't give a shit about reality or logic, so why bother talking to him?