"Wrong, I do understand, from personal experience. I admitted I make decent money now, but did I say it was always that way? Besides, given your quote below, I simply do not believe that you fit in the category of someone who cannot afford to eat and pay rent. Emphasis mine:"
I'm in college. I cannot afford rent unless its with roomates.
You're not going to get any pity from me for making only $30K, unless you have some severe, recurring medical expenses that you did not mention (but which would reduce your tax burden anyway). I've been at that level of income, and not that long ago. For awhile, I was broke. Taxes weren't the reason I was broke; I was broke because I spent more than I took in. I was broke because I vastly underestimated, like I suspect you are doing, how much "disposable income" I had. Much of it was going towards a nicer car, or a nicer apartment, or more frequent restaurant outings than I could financially justify.
$30,000 is poor, I'm not asking you for pity, but $30,000 while you can survive and pay rent, you arent living comfortable, you dont have any extra money, you have just enough money to pay rent and your bills, if you are lucky you have $3000-4000 of disposable income for the year and if y ou are in college you dont have any disposable income at all.
So I can safely say that for a single guy, $30K is more than enough to eat and pay rent. Of course, it's tighter in a high-rent area like Silicon Valley, but I managed it. And if you don't want to just "manage it", there are places in this country where the $30K would be enough to live quite decently.
The first thing people say when I tell them rent is $1000 a month is "well why dont you move?"
Move where? To the ghetto? The trailer park? Dont you know people dont make $30,000 there? So I'd be even worse off living in some ghetto where everyone works at mc donalds or some place, than in Boston or Silicon Valley where all the jobs are.
So while rent is cheap down there, its cheap because theres no jobs down there, and theres most likely other problems with the community, high crime, drug problems, and so on and so forth.
Furthermore, you are completely proving my point. You are pissed off because the government takes too much of your money. You should be pissed off about that: that our government spends too much of your money. If you didn't pay any taxes, would you really care?
I dont think me and my family can afford to pay income taxes, but I do think someone has to pay them, I'd prefer the burn be on guys like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, why? Because making $30,000 is not enough to put a kid through private school, its not enough to protect your kid from violence with your own security guards, you see, I think we DO need police, we DO need public schools, we DO need libraries, and other places, for the kids.
Why don't those people who feel they are getting reamed by the government, and who believe that it is forcing them to make difficult compromises in their living situation, blame the government for being too big and costly?
I dont think the government is too big, You are a republican, you suppose smaller government, the problem I see with the republican Agenda is, they also support big business, so whats the point of making the government smaller when the government is replaced by big business? That destroys democracy, the country increasingly becomes under the control of big business.
So we need Big Government to do the things which Big Business does not find profitable, such as public schools, libraries, community service, and other things.
To me the only thing which matters is improving the world, and big businesses dont exist to improve the world, they exist to profit.
Government while it does alot of things I do not agree with, they give alot of money to feed the homeless, educate our youth, provide safe places for kids to go after school, like libraries,
They are screwed up because alot of people are lazy and not working, alot of people live in rural areas on farms where they get money from the gov, and you have people who live in ghettos, trailer parks and other places on welfare.
These people dont count because most of these people dont work at all, so these percentage points of the population, I dont want to hear it.
I want to see the actually numbers of the working class who will get this tax cut.
You are right people who make under $26,000 dont pay taxes, but I dont know anyone making under $26,000 and we arent talking about those people, we are talking about the people who make $30,000-50,000 who do pay taxes but wont see a single dime of this tax cut, the college educated working class is who we are talking about.
Not the lazy welfare living mc donalds class, or the trailer park white trash class.
So stop changing the subject and tell me why me and my family members wont be getting a tax cut.
yeah and whos fault is that? Maybe if you let the top 1% pay 96% of the taxes like they want to and stop fighting for them you wont be paying so much taxes.
over $26,000 = lower class, which means the lower and middle class pays most of the taxes, and guess whos getting the most tax cuts? Warren Buffet.
He doesnt want the burden put on us, maybe we should listen.
Whos in the lower 50% though? We arent talking aout people who make $19,000, we are talking about people who make $25,000 a year and above remember?
And I dont believe you that half this country makes less than 25,000 unless they live in hick ville, I live in Boston where $25,000 is borderline poverty.
If I'm making over $25,000 I'm paying 96% of the taxes though remember? So why should Warren Buffet get more tax money back than me? Hes getting millions of dollars.
Its not about how much you pay, its about percentage.
You pay a bigger number, but you have more disposable income. The cost of living does not adjust based on income, and the $4500 in federal taxes along with the state taxes = $11,000. rent is $12,000, so overall $23,000 out of the $30,000 goes to rent and taxes.
Oh, and then theres food and bills, which I didnt even mention but that can suck up another couple thousand dollars.
What matters in the end to the economy is how much disposable income we both have.
People who make $30,000 may have $3000-4000 in disposable income, this means the government is spending as much of their money as they are minus the cost of living,perhaps even spending MORE of their money than they get to spend.
This is what ultimately matters, how much money YOU get after paying the government, and paying rent (which is high because of landowners must pay high property taxes)
How much disposable income do you have? I think by increasing everyones disposable income by either lowering taxes both federal and state for these people, it would cause them to consume more.
Rich people would have to pay more of the burden, but rich people can only consume so much, they are still only one person, so its better to have more consumers than a few consumers who are rich.
Poor people dont pay a greater percentage of income tax, they pay a greater percentage of their income to taxes.
Thats what I was saying, if you are poor, and you are paying 15% federal taxes, you dont have any money to buy anything.
The cost of living keeps rising while the taxes rise with it, the poor have less and less disposable income, most of their money goes to survival, paying bills, paying rent, paying taxes, buying food.
Someone who is living like this benefits so much more from having disposable income than giving disposable income to people who dont need it.
I'd rather money be given to people who dont pay taxes at all (income redistribution) because this would create more consumers, more consumers = faster economy.
What good is giving more disposable income to people who arent asking for it, dont need it, and who already have it.
Look, is the goal to help fix the economy and speed it up, or is this all about some conservative agenda to create smaller government and all that?
Fact is, everyone knows, even conservatives, that giving disposable income to the people who dont have it, does more for the economy than giving disposable income to millionares.
Millionares should never get tax cuts, EVER, because it doesnt help the economy to give money to people who wont spend. They say they wont spend it, they already have more disposable income than they know what to do with so this has no effect on the economy.
Giving money to poor families living in ghettos and in hick towns, this allows these people to suddenly start to BUY stuff, movie theaters will open up in their town, they'll go to the movies, arcades, and stores, malls, etc until the whole town is flooded with capitalism and industry.
This is good for the economy, and good for the people who while they still may not be rich, will suddenly be contributing to the economy and be consuming more.
The way to speed of the economy is by creating more consumers which increases demand, this FORCES the supply side to adapt to the demand.
More people by the millions go to the movies on a weekly basis, suddenly the movie industry gets trillions of dollars.
More people buy DVDs, suddenly those companies get trillions of dollars.
More people buy video games, those industries get trillions of dollars.
And then those industries which may expand to rural or urban areas, will provide jobs to the poor living in those areas.
Do you care about the people or not? This helps the people.
Stop making excuses, I'm one of those low income people with no kids!!!
What you dont understand is, someone who cannot even afford the cost of living expensives should not be paying taxes, if you cannot afford to eat and pay rent why the hell should you pay taxes?
Its bad enough people who are single like me making $30,000 pay more in taxes than we get in disposable income, meaning the government spends more of our money than we do.
Yes, People who want to give $15 billion to people for aids, and waste billions and spend spend spend us into a deficit. But who have conservative viewpoints on everything but the economy.
You can be against abortion and for tax cuts, but you arent a capitalist unless you support small competitive business.
Like I said, I myself wont see a tax cut, and I dont judge taxes based on the number amount, I judge taxes based on the percentage of a persons income minus cost of living.
Lets say you make $30,000 a year, You will pay 15-20 percent in taxes, or somewhere around there, so you really take home around $20k a year.
So lets say you take home 20-21k a year, rent is $1000 a month, so you pay $12,000 just for rent, leaving you with about $9000.
This $9000, say you spend $100 a month on food.
$1200 from $9000 = $7800 or somewhere around there.
So a person making $30,000 only has $7800 in spending money, which means the government gets more of their money to spend than they do.
If the government gets $10,000 of your money a year, and you get $7800, you only end up seeing maybe 10 percent of your own money, you have 10 percent of your own money to spend.
Now, if the gov were to say to you they'd give you the other 10 percent, suddenly your whole quality of life would be drastically improved, you'd be taking home almost $20,000 out of your $30,000, and suddenly paying your rent and buying food isnt so expensive. Suddenly you have enough money to go to the movies every week, to buy CDs, and DVDs, to go to concerts. A rich person would only go to a concert a certain amount of times, or go to see a movie once a week, so by giving more money to more people, more people will go to the movies and the movie and music industry would explode with growth because more people have disposable income.
This was a very optimimstic picture, I ignored state taxes, which could take that 7800 down even less.
Here in Mass, we pay almost 30% of our income in taxes (state and federal combined)
If you make $30,000 you'll get 5% of your income as disposable income, this could be a few grand a year in money which you can use to spend to do anything you want with.
The rest of your money goes to bills, food, and rent, oh and dont forget taxes.
So yes it does matter who we give tax cuts to, someone who has absolutely no disposable income at all, or who has only 5% of their income as disposable would benefit much more if you raised their percentage of dispoasable income, also by giving the masses more disposable income, they'll go to the movies more, go to concerts more, and generally consume more.
A rich person may have all the money in the world but they are still only one person, they can only consume so much, they only will go to the movies maybe once a week, rich or not, so the way to improve the economy is not to give the rich more money which they wont have time to spend, its to give money to people who dont currently have enough money to go to the movies every week but would go if they did, give money to those people who would consume the most.
50 million new consumers spending $10 a week at the movies would be worth Trillions to the economy. The movie industry is one of our economies biggest industries.
Arcades could also be brought back, along with expanding the gaming industry, people who dont make alot of money need to do something with their weekends, give them money so they can go out every weekend instead of staying inside watching tv, and the economy will improve.
of course when they only have $3000-5000 of disposable income thats supposed to last all year, well of course they wont go out much, and even if they DO get money back at the end of the year, its at the end of the year!
The economy would benefit much more if they had all that money in the first place.
People who are married for money divorce as soon as someone loses their job (usually the guy), or the guy divorces when he finds someone better in bed.
Peopel who marry for love, never divorce. If you love who you are with you'll love them in every situation, rich, poor, sick, healthy, until they die.
Now, like I said, money runs out, love doesnt, so how do you figure two people who love each other would divorce? Please give me an example of this happening, have you ever been in love to even be qualified to say this stuff?
Warren is one of the richest men in the world, and he says he doesnt WANT a tax cut, he says he doesnt know what to do with Millions of extra dollars besides put it in the bank along with the billions he hasnt spent.
Warren calls it Class Welfare.
By Warren Buffett Tuesday, May 20, 2003; Page A19
The annual Forbes 400 lists prove that -- with occasional blips -- the rich do indeed get richer. Nonetheless, the Senate voted last week to supply major aid to the rich in their pursuit of even greater wealth.
The Senate decided that the dividends an individual receives should be 50 percent free of tax in 2003, 100 percent tax-free in 2004 through 2006 and then again fully taxable in 2007. The mental flexibility the Senate demonstrated in crafting these zigzags is breathtaking. What it has put in motion, though, is clear: If enacted, these changes would further tilt the tax scales toward the rich.
Let me, as a member of that non-endangered species, give you an example of how the scales are currently balanced. The taxes I pay to the federal government, including the payroll tax that is paid for me by my employer, Berkshire Hathaway, are roughly the same proportion of my income -- about 30 percent -- as that paid by the receptionist in our office. My case is not atypical -- my earnings, like those of many rich people, are a mix of capital gains and ordinary income -- nor is it affected by tax shelters (I've never used any). As it works out, I pay a somewhat higher rate for my combination of salary, investment and capital gain income than our receptionist does. But she pays a far higher portion of her income in payroll taxes than I do.
She's not complaining: Both of us know we were lucky to be born in America. But I was luckier in that I came wired at birth with a talent for capital allocation -- a valuable ability to have had in this country during the past half-century. Credit America for most of this value, not me. If the receptionist and I had both been born in, say, Bangladesh, the story would have been far different. There, the market value of our respective talents would not have varied greatly.
Now the Senate says that dividends should be tax-free to recipients. Suppose this measure goes through and the directors of Berkshire Hathaway (which does not now pay a dividend) therefore decide to pay $1 billion in dividends next year. Owning 31 percent of Berkshire, I would receive $310 million in additional income, owe not another dime in federal tax, and see my tax rate plunge to 3 percent.
And our receptionist? She'd still be paying about 30 percent, which means she would be contributing about 10 times the proportion of her income that I would to such government pursuits as fighting terrorism, waging wars and supporting the elderly. Let me repeat the point: Her overall federal tax rate would be 10 times what my rate would be.
When I was young, President Kennedy asked Americans to "pay any price, bear any burden" for our country. Against that challenge, the 3 percent overall federal tax rate I would pay -- if a Berkshire dividend were to be tax-free -- seems a bit light.
Administration officials say that the $310 million suddenly added to my wallet would stimulate the economy because I would invest it and thereby create jobs. But they conveniently forget that if Berkshire kept the money, it would invest that same amount, creating jobs as well.
The Senate's plan invites corporations -- indeed, virtually commands them -- to contort their behavior in a major way. Were the plan to be enacted, shareholders would logically respond by asking the corporations they own to pay no more dividends in 2003, when they would be partially taxed, but instead to pay the skipped amounts in 2004, when they'd be tax-free. Similarly, in 2006, the last year of the plan, companies should pay double their normal dividend and then avoid dividends altogether in 2007.
Overall, it's hard to conceive of anything sillier than the schedule the Senat
Even the rich are against this tax cut, they dont WANT the money and they flat out tell people they wont spend it.
Personally, I think we should do away with income tax completely. Instead, tax the goods that people consume.
I completely agree with that. But if we taxed the goods, people would consume less and the economy would slow down. It depends on the percentage of tax on each good, but currently states do tax goods.
"Those that buy the goods pay the taxes on them. More expensive items, same tax rate, but more is paid."
Thats already done, so I guess we need to raise taxes in this area, fine, but I think the income tax should still exist.
Anyway the tax cut is bad, the worlds richest people know more about the economy than you, if warren buffet says hes not going to spend the money and to give it to the poor, why the hell dont you listen to him? Hes going to get most of the tax cut anyway.
I'm a single male, in college, I have no wife or kids, lets assume I have a job that pays $30,000, I pay federal taxes, I get no returns. Why? Because I have no kids, I'm not married, i get no exemptions except for school tax credit, so maybe I can get $1000-2000 back at the absolute most.
Everyone pays taxes, some people get their taxes returned, but everoyne pays, so this isnt the question.
Second, they judge you based on your HOUSEHOLD income, not your individual income.
This means if you make $57,000 as a household, and neither you or your wife pays taxes, but because you are MARRIED and have CHILDREN, suddenly you deserve extra money?
Why should people who are married with children who make the exact same as seperate individuals as the poor man making $30,000, get free money?
You see? The tax cut isnt fair, although Im not against people with children getting money, why should married couples get money?
Theres alot of flaws in the tax system which allows loopholes, to say this tax cut benefits the rich, its accurate, a greater percentage of the rich will get a tax cut than the percentage of the poor.
Because a Rich man will get a household income of over $50,000 married or not, they dont need to get married just so they can get tax benefits,
What these tax cuts do is pressure people to get married for the wrong reasons, it makes me think "Well I can get married, and get $1000 extra dollars a year, let me find some girl from overseas and get her to come to the USA and marry me, or marry one of my friends, then we can get free money from the government!"
Forget about love, now people have incentive to marry strictly for financial reasons.
The tax cuts only benefit you if you have children, you get child tax credits, otherwise you see no benefits unless you make over $57,000 a year household income.
What about single guys who dont have a house, or kids, do they get tax cuts? How about if I'm a colle ge student living with roomates, do they count our entire household income and give me tax cuts? I doubt it.
So these tax cuts while they do apply to some of the middle class, only apply to a certain small percentage of the middle class, the married with children & both parents working middle class.
What about the man who works hard but only takes in $30-40k a year, well no tax cuts for him, he has no wife, no kids.
This is why the tax cut is for the rich, a rich single male would still get tax cuts because he makes over $57,000.
Its not democracy if capitalism can buy all the media, and everyone knows the people are dumb enough to follow the media.
Jedidiah this is the same problem we have with Microsoft in the PC industry, what if Microsoft decides to spend hundreds of billions and buy all the good channels, they already have NBC, what about CBS, ABC, etc?
Slashdot Mirror
"Wrong, I do understand, from personal experience. I admitted I make decent money now, but did I say it was always that way? Besides, given your quote below, I simply do not believe that you fit in the category of someone who cannot afford to eat and pay rent. Emphasis mine:"
I'm in college. I cannot afford rent unless its with roomates.
You're not going to get any pity from me for making only $30K, unless you have some severe, recurring medical expenses that you did not mention (but which would reduce your tax burden anyway). I've been at that level of income, and not that long ago. For awhile, I was broke. Taxes weren't the reason I was broke; I was broke because I spent more than I took in. I was broke because I vastly underestimated, like I suspect you are doing, how much "disposable income" I had. Much of it was going towards a nicer car, or a nicer apartment, or more frequent restaurant outings than I could financially justify.
$30,000 is poor, I'm not asking you for pity, but $30,000 while you can survive and pay rent, you arent living comfortable, you dont have any extra money, you have just enough money to pay rent and your bills, if you are lucky you have $3000-4000 of disposable income for the year and if y ou are in college you dont have any disposable income at all.
So I can safely say that for a single guy, $30K is more than enough to eat and pay rent. Of course, it's tighter in a high-rent area like Silicon Valley, but I managed it. And if you don't want to just "manage it", there are places in this country where the $30K would be enough to live quite decently.
The first thing people say when I tell them rent is $1000 a month is "well why dont you move?"
Move where? To the ghetto? The trailer park? Dont you know people dont make $30,000 there? So I'd be even worse off living in some ghetto where everyone works at mc donalds or some place, than in Boston or Silicon Valley where all the jobs are.
So while rent is cheap down there, its cheap because theres no jobs down there, and theres most likely other problems with the community, high crime, drug problems, and so on and so forth.
Furthermore, you are completely proving my point. You are pissed off because the government takes too much of your money. You should be pissed off about that: that our government spends too much of your money. If you didn't pay any taxes, would you really care?
I dont think me and my family can afford to pay income taxes, but I do think someone has to pay them, I'd prefer the burn be on guys like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, why? Because making $30,000 is not enough to put a kid through private school, its not enough to protect your kid from violence with your own security guards, you see, I think we DO need police, we DO need public schools, we DO need libraries, and other places, for the kids.
Why don't those people who feel they are getting reamed by the government, and who believe that it is forcing them to make difficult compromises in their living situation, blame the government for being too big and costly?
I dont think the government is too big, You are a republican, you suppose smaller government, the problem I see with the republican Agenda is, they also support big business, so whats the point of making the government smaller when the government is replaced by big business? That destroys democracy, the country increasingly becomes under the control of big business.
So we need Big Government to do the things which Big Business does not find profitable, such as public schools, libraries, community service, and other things.
To me the only thing which matters is improving the world, and big businesses dont exist to improve the world, they exist to profit.
Government while it does alot of things I do not agree with, they give alot of money to feed the homeless, educate our youth, provide safe places for kids to go after school, like libraries,
I'm not a c
Those statistics are BS.
They are screwed up because alot of people are lazy and not working, alot of people live in rural areas on farms where they get money from the gov, and you have people who live in ghettos, trailer parks and other places on welfare.
These people dont count because most of these people dont work at all, so these percentage points of the population, I dont want to hear it.
I want to see the actually numbers of the working class who will get this tax cut.
You are right people who make under $26,000 dont pay taxes, but I dont know anyone making under $26,000 and we arent talking about those people, we are talking about the people who make $30,000-50,000 who do pay taxes but wont see a single dime of this tax cut, the college educated working class is who we are talking about.
Not the lazy welfare living mc donalds class, or the trailer park white trash class.
So stop changing the subject and tell me why me and my family members wont be getting a tax cut.
yeah and whos fault is that? Maybe if you let the top 1% pay 96% of the taxes like they want to and stop fighting for them you wont be paying so much taxes.
over $26,000 = lower class, which means the lower and middle class pays most of the taxes, and guess whos getting the most tax cuts? Warren Buffet.
He doesnt want the burden put on us, maybe we should listen.
Whos in the lower 50% though? We arent talking aout people who make $19,000, we are talking about people who make $25,000 a year and above remember?
And I dont believe you that half this country makes less than 25,000 unless they live in hick ville, I live in Boston where $25,000 is borderline poverty.
If I'm making over $25,000 I'm paying 96% of the taxes though remember? So why should Warren Buffet get more tax money back than me? Hes getting millions of dollars.
Its not about how much you pay, its about percentage.
You pay a bigger number, but you have more disposable income. The cost of living does not adjust based on income, and the $4500 in federal taxes along with the state taxes = $11,000. rent is $12,000, so overall $23,000 out of the $30,000 goes to rent and taxes.
Oh, and then theres food and bills, which I didnt even mention but that can suck up another couple thousand dollars.
What matters in the end to the economy is how much disposable income we both have.
People who make $30,000 may have $3000-4000 in disposable income, this means the government is spending as much of their money as they are minus the cost of living,perhaps even spending MORE of their money than they get to spend.
This is what ultimately matters, how much money YOU get after paying the government, and paying rent (which is high because of landowners must pay high property taxes)
How much disposable income do you have? I think by increasing everyones disposable income by either lowering taxes both federal and state for these people, it would cause them to consume more.
Rich people would have to pay more of the burden, but rich people can only consume so much, they are still only one person, so its better to have more consumers than a few consumers who are rich.
Well duh, I dont have kids.
why reward poor people who do?
Poor people dont pay a greater percentage of income tax, they pay a greater percentage of their income to taxes.
Thats what I was saying, if you are poor, and you are paying 15% federal taxes, you dont have any money to buy anything.
The cost of living keeps rising while the taxes rise with it, the poor have less and less disposable income, most of their money goes to survival, paying bills, paying rent, paying taxes, buying food.
Someone who is living like this benefits so much more from having disposable income than giving disposable income to people who dont need it.
I'd rather money be given to people who dont pay taxes at all (income redistribution) because this would create more consumers, more consumers = faster economy.
What good is giving more disposable income to people who arent asking for it, dont need it, and who already have it.
Look, is the goal to help fix the economy and speed it up, or is this all about some conservative agenda to create smaller government and all that?
Fact is, everyone knows, even conservatives, that giving disposable income to the people who dont have it, does more for the economy than giving disposable income to millionares.
Millionares should never get tax cuts, EVER, because it doesnt help the economy to give money to people who wont spend. They say they wont spend it, they already have more disposable income than they know what to do with so this has no effect on the economy.
Giving money to poor families living in ghettos and in hick towns, this allows these people to suddenly start to BUY stuff, movie theaters will open up in their town, they'll go to the movies, arcades, and stores, malls, etc until the whole town is flooded with capitalism and industry.
This is good for the economy, and good for the people who while they still may not be rich, will suddenly be contributing to the economy and be consuming more.
The way to speed of the economy is by creating more consumers which increases demand, this FORCES the supply side to adapt to the demand.
More people by the millions go to the movies on a weekly basis, suddenly the movie industry gets trillions of dollars.
More people buy DVDs, suddenly those companies get trillions of dollars.
More people buy video games, those industries get trillions of dollars.
And then those industries which may expand to rural or urban areas, will provide jobs to the poor living in those areas.
Do you care about the people or not? This helps the people.
Stop making excuses, I'm one of those low income people with no kids!!!
What you dont understand is, someone who cannot even afford the cost of living expensives should not be paying taxes, if you cannot afford to eat and pay rent why the hell should you pay taxes?
Its bad enough people who are single like me making $30,000 pay more in taxes than we get in disposable income, meaning the government spends more of our money than we do.
Oh so now suddenly the government cares about cost of living when they determine who gets tax cuts?
Yes, People who want to give $15 billion to people for aids, and waste billions and spend spend spend us into a deficit. But who have conservative viewpoints on everything but the economy.
You can be against abortion and for tax cuts, but you arent a capitalist unless you support small competitive business.
They will buy each other up and announce mergers, until theres maybe 2.
What use are large companies??????????????
Small companies are better for the economy, more competition.
Like I said, I myself wont see a tax cut, and I dont judge taxes based on the number amount, I judge taxes based on the percentage of a persons income minus cost of living.
Lets say you make $30,000 a year, You will pay 15-20 percent in taxes, or somewhere around there, so you really take home around $20k a year.
So lets say you take home 20-21k a year, rent is $1000 a month, so you pay $12,000 just for rent, leaving you with about $9000.
This $9000, say you spend $100 a month on food.
$1200 from $9000 = $7800 or somewhere around there.
So a person making $30,000 only has $7800 in spending money, which means the government gets more of their money to spend than they do.
If the government gets $10,000 of your money a year, and you get $7800, you only end up seeing maybe 10 percent of your own money, you have 10 percent of your own money to spend.
Now, if the gov were to say to you they'd give you the other 10 percent, suddenly your whole quality of life would be drastically improved, you'd be taking home almost $20,000 out of your $30,000, and suddenly paying your rent and buying food isnt so expensive. Suddenly you have enough money to go to the movies every week, to buy CDs, and DVDs, to go to concerts. A rich person would only go to a concert a certain amount of times, or go to see a movie once a week, so by giving more money to more people, more people will go to the movies and the movie and music industry would explode with growth because more people have disposable income.
This was a very optimimstic picture, I ignored state taxes, which could take that 7800 down even less.
Here in Mass, we pay almost 30% of our income in taxes (state and federal combined)
If you make $30,000 you'll get 5% of your income as disposable income, this could be a few grand a year in money which you can use to spend to do anything you want with.
The rest of your money goes to bills, food, and rent, oh and dont forget taxes.
So yes it does matter who we give tax cuts to, someone who has absolutely no disposable income at all, or who has only 5% of their income as disposable would benefit much more if you raised their percentage of dispoasable income, also by giving the masses more disposable income, they'll go to the movies more, go to concerts more, and generally consume more.
A rich person may have all the money in the world but they are still only one person, they can only consume so much, they only will go to the movies maybe once a week, rich or not, so the way to improve the economy is not to give the rich more money which they wont have time to spend, its to give money to people who dont currently have enough money to go to the movies every week but would go if they did, give money to those people who would consume the most.
50 million new consumers spending $10 a week at the movies would be worth Trillions to the economy. The movie industry is one of our economies biggest industries.
Arcades could also be brought back, along with expanding the gaming industry, people who dont make alot of money need to do something with their weekends, give them money so they can go out every weekend instead of staying inside watching tv, and the economy will improve.
of course when they only have $3000-5000 of disposable income thats supposed to last all year, well of course they wont go out much, and even if they DO get money back at the end of the year, its at the end of the year!
The economy would benefit much more if they had all that money in the first place.
Impossible, your stats are flawed.
People who are married for money divorce as soon as someone loses their job (usually the guy), or the guy divorces when he finds someone better in bed.
Peopel who marry for love, never divorce. If you love who you are with you'll love them in every situation, rich, poor, sick, healthy, until they die.
Now, like I said, money runs out, love doesnt, so how do you figure two people who love each other would divorce? Please give me an example of this happening, have you ever been in love to even be qualified to say this stuff?
Yes but if you were really poor you wouldnt be putting it in the bank, you wouldnt be able to afford to.
So you must not be doing too bad if you make enough money to actually save.
Warren is one of the richest men in the world, and he says he doesnt WANT a tax cut, he says he doesnt know what to do with Millions of extra dollars besides put it in the bank along with the billions he hasnt spent.
Warren calls it Class Welfare.
By Warren Buffett
Tuesday, May 20, 2003; Page A19
The annual Forbes 400 lists prove that -- with occasional blips -- the rich do indeed get richer. Nonetheless, the Senate voted last week to supply major aid to the rich in their pursuit of even greater wealth.
The Senate decided that the dividends an individual receives should be 50 percent free of tax in 2003, 100 percent tax-free in 2004 through 2006 and then again fully taxable in 2007. The mental flexibility the Senate demonstrated in crafting these zigzags is breathtaking. What it has put in motion, though, is clear: If enacted, these changes would further tilt the tax scales toward the rich.
Let me, as a member of that non-endangered species, give you an example of how the scales are currently balanced. The taxes I pay to the federal government, including the payroll tax that is paid for me by my employer, Berkshire Hathaway, are roughly the same proportion of my income -- about 30 percent -- as that paid by the receptionist in our office. My case is not atypical -- my earnings, like those of many rich people, are a mix of capital gains and ordinary income -- nor is it affected by tax shelters (I've never used any). As it works out, I pay a somewhat higher rate for my combination of salary, investment and capital gain income than our receptionist does. But she pays a far higher portion of her income in payroll taxes than I do.
She's not complaining: Both of us know we were lucky to be born in America. But I was luckier in that I came wired at birth with a talent for capital allocation -- a valuable ability to have had in this country during the past half-century. Credit America for most of this value, not me. If the receptionist and I had both been born in, say, Bangladesh, the story would have been far different. There, the market value of our respective talents would not have varied greatly.
Now the Senate says that dividends should be tax-free to recipients. Suppose this measure goes through and the directors of Berkshire Hathaway (which does not now pay a dividend) therefore decide to pay $1 billion in dividends next year. Owning 31 percent of Berkshire, I would receive $310 million in additional income, owe not another dime in federal tax, and see my tax rate plunge to 3 percent.
And our receptionist? She'd still be paying about 30 percent, which means she would be contributing about 10 times the proportion of her income that I would to such government pursuits as fighting terrorism, waging wars and supporting the elderly. Let me repeat the point: Her overall federal tax rate would be 10 times what my rate would be.
When I was young, President Kennedy asked Americans to "pay any price, bear any burden" for our country. Against that challenge, the 3 percent overall federal tax rate I would pay -- if a Berkshire dividend were to be tax-free -- seems a bit light.
Administration officials say that the $310 million suddenly added to my wallet would stimulate the economy because I would invest it and thereby create jobs. But they conveniently forget that if Berkshire kept the money, it would invest that same amount, creating jobs as well.
The Senate's plan invites corporations -- indeed, virtually commands them -- to contort their behavior in a major way. Were the plan to be enacted, shareholders would logically respond by asking the corporations they own to pay no more dividends in 2003, when they would be partially taxed, but instead to pay the skipped amounts in 2004, when they'd be tax-free. Similarly, in 2006, the last year of the plan, companies should pay double their normal dividend and then avoid dividends altogether in 2007.
Overall, it's hard to conceive of anything sillier than the schedule the Senat
Lower income people DO pay taxes. Lower income people pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than rich, just ask warren buffet.
Warren Says Bush Tax Cut is Stupid
Even the rich are against this tax cut, they dont WANT the money and they flat out tell people they wont spend it.
Personally, I think we should do away with income tax completely. Instead, tax the goods that people consume.
I completely agree with that. But if we taxed the goods, people would consume less and the economy would slow down. It depends on the percentage of tax on each good, but currently states do tax goods.
"Those that buy the goods pay the taxes on them. More expensive items, same tax rate, but more is paid."
Thats already done, so I guess we need to raise taxes in this area, fine, but I think the income tax should still exist.
Anyway the tax cut is bad, the worlds richest people know more about the economy than you, if warren buffet says hes not going to spend the money and to give it to the poor, why the hell dont you listen to him? Hes going to get most of the tax cut anyway.
And what about the working poor who have no children, or the working poor who arent married, like single parent families?
They dont see ANY tax cuts. NONE. These are the people who need the money most.
Bricriu, I admit that the poor pay less taxes, but the poor also pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes!
If you are poor or middle class and you pay taxes, the percentage of your income that gets taxed is so much greater.
I'm a single male, in college, I have no wife or kids, lets assume I have a job that pays $30,000, I pay federal taxes, I get no returns. Why? Because I have no kids, I'm not married, i get no exemptions except for school tax credit, so maybe I can get $1000-2000 back at the absolute most.
Everyone pays taxes, some people get their taxes returned, but everoyne pays, so this isnt the question.
Second, they judge you based on your HOUSEHOLD income, not your individual income.
This means if you make $57,000 as a household, and neither you or your wife pays taxes, but because you are MARRIED and have CHILDREN, suddenly you deserve extra money?
Why should people who are married with children who make the exact same as seperate individuals as the poor man making $30,000, get free money?
You see? The tax cut isnt fair, although Im not against people with children getting money, why should married couples get money?
Theres alot of flaws in the tax system which allows loopholes, to say this tax cut benefits the rich, its accurate, a greater percentage of the rich will get a tax cut than the percentage of the poor.
Because a Rich man will get a household income of over $50,000 married or not, they dont need to get married just so they can get tax benefits,
What these tax cuts do is pressure people to get married for the wrong reasons, it makes me think "Well I can get married, and get $1000 extra dollars a year, let me find some girl from overseas and get her to come to the USA and marry me, or marry one of my friends, then we can get free money from the government!"
Forget about love, now people have incentive to marry strictly for financial reasons.
This is why divorce rates are so high.
The tax cuts only benefit you if you have children, you get child tax credits, otherwise you see no benefits unless you make over $57,000 a year household income.
What about single guys who dont have a house, or kids, do they get tax cuts? How about if I'm a colle ge student living with roomates, do they count our entire household income and give me tax cuts? I doubt it.
So these tax cuts while they do apply to some of the middle class, only apply to a certain small percentage of the middle class, the married with children & both parents working middle class.
What about the man who works hard but only takes in $30-40k a year, well no tax cuts for him, he has no wife, no kids.
This is why the tax cut is for the rich, a rich single male would still get tax cuts because he makes over $57,000.
Convervative communists benefit from this too.
Its not democracy if capitalism can buy all the media, and everyone knows the people are dumb enough to follow the media.
Jedidiah this is the same problem we have with Microsoft in the PC industry, what if Microsoft decides to spend hundreds of billions and buy all the good channels, they already have NBC, what about CBS, ABC, etc?
The people are ignorant, why give more power to people like the RIAA and other corperations to rule over people lives?
Like I said most people are ignorant and they believe whatever the box says to them.
Now we get to see one point of view on all the media, this sucks.
Watch, soon Microsoft or AOLTW will just buy every news channel in the country and then begin to spam us with propaghanda..
AOL is a good company, its Time Warner, they are the evil side.
AOL hasnt done anything bad, all the RIAA stuff was Time Warner.
shut up, dont give them any ideas.
but you are wrong we could always write our own installer after modifying and recompiling the code!
So why dont you add these features? Waste is open source and because nullsoft coded it, the code is pretty straight forward.