View Full Version : How did your taxes turn out?
Well, I didn't trust the President's promise so I put every penny into savings that we gained in our paychecks. Damn good thing.
We owed half of what we saved.
I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't save money and specifically didn't save this money.
I know ZERO people who didn't have to pay!:0!
And we claim married 0 already. I guess one of us will go single. I really don't want to be tagged for an audit because He screwed up. This is owing too much. Claim SINGLE I guess?
iris lilies
4-15-19, 12:47pm
On another thread I mentioned that I was shocked because our total federal tax bill was $477. That is all. That is the entire amount. In addition to that good news, our health insurance premiums cost zero this year due to federal subsidies.
It is great to be low income, Or at least to have the feds consider us low income.
iris lilies
4-15-19, 1:12pm
Well, I didn't trust the President's promise so I put every penny into savings that we gained in our paychecks. Damn good thing.
We owed half of what we saved.
I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't save money and specifically didn't save this money.
I know ZERO people who didn't have to pay!:0!
And we claim married 0 already. I guess one of us will go single. I really don't want to be tagged for an audit because He screwed up. This is owing too much. Claim SINGLE I guess?
I don’t know what you mean by your questions. You had the maximum withheld from your paychecks, right? Are you saying with “that we gain in our paychecks” there was a change in withholding amounts from last year?
For me it never mattered, when I was working, what was withheld for the eventual tax bill since we always had money to pay the actual tax bill. It was a irrelevant to me how much was withheld, and we tried to withhold the least amount.I just wanted to know what is the actual tax bill.
When you say you know zero people who “didn’t have to pay “do you mean pay in addition to what is already been withheld?
so I would like to know this: did you owe more taxes for the year 2018 than in previous year 2017? Less? The same? Disregard the withholding amounts.
I don’t know what you mean by your questions. You had the maximum withheld from your paychecks, right? Are you saying with “that we gain in our paychecks” there was a change in withholding amounts from last year?
For me it never mattered, when I was working, what was withheld for the eventual tax bill Since we always had lots of money to pay the actual tax bill it was a relevant to me how much was withheld and we tried to withhold the least amount.I just wanted to know what is the actual tax bill. When you say you know zero people who “didn’t have to pay “do you mean pay in addition to what is already been withheld?
so I would like to know this: did you owe more taxes for the year 2018 than in previous year 2017? Less? The same? Disregard the withholding amounts.
Yes on this: did you owe more taxes for the year 2018 than in previous year 2017? X6 more!!!!!!
Yes on this: When you say you know zero people who “didn’t have to pay “do you mean pay in addition to what is already been withheld?
Yes on this: You had the maximum withheld from your paychecks, right?
Yes on this: Are you saying with “that we gain in our paychecks” there was a change in withholding amounts from last year?
That damn tax break caused withholdings to drop significantly . STUPID STUPID STUPID!
iris lilies
4-15-19, 1:21pm
OP, your total federal tax bill for the year 2018 was 6x for same thing in 2017?
Edited to add: did you have a significant increase in income for 2018?
.....so I would like to know this: did you owe more taxes for the year 2018 than in previous year 2017? Less? The same? Disregard the withholding amounts.
Cable news has been purposely confusing people on this point for months now, taking advantage of peoples inability to discern a difference between their total tax liability and payment/return expected to settle the annual bill, in order to convince people they did not get a tax break.
I'm assuming the OP meant to say that the difference between her yearly tax with-holding and the total amount owed resulted in her having to make an unexpected payment to the Feds. What she didn't tell us is whether or not the total tax payment for the year was over or under the amount paid last year. In my case, it was under and I still received a refund. I suspect everyone on these boards also paid less total Federal taxes than they would have paid without the tax change, regardless of their final settlement debit or credit.
Yes on this: did you owe more taxes for the year 2018 than in previous year 2017? X6 more!!!!!!
WOW!
Just so I'm clear, are you saying that if you paid an effective tax rate of 10% in 2017, you paid an effective rate of 60% in 2018?
I got about the same back as I always do.
iris lilies
4-15-19, 1:35pm
Cable news has been purposely confusing people on this point for months now, taking advantage of peoples inability to discern a difference between their total tax liability and payment/return expected to settle the annual bill, in order to convince people they did not get a tax break.
I'm assuming the OP meant to say that the difference between her yearly tax with-holding and the total amount owed resulted in her having to make an unexpected payment to the Feds. What she didn't tell us is whether or not the total tax payment for the year was over or under the amount paid last year. In my case, it was under and I still received a refund. I suspect everyone on these boards also paid less total Federal taxes than they would have paid without the tax change, regardless of their final settlement debit or credit.
Yes, I am trying to get the OP to forget about withholding amount because that is just a pre-payment of taxes. The bottom line for taxes is always your total tax bill. When you pay the tax bill is not relevant to my core question.
But all of the shouting and Trump blaming seems to be the point of this thread.
I think the OP may not recognize that withholding tables are created by bureaucrats, career bureaucrats in the IRS, most of whom were probably working there when President Obama was in DC.
Another tangential fact is that financial advisors recommend you withhold the smallest amount possible because why let the feds use your money? We have always done that. We always pay our taxes just about the last day they are due or at least the last week of mid-April.
Another tangential fact is that financial advisors recommend you withhold the smallest amount possible because why let the feds use your money? We have always done that. We always pay our taxes just about the last day they are due or at least the last week of mid-April.
We've always done that as well and always wrote our check on April 14th for postmark on that day. I was pleasantly surprised this year to see that my change in status from "working stiff" to "retired old geezer" in 2018 resulted in an over-payment on my part and a projected return equal to about 50% of my upcoming S/A property tax bill. Yay!
Paid $61.00 which is far better than the usual $500-700. State tax - $0
iris lilies
4-15-19, 2:06pm
Paid $61.00 which is far better than the usual $500-700. State tax - $0
Oooo, we had to oay $2,000+ in state taxes But I don’t know if that is more less or the same as usual. We had some income events in 2018 and the state does not have provisions for not counting them as taxable like the feds do.
WOW!
Just so I'm clear, are you saying that if you paid an effective tax rate of 10% in 2017, you paid an effective rate of 60% in 2018?
No. IL asked if we paid more than usual. And yes, we paid 6x more than we usually do when we get our final tax bill.
OP, your total federal tax bill for the year 2018 was 6x for same thing in 2017?
Edited to add: did you have a significant increase in income for 2018?
increased income less than $3k. NO, our balance owed is 6x more than usual.
Obviously, what I think and what I write don't match :-(
No. IL asked if we paid more than usual. And yes, we paid 6x more than we usually do when we get our final tax bill.
Oh I see, she asked if you paid more for the year and you replied that yes, your final payment was 6 times more than expected, although the total amount paid may or may not be more than in previous years. Therein lies the confusion.
I am getting some money back both federal and state, but not so much that I feel like I have been loaning them my money all year. ($900 federal and $130 state). Some years I get a small federal return and then owe a small amount to state.
That means retreat money, okay also a tattoo! 2741 Using this as a starting idea but drawing my own (I have a thing about taking artist's work).
I'm about the same more or less, but the big surprise for me is the fact that I don't have to itemize. They recommend standard deduction, even though I paid over 10k in property taxes between the two houses, and had other pretty good deductions.
organictex
4-15-19, 2:42pm
i didn't get as big a return as usual but i didn't change my WH status either. i probably could have gotten a little more if i could deduct my Roth
contributions as i did in the past...still there is no disputing the fact that this was the biggest tax cut to the wealthy period. enjoy.
Ours refund was larger than last year - primarily because we had overpaid our Obama health care premiums.
iris lilies
4-15-19, 3:10pm
I'm about the same more or less, but the big surprise for me is the fact that I don't have to itemize. They recommend standard deduction, even though I paid over 10k in property taxes between the two houses, and had other pretty good deductions.
Trump will get no credit here for simplifying the tax preparation process so I wont even try. But yeah.
At the end of the day this tax scam looks like it's not going to be a good campaign tool for republicans. (Perhaps they will follow the president's suggestion and run on their healthcare plan...). My tax bill went down because even though I live in a high COL area and high state tax state I don't have kids or a house so my taxes went down a couple grand. But the overall perception among the population appears to be negative. And in politics that's what matters.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/04/12/americans-are-unhappy-with-tax-overhaul-and-the-gop-should-be-worried.html
iris lilies
4-15-19, 3:13pm
Ours refund was larger than last year - primarily because we had overpaid our Obama health care premiums.
The past couple of years we have not been good at estimating income because retired.And drawing down assets. So I was super surprised when we didnt have to pay any more on April 15 for our ACA health insurance. Surprised, and happy.
Our tax bill was so low that I worry it is an error, but since we have used these super reliable tax preparers for decades, I should put that worry to bed.
At the end of the day this tax scam looks like it's not going to be a good campaign tool for republicans. (Perhaps they will follow the president's suggestion and run on their healthcare plan...). My tax bill went down because even though I live in a high COL area and high state tax state I don't have kids or a house so my taxes went down a couple grand. But the overall perception among the population appears to be negative. And in politics that's what matters.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/04/12/americans-are-unhappy-with-tax-overhaul-and-the-gop-should-be-worried.html
So it's important that the media deliberately confuse folks and threads such as this exist to properly influence the population. I tip my hat to the architects of such diabolically clever propaganda.
iris lilies
4-15-19, 3:22pm
At the end of the day this tax scam looks like it's not going to be a good campaign tool for republicans. (Perhaps they will follow the president's suggestion and run on their healthcare plan...). My tax bill went down because even though I live in a high COL area and high state tax state I don't have kids or a house so my taxes went down a couple grand. But the overall perception among the population appears to be negative. And in politics that's what matters.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/04/12/americans-are-unhappy-with-tax-overhaul-and-the-gop-should-be-worried.html
The opening volley of this thread illustrates that tax savings doesn't really matter if it “looks” like more tax. Oooookay.
Those of that mindset deserve every politician they elect. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to live with many of these same politicians.
I remember a situation at work where our CEO designed salary increases for employees at their caps. But because the salary increase didnt look like an increase, it generated bitching and moaning. After two years of attitude, the CEO did away with it.
People who cant Math should be put on a different payout program and maybe even a different tax program. Yeah!thats the ticket.
Simplemind
4-15-19, 3:26pm
I had to pay a crazy crazy crazy amount. But it was a one time deal and next year should be back to normal...… what ever that is.
The news media seems to have been focused on "refund received", rather than "total tax paid".
This is why we can't have nice things.
If there was any significant difference between this year and last, my tax guy didn't say anything about it. Given the bracket I'm in, I may have paid a few bucks less.
But that's fair, isn't it? I save a few hundred and billionaires save millions.
That's the Republican definition of prosperity: loaves for the rich; crumbs for the middle class.
Chicken lady
4-15-19, 4:14pm
We paid (withholding plus final bill) significantly more this year - and the tax increase was more than our gross income increase. So, effectively, we took a net cut to income. We no longer have children at home, so we missed that, and the property/state tax cap hurt us.
we will be itemizing next year as I moved all year end donations from 2018 to the beginning of 2019, we would otherwise end up just under the standard deduction in both years.
2017 - paid 9.6% of AGI in federal taxes.
2018 - paid 13.5% of AGI in federal taxes.
thanks, Trump!
Our financials were about the same in 2018 and 2019 and so were the taxes. What we got back from the Feds and the state was pretty much eclipsed by what we paid the tax accountant. Like catherine, we found the new standard deduction worked better for us than itemizing. Maybe next year I'll go with TaxCut or TurboTax. Tax cut, schmax cut. I'm sure it worked for some folks.
Teacher Terry
4-15-19, 5:38pm
We got back 30 and usually get much more and our withhold remains the same. I won’t blame trump because we had less items to deduct this year. If we had used the standard deduction we would have paid a 100. However. TurboTax cost 85.
So it's important that the media deliberately confuse folks and threads such as this exist to properly influence the population. I tip my hat to the architects of such diabolically clever propaganda.
Does financial illiteracy have a liberal bias?
Does financial illiteracy have a liberal bias?
I doubt it, but then again I can't explain the liberal tendency to believe in free stuff from the government, so maybe.
This is why we can't have nice things.
No we can’t have nice things because we give a massive tax cut to the rich and corporations and a petite tax cut to some of the middle class.
Does financial illiteracy have a liberal bias?
Maybe. Maybe not. But fiscal irresponsibility seems to have a conservative bias.
Maybe. Maybe not. But fiscal irresponsibility seems to have a conservative bias.
That's my biggest disappointment with this generation of Republicans, trying to emulate Democrats hoping maybe they'll stop being so mean.
I had to send $2,500. I took $10,000 out of a IRA for the first time. I did not have anything withheld from it and since I pay around 23% in taxes It meant I was close except for that. I paid about the same but my income was a little higher.
ill start getting SS this year, not sure how that will effect things. I’ll probably need to up my quarterly payments.
Also I didn’t have as many deductions this year. I still itemized as we were over the $24,000 standard deduction, but not by much. My AGI was about $13,000 higher.
ApatheticNoMore
4-16-19, 12:19am
I made out well. I was poor and then not poor, that's why. So I earned almost nothing but put some into IRAs when I finally had some work (you can until today for 2018), and from pay they withheld as if I had earned that all year, and from unemployment I had them withhold even though I earned so little I didn't actually owe it.
And when you earn almost nothing, you don't pay that much and with overwithholding as well ... Eh but I don't think I entirely escaped taxes though: noone does! But the state doesn't even tax unemployment.
That's my biggest disappointment with this generation of Republicans, trying to emulate Democrats hoping maybe they'll stop being so mean.
If that’s your only disappointment you haven’t been paying attention.
ToomuchStuff
4-16-19, 10:32am
A few years back, when the withholding started changing, I put that "extra" money, into savings (verses most I know that just blew it). Last year, my refund was a bit higher, but my income nearly doubled. That refund just goes into the property tax fund. My state refund, tends to go from having a bill of around $20, to getting a refund of around $20. I wish I could get withholdings done easily enough (not having to change it multiple times a year for the calculation/accountant expense to the business), to have my federal taxes at that point.
happystuff
4-19-19, 7:24am
We always have more withheld as I hate paying anything back. That said, we got less back this year with no changes. My turbo tax was only 49.00 for both federal and 1 state.
gimmethesimplelife
4-20-19, 10:30pm
For the first time in my life, I was Even Steven with the IRS....didn't owe a penny, nor did they owe me. Wow, I don't know how I pulled that off! Part of me was a little bummed as I remember dearly loving those huge refund checks from my serving days when I'd claim zero and worked at places that put your charge card tips on your check - meaning a bigger check and money to be withheld so I wouldn't live in fear of the IRS. But then again, I'm glad to not be giving the government an interest free loan - but then with my Medicaid participation on again off again I feel bad for thinking that, so who knows?
I am getting $25 back from Arizona, so that's nice......Rob
I had the accountant die... tried turbo tax and was glad I found a new accountant because instead of needing to write a $1800 check I'm getting a little back... enough to pay the $250 state tax we owe because Missouri gave everyone a state tax cut then realized they cut too much.
And people wonder why I was against the tax 'cut' the was for the middle class. HA! Jokes on them. https://publicintegrity.org/business/taxes/trumps-tax-cuts/you-paid-taxes-these-corporations-didnt/
iris lilies
5-5-19, 11:50am
And people wonder why I was against the tax 'cut' the was for the middle class. HA! Jokes on them. https://publicintegrity.org/business/taxes/trumps-tax-cuts/you-paid-taxes-these-corporations-didnt/
Yes, taxation for corporations is different than for individuals. Is that your point? It is hard tok ow what “joke” you are talking about by linking this article.
Teacher Terry
5-5-19, 12:04pm
G, I knew all along that trump was screwing the average person and helping his rich corporate friends. He has no empathy for how the average person lives. Not only are these huge wealthy companies not paying taxes but they are getting enormous refunds.
iris lilies
5-5-19, 1:49pm
G, I knew all along that trump was screwing the average person and helping his rich corporate friends. He has no empathy for how the average person lives. Not only are these huge wealthy companies not paying taxes but they are getting enormous refunds.
Did any middle class taxpayers get a tax break this year? It is so hard to know outside of the Trump bashing.
But then, Presidents do like their Gotcha jokes such as “you can keep your doctor”. Even “read my lips, no new taxes!”
Teacher Terry
5-5-19, 2:08pm
Not anyone I know .
Not anyone I know .I did, JP1 admitted recently that he did, reports say somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of the middle class did, although anecdotal evidence seems to suggest many of them somehow didn't realize it. I suspect that discrepancy may be more ideological than factual.
Well I decided to take a look. On my 2017 tax return I got around $2,000 back, 2018 I had to send in $2,200. My overall tax, the only thing that really matters, was $2,000 higher in 2018. But my adjusted gross income was $13,000 higher.
Since I’m in the 24% bracket for anything that I withdrawal from my IRA, it looks about right to me.
This year if I take anything out of my IRA I’ll have them withhold 20% so I don’t have to pay a penalty.
I would rather send them a check for a couple of thousand than have to wait for them to refund my money.
Well, my AGI was $4000 less in 2018 than 2017, but I paid $2780 more in federal taxes for the year2018. so the "Tax Break" didn't do me any good.
While all of our anecdotes are interesting, they aren't particularly informative of anything. I'm moderately curious to know where, of the roughly $190 billion per year the new tax law reduced taxes, the money went. Sure a lot of middle class schlubs like me got a $1k or $2k reduction (even williamsmith seemed to be getting enough to buy an extra bottle of gin every once in a while, although some, particularly those who own houses in high property value/tax places like the NYC metro area, the northern CA bay area and the like saw increases) but of the massive tax break how much of it actually went to middle class people? And were the decreases equal across different income bands or did higher income folks get a bigger or smaller decrease? My guess, strictly a hunch based on the obviously apparent priorities of the people who wrote the bill, is that the bill made our tax code flatter and less progressive. Where the R's screwed up was in modifying the witholding tables.
Although the theory that people'd be stoked to see bigger paychecks makes sense, the reality that became the accepted story was that of people like the Pennsylvania teacher that saw an extra $2/paycheck or whatever the number was. Not big enough to make this bill a successful issue in the 2018 midterms for republicans. The payoff would've taken longer but the Republicans, in hindsight, would've been better off if withholding had remained the same and then this year everyone suddenly got a bounteous refund. Personally I noticed the decreased witholding but it wasn't enough to change my life in any meaningful way. I just put it into savings. But if I'd suddenly gotten a $2000 refund this year instead of breaking even (for years I have always gotten a small refund from the state and owe a small amount to the IRS which almost always balance out) I might have been inspired to splurge on something. Instead that money is responsibly earning interest and I haven't done anything to help goose the economy with my new riches.
Teacher Terry
5-6-19, 10:09pm
Even though our income went down my husband doesn’t want to reduce our withholding because he wants to make sure we don’t owe. I am doing some consulting although I doubt I will make anywhere near what I did teaching.
iris lilies
5-6-19, 10:10pm
We just got a letter from the IRS saying that a document was missing from our tax calculation. Oops. Our tax preparer, who we called today, admitted that they did not include it, it had to do with the ACA subsidies, so I would imagine this could substantially change our tax bill. Stay tuned.
iris lilies
5-8-19, 10:53pm
Today’s update from our tax preparer: he is going to redo our taxes and make our income slightly less by forgoing a couple of deductions. That is so we can qualify for the ACA subsidies. I guess there will not be a bottom line change to what we owe. Comparative facts are:
Our income in 2018: $39,000, we paid $477 in federal taxes
Our income in 2017::$30,000, we paid $619 in federal taxes
So the 2018 tax reform helped this middle-class household.
Teacher Terry
5-8-19, 11:23pm
Wow a little over a 100 compared to what the wealthy get. Plus our deficit is exploding.
Here is the result: The average American doesn't win. The corporations however, are not singin' the blues. Theirs is permanent! Yup, we the people......... https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968
The Act cut the corporate tax rate (https://www.thebalance.com/corporate-income-tax-definition-history-effective-rate-3306024) from 35% to 21% beginning in 2018. The corporate cuts are permanent, while the individual changes expire at the end of 2025.
Individual Income Tax RateThe Act lowers tax rates (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-18/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gop-tax-overhaul-plan) but keeps the seven income tax brackets.
These rates revert in 2026.
The Act created the following chart. The highest tax bracket (https://www.thebalance.com/what-if-you-can-t-pay-the-taxes-you-owe-1289987) is $500,000 for single people and $600,000 for married couples. Beginning in 2018 (https://www.irs.com/articles/2018-federal-tax-rates-personal-exemptions-and-standard-deductions), they pay a 37% rate after exemptions and deductions. That's lower than the 2017 rate of 39.6%.
Income Tax Rate
Income Levels for Those Filing As:
2017 (https://taxfoundation.org/2017-tax-brackets/)
2018-2025
Single
Married-Joint
10%
10%
$0-$9,525
$0-$19,050
15%
12%
$9,525-$38,700
$19,050-$77,400
25%
22%
$38,700-$82,500
$77,400-$165,000
28%
24%
$82,500-$157,500
$165,000-$315,000
33%
32%
$157,500-$200,000
$315,000-$400,000
33%-35%
35%
$200,000-$500,000
$400,000-$600,000
39.6%
37%
$500,000+
$600,000+
The income levels rise each year with inflation. As a result, more people are subject to the highest bracket than they would have been under the old method. By 2025, 8.9% of taxpayers will pay more than they would have under the previous tax law. In 2018, only 4.8% of households paid more.
Wow a little over a 100 compared to what the wealthy get.
Basic math shows that her effective tax rate went from 2.06% in 2017 to 1.22% in 2018. Once you've established that fact, you can extrapolate outwards to reflect the higher income in 2018 and the possibility that the increased income may also increase the effective rate a tiny bit and still come up with a real savings more in the <$400 range and a close to 50 percent reduction to the effective rate.
Another point to consider is that we're not yet taxed on wealth but rather on income, so I'm not sure how you might make a factual comparison to "what the wealthy get".
iris lilies
5-9-19, 12:54pm
...Another point to consider is that we're not yet taxed on wealth...
Not yet anyway, not until Elizabeth Warren is in the White House and can lead her social justice warriors to confiscating my assets.
iris lilies
5-9-19, 12:56pm
Wow a little over a 100 compared to what the wealthy get. Plus our deficit is exploding.
I’m not concerned with what my neighbor gets, that’s a real dog in the manger kind of way to live your life.
The deficit, however, is very concerning to me and always has been. We need a financial leader in the White House who says “children you don’t have money to go buy all these toys that you think you need” .
But after a series of children in the White House over decades I doubt our populace would entertain for five seconds a grown-up who makes us spend according to our income.
Teacher Terry
5-9-19, 1:44pm
I care that corporations are not only not paying taxes but getting refunds in the millions which is causing our deficit to explode.
I care that corporations are not only not paying taxes but getting refunds in the millions which is causing our deficit to explode.
Deficits seem to be funny things. When I complained about them on these forums when they were in the 10 to 20B dollar range everyone told me that deficits were not bad, they were just something racists complained about because of their racism so just shut up you stupid racist who isn't even smart enough to vote in your best interest.
Now they're bad again, it's confusing.
Not yet anyway, not until Elizabeth Warren is in the White House and can lead her social justice warriors to confiscating my assets.
Oh, I think it's more pernicious than just Elizabeth Warren, the Democrats have been prepping us for that for the past decade. Remember, those assets of yours, you didn't build that.
Not yet anyway, not until Elizabeth Warren is in the White House and can lead her social justice warriors to confiscating my assets.
Dang. You've got over $50 million in assets!? I'm impressed!
iris lilies
5-9-19, 2:20pm
Dang. You've got over $50 million in assets!? I'm impressed!
No but once that slope is targeted, it is damn slippery...
Maybe if we raised federal taxes back to fifties-era levels, we would have more revenue to fund things like infrastructure. (Not to mention closing tax loopholes, etc.) Just a thought.
Maybe if we raised federal taxes back to fifties-era levels, we would have more revenue to fund things like infrastructure. (Not to mention closing tax loopholes, etc.) Just a thought.
26% on all income over $17K, 43% on all income over $100K and 90% or more on $1M plus? That would raise a lot of revenue for sure, maybe for a year or two.
Teacher Terry
5-9-19, 5:34pm
Some of you make me laugh. No one is stealing anyone’s assets.
Some of you make me laugh. No one is stealing anyone’s assets.
As noted earlier, Elizabeth Warren has promised a wealth tax if elected. Other countries currently have some version of a wealth tax where wealth is considered the sum of all cash accounts, property, investments and pension funds or some combination thereof. You can see examples in Argentina, France, Spain, Norway, Canada, Netherlands and Switzerland.
I would expect it to start here under Senator Warren's plan as she has specified, a small percentage of a persons net worth over a specified amount. Then, depending upon how much utopia that provides, incrementally increasing the percentage while dropping the specified asset total until the appropriate level of utopia is realized.
And a word to the wise, don't refer to it as "stealing assets", history has shown that when you get to that level of subservience to the government, it has lost its sense of humor.
26% on all income over $17K, 43% on all income over $100K and 90% or more on $1M plus? That would raise a lot of revenue for sure, maybe for a year or two.
People stopped working back then because taxes were too high?
Teacher Terry
5-9-19, 10:14pm
How about corporations pay their taxes before this latest tax breaks and things will be good.
How about corporations pay their taxes before this latest tax breaks and things will be good.
I am dumbfounded that their tax rate dropped by 40%!!! (21 instead of 35%). Shouldn't all brackets have dropped by 40%? Hell, that difference would have by far paid cash for Him's dumb wall!
You can see examples in Argentina, France, Spain, Norway, Canada, Netherlands and Switzerland.
Yeah, I hear all of those countries have become desolate wastelands, the tumbleweeds rolling toward the borders in the vacuum created by the tens of millions of citizens fleeing those countries...
People stopped working back then because taxes were too high?I wouldn't think so, but at those rates it wouldn't take long before the big payers stopped taking the risks required to earn that much, the driven people lose some of their drive and the middle class is diminished to a point where they are no longer able to save. But maybe that's the goal, I'm not sure.
Yeah, I hear all of those countries have become desolate wastelands, the tumbleweeds rolling toward the borders in the vacuum created by the tens of millions of citizens fleeing those countries...
Of course that's not true and I never implied any such thing, and that wasn't the point. In each of those countries, some degree of some citizens personal assets are claimed by the government as a "wealth tax" and at least one potential candidate for our Presidency has proposed the same, and now Teacher Terry knows.
Of course that's not true and I never implied any such thing, and that wasn't the point. In each of those countries, some degree of some citizens personal assets are claimed by the government as a "wealth tax" and at least one potential candidate for our Presidency has proposed the same, and now Teacher Terry knows.
Nice try. In that same post, you use the term "level of utopia", a goal your previous posts here have never endorsed. You can hide behind the notion that you're just stating facts, but your opinion is clear through your choice of terms.
depending upon how much utopia that provides, incrementally increasing the percentage while dropping the specified asset total until the appropriate level of utopia is realized.
And a word to the wise, don't refer to it as "stealing assets", history has shown that when you get to that level of subservience to the government, it has lost its sense of humor.
You don't like the idea of taxation that more evenly applies the costs of society to all regardless of the sources of their wealth. You don't agree that taxation to fund government has any positive benefit once the most basic services of protection (and maybe preservation) are paid for. It's OK. It's a difference of opinion. I (obviously) see it differently. We can discuss the difference and compromise rather than denigrate one approach or the other. Clearly many developed and very prosperous countries tax on that basis and it's accepted by their citizens. Almost all of us can vote with our feet; I think it says something that so many do not.
Many Americans differ on that score, either. I live in a high-tax state. I see what it buys me as a citizen and I'm okay with that. Are there opportunities for improvement? Certainly. But I think the government here makes a good effort and that holds more value to me than the few dollars I'd keep to myself in a low-tax state (and likely pay for one way or another). To each their own.
Very late to the party but our total tax was 14.6% of our AGI for 2018 and 20.1% for 2017. Thanks Trump! And taxes were way easier to prepare too. FWIW among my friends a few broke even and a few paid less, but those who said they paid more were simply under withheld and ended up owing. But upon questioning their overall tax burden as a percentage of AGI was generally less. But don’t get me started on my California state taxes. ��
Nice try. In that same post, you use the term "level of utopia", a goal your previous posts here have never endorsed. You can hide behind the notion that you're just stating facts, but your opinion is clear through your choice of terms.
Oh yes, there's no doubt I have an opinion, and I generally enjoy seeing how people respond to opinions they don't share, so thanks for that. The use of the word "utopia" is intentional as I think it's a word that accurately reflects a societal goal while limiting the number of pixels required to describe it. It's unfortunate that it also evokes images of governmental systems incompatible with a constitutional republic due to the amount of force required to enforce parity, but in the end I think it's good to make sure people know that requirement.
I live in a high-tax state. I see what it buys me as a citizen and I'm okay with that. Believe it or not, so am I, although I do resist the implication that the government is the best way to achieve societal goals and that any dollars the government allows people to keep beyond the amount required to cover basic necessities is unfair to others.
I have another opinion that many people do not share, that being that using the power or threat of government force against 49% to ensure fairness to 51% is not fair. That democratic tendency is the reason this country is a republic, current popularity notwithstanding.
I wouldn't think so, but at those rates it wouldn't take long before the big payers stopped taking the risks required to earn that much, the driven people lose some of their drive and the middle class is diminished to a point where they are no longer able to save. But maybe that's the goal, I'm not sure.
Ok. So what you’re saying is that in the 50s/60s the big players stopped taking risks, people stopped trying hard and the middle class was nearly wiped out. Got it.
Ok. So what you’re saying is that in the 50s/60s the big players stopped taking risks, people stopped trying hard and the middle class was nearly wiped out. Got it.
Well, you tell me what a 43% and higher federal tax rate would do to the middle class. I'm all ears.
You’re claiming it will do all these things. Yet, when we had that tax rate it didnt. I suppose you’re right that this time could be different. After all, how many times have the republicans promised that tax cuts wouldn’t increase the deficit? Surely if they do it enough times they’ll be proven correct eventually.
The good thing is, right now it's all just speculation and talk. I'll continue hoping we never find out just what effect those sort of rates would have.
I feel lucky in that I've been able to live below my means, using excess dollars to save and invest. As a result, I'm able to retire comfortably with a very nice return on my lifetime of investment. I'm not sure that I could have done the same under those rates. I could have survived and been comfortable I suppose, but I'm not sure that I could have ever stopped working.
The use of the word "utopia" is intentional as I think it's a word that accurately reflects a societal goal while limiting the number of pixels required to describe it.
Interesting that you believe a majority of us can agree on one "utopia". I'm already fairly certain your utopia looks very different from mine and there does not appear to be much intersection.
I'd be fine with government not being the "best way to achieve societal goals" but I don't see non-governmental groups stepping up to that in any coordinated equitable fashion. So who takes care of business if for-profits or religious organizations or other affinity groups do not? Those issues do not merely go away for the dreaming.
I have another opinion that many people do not share, that being that using the power or threat of government force against 49% to ensure fairness to 51% is not fair. That democratic tendency is the reason this country is a republic, current popularity notwithstanding.
What constitutes "force"? (genuine question; guns? economic weapons?)
Depends on how you look at that one. In the U.S. Senate, the way one third of this country is represented allows it to force its point of view on the other two thirds. Seems kind of un-American to not let majority rule. Or even have much of a say in what goes on.
iris lilies
5-11-19, 9:25am
Steve I am not sure that groups would step up in the way that you envision to achieve societal goals, but the statement that you don’t see it happening with the qualifications you give really disses all of the thousands of do-gooder organizations that spend all their time doing good. Also – many of us , OK like me – figure I’m paying into my societal do Gooder dues via taxes to support the humans. Why should I step up more?
I use my Spare money to give to many organizations the government doesn’t support at all. Nor should they.
Teacher Terry
5-11-19, 11:07am
Some groups are better than others at doing good work. Some like the Red Cross have huge salaries for the big wigs and when people donate for a specific cause they kept much of the money. Most military hate the Red Cross. Now the Salvation Army gives a small wage and the money goes to the programs. Anyways no these groups can’t do what the government does. As a society our taxes should pay for services for the common good. A strong middle class is good for the country as a whole. That’s fading and it should worry everyone.
iris lilies
5-11-19, 11:12am
Some groups are better than others at doing good work. Some like the Red Cross have huge salaries for the big wigs and when people donate for a specific cause they kept much of the money. Most military hate the Red Cross. Now the Salvation Army gives a small wage and the money goes to the programs. Anyways no these groups can’t do what the government does. As a society our taxes should pay for services for the common good. A strong middle class is good for the country as a whole. That’s fading and it should worry everyone.
No in many cases the groups can do it better.
The federal government thru its top-down one-size- fits -all approach should be doing a consistent job, one would think, yet the variation in quality of programs like veterans’s hospitals just goes to show all of the regulations in the world does not achieve parity.
SteveinMN
5-12-19, 11:39am
Steve I am not sure that groups would step up in the way that you envision to achieve societal goals, but the statement that you don’t see it happening with the qualifications you give really disses all of the thousands of do-gooder organizations that spend all their time doing good. Also – many of us , OK like me – figure I’m paying into my societal do Gooder dues via taxes to support the humans. Why should I step up more?
It's not a diss. Want to be part of a group that "does good" for left-handed albino dentists living in Missouri? Have at it. But, as things are constructed currently, organizations like that cannot be relied upon to provide a part of the social services safety net that so many believe the government should not provide. The Missouri Society for Left-Handed Albino Dentists, as a non-governmental provider of social services, should not be able to choose which dentists they support, excluding the ones who are gay or black or female or not-Protestant or unmarried or who have green cards -- or to put morality-based restrictions (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-against-gay-wedding-exemptions/1052989001/) on the ones they serve (https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/Here_Comes_Sandwitches).
As far as I can see, only the government has the charter to support all equally regardless of gender, race, creed, sexual orientation, etc. And, especially in rural areas and less-populated states, there are many fewer organizations to provide that support and fewer people "on the edges" to band together for themselves. Lots of holes in that safety net.
The other issue I have is the slippery slope on which government subsidy is built. Governmental entities trip over themselves trying to attract companies like Foxconn and Amazon and the Minnesota Vikings, somehow believing -- despite many studies to the contrary -- that their subsidies (TIF, infrastructure improvements, interest-free loans, etc.) will return to them manifold. But the voters for those same entities seem to sing a very different tune in subsidizing, say, children with after-school programs so there's something for them to do besides get in trouble when one or both parents are out at work at minimum-wage jobs. The same voters who are chanting about how people should not be allowed to use the overloaded asylum process in this country are the same ones who don't believe the crop set aside money they get from the government every year is government spending as well. Maybe we need to spend more money on education...
Though I don't use him often as an example, the handicapped relative I sometimes refer to is a good example here. He was graduated from college and started working at a manufacturing company. He contracted a neuromuscular disease through no fault of his own (i.e., didn't become paraplegic by drinking too much and getting behind the wheel). That disease gradually brought him to the point at which he needs every daily care and specialized adaptive equipment. He cannot work -- even though he wants to. In a sense, he's one of the lucky ones since his employer maintained disability insurance coverage for their employees, so he draws on that even though it's nowhere near enough to live on anywhere. So what does he do? Family cannot care for him on anything but an emergency basis because his physical needs are so extensive. Care assistants, even at $10-12/hour with no benefits, add up over 80-hour weeks. He recently needed a new wheelchair access ramp to the house in which he lives; the old one just wore out. That ran around six grand. My relative could live decades longer with this illness. Should he be denied help because he may not be Catholic or white or left-handed or because chance landed him in sparsely-populated Frostbite Falls, Minnesota? Should he be voted off the island and put on an ice floe and sent off into the sunset because of his net expense to society? A lot of the "government shouldn't provide a safety net" conversation I've seen to date seems to rely on generalities and doesn't get to the rubber meeting the road on surprisingly typical cases like this.
I use my Spare money to give to many organizations the government doesn’t support at all. Nor should they.
Agreed to this. My expanded view of this, however, includes for-profit corporations and churches and private colleges. Charity runs more than one way.
Teacher Terry
5-12-19, 12:02pm
Yes Steve people don’t really think about what catastrophic events happen to people and what type of expenses/care you could end up needing. Depending on charity to fill that need is ridiculous.
Usually, we pay for the tax person and net about the same or up to 2x as much. This year? This year our refund paid for the tax person. Just increased my determination to get out of being self-employed so that we have to do the most complicated part of our taxes, my schedule C.
iris lilies
5-13-19, 1:49pm
Yes Steve people don’t really think about what catastrophic events happen to people and what type of expenses/care you could end up needing. Depending on charity to fill that need is ridiculous.
Can either of you, Steve or Terry, tell me who, exactly, are the people on this thread who “really dont think about what catastrophic events happen to people” or who thinks the “government shouldn't provide a safety net?”
Since I have said neither of these things, you cant be speaking to me. Most Americans, including me, think those who cannot care for themselves need to be cared for in some way through government help.
Since I have said neither of these things, you cant be speaking to me. Most Americans, including me, think those who cannot care for themselves need to be cared for in some way through government help.
I think they're referring to me, because even though I believe in a government safety net, I think the primary responsibility should be on family and public charities. I'm old fashioned that way.
SteveinMN
5-13-19, 10:04pm
I think I pretty clearly explained a situation in which family cannot provide the necessary care for someone and I wrote another post on why public charity support is problematic. What I do not see is any discussion about how public charities could replace the comprehensiveness and democratic access to infrastructure that the government provides. My personal suspicion is that the discussion doesn't happen because it cannot. Great talking point; not so easy when it gets to specifics.
So, Alan (or anyone else who cares to respond), please, enlighten me. How would you have public charities help my relative and his family since he cannot help himself and family support is limited? Detail is a good thing. Consider the need for personal cares; adaptation of where he lives to allow movement and use of equipment like a hospital bed, a Hoyer lift, and an accessibility ramp; and medical care. Feel free to include the meager amount he receives from a private disability insurance policy he was lucky enough to receive at the beginning of his career. Thanks.
I think they're referring to me, because even though I believe in a government safety net, I think the primary responsibility should be on family and public charities. I'm old fashioned that way.
For people in favor of rugged individualism I suppose gofundme is a pretty good modern version of that. According to the company a third of the money raised on that site is for medical bills.
Of course that's probably not a particularly effective solution for people who can't afford ongoing maintenance drugs like insulin. One dramatically large hospital bill may inspire lots of sympathy and donations. A monthly plea for money to pay for something like insulin or blood pressure meds, probably not so much.
Teacher Terry
5-13-19, 11:03pm
So Alan do you have enough money saved to take care of everyone in your extended family that might need help without programs? Do you want these people living with you? My mom talked about the depression and taking family in whether you liked them or not and struggled to feed everyone and living in a small space. No programs to help and they sucked it up and did it. My grandparents were generous and kind people but it wasn’t easy. I don’t want to live with my siblings or support them. If I had to plan for that I would never retire. They feel the same.
I don't want to live with my siblings or support them. If I had to plan for that I would never retire. They feel the same.
Therein the problem lies.
I struggle to understand the individualism mindset and protection of the 'common'. They seem to be in conflict. If I remember correctly some societies shared a common field to grow their food and shared the results of the efforts. Those who could not help physically were assisted and reciprocated where and when able.
What I see now is the individualism that places the responsibilities for obtaining the revenue, purchasing and maintaining shelter, food and aid on those individuals who are able. If only a few are able and available, they carry the whole burden. Those who were able and now unable are suddenly without support for themselves and their dependents. What happened to the shared common? Is this not the role of gov't in action?
Teacher Terry
5-14-19, 11:08am
It’s not a problem. We don’t get along. Do you get along with everyone in your family? Do you have the money to support everyone in your extended family? Would you let people you can’t get along live with you? Since my mom lived it as a child I will take her word for it that it sucked. Life was tougher back then and I am glad to be living now.
ApatheticNoMore
5-14-19, 11:21am
The problem is we can't all be some super woman/man, pulling in vast incredible almost unfathomable incomes to support not just ourselves but extended families etc. (yes you need to pull in a lot for that). Sometimes it's a struggle enough to keep one's own head above water Sometimes I think about saving everyone else and only think "it will kill me" and then only: they are not my responsibility How is this going to lead to anything but the one responsible person in a family maybe supporting a bunch of deadbeats or at least unfortunates (with tons of health problems etc.) if they even can (responsible hardly means rich, afterall! but again rich is what is needed) But even deadbeats and unfortunates who have bad health shouldn't die of treatable illness and sleeping in the gutter.
Nor do we all have the time to be full time caretakers and work full time jobs (impossible really)
I don't care how my grandparents lived because life back then doesn't even map to life today Uh they lived rent free in order to caretake their grandparents and then got a paid off house for it at the end (never having paid a mortgage). No magic genie is offering to pay my rent or give me a house. Plus my grandmother didn't work full time, actually didn't work for many years despite having a law degree! How realistic do you think that is now? So my grandparents are good memories mostly, I loved their old house etc., but it could not be more irrelevant to anything in the present.
I agree gofundme is the modern equivalent, it is completely in the modern world, but as a way of paying medical bills leaves a lot to be desired, and probably doesn't keep anyone much out of homelessness etc..
It’s not a problem. We don’t get along. Do you get along with everyone in your family? Do you have the money to support everyone in your extended family? Would you let people you can’t get along live with you? Since my mom lived it as a child I will take her word for it that it sucked. Life was tougher back then and I am glad to be living now.And that's where I think the government should come in as a last resort, for those who would otherwise be put adrift on the ice floe.
Huh. I think I got the answer I expected. Thanks.
Huh. I think I got the answer I expected. Thanks.
I don't know what answer you expected, I can only reiterate my belief that government should be a safety net, not a one stop fix for everyone who doesn't want to be inconvenienced by their relatives.
Non-governmental charities such as Catholic Relief, Shriners, St. Judes or a host of others, supplemented by the comfort and care of millions of well-meaning individuals can go a long way if they're allowed to help.
Teacher Terry
5-14-19, 10:03pm
Interesting you never answered any of my questions Alan.
My grandfather was orphaned/abandonned as an infant. Since he was born in 1903 there was no "safety net" to take care of him. Instead he was an "inconvenience" to various relatives. Until he was 10 years old and decided that life would be better if he dropped out of school and got a job to support himself so he could get away from those inconvenienced relatives. I don't know what horrors he had to endure, he never shared that with anyone to my knowledge, but for a ten year old kid to decide that he was better off taking care of himself I can only assume it was pretty bad. Personally I'll take the government safety net over that.
Teacher Terry
5-15-19, 12:03am
Jp, researching my grandparents past has just turned up horrible stories and they were wonderful people.
TT, Once my grandfather was an adult his life was equally difficult. His wife came down with tuberculosis not long after they married, so during my dad's childhood grandpa worked at a brick foundry in order to support his 3 kids, his wife who lived in a state tuberculosis hospital for as long as my father could remember, and his in-laws. FIL had polio so they had installed a chain driven hoist to get him out of bed in the morning. This was in SW Missouri. Grandpa had heard that if he could move his wife to a less humid climate she'd live longer. But that wasn't an option because he had a good (ie reliable, steady) job at the foundry. So she died. A couple of months later penicillin became an easily available thing and everyone in the state tuberculosis hospital took a few pills, went home and lived happily ever after. At the time I imagine the family just accepted this as "just the way it is". Today I would hope that people would expect better. I certainly would. But apparently some people would be fine with that early 1940's perspective of life.
iris lilies
5-15-19, 7:55am
My grandfather was orphaned/abandonned as an infant. Since he was born in 1903 there was no "safety net" to take care of him. Instead he was an "inconvenience" to various relatives. Until he was 10 years old and decided that life would be better if he dropped out of school and got a job to support himself so he could get away from those inconvenienced relatives. I don't know what horrors he had to endure, he never shared that with anyone to my knowledge, but for a ten year old kid to decide that he was better off taking care of himself I can only assume it was pretty bad. Personally I'll take the government safety net over that.
I am not sure why you think the foster care system is any better than a series of patched together households of relatives. It is pretty much the same thing. I guess there is a reason why social workers attempt to place children with relatives, the familial bond is supposed to have impact.
There are many many wonderful foster parents tho, so I do not want to denigrate those people. Just as there are many many wonderful relatives who take in related children not their own.
In my family, my aunts, uncles, and grandparents would have made a 1000% better home for my brother and me should we have become orphans than would the disinterested state of Iowa. Same for DH’s family.
Interesting you never answered any of my questions Alan.
Because they had nothing to do with the premise of the argument several of you are pounding me on, but I'll summarize them and give it a shot.
1. Do I have enough money to support everyone in my family? No
2. Do I find anyone in my family to be so disagreeable that I wouldn't like having them live with me? Yes
Neither of those lines of questioning change my opinion that the primary responsibility of care for family resides on the individual, with government as the safety net of last resort. I'm not sure why saying that is so offensive.
Because they had nothing to do with the premise of the argument several of you are pounding me on, but I'll summarize them and give it a shot.
1. Do I have enough money to support everyone in my family? No
2. Do I find anyone in my family to be so disagreeable that I wouldn't like having them live with me? Yes
Neither of those lines of questioning change my opinion that the primary responsibility of care for family resides on the individual, with government as the safety net of last resort. I'm not sure why saying that is so offensive.
As Progressive as I am with these kinds of policies, I want to support Alan insofar as believing that social support has helped to dismantle bonds of family to some extent. When I interview Indiian doctors and families, there is a cultural world of difference between them and us. I did a project on schizophrenia, and in India, the families are the caregivers for mentally disabled children, parents, etc. They see it as their responsibility (plus there are no government safety nets), and I'm sure it is a heavy burden. But they are completely supportive of each other in other ways.
One Indian psychiatrist was absolutely taken aback to hear that one of her patients gave gas money to her father for a ride to her session. Her Indian patients are accompanied by parents, grandparents, siblings, all piled up in the waiting room. So those are two extremes, and the middle way, of course, would be best.
Unfortunately, there are tons of people with no family to take them in. No family willing to take them in. And if we can't legislate monies to support basic needs for people, we also can't legislate that families MUST house and feed their family members. So I'm wondering what the Republican/Libertarian answer to that is.
iris lilies
5-15-19, 9:34am
As Progressive as I am with these kinds of policies, I want to support Alan insofar as believing that social support has helped to dismantle bonds of family to some extent. When I interview Indiian doctors and families, there is a cultural world of difference between them and us. I did a project on schizophrenia, and in India, the families are the caregivers for mentally disabled children, parents, etc. They see it as their responsibility (plus there are no government safety nets), and I'm sure it is a heavy burden. But they are completely supportive of each other in other ways.
One Indian psychiatrist was absolutely taken aback to hear that one of her patients gave gas money to her father for a ride to her session. Her Indian patients are accompanied by parents, grandparents, siblings, all piled up in the waiting room. So those are two extremes, and the middle way, of course, would be best.
Unfortunately, there are tons of people with no family to take them in. No family willing to take them in. And if we can't legislate monies to support basic needs for people, we also can't legislate that families MUST house and feed their family members. So I'm wondering what the Republican/Libertarian answer to that is.
I do not accept your premise that we “can’t legislate monies to support basic needs for people… “.
Clearly we have billions of dollars going to social welfare programs. Once again, my tax burden is dismissed as in adequate on this website. And I will ask the question: just how much exactly do I have to pay to make y’all happy?
To be fair, I think my federal tax burden was pretty damn low this year, But my state tax burden was pretty damn high, so there you go.
catherine
5-15-19, 10:08am
Clearly we have billions of dollars going to social welfare programs. Once again, my tax burden is dismissed as in adequate on this website. And I will ask the question: just how much exactly do I have to pay to make y’all happy?
To be fair, I think my federal tax burden was pretty damn low this year, But my state tax burden was pretty damn high, so there you go.
I'm not interested in YOUR money, IL. :)
I think the answer to how much do we need--it's not a matter of bleeding hard-working people dry. It's a matter of a) establishing priorities as a nation and b) providing checks against all the wealth settling into the hands of just a few people. I truly believe that when capitalism is left to its own devices it's like a Monopoly game--eventually we're all turning in our houses and our measly Mediterranean Avenue so that somebody can build hotels on Park Place.
I just want everyone to win at Monopoly. But we have more and more people winding up with most of the wealth. I know the argument is "It's their money," but as a nation of citizens do we want what's best for everyone, or do we want the natural laws of capitalism to benefit just a few? It's their money but they didn't do it on their own. What is wrong with a progressive tax rate that asks a little more of the wealthiest people?
sweetana3
5-15-19, 11:11am
My husband's father was indentured out to farm work instead of school in the USA as a child and his wages were turned over to his parents. Affected his whole life and this probably in the late 1930s.
Teacher Terry
5-15-19, 12:18pm
After my grandma’s mother died the dad sold the 2 youngest to a orphanage when they were 8 and 12. They ate bread with lard on it and water while there was better food for the workers. My grandma was 12 so they boarded her out to farms to be a maid in the house. No wages. The same with her 8 yo sister once she turned 10. My grandfather’s mom died and the dad had 4 small children with the youngest only 1. He remarried and she severely abused all the kids. The youngest at 15 shot himself the day school got out. He died and the dad divorced his wife.
Teacher Terry
5-15-19, 12:21pm
Cathy is right that the income inequality in this country is destroying the middle class. There is nothing wrong with a progressive tax rate that asks more of the super wealthy. I am sure no one in this forum falls into that category. As a former social worker we had some excellent foster homes and some okay ones. Sure if the family was decent we placed there first. That sure beats kids being rotated through relatives none of which want them.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.