Posted on 06/01/2003 1:33:03 AM PDT by FairOpinion
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A study by groups critical of the new tax law has found that 8 million mostly low-income taxpayers will not receive any benefit from it.
The study also says there are 50 million households -- 36 percent of all households in the nation -- that will receive no benefit from the law, including people who do not earn enough to owe income tax.
But the new study found 5 million taxpayers in the lowest tax bracket who get no benefit from the law and 2.5 million single parents with children who also pay taxes but get no breaks.
In the first category are taxpayers in the lowest 10 percent bracket who have no children and no dividend or capital-gains income. This group, which constitutes 89 percent of all single taxpayers in the lowest bracket, does not benefit from the expansion of the 10 percent bracket because they are already in it. They have no children, so they do not get the child credit, and they do not benefit from the law's relief for married couples. Members of this group, who make $9,300 to $13,800 a year, now pay up to $600 in income taxes.
The second group consists of 2.5 million taxpayers in the head-of-household filing status -- mostly single parents -- who have a child over 16 and who are in the two lowest tax brackets. The study found that they will not receive a tax cut, even though they pay as much as $5,200 in income taxes, because the lowest bracket is not expanded for head-of-household filers under the new law.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
They are really trying hard to find a few people who don't benefit from the tax cut, and seem to be having a hard time.
As someone pointed out "This is a tax cut, not a welfare program"
I looked it up: last year there were 130,900,000 individual income tax returns files. And of course people who don't pay income taxes usually don't file. So even if they are right, if 8 million out of the 130,900,000, or 6% of people don't receive any benefit from the taxcut, that means that 94%, or 122,900,000 people DO receive benefits from the taxcuts.
Am I reading this wrong, or does this amount to saying, "people who aren't married won't be getting the marriage benefit."
About 12,000 taxpayers making more than $200,000 will also receive no benefit because they have no dividend or capital-gains income and earn too much to benefit from the law's increased exemptions from the alternative minimum tax.
So this tax bill includes an increased exemption for the AMT? I am glad to hear it, as we were blind-sided this year and had to pay this onerous tax for the first time. What a shock!
Also, am I supposed to feel sorry for people who are earning $9,300 to $13,800, because they have to pay a measly $600 per year??!!!!!!!!!
This article is really grasping at straws to attack the tax plan. The question shouldn't be whether the poor benefit from the plan, they already benefit from the system the way it is and also take more from the system than any other class. The question should be whether the middle class gets a break. My taxes were over $10,500 this year with a wife and a baby and a $92,000 law school loan debt to pay. Of course, I would be considered rich by RAT standards!
I believe we may save $1,500 in taxes this tax year thanks to Bush.
Actually, you don't. Many "working poor" don't pay any income tax, but still get refunds through "earned income tax credits". This can come to several thousand for those in $10,000 range with a couple kids. And I believe that some actually get child credits already. The whine is that they won't be increased.
The RATS have gone through this shell game before. Didn't they change the tax law last year to give people who didn't pay taxes a refund? This is absolutely assinine logic, but that's the libs for you.
Unbelievable!
Not true. The tax break will put more capital into the system and the economy will grow. Thus these "mostly low-income taxpayers" will have increased opportunity to move up. In reality, most of them will not answer the knock of opportunity though.
More than likely they are including FICA and Medicare as federal income taxes.
Problem is they are. Just most people don't know it.
HELVERING v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)
- Title VIII(Social Security Act), as we have said, lays two different types of tax, an 'income tax on employees,' and 'an excise tax on employers.' The income tax on employees is measured by wages paid during the calendar year. Section 801 [26 USC 3101]. The excise tax on the employer [26 USC 3111] is to be paid 'with respect to having individuals in his employ,' and, like the tax on employees, is measured by wages.
- . The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not ear-marked in any way. Section 807(a)[26 USC 3501]. There are penalties for nonpayment. Section 807(c), [26 USC 7203].
Title 26 US Code Subtitle C Sec. 3101. Rate of tax
- (a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section (b)) - --------------------------------------------------------------------- In cases of wages received during: The rate shall be: ---------------------------------------------------------------------
1984, 1985, 1986, or 1987 5.7 percent
1988 or 1989 6.06 percent
1990 or thereafter 6.2 percent.
-------------------------------
- (b) Hospital insurance
In addition to the tax imposed by the preceding subsection, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section (b)) -
- (1) with respect to wages received during the calendar years
1974 through 1977, the rate shall be 0.90 percent;- (2) with respect to wages received during the calendar year
1978, the rate shall be 1.00 percent;- (3) with respect to wages received during the calendar years
1979 and 1980, the rate shall be 1.05 percent;- (4) with respect to wages received during the calendar years
1981 through 1984, the rate shall be 1.30 percent;- (5) with respect to wages received during the calendar year
1985, the rate shall be 1.35 percent; and- (6) with respect to wages received after December 31, 1985, the
rate shall be 1.45 percent.Title 26 US Code Subtitle C Sec. 3501. Collection and payment of taxes
- (a) General rule
The taxes imposed by this subtitle shall be collected by the Secretary and shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States as internal-revenue collections.Nothing has changed todate inspite of all the political rhertoric about "lock boxes" and "Trust Funds" for SS/Medicare funds, the tax that is supposed to be levied for SS/Medicare is indistinguishable in operation from what we normally refer to as the Income Tax, and is paid into general revenues in just the same manner.
THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND FRAUD
CRS Report for Congress (98-422 EPW)
Social Security: and the Federal Budget:"Its taxes like all other federal funds flow into the U.S. Treasury and its benefit payments flow out of the U.S. Treasury. The Treasury Department issues federal securities to the Social Security trust funds to reflect receipt of these taxes, and redeems securities from the trust funds to reflect Social Security expenditures, but the money itself flows to and from the Treasury."
"Taking the Social Security trust funds "off budget" has not changed how Social Security funds are handled. They are treated the same way today as they were in 1937 when Social Security taxes were first levied -- the tax receipts flow into the U.S. Treasury and benefit payments flow out of the U.S. Treasury. The Treasury Department issues federal securities to the Social Security trust funds to reflect the receipt of these taxes, and redeems securities from the trust funds to reflect Social Security expenditures, but the money itself flows to and from the Treasury. "
"While the trust funds have an important role in monitoring the finances of the program and maintaining its fiscal discipline, they are basically accounting devices. The federal securities they hold are not assets for the government. When an individual buys a government bond, he or she has established a claim against the government. When the government issues a bond to one of its own accounts, it hasn't purchased anything or established a claim against some other entity or person. It is simply creating a form of IOU from one of its accounts to another. It certainly establishes legal claims against the government for the Social Security system (i.e., it is a legal form of indebtedness of the government and does count as part of the federal debt; see Table 3 on the next page), but the system is part of the government. Those claims are not resources the government has at its disposal to pay for future Social Security claims. Simply put, the trust funds do not reflect an independent store of money for the program or the government, and taking Social Security "off budget" did not change this. "
What Social Security Trust Fund
"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Fleming v. Nestor (1960), 363 US 603; that there is no Constitutional right to Social Security benefits. Social Security benefits can legally be cut or eliminated at any time, and beneficiaries have no recourse. The Court held that, "To engraft upon the Social Security System a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustments to ever changing conditions which it demands."
You pretty much said it, but I want to make it very explicit. The term "earned income tax credits" is Orwellian Doublespeak.
When you hear this term, you should think "socialist wealth redistribution scheme".
"earned income tax credits" is Orwellian Doublespeak.
Certainly is, for an income tax rebate.
Title 26 US Code Subtitle C Sec. 3101. Rate of tax
- (a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section (b)) - ***
- (b) Hospital insurance
In addition to the tax imposed by the preceding subsection, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section (b)) - ***
Title 26 US Code Subtitle C Sec. 3501. Collection and payment of taxes
- (a) General rule
The taxes imposed by this subtitle shall be collected by the Secretary and shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States as internal-revenue collections.
See reply #14 above, For full details.
The study also says there are 50 million households -- 36 percent of all households in the nation -- that will receive no benefit from the law, including people who do not earn enough to owe income tax.
Which becomes kinda interesting when one looks at some facts about who actually is in the "lowest" income brackets, in comparison with the standard of living of people in other brackets:
Income for the purposes of this report, is the total received from all sources including welfare, social security, and other government disbursements not normally considered in as income for tax purposes.
| Table 2. Income before taxes: Average annual expenditures and characteristics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2001 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ce/standard/2001/income.txt | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
And for anyone who doubts whether these cuts will become permanent, I see Mr. Grassley is going to get started on that right away.
This was discussed on Bob Brinker's "Moneytalk". Callers from the democrat party tried to convince Bob's audience that this was a "Tax cut for the rich". Bob explained that you must pay taxes to be eligible to receive a tax cut.
A head of house hold (single parent) called in to say she would receive no benefit. Bob answered her saying he agreed, this was a tax package which was intended to support marriage and in particular marriage and raising families.
It was a good discussion, as Bob seemed very pleased that Bush was able to get this much of his tax program passed this early in the year.
Articles says TWO lowest tax brackets, so that would be the 10% and 25%? Two lowest tax brackets would include people making $40,000 or $50,000 or more which could be paying $5200.
Article says people in the lowest TWO tax brackets. There are ownly three, possibly three and a half tax brackets in the US so those in the lowest two include most tax payers. Someone making $40,000 or $50,000 could be paying $5200 in income taxes.
They want to have their cake and eat it, too.
Wait. They say the lowest two lowest TAX brackets, not income brackets. So work backwards on these numbers and it's plain to see that the incomes are not low at all.
Obviously an unbiased study!
Yeah but if they are the bottom TWO brackets they would be paying 10% on part of that $50,000 and 15% on the rest. I just checked Turbo Tax for last year for that filing status and here is what they said:
For heads of household in the second tax bracket, those with taxable income of $10,000 to $37,451, subtract $10,000 from the taxable amount, multiply the result by 15% and add an additional $1000. Doing this I came up with income tax of $5117.50 for someone with taxable income of $37,341.
Someone with taxable income of $50,000 is in the next higher bracket ($37,450-$96,701). To compute tax, subtract $37,450 from taxable income. Multiply by 27% and add $5117.50. For someone with taxable income of $50,000 this is INCOME tax of $8506. They pay FICA on top of that.
Article is poorly written. They are discussing two groups of people that arent getting tax cut. One is low income people who are not paying income tax and the other is people filing as head of household. Because the viewpoint they are taking is "fairness" they are talking about the bottom TWO brackets for the Head of Household filers. To be fair, the author never said Heads of Houseold filers were poor although those in the bottm tax bracket probably would be.
No matter what math you are using.
Obviously but what is your point. The last paragraph of the article says nothing about income. It talked about the two lowest tax brackets. They just pointed out that those filing as head of household dont get a cut in rates. Poorly written but not necessarily biased.
In "this" or in another cheaper country. No tarrifs - no reason to invest in America.
Of course, not everybody buys into this theory, deriding it as "voodoo economics" or "trickle-down", or whatever the current term of derision may be.
Trickle up works even better. How much stuff is sold to Indians in India?
Did you bother to read the article? The last paragraph which is what people are reacting to in regards to $5200 in tax is for people filing as HEADS OF HOUSEHOLD. Obviously our numbers dont match because you are using single filing status numbers. The bottom two tax brackets for heads of household are 0 - $10,000 at 10% and $10,000 - 37,451 at 15%. Someone at the top of the second bracket, filing as head of household paid $5117 in federal income taxes in 2002 and according to this they will continue to pay that next year.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.