Despite deal, taxes to rise for most Americans

WASHINGTON (AP) - While the tax package that Congress passed New Year's Day will protect 99 percent of Americans from an income tax increase, most of them will still end up paying more federal taxes in 2013.
That's because the legislation did nothing to prevent a temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax from expiring. In 2012, that 2-percentage-point cut in the payroll tax was worth about $1,000 to a worker making $50,000 a year.
The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan Washington research group, estimates that 77 percent of American households will face higher federal taxes in 2013 under the agreement negotiated between President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans. High-income families will feel the biggest tax increases, but many middle- and low-income families will pay higher taxes too.
Households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will face an average tax increase of $579 in 2013, according to the Tax Policy Center's analysis. Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will face an average tax increase of $822.
"For most people, it's just the payroll tax," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.
The tax increases could be a lot higher. A huge package of tax cuts first enacted under President George W. Bush was scheduled to expire Tuesday as part of the "fiscal cliff." The Bush-era tax cuts lowered taxes for families at every income level, reduced investment taxes and the estate tax, and enhanced a number of tax credits, including a $1,000-per-child credit.
The package passed Tuesday by the Senate and House extends most the Bush-era tax cuts for individuals making less than $400,000 and married couples making less than $450,000.
Obama said the deal "protects 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small business owners from a middle-class tax hike. While neither Democrats nor Republicans got everything they wanted, this agreement is the right thing to do for our country."
The income threshold covers more than 99 percent of all households, exceeding Obama's claim, according to the Tax Policy Center. However, the increase in payroll taxes will hit nearly every wage earner.
Social Security is financed by a 12.4 percent tax on wages up to $113,700, with employers paying half and workers paying the other half. Obama and Congress reduced the share paid by workers from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent for 2011 and 2012, saving a typical family about $1,000 a year.
Obama pushed hard to enact the payroll tax cut for 2011 and to extend it through 2012. But it was never fully embraced by either party, and this time around, there was general agreement to let it expire.
The new tax package would increase the income tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent on income above $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for married couples. Investment taxes would increase for people who fall in the new top tax bracket.
High-income families will also pay higher taxes this year as part of Obama's 2010 health care law. As part of that law, a new 3.8 percent tax is being imposed on investment income for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000.
Together, the new tax package and Obama's health care law will produce significant tax increases for many high-income families.
For 2013, households making between $500,000 and $1 million would get an average tax increase of $14,812, according to the Tax Policy Center analysis. Households making more than $1 million would get an average tax increase of $170,341.
"If you're rich, you're almost certain to get a big tax increase," Williams said.
That's because the legislation did nothing to prevent a temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax from expiring. In 2012, that 2-percentage-point cut in the payroll tax was worth about $1,000 to a worker making $50,000 a year.
The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan Washington research group, estimates that 77 percent of American households will face higher federal taxes in 2013 under the agreement negotiated between President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans. High-income families will feel the biggest tax increases, but many middle- and low-income families will pay higher taxes too.
Households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will face an average tax increase of $579 in 2013, according to the Tax Policy Center's analysis. Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will face an average tax increase of $822.
"For most people, it's just the payroll tax," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.
The tax increases could be a lot higher. A huge package of tax cuts first enacted under President George W. Bush was scheduled to expire Tuesday as part of the "fiscal cliff." The Bush-era tax cuts lowered taxes for families at every income level, reduced investment taxes and the estate tax, and enhanced a number of tax credits, including a $1,000-per-child credit.
The package passed Tuesday by the Senate and House extends most the Bush-era tax cuts for individuals making less than $400,000 and married couples making less than $450,000.
Obama said the deal "protects 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small business owners from a middle-class tax hike. While neither Democrats nor Republicans got everything they wanted, this agreement is the right thing to do for our country."
The income threshold covers more than 99 percent of all households, exceeding Obama's claim, according to the Tax Policy Center. However, the increase in payroll taxes will hit nearly every wage earner.
Social Security is financed by a 12.4 percent tax on wages up to $113,700, with employers paying half and workers paying the other half. Obama and Congress reduced the share paid by workers from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent for 2011 and 2012, saving a typical family about $1,000 a year.
Obama pushed hard to enact the payroll tax cut for 2011 and to extend it through 2012. But it was never fully embraced by either party, and this time around, there was general agreement to let it expire.
The new tax package would increase the income tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent on income above $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for married couples. Investment taxes would increase for people who fall in the new top tax bracket.
High-income families will also pay higher taxes this year as part of Obama's 2010 health care law. As part of that law, a new 3.8 percent tax is being imposed on investment income for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000.
Together, the new tax package and Obama's health care law will produce significant tax increases for many high-income families.
For 2013, households making between $500,000 and $1 million would get an average tax increase of $14,812, according to the Tax Policy Center analysis. Households making more than $1 million would get an average tax increase of $170,341.
"If you're rich, you're almost certain to get a big tax increase," Williams said.
We have to many career politicians and as long as there are no term limits these people will do whatever it takes to keep their cushy jobs. In addition to that it's almost impossible to fire any of these people and the only ones who pretty much can do that are their buddies and that isn't going to happen. You have politicians that have been in office for decades and in this particular case what you have seen is what you are going to get. None of these people are accountable to the American public. If anything they just keep thumbing their nose at the public.
Despite deal? Raising taxes sounds like the deal they all could agree on. Not like they wanna take any cuts since they can't seem to do their job considering what they're paid to do.
"No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session." -- Benjamin Franklin
This comment has been deleted
On point, lets talk about "taxes". It is income to the government (widely defined) to operate. If the income is inadequate to pay for everything, we borrow money. When we borrow money we expect to pay it back. The questions always come back to who should get government money. Social Security is partially paid by employers (approx 6.2%). If the employer base goes down, if there are fewer employees paying in (the other 6.2%), then the Social Security Fund is untenable. I believe we now have only 2 workers contributing for every person receiving Social Security payments. This doesn't count those who don't pay in, but still accept payments (SSI). Eventually we will have to pay off the borrowed money, at least in part. This debt service cost is just another expense that takes away funds for social services, defense, or infrastructure. We need a Congress to identify the most important needs for the country, prioritize those needs, and see that funds will be made available for those needs. I don't see this about to happen in today's Congress.
Everyone panick!Â
 @lakeview What's panick? Oh... you mean panic. Got it. I don't think it's panic so much as frustration.
@d_2  I agree that it is frustrating. But at the same time, I think a lot of people freak out for nothing. Life is short, gotta enjoy it instead of worrying too much.Â
 @JK15  @lakeview that money could be used for kids
milk/ bread/cheese or education...now they all got ruined !
No wonder those illegals are back to Mexico !!!
 @lakeview I don't think people who are living paycheck to paycheck are freaking out over nothing. I agree, life is short and a person should enjoy it. However, the increase has just taken the money that people used for entertainment out of their budget. When there was a lot of talk how the middle class would be spared, a $1400.00 a year tax increase is a kick to the gut.
@d_2Â Â I made a speller errer.Â
WOW. Right now Cuba is selling off its government owned business because they finally realized that government is NOT the economy. It only took 60 years for them and the Chinese Democrats to get it...How dumb are we??Â
I find it interesting that the people in the red states are the ones screaming for less government and spending. However, they are net gainers when it comes to paying taxes. They pay far less than they received. They had better be careful what they wish for.
@mstipton You might want to do some research on the demographics and history of these red states you claim are the net gainers to understand why? Your comments could come off as a bigot or worse a racist, so becareful how you promote your comments as you will learn why once you understand the history and democraphics of these states. Also, which state is the number one in poverty and is also now a "net gainer" as you say? California. Why? Ref: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/california-poverty_n_2132920.html Being a liberal I used to have the same lanuage as you until I did some serious research and learned that my views were bigoted and without insight as to why - recommend you get informed.
 @gastoys Looks like George and Cathy are the ones who need to GET INFORMED. Stupid people are one thing, but to be educated and ignorant takes work. You must work damn hard at it.
You cited the huffpost article, but it made no mention of California's federal taxes (output) vs their subsidies (input). Though I think mstipton meant to refer to the red states as "net takers", not "net gainers" since they receive far more federal funding then they pay in federal taxes. California is the opposite and, to your comment, this doesn't necessarily equate to poverty levels since a lot of that funding is at the state level--not federal.
 @mstipton The red states are feeding this nation. The blue states are parasites.
 @MonroeMad and by feeding, you mean they are taking the most amount of money in the form of government hand outs.... including farm subsidies? Â
Â
The only thing they are feeding the country is premium BS with their constiant hypocritical whining about big government.Â
Â
If you want small government and low taxes, go to Uganda or Haiti. If you want an industrialized, high standard of living with schools and roads and hospitals and building standards and food and drug testing and standard, then you're going to have to pay for it.
Â
The biggest increase in spending over the last 10 years is in the military budget, yet no new taxes were created to pay for it, in fact taxes were lowered. Compared to WW2 when a war tax was created to pay for it - and it ended up getting paid for and the country had a booming economy for the next 60 years. Let's learn from history. Pay for the programs and services you want.
@Sanctuary Oh, I wish that were true. Check a series of boxes to determinew where your money goes. It would at least be interesting to see.
@Sanctuary 60 years ago you also didn't have so many people on welfare. Families worked hard and took care of their own. Nobody expected the government to take care of everything back then because the government didn't give handouts for doing nothing like they do now. We also have so many new agencies that have been put in place for every perceived need that came along, and since none of them ever get closed down irregardless of need they have become a big burden on the country too.
 @Sanctuary Funny. We ran this country very well on small government and low taxes for 200 years. The Marxist Morons have now won.
 @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary ...and we were a much smaller country at that time. A lot of the laws that are in place were as a result of bad things that came from corporate America.  I don't think we want to go back to those times. On the other hand there's a lot of government functions that could disappear and no one would miss it.
@MonroeMad @Sanctuary  94% top marginal rate during/after WW2 is small government?Â
 @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary dear acmariner99, if there is no money in SS when you are ready for retirement it will be the fault of those that do not support a strong middle class. The majority of monies in SS comes from the paychecks of middle class workers. If you are expecting not to receive a SS benefit when you retire you might want to check on who is telling you the story. If your information is coming from a source that supports an industrialized corporate America, you may be receiving misinformation.
 @left-center  @acmariner99  @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary Thank you for doing the math for this lazy brain. I worked until I was 68 and would have worked longer if I could have. I loved my job. But my vision made it difficult.Â
Â
 @Darn it!  @acmariner99  @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary I have worked 41 years and based on my SSI investment today (allowing for inflation, etc.) at the end of 45 years of work I will have contributed approximately $316,000 to $320,000 into SSI. Based on 26 pay days annually X 45 years. I'll likely be 66 or 67 years old when I retire. Divide that number by 20 (an approximate years of life after retirement) and my SSI monthly check should be around $1400.00 (not adjusted for COLA). In reality I will receive a monthly check totaling around $2600.00. That is more than I put in, but it is still not a stand-alone living income. When in doubt Darn it! put your trust in the math.
 @acmariner99  @left-center  @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary Someone have their facts off and I don't know which side is right. I'm hearing both that retirees take out more than they ever put in and now you are saying they receive a pittance compared to what they put in. The most prevelant argument seems to be that we take out more than we ever put in. I dodn't know if that takes into account people, for example, who pay in for 45 years and pass away before they ever collect a penny.
@acmariner99 @left-center @MonroeMad @SanctuaryLets examine this for a minute. My father put in to SS and is now receiving disability (6 strokes that hit both sides of the brain, now he is basically an Alzheimer's patient at 56) he is receiving 1700 a month when he put in only a few hundred a month while working. Even less the farther back in time you go.
 @acmariner99  @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary sorry I can not help there. Might check with the same investment firms that the upper 2% deal with; and add this plus; the weather should be really nice this time of year in the Camen Islands.
 @left-center  @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary Hahahahaha -- entitled to opt-out??? How about my right to choose how to use my money for when I retire? Besides, the money retirees receive from SS now is a pittance compared to what they put into the system to begin with. That is at least a poor investment and at most complete theft. And obtaining the option to opt-out will never happen as long as the attitude that SS must be preserved at all costs is engrained.
 @acmariner99  @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary Regardless whether you keep your money and invest it or just plain save it, or if your income is such that you can live comfortably live on your savings and pension, then yes you should be entitled to opt out of SS, but unfortunately for you that is not an option right now. Until such an opt-out feature is available, your best option of ensuring that there are SS funds available for you when you retire is to support a strong working class.
 @left-center  @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary My opinions are my own and not that of corporate America. Fiscally, there will simply be no SS left long before I retire. Besides, I can do more with my money than the gov't can. I have every right to every penny I earn.
@MonroeMad @Sanctuary That was the same Government that wouldn't lift a finger to help society. Ever hear of a Hoover-ville. I would rather the Government that raises society up not the one that doesn't give crap. You haven't got a clue what Marxism or communism is do you?
 @RN1  @acmariner99  @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary It's all in the interpretation.  This is why we have the courts.  We have filled volumes and volumes of book with interpretations about all sorts of these matters. Â
 @newdragon Yes and no.
 @DeadRabitz  @acmariner99  @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary It says "promote", not "guarantee". It does say, however, "secure the blessings of liberty." Secure means *ensure* or "protect," *liberty* Liberty is the *primary goal*. done by promoting general welfare via limited government, property rights, secure borders, just courts and laws, etc. Not a welfare check that will buy you a house, food, and leisure.
@acmariner99 @MonroeMad @Sanctuary obviously you don't know your history nor do you know much about the constitution. Here, I'll help you out a bit. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Seems as though you left a few things out. See that part about Promote the general welfare or insure domestic tranquility? Remember the constitution is an interpretive document. That is why they call it a living document. You might even read article 1 section 8, it a good one. Gives the powers of congress. I think you have a serious perception problem. You have this idea of what our government should be and it doesn't match with reality or history. You seem to bend history with your bias and don't look at why something was done or how it was supported by the constitution.
@newdragon Really is it now. Why don't you go read the Constitution and tell me what you find. The constitution is a framework of a Governement. It defines your rights only on a basic level. In short it tells you just how free you are and delineates its responsibility to protecting only those freedoms.
 @DeadRabitz  @acmariner99  @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary I know my history very well thank you. I think where we differ is the definition of "lifting up a society." If "lifting up a society" is creating a system that protects and ensures liberty and with the government held in check by the checks and balances system we have, thereby allowing the people of that country to live as they see fit than yes. Taking my money and wasting it on systems that are a bottomless pit - like Social Security, with no back out plan or safety net in case that system fails is not "lifting up" my life or society's. It is not the job of government to provide any basic need. Our Constitution says that government's job is to protect liberty, promote commerce among the states, and provide for national defense. That is IT!
 @DeadRabitz  @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary Well it looks like Cuba and China and the Soviet Union know what what Marxism and Communism is all about and they all have now agreed that it does not work. It was a lie spawned by the drug of utopianism.
@acmariner99 @MonroeMad @Sanctuary I think you need to study your history a bit better. Government is supposed to lift society up, at least our is. May be we don't agree on the methods but that is one of the things it is supposed to do.
 @DeadRabitz  @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary Government isn't meant to lift up a society. It is meant (according to the founders) to protect liberty by enshrining it in law. Society is what the people of that country make that society to be. I don't want government telling me how to live - and taking more of my money and wasting is just one way it does that, because it reduces my ability to live the way I want to.
 @Sanctuary Lie. The biggest spending over the last 10 years is Social Security and welfare. It is now 65% of the budget. We paid off WWII with a 3% income tax and by cutting government in the late 40s. When we invested heavily in "infrastructure" in the 50s welfare was only 10% of the federal budget.
@MonroeMad @Sanctuary I'm pretty sure nobody wants to return to post WWII tax rates where the wealthy were paying upwards of 80-90%. Or reverting to the gov't we had in place then....pre-Clean Water Act (passed in the 60s). Child labor laws? Or have you forgotten the robber barons of the day? Sure gov't didn't require a big budget in those days, but who wants to regress to those living conditions (or life expectancy) either?
 @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary Social security is not welfare. It is paid into through a separate tax and was set up to provide some support during retirement. People pay into it all their working life. You can argue that it might be wiser to fund it differently but it's not welfare. Currently the people working pay for those in retirement just as those people paid when they were working. The problem with it is there are less workers than there use to be.  ...and (although I'm certainly no expert on it) welfare is paid out by the states not the federal government. It may however receive some funding from the feds.
@DeadRabitz @MonroeMad @RDG @Sanctuary I think there's a bottom, though, for those that haven't "paid in" enough. Probably the $12,000/year my mom receives, which is below poverty level.Â
@RN1 @left-center @DeadRabitz @RDG @MonroeMad @Sanctuary the SS tax is hardly "slavery in principle". Tone down the hyperbole a bit.....
 @Sheila Lechner  @RDG  @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary You have to have paid into SS to get something from it.
 @Sheila Lechner  @MonroeMad  @RDG  @Sanctuary There isnt one, your pay out is based on your pay in.
@MonroeMad @RDG @Sanctuary I don't recall there EVER being a payment requirement that had to be met for SS, let alone 40 years(?!)Â Do you have a source on that?Â
@RDG @MonroeMad @Sanctuary While I'm a fan of keeping the elderly out of poverty, SS is provided for everyone--not just those that have worked.Â
 @left-center  @RN1  @RDG  @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary I look at it as forced responsibility.  Like auto insurance. Â
 @RN1  @DeadRabitz  @RDG  @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary Not really RN1. It is more like forced retirement savings. We have learned that nothing is really sustainable, especially when it comes down to jobs and the economy, but given an option to pay-in in hope of some kind of ROI sounds better to me than having kept the money and taking the chance that I could be frugal enough not to spend it before retiring. Understand I am Just being practical regarding my situation.
 @left-center  @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary Social Security was never meant to be an investment. It was set up so that the current work force pay in to help those that have retired. It has nothing to do with income tax. Because in the past there were more workers that retirees there was a surplus funds. In the current environment there are less paying in and people are living longer and the reserve that was there is probably not being managed the way it should. In the Clinton years the government (house & senate) started allowing the reserve to be used to buy government securities. On the surface that sounds like an OK thing to do since it would provide a return (interest) on that money and help fund Social Security. I'm not sure it's working out as planned though.
Funding will always be there for Social Security. The problem is whether it's enough to pay for the benefits it's supposed to provide. I know of some people that are trying to live on only Social Security and not doing well now. If the funding is forced lower because of funding issues those people won't make it.  ...and one way or another we pay for people who can not afford to live in our society. If not through taxes then through higher prices on food, medical, etc.
 @MonroeMad  @RDG  @Sanctuary SSI, not SS. Now what does that I stand for? Hint, that is the basic funding model of the program, it is NOT a Ponzi scheme.Â
 @left-center  @DeadRabitz  @RDG  @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary So in other wods, Left-center, you are saying that the "asset" is the ability to extract money from workers forever with or without their consent? That's rather close to slavery in principle, it's it? Great asset... NOT. Because it's predicated on a few things, like an every growing worker-base, that are NOT sustainable.
 @newdragon I obviously understand it far better than you do.
 @newdragon Judge not least you be judged, but yes those pesky government thieves.
 @RN1  @DeadRabitz  @RDG  @MonroeMad  @SanctuarySS underlying asset is the earned income of America's working class and as long as America has a strong working class SS should be solvent for many years. We just need to keep the government dingbats from meddling in it.
 @newdragon By golly I think you are right.
 @DeadRabitz  @RN1  @RDG  @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary Name another that isn't.
@RN1 @RDG @MonroeMad @Sanctuary the funds in the accounts. And the fact that everyone has to pay into it. mNot all investments are based on tangible assets.
 @DeadRabitz     A very poor one. There will be no money left in Social Security by the time I retire. As much as I would like to invest privately in my retirement, a large chunk of my money is being swallowed up by the gov't.
 @RDG  @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary the monies used during Americas attempt to democratize two of the middle eastern nations in the early 2000's were not included in the standard fiscal budget. The monies were borrowed and came from outside sources such as China. But do not let the sources confuse you, those monies are still a part of our national debt. If you recall, the administration that oversaw the democratization actions had told us, the American people, that the monies would be returned to us ten-fold because we would have control of the world's second largest middle east oil reserves.
Â
Social Security is a whole different matter; set-up by FDR as a means for middle America to keep from losing all monies in the event that a second Wall Street market crash were to happen. Those SS monies were taken from our pay and placed into a government controlled reserve for our eventual use upon retirement.
 @DeadRabitz  @RDG  @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary An investment has an underlying asset that produces a return on the investment. WHAT is Social Securities underlying asset?
@RDG @MonroeMad @Sanctuary In short social security is an investment.
 @RDG  @Sanctuary SS was always a Ponzie scheme. At the time FDR pushed it through the average life expecantancy was 68, but you had to pay into it for 40 years. They never actually intended it to be a long term pay out. Like all socialist schemes, poorly planned, pooly executed, and unsustainable.
@MonroeMad @Sanctuary I think you need to go look at your history again. The federal Governement employed more people in the 40s, 50s and 60, than it does today and we had significantly higher taxes in the 60s. Oh and we never paid off ww2. We have had a debt since the before the depression. The last president to pay off the national debt was Jackson.
 @Sheila Lechner  @DeadRabitz I could care less what you do with that dollar but the federal government should get its cut.  We are not talking about state taxes, just federal ones.
@DeadRabitz Please be clear.....If I make $1 I'm already paying state/local and any sales tax if I spend that dollar.Â
 @Sheila Lechner If you made 1 dollar you should have to pay tax on it.  We all have the same access, the same rights, the same protections.  We should all pay.
So Texas is our national role model? Low unemployment but they're mostly low wage without healthcare and a school system (and lack of funding) that propagates a cycle of low skill workers and continued poverty. Not what I'd consider "virtuous", but that's just my opinion.
So how would taxing people without a job work? Isn't 0% of $0 = $0? Or are you thinking will reduce the debt by taxing all the parasites on SS, reaping a windfall of $12,000 a year?! /sarcasm
@RN1 @MonroeMad @Sanctuary Really, well we have the lowest taxes in 50 years so where are all the jobs? Giving your boss a tax break doesn't correlate to new more jobs. The owner of a business isn't going to invest or expend if the demand for it isn't there. The business owners have been taking the tax breaks and keeping the money. This is why trickle down doesn't work.
 @DeadRabitz  @RN1  @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary Fewer regulations and taxes leads directly to more jobs, and less need for taxes - a virtuous cycle. increase taxes and regulation leads directly to few jobs and problems, and a greater demand for tax revenues with a shrinking tax base, leading to a vicious cycle, which is where we are now.
@RN1 @MonroeMad @Sanctuary Yes and jobs are connected but the argument is not about jobs, it's about taxation and spending. The connection is not a intimate as you think. Yes, if we had lower unemployment we would not be in so much debt. Thank you captain obvious. However we need to change who we tax. Currently we do not tax everyone, job or no job. That needs to change.
 @DeadRabitz  @RN1  @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary With no jobs, there is precious little in the way of taxes, and there will ALSO be larger calls for money for people w/o jobs that are on the dole. Taxes and jobs are intimately connected.
@RN1 @MonroeMad @Sanctuary that is all well and good but the discussion is taxes not jobs.
 @DeadRabitz  @RN1  @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary The manufacturing base is a place for low and marginal skill workers to gain entry into the workforce through trades and apprenticeships. When amost everything that pays a decent wage requires a college degree, and less than half your population is really suitable for college, then you have a serious jobs problem.
@RN1 @MonroeMad @Sanctuary In short we had higher taxes and more people working. Our government employed significantly higher numbers. The manufacturing base was a good employer but your reference is immaterial to the discussion.
 @DeadRabitz  @MonroeMad  @Sanctuary We had higher *marginal tax RATES*, not actual higher taxes. Big difference. We also had a much better worker:retiree ratio. Big difference. we also had a manufacturing base. Big difference.
This comment has been deleted
Over 500 murders in Chicago in 2012. Post civil war welfare society in action?
 @Sanctuary Flawed logic: False dichotomy.
 @RN1  @Sanctuary No its a good argument.  You have to take the good with the bad here.  The good is our standard of living and our rights, the bad is the money and debt.
 @DeadRabitzÂ
have researched it and have to disagree 100% they get away with what they're doing because of people just like you.. some people just can't wrap their head around it.. it's called denial..
@Crimsonkid The other thing people don't realize or comprehend is the cycle that a dollar takes. Lets start with you. You earn a dollar from your employer, who earned it from the consumer, who earned it from their employers. Now add in the government and you add a few more loops. In essence the same dollar is spent many times a year.
Hit the nail on the head. Most people don't understand that, no corporation or company, small or big, pays taxes. All their cost are passed on to the consumer. We bottom feeders pay every single red cent of ALL taxes. But of course the rich are included in that, the end consumer is all of us.
 @vadersith If you go and do some real research you will find that this is simple myth that is not backed up by reality.  (sorry there is just too much to go after here.  Don't believe everything you read on the internet.) Â
Â
I look at things like this and all I see are people who want to see aliens and bigfoot. Â You want to see a government coverup, you want to see corruption so you find it. Â Once you see what you think is a coverup or corruption you stop looking. Â Do some real research and comeback. Â ( I say this because I have corrected people time and time again.) Â
 @DeadRabitzÂ
it's up higher in the post it's a silly cartoon but does explain how the fed is ripping off the American tax payer.. it's just one of many scams betrayed upon the American people.. but the fed is by far the biggest abusers..
@newdragon Well, that's your opinion. I think some politicians are trying to do their best.
@newdragon Then why don't you go to the police about it...oh yea because its all in your head.
@newdragon well, yeah, there's that. too bad the poor can't afford to buy politicians....hence the 47% gem that keeps popping up. Ignore Boeing or GE, but have gramma pay taxes on her $12K/year SS income.
Yes, it's 47% of the country that meets the federal definition of poverty.
Big companies like BOEING also invest in other companies, stocks, international currencies. I would suspect they buy options on the stock exchanges as well to stabilize the costs of their raw materials as well (oil, steel, etc.).
Do you understand that business don't necessarily earn all their income from consumer goods? They make investments, buy assets that appreciate, make international sales and investments, copyrights/patents, subcontracting and leasing, etc.Â
 @Sheila Lechner Ok, who pays corporate taxes.  Ill answer that one for you.  The people who directly and indirectly buy goods and services from said corporation.  In effect taxes on business are nothing more than pass-through taxes on the consumers.
 @Sheila Lechner Its not 47% below poverty level, its 47% of the whole country.
 @vadersith What vid?
Â
@newdragon @DeadRabitz You might want to mention T-bills in that scenario. Or that we sell them to other countries as an investment, pay a nominal rate (or at least used to since the GOP extremists had our credit rating downgraded). It's not just the Reserve, you have to look at the entire monetary policy....
That old nugget! The 47% below the poverty level hardly pay "nothing". They're still paying state, local and consumption taxes. They're just exempt from federal. Why not focus on corporations that reap billions and pay ZERO to the gov't. One example is in your own backyard: BOEING.
@RN1 @DeadRabitz @Sanctuary How is gov't spending "inherently" inefficient? Did you know that Medicare administrative costs are 3% vs the 30% of the for-profit insurers (gotta pay the CEOs their million-dollar salaries). And the Post Office, albeit not perfect, can deliver a letter from one side of the country to the other in 2 days for less than a buck? What about the fresh, drinkable water coming out of your tap? Or that your lights come on every time you throw the switch? WiFi, making a phone call, watching the television, fresh air, unpolluted beaches and parks? The gov't may not do everything perfectly, but I don't think privatizing our public resources for "efficiency" is a good idea. Research what has happened in South America when they privatized their resources.....
 @DeadRabitz Â
by all means please show where the vid. is not correct and explainÂ
( source ) why so i can look it up myself..
thx's
@newdragon @vadersith I think you need to do some more research and dump some of your bias. It clouds your thought process.
 @newdragon  @DeadRabitz here's a cartoon that might clear up any confusion...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrwbgdtbdXE
@newdragon Oh yea, found it right next to the page with the flying saucer and Bigfoot. So I guess that bankers shouldn't make money right. They should just hold the money and work for free. No one says you have to use a bank anyway. Keep you money under your matters for all I care but at least get a grip.
@newdragon We have been spending more than we take in, that is not the fault of the fed. It's the fault of our legislators to tax and spend effectively. The income tax system was installed as a more equitable system than the previous one. Please go read your history. Your bias is clouding your thought process.
@RN1 @Sanctuary I think we need a balance of both. Cut the programs that a a poor value and raise taxes on everyone. We wouldn't be in this situation if we had everyone paying taxes. Instead we have 47% paying nothing. Everyone has the same Government and has the same rights, privileges and so forth so everyone needs to pay their fair share. I get that we wanted to stimulate the economy but lowering taxes really isn't the way. I think we should have a minimum tax. No matter how little you earned you must pay something. When you think about it the deficit isn't that big. Making everyone pay something would go a long way.
 @DeadRabitz  @RN1  @Sanctuary Government spending is *inherently* inefficient, because there is no negative feedback loop for failure (only pleas for more time and money). And, again, eventually debt east everything if it gets too big. Either raise taxes enough to balance it, so we can REALLY feel the cost of it, or cut it down to the level it's being funded at. or a combo. But end the deficit. Personally, I'd prefer cuts.
@RN1 @Sanctuary So when we need to do something, like fight a war or defend the nation...too bad it's not in the budget this year. Oh and BTW, for 2012 our federal expenditures was about 23% of our GDP. You have been making the wrong argument. You should be arguing value for services rendered not so much the actual dollar cost.
 @DeadRabitz  @Sanctuary Are you REALLY that dense? Do you think that the only alternative to a huge and growing entitlement state with MASSIVE regulation of pretty much everything is anarchy, with tribal theocracy and no rule of law? Really? Those are the only alternatives in your world? Or, we could cap FedGov spending at, say 15%, or maybe 20%, of GDP, make a *budget* with spending priorities, raise taxes to fund that level, and keep our spending within it. What a concept! modest size, sustainable, understandable, and not a 3rd world he11-hole.