stevendedalus stevendedalus

Ownership Myth

▼

Ownership Myth

And The Two-Income Syndrome

from JoeUser Forums

The current median income for a family of four is about $55,000 or approximately three times that of the poverty line at $19,000 for a family of four. The problem with these statistics when trying to arrive at a “living wage” that often is juxtaposed to the horrific rate of $5.15 an hour or $10,500, which if adjusted for inflation should be at $7.50 or $15,000, is in the difficulty of determining how much of the median and the poverty line owe to two salaries. If those at the four-family poverty line consists of two-incomes at the minimal wage the income would place the family at above the line by $2,000 or a total income of $21,000. This example, however, does not consider the costs of child care, whether governmentally assisted or out of pocket. Nor does it take into account the erosion of parental quality under such duress. For the median $55,000 may constitute some cushion for child care but leaving little room for building wealth or “ownership.” Moreover, the payroll tax, respectively, $1400 and $3500, substantially reduces the subsistence level of both groups. As for the income tax, chances are the minimal level will not be taxed at all, and those frozen on the median will be helped somewhat by having dependents; in spite of this, the move to “ownership” is out of the question.

If, however, the minimum wage rose the necessary 8.7%, it would also affect the median by perhaps an additional 5% so that the low level increased some $1800 and the median some $2700 and from there adjusted for inflation annually, some progress would be made on the road to ownership, but more importantly would increase the rolls of the middle class. This, of course, does not address the shame of the two-income family where it directly affects the degradation of raising children. Only those above the median can find the right child care through comfortably retired, or one-income grandparents or professional nanas. For the rest, most leave to chance the well-being of their children.

        

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: September 14, 2004.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

politics
31,077 views 113 replies
Reply #101 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #99 By: 1tomot1 - 9/19/2004 1:25:25 PM



Really? Taxes are killing them?


Even economists for Morgan Stanley and many other prominent "anything-but-liberal" financial analysts have said over and over again that the tax cuts enacted by Bush move a disproportionate share of the tax burden onto the lower middle class and low income families of America.

In order to pay no taxes you have to make less than 8K (maybe less) a year.



I don't know who your tax accountant is but you should fire him/her. My wife made 35K and I made 12 K on disability last year. Lets see unless I REALLY suck at math that's 47K, right? We paid $0 in taxes! We got BACK every penny we paid!
Reply #102 from PolMach Forums Top
i.e. Socialism, well EngSoc worked in 1984, why won't it work now!!!


Acutally that would be more in line with Jeffersonian (Thomas, you know the "founding father") politics. Which it's pretty safe to say is about as American as apple pie, or so the saying goes.

When he and the rest of the early American political heavyweights were working out their radical new concepts they were basing them on the economic structure as it existed at the time. They argued that capitalism at that point would maintain a more equalitarian aspect due to the nature that America was an agricultural based economy (e.g. the majority of the population at that point were small farmers etc.)

Some major changes have occurred since that time which in Jefferson's perspective would have in his words "defeated the American revolution."

A mjor one being the existence of corporations that wield a disproportionate amount of wealth and power which undermines the competitive nature of capitalism as Jefferson saw it. He wrote that "the day that monied inccorporations (corporations as we know them today) outlive their progenitor, the American revolution has been lost."

He further elaborated that the reason for this was that by individuals or groups of individuals having the ability to amass so much wealth and power and pass it to another generation, it would undermine the potential of others to have a fair shot.

So in a very simple sense a redistribution of the nation's wealth would serve democracy and the equality of oppurtunity it requires to function properly.

If you want to consider bedrock American politics as "socialsit" you're free to do so. However, as usual you would be wrong.
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #103 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler:
I don't know who your tax accountant is but you should fire him/her. My wife made 35K and I made 12 K on disability last year. Lets see unless I REALLY suck at math that's 47K, right? We paid $0 in taxes! We got BACK every penny we paid!


Yup. I don't know where the 8K number came from, but it's wrong. We always get back what we paid in plus tax credits, and our income has always been above 8K.
Reply #104 from PolMach Forums Top


Yup. I don't know where the 8K number came from, but it's wrong. We always get back what we paid in plus tax credits, and our income has always been above 8K.


If you had read my post you would have noticed that I said NO taxes. I wasn't talking about year end tax refunds. What you are referring to is the level of refund on taxes you have already paid.

Apples and oranges.

If you read the tax codes there is a set dollar amount that shows at what level you do not have to pay income taxes period. I think 8K is in the ballpark but it may be much lower than that.

I REALLY suck at math that's 47K, right? We paid $0 in taxes! We got BACK every penny


Once again you are talking about your refund. Not the level of taxes paid. As a simple matter of fact nobody gets everything back. You don't get what you pay in social security, medicaid, etc. back until you ar of elegible age to collect those benefits.

Also, as I stated above what the majority of economists continue to say is that Bush's tax cuts hurt low income and lower middle class families most by making them shoulder a disproportionate share of the national tax burden. This seems to have cast some confusion, so I will attempt to clarify.

drmiler: if you have a combined household income of 47K a year you would not fall into either lower middle class or low income according to the median household income stats. In about half of the states in the country you would be the picture of average middle class, not lower. So obviously that doesn't apply to you. Also you mentioned that you receive disability as your income. I am not sure how that effects your tax status, but it may be to your advantage at filing time.

And once again, the comments about who is being hurt by the tax cuts comes from economists at places like Morgan Stanley. I didn't write their analysis for them. If you don't beleive them you are fre to do so. But personally I would trust the assessment of people who do that work for a living more than a politician with a job on the line.

Try taking a look at the website for the Economic Policy Institute for more information on our current economic situation. They just released their State of Working America analysis which provides some very insightful information that is easy to read as well.
Reply #105 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you had read my post you would have noticed that I said NO taxes. I wasn't talking about year end tax refunds. What you are referring to is the level of refund on taxes you have already paid.

Apples and oranges.

If you read the tax codes there is a set dollar amount that shows at what level you do not have to pay income taxes period. I think 8K is in the ballpark but it may be much lower than that.


I have no freaking clue what you mean (my fault, not yours) . . . I understand that the money comes out of every paycheck up front and it is refunded later. I also understand that social security and all that is taken out and not refunded. I have never considered those a part of income tax. In my mind they have been something separate. So, are you saying that at 8K or under you pay in nothing . . . not even social security, medicare, etc.? Can you expand on all that a bit?
Reply #106 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you read the tax codes there is a set dollar amount that shows at what level you do not have to pay income taxes period. I think 8K is in the ballpark but it may be much lower than that.


the amount you're referring to is the standard deduction, I believe. It's not the "limit" to which you pay no taxes. If you are over 25 and unmarried, for instance, you qualify for the earned income credit if you make below $11,490 (source: www.irs.gov)
Reply #107 from JoeUser Forums Top
As a simple matter of fact nobody gets everything back.


actually, not true. That's the chief reason for earned income credit (which is over and above your refund).
Reply #108 from JoeUser Forums Top
actually, not true. That's the chief reason for earned income credit (which is over and above your refund).


Ouch. My brain!

Actually, I was worried about our taxes this year since my husband is deployed. During deployment we don't pay federal income tax. We only save a minimal amount each month, and I was worried that our income would be so low (we would only be reporting like 2 or 3 months worth of income for this year since that's how long he was home) that we wouldn't be able to get credits or anything. I worked through the 1040 and we're getting almost as much back . . . the only difference is since we paid less taxes in, we get less taxes back. Our tax credits are just the same.
Reply #109 from JoeUser Forums Top
Once again you are talking about your refund. Not the level of taxes paid. As a simple matter of fact nobody gets everything back. You don't get what you pay in social security, medicaid, etc. back until you ar of elegible age to collect those benefits.


Actually you either didn't "read" my post or I didn't explain it right. I'm on "disability" (that's Social Security Disability) And the man is correct. You can't count social security OR medicaid as part of income taxes!
Reply #110 from JoeUser Forums Top
Wow, it seems there's a great need for a blog on the tax system!!
Reply #111 from JoeUser Forums Top

Even economists for Morgan Stanley and many other prominent "anything-but-liberal" financial analysts have said over and over again that the tax cuts enacted by Bush move a disproportionate share of the tax burden onto the lower middle class and low income families of America.

In order to pay no taxes you have to make less than 8K (maybe less) a year.

Feel free to back up your claims with..I don't know....EVIDENCE.

5% of the population pays 54% of the federal taxes.

http://draginol.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=542

Frankly, I think EVERY ADULT shoudl have to pay some taxes. I would love to see a "budget" tax that required every adult to pay some tiny % of the federal budget that would work out to roughly $100 per year even if they had no "income".  Then maybe people would care more about how wasteful the government is.

But I always find it extremely offensive when someoen tries to argue that the rich aren't paying their share.  Heck, the top 1% are paying 34% of the taxes. That's not enough? Sure, it WAS 37% before the tax break.  

BTW, the bottom 50% of the population pays less than 4% of the total taxes. Last time I checked, they were using the same highways, schools, and defended by the same military as we are.

Reply #112 from JoeUser Forums Top

That tax system isn't that complicated.

For liberals reading this let me dumb it down for you: If you have $1000 per year deducated from your paychecks during the year and then get a refund of $1000 then you effectively didn't pay taxes (unless you were planning to put that $1000 into a savings account at which point you would have made about $8 in interest).

By contrast, when I pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes, I not only don't get that refunded but I then have to pay more. That money lost is money that I could have used to hire more people, invest in venture capital, save towards my children's college, or put back into the economy via purchases.

So I get a little annoyed when I see someone trying to argue that "the rich" (And most people who are "rich" are statistically small business owners in terms of raw numbers of families) aren't paying enough.

Reply #113 from JoeUser Forums Top
By contrast, when I pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes, I not only don't get that refunded but I then have to pay more. That money lost is money that I could have used to hire more people, invest in venture capital, save towards my children's college, or put back into the economy via purchases.
I already responded to this time-honored phrasing of yours in one of your comments.