What we need is changes to the tax code

I've been thinking a lot lately about our tax code. I tried to research how many Americans don't pay taxes, or in other words either get back all they paid in or more, but it's very varied. You can see the political slant in everything I researched, except one. http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/25962.html

These are cold hard facts, which is what I wanted, and not some fairy tale that included illegal aliens. We can't really count that, as I would assume they don't file.

In a nut shell, this chart tells how many returns there were, and how many got all of their money (or more) back come tax time. It starts with 1950, when 53,060,098
claims were filed. There were 14,873,416 that got back their taxes or more. That's 28%. The number has ranged from 16.0% (in 1969)to 36.3% (in 2008). This table doesn't break it down into pay ranges.

This page: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html breaks it down by state.

I had thought that far more didn't pay taxes, so I was mildly surprised. I don't mind people under a certain wage getting their taxes back. Here's my suggestion: don't let the refund EVER be more than what they actually paid in taxes. In other words, these stories you hear about people making $12,000 in wages for the year and getting back $8,000 in a refund is absolutely ridiculous. If they didn't pay it in, they shouldn't get it back. By them getting more than they paid in, they're taking it from the ones who don't get any back. Taxes are supposed to go to run the government, not pay low income people. That's redistribution of wealth, pure plain and simple.

Here's how our tax brackets look:

Single 2010 Tax Brackets

Taxable Income: Income Tax:
$0-$8,375 10% of the amount over $0
$8,375-$34,000 $837.50 plus 15% of the amount over $8,375
$34,000-$82,400 $4,681.25 plus 25% of the amount over $34,000
$82,400-$171,850 $16,781.25 plus 28% of the amount over $82,400
$171,850-$373,650 $41,827.25 plus 33% of the amount over $171,850
$373,650+ $108,421.25 plus 35% of the amount over $373,650

I think they make it complicated on purpose. But, basically the argument that the rich aren't paying their fair share is bunk. As you can see from the table, those making over $373,650 pay back 35%. So they start out paying $108,421.25 and then anything over the %373,650 is taxed at the 35% rate. That's not enough for the socialists? A majority of them don't get a lot back, either. Not so for those under the 25% mark. They usually qualify for Earned Income Tax Credit. So, they not only get back all they put in (which is the $4,681.25 plus 25% of the amount over #34,000), but they could get back much more than that.

It used to be if you got back a large refund, they wanted to know why. Now they hand out EITC's like candy. We made just a bit too much to get the EITC, but lets suppose we didn't. My Brother-in-law is in the 33% bracket. It would have been like taking his money and putting it in my bank account. I didn't earn it, but the government is going to give it to me anyway. We usually end up breaking even (meaning we paid the right amount of taxes) give or take under $100. This past year we paid $39 over what had already been collected. Two years ago we got back about $1,000, but last year we owed over a $100.

So, if we all agreed to the tax bracket, as complicated as it is, why do we feel the poor need even more than just what they paid into the system? I realize this has been going on for longer than the current Democratic President. From the best I can find out, the EITC started in 1975, under President Nixon. I wonder why the democrats would support something that a Republican president started? Because the more the government puts out, the more they can claim they're broke.

My solution? Use the current tax brackets that we have, but come time to file, you don't get back more than you put in. If the poor think this isn't enough, we should reconsider what is taken out. They can always claim all their dependents on withholding, so the government doesn't withhold as much. If you claim no dependents, the government will take out more, and you'll get more back. That's sort of like loaning it to the government until tax time.

Here's a good table for how many returns were filed...http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html

If you look at individual tax returns, the income to the government based on the number of returns was .8% (based on they had so many files, and $x in income). The "evil" corporations had a much higher percentage: 9.1%

I don't see why we couldn't save billions of dollars by just getting rid of the Earned Income Credit. Further more, we could refund all but $20 and save even more.

When one doesn't pay taxes, one doesn't have an investment in this country. It's like renting a house versus owning it. You don't have skin in the game.

Now, I've said it before, I also believe congressmen shouldn't get as much as they do for their staff. I found an article that said that the house representatives get something like $500,000 for their employees. Do small business owners get that? No, they pay out of their own pay. No one pays them a $174,000 salary, plus giving them $500,000 for their employees. If you consider that, congressmen really make $674,000. What if they don't have the 18 employees they're allowed, do they get to keep the money? It would behoove them to only have one employee and pocket the rest of the money. Is that how they leave congress billionaires?

Just my 2 cents.

Democrat Scare Tactics

I'm afraid the Democrats scare tactics may be working. I first got as call from my mom (a life-long Democrat until this administration, when her and Dad started saying they were Independents) saying she was afraid she wouldn't get their social security checks. Of course, it will be the Republicans fault, even though they have put forth 2 bills, with Senator Reid flat out saying they would not pass either through the Senate. I explained to her that if we default, it's Obama's fault because he decides what gets paid.

Then today I get a call from my sister-in-law (a native of the Netherlands here on a work visa). She said a fellow employee of AT&A said his mother was in a tizzy because she wasn't going to get her Social Security check if the Republicans couldn't compromise. THEN, as I hung up, my mother-in-law called saying if Social Security checks don't go out, we probably wouldn't get our military retirement check. She wanted to know if I needed help with my bills (we have 2 mortgages). So, Mr. President, your scare tactics appear to be working. Just don't EVER talk to us about vitriol speech, or hate mongering ever again.

According to http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_state/, Obama requested $50.9 billion for foreign aid. Part of this goes to developing countries medical needs. What? He's paying to help developing countries medical needs while he tears ours apart? Use some of that money to pay out the checks.

According to the Bipartisan Policy Center:

____________________________

The BPC study found that the United States is likely to hit the debt limit sometime between August 2 and August 9. “It’s a 44 percent overnight cut in federal spending” if Congress hits the debt limit, [BPC's Jay] Powell said. The BPC study projects there will be $172 billion in federal revenues in August and $307 billion in authorized expenditures. That means there’s enough money to pay for, say, interest on the debt ($29 billion), Social Security ($49.2 billion), Medicare and Medicaid ($50 billion), active duty troop pay ($2.9 billion), veterans affairs programs ($2.9 billion).

That leaves you with about $39 billion to fund (or not fund) the following:

Defense vendors ($31.7 billion)

IRS refunds ($3.9 billion)

Food stamps and welfare ($9.3 billion)

Unemployment insurance benefits ($12.8 billion)

Department of Education ($20.2 billion)

Housing and Urban Development ($6.7 billion)

Other spending, such as Departments of Justice, Labor, Commerce, EPA, HHS ($73.6 billion)

The decision to prioritize payments would fall on the Treasury department, and Powell points out it would be chaotic picking and choosing who gets paid (in full or partially) and who doesn’t…

_____________________

I think there's a typo in there, because when I subtract, I got $66 billion. In order to get their "roughly 39 billion" I upped the active duty from 2.9 billion to 29 billion, and got 39.9 billion left over. Either way, those items can get paid. It's up to Obama how he wants to spend that $200 billion coming in. He's just trying to get it on record that it's Bush's fault (by way of the Republicans) so he doesn't have to accept any responsibility or rule in any fashion. I would like to know how much the tax payers pay every time he makes a trip to play golf? He flies on Air Force One, which ain't cheap, folks. where is that shared sacrifice?

Another way they could cut the budget is if these billionaire congressmen were forced to pay for their own staff out of their pockets, including the President and first lady. I understand Michelle has 26 "staff members," or servants. Why should we pay for her hair cuts and nails? Make her go out into the economy and get it done just like the rest of us have to. I bet if they had to pay their own staff, 1. the wouldn't be making over $100,000 a year, and 2. there would be a lot less of them.

I also have to wonder what the unemployment rate would be had Obama not hired all his cronies to work in his administration. I'm reminded of a line from Ghost Busters: "But, Binkman, you've never worked in the private sector. They demand results." (That's paraphrased, I'm not an exact geek who remembers things word for word.) And how much money could we save if they didn't pay all those Czars for a month?

So, if we default on anything (paying the debt, paying seniors and the disabled, paying our active duty military or the veterans) it will be Obama's fault because he can't budget or decide who to pay. The democrats just don't want to give up their pet projects.

Another update on me

I ended up buying compression sleeves for the lymphadema. They cost $91 EACH and I had to get two. I filed with my insurance (after getting a prescription from my oncologist), but haven't received any reimbursement yet.

I'm slowly gaining strength, and was able to go home (from Texas to Missouri) for my parents 50th anniversary. I haven't had any more problems with the insurance company, though I've run into problems with my company that handles prescriptions. My oncologist doubled my potassium (due to being on diuretics), but Express Scripts said it was too soon to refill the script. Then, my neurologist wrote a script for a name brand anti-seizure med. He found out last month they gave me a generic and said we can't do that. Apparently generics are allowed to be between 80% of the name brand up to 120%. He said that's not a problem with most meds, but we can't have that with anti-seizure meds. What happens if you get the 120% one month and the next month get 80%? It's too big of a jump. But my insurance company for meds (Express Scripts) requires prior authorization for name brand. This is something new because they used to only require the doctor to put on the script that he wanted name brand and not generic. Another problem with Obama care. They're already trying to save money but automatically substituting generics.

My son turned 21 in May and we just recently found out that our insurance company dropped him. Luckily, he's on Medicaid due to mental disability (he's Down Syndrome and autistic). They did say that we could go to any base with a pass and ID office and get the paperwork to put him on the retiree's version of the exceptional family member list. It basically says he's disabled and will live with us the rest of his life as a dependent. But I can't drive to places I haven't been before, the stress is too much in this frail state of my medical condition. I have to wait until my husband can take a day off from work and take us. So it will cost us money, as they figure the only people who need to go the pass and id office are already on the base, and they're only open during working hours. And I thought children were supposed to be covered until they were 26? Apparently not. And I have government insurance. Maybe they mean normal free-loading children, and not special needs who will require extra money to support?

Man, gotta love Obamacare. I started out being against this the first draft I read. I want to tell y'all......I told you so.