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.

My Health Update

I'm getting a close up look at the "New" health care system. I've said before, I have Tricare Prime (military insurance, and therefore, government) because my husband gave 20 years to the United States Navy. We have it under him, but I also gave 4 years.

I dealt with breast cancer 6 years ago and defeated it, but now it comes back with both feet. It came back in my lung and on my spine. After 4 months of chemo-therapy, they think I am in remission. BUT, I have lymphadema. I am in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. I can not find a lymphadema therapist who will take my insurance, so I am forced to just deal with it. For those who don't know what lymphadema is, it means that my lymph nodes don't drain the fluid out of my arms and they swell up. Think about a finger that got smashed and the blood is collecting under your fingernail. It always feels better when the burn that hole in and let the pressure off. Well, my arms are swollen tight, an I can't go to anyone to relieve the pressure.

And why is this? Because Tricare Prime is about as bad as Medicaid. The government reemburses at a rate of about 19%. Why would they take government insurance?

And just think, pretty soon, every one will be on government insurance. Think about that one for a while.

Japan VS American Welfare

I got to thinking as this terrible tragedy hit Japan...where are the riots? Where is the looting? I remember Katrina. I remember other tragedies that hit the United States, and the takers were taking to the streets to get what ever they could for free. I remember even riots over Rodney King turning into grab-fests. So, what is the difference?

I decided to look up Japan's Welfare system. I found a very interesting article in the New York Times (not the most conservative rag). Here's a direct link: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/10/world/welfare-as-japan-knows-it-a-family-affair.html

In a nut shell, you don't get any Welfare unless you're over 65. It doesn't say if you can apply if you're disabled or not. It does however, give some statistics. Only 0.7% receive benefits. They compared that to the United States: "compared with the 4.8 percent of Americans who get grants from Aid to Families With Dependent Children or the 9.7 percent who receive food stamps. About 2.3 percent of Americans receive grants through the Supplemental Security Income program, which serves the elderly, blind and disabled." I looked up the population of the United States: 307,212,123. I did the math, that's a total of 16.8%, or 51,611,636.66. That's a lot of people on government aid. I have to wonder how many are here legally, but that's another discussion. My son gets SSI because he's mentally/permanently disabled. If I take his check amount, and multiply it by the number of people on welfare (knowing that a lot of people will make much more than this), I get the outrageous number of $33,444,340,555.68. What is that? $33.4 Billion? I get confused going that high.

The Japanese Welfare system emphasizes family support first. You are to get aid from your family before you go to the government. Can you imagine that working here? I imagine there would be smaller families among the poor, so it wouldn't go over well. Right now we encourage people to have more kids than they can financially support because the more kids you have, the more money you get.

Japan also has a lower unwed pregnancy rate. Theirs is 1% while ours is 30% and climbing. They have fewer drug addicts and their unemployment rate is lower. Perhaps this is due to a higher pride ratio. They have a concept of shame, where I believe America is losing it's concept of shame. Now it's common for some factions of American society to be proud that they can game the system and get money from the government and live without working. The Japanese have a high work ethic.

I am not writing this to be anti-American. I myself have a high work ethic. I learned it from my father (and my mother). But this article states that the way Japan does their Welfare system does not encourage dependence on the government. It actually strengthens family ties. You treat your children well if you know they'll be taking care of you. You treat your parents well if you know you may need to go to them for support should something happen unforeseen financially. If you want to see how our Welfare system has encouraged dependency on the government, suggest taking it away and watch for the riots. And you can't blame it on the socialists. Apparently Japan has a higher redistribution of wealth that we do, too. I'm not sure if that means the government does it, or just generations pass their wealth on to their children instead of spending it.

Perhaps when President Obama looks to cut the budget, he should revamp our Welfare system. I wonder how many millions/billions/trillions he could save if he just made it where you don't get welfare or food stamps unless a doctor determines (on threat of losing his license - gotta remember Wisconsin) that you are disabled? Or what if they only paid for 3 children? I remember when I lived in Missouri, there was a law coming out that they were raising the number of children covered to 8. There were women going out and getting pregnant just so they could deliver under the deadline and get more money from the government. If you pay for 8 children, and someone who isn't married has 8 children just to get benefits, is that right? America with it's Welfare system has raised a generation of takers and gamers. Let's game the government, see if I can get disability and not even try to get a job.

And I know where I'm coming from. I have family (a sister-in-law and her husband) who are dirt poor. They currently live with his grandmother. If I weren't paying 2 mortgages, I'd support them more. They try hard. He goes from job to job, but at least he tries to work. He has too much pride to apply for any government aid. When he has a job, he has money, when he's between jobs, he doesn't. We gave them a huge food basket (from all members of the family) for Christmas. I don't usually help out with money, because she's not very responsible with cash, but we do with other things.

It's time America took responsibility for it's own. We need to help out our family members and try to shame people that are on assistance. I remember when people would try to hide the fact that they were paying with food stamps. Now it looks like any other credit card. Perhaps all the cashiers could say, "Oh, is this food stamps?" when they take the payment.