Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950

[NFS4]

Wait, what? I thought that the government should burn in hell for taxing us to death. Hasn't this pretty much been the Tea Party's main cause -- that taxes are too high?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.
Some conservative political movements such as the "Tea Party" have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.

Federal, state and local taxes — including income, property, sales and other taxes — consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's going to change. I'm going to pay more because of health care reform and so are many others. Maybe is isn't about what's happened, but what will.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Many people got killed i nteh stock market in 2009. Have you seen what has happened to the markets since 2009? Anyone selling stock in 2010 is going to be paying capital gains taxes big time. You will probably see a similar article in 1-2 years saying that the gov't colelcted the most taxes ever.

 

[Slew Foot]

And theres that pesky multi trillion $ debt that needs to be paid off....

 

[hal2kilo]

Wait, what? I thought that the government should burn in hell for taxing us to death. Hasn't this pretty much been the Tea Party's main cause -- that taxes are too high?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

Why is there always somebody who didn't get the memo. (That's not the talking point!).

 

[Hacp]

Where is the link to the actual report? I heard GM paid off all their government bailout money also.

 

[spidey07]

We're at 10% unemployment. OF COURSE this would be the case. Misleading articles is...well misleading. Not surprised coming from USA today.

 

[Deeko]

lots of stuttering in this thread, nice....what they can't grasp is that taxes ARE proportionally low right now. No matter what they want to tell you, we aren't being "taxed to death".

The real problem is that these low tax revenues in no way cover the ever-growing government spending. While the "tea party" crowd loves to point and Obama for this, lets be serious...Reagan was one of the biggest offenders, followed by Bush. Its pretty much all of today's administrations that do this.

 

[Hacp]

lots of stuttering in this thread, nice....what they can't grasp is that taxes ARE proportionally low right now. No matter what they want to tell you, we aren't being "taxed to death".

The real problem is that these low tax revenues in no way cover the ever-growing government spending. While the "tea party" crowd loves to point and Obama for this, lets be serious...Reagan was one of the biggest offenders, followed by Bush. Its pretty much all of today's administrations that do this.

Growing goberment spending? Like welfare, union salaries, and pensions?

 

[blackangst1]

I know I had an increase of about $21,000 in income from 2008 to 2009, and my net tax rate (federal) was lower by about 1.5%. State was about the same. I certainly dont think it will continue though.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

lots of stuttering in this thread, nice....what they can't grasp is that taxes ARE proportionally low right now. No matter what they want to tell you, we aren't being "taxed to death".

The real problem is that these low tax revenues in no way cover the ever-growing government spending. While the "tea party" crowd loves to point and Obama for this, lets be serious...Reagan was one of the biggest offenders, followed by Bush. Its pretty much all of today's administrations that do this.

Godwin's Law in action.

If Hitler killed Jews would it be wrong to say it's bad if someone now wanted to do it?

Or,

If someone was an idiot before, would it be OK to be an idiot now?


I got more.

There is no sign that government is thinking about slowing down it's spending, and certainly little thought as to if what it does take is being used wisely.

I'll agree that Bush et. al. screwed the pooch, but using that as a justification to continue?

Nope.

 

[Deeko]

Growing goberment spending? Like welfare, union salaries, and pensions?

Among many others, yes, those contribute. Please don't lie to us and claim that the only rises in government spending are related to liberals and their ideals. Stick to the facts.

 

[brxndxn]

Would you be happy if the Government took out a credit card in your name, paid off your current taxes with it, and then billed you for it later?

The government has low taxes and high deficit spending - and is therefore borrowing. So, they are spending the 'future tax income'. The lower taxes are now, the higher they will have to be in the future.

Obama is trying to say people are only complaining about taxes. The Tea Partiers are complaining about taxes and government spending. Obama is temporarily lowering the taxes while increasing the government spending. Basically, he is moving the bill to a future date with a future generation. I'll complain about that.

 

[Deeko]

Godwin's Law in action.

If Hitler killed Jews would it be wrong to say it's bad if someone now wanted to do it?

Or,

If someone was an idiot before, would it be OK to be an idiot now?


I got more.

There is no sign that government is thinking about slowing down it's spending, and certainly little thought as to if what it does take is being used wisely.

I'll agree that Bush et. al. screwed the pooch, but using that as a justification to continue?

Nope.

Its always amusing when people make this assumption that everything is all or nothing, one or the other, with no middle ground. What’s especially ironic is that my post you quoted explicitly calls it out as a problem. Obviously I don't think it should continue, so what was the point of the nazi rant there?

My issue is with posts like the one hacp just made. That is echoed by many so-called conservatives across the country today - they act like our budget problems are purely the cause of Obama and his fellow commi-pals in office. It is foolish to ignore the history of the budget crisis, its not like Obama took a billion dollar surplus and immediately turned it into a trillion dollar deficit. The administration most of them seem to consider their model was as much the cause, if not more.

 

[Patranus]

Um 50% of the population paid nothing in 2009.

You have to ask what percentage of the population paid taxes in 1950 to really answer this question.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Tax receipts as a percentage of GDP in FY2010 will also reach historically low levels (as FY2009) before beginning their slow rebound. The significance of the downturn will cause a serious ripple (among other things, of course) over the next decade:

Where Today's Large Deficits Come From
Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers
(Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)





--

 

[Deeko]

Um 50% of the population paid nothing in 2009.

You have to ask what percentage of the population paid taxes in 1950 to really answer this question.

That article relates to total tax burden, not federal income tax, so for your sake you might want to edit this post. If you do so, I'll even edit this one to hide the error!

I'm so kind.

 

[ProfJohn]

This is a result of our progressive tax code.

When people make less they pay less and thus when the economy is bad tax revenue disappears. It is exactly what is killing states like California and New York who relied on the rich to pay all the bills. But the second the economy slows down and the rich start making less money the whole system goes to hell.

Also, I think the people at the tea parties are smarter than many of the people writing about them. They understand that taxes isn't the problem. Spending is the problem. They know that the bills are going to have to be paid sooner or later and that paying that is going to require higher taxes.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Its always amusing when people make this assumption that everything is all or nothing, one or the other, with no middle ground. What’s especially ironic is that my post you quoted explicitly calls it out as a problem. Obviously I don't think it should continue, so what was the point of the nazi rant there?

My issue is with posts like the one hacp just made. That is echoed by many so-called conservatives across the country today - they act like our budget problems are purely the cause of Obama and his fellow commi-pals in office. It is foolish to ignore the history of the budget crisis, its not like Obama took a billion dollar surplus and immediately turned it into a trillion dollar deficit. The administration most of them seem to consider their model was as much the cause, if not more.

I'm saying that pointing out past stupidity is no reason to continue, nor is there justification for it. Note that I was never a Bush fan, or Reagan for that matter.

There are things about the upcoming tax increases though. For example individuals or families who have members which have expensive to treat medical conditions are going to be punished tax wise.

That's a new twist. Take whose who need health care most and penalize them for it. People don't put 5K into an account which will be taken from them if not used for fun, but that's going to be slashed.

Nice.

 

[ProfJohn]

Tax receipts as a percentage of GDP in FY2010 will also reach historically low levels (as FY2009) before beginning their slow rebound. The significance of the downturn will cause a serious ripple (among other things, of course) over the next decade:

Where Today's Large Deficits Come From
Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers
(Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)
--

Why do you continue to post that bogus chart created by a biased organization??

Let me post some charts by Heritage that proves Obama is to blame and see how you react.

 

[Patranus]

That article relates to total tax burden, not federal income tax, so for your sake you might want to edit this post. If you do so, I'll even edit this one to hide the error!

I'm so kind.

Lets use some logic.

If you don't have to pay federal income tax, is your total tax burden going to be high or lower?

Now, shouldn't we examine the tax burden of those who actually pay all taxes instead of those who are only obligated to pay some taxes?

How about we look at the tax burden of those who actually pay the meaningful taxes, you know, those ones that give up 20%, 40%, 60% of their income to government while 50% of the population gives pennies.

A second thing you have to examine is where the tax rebates came from. Did they come from a surplus or were they paid through borrowed money? Now, if that money is borrowed it will have to be paid back so that tax is only being deferred to the future. Now, you have to monazite that amount and spread the cost over the the years when it is paid back to see the real costs.

 

[Deeko]

Lets use some logic.

If you don't have to pay federal income tax, is your total tax burden going to be high or lower?

Now, shouldn't we examine the tax burden of those who actually pay all taxes instead of those who are only obligated to pay some taxes?

How about we look at the tax burden of those who actually pay the meaningful taxes, you know, those ones that give up 20%, 40%, 60% of their income to government while 50% of the population gives pennies.

Lets use some better logic. You said 50% of people paid nothing. This article is about total tax burden, not federal income tax. Therefore, your statement is 100% false in the context of this thread. I gave you an opportunity to correct your error. Unfortunately, it seems it was not an error at all - it was an intentional attempt to mislead those reading the thread. Too bad.

Obviously those who pay no federal income tax have a lower overall tax burden - but that's not what you said, now is it? As for the numbers your throwing out there - I get it pretty bad from the current tax code, and I'm not paying anywhere near 60% of my income. I highly doubt many people in the country have an effective tax rate of 60%. Which means you're throwing out more numbers solely for the sake of shock value.

 

[Patranus]

Lets use some better logic. You said 50% of people paid nothing. This article is about total tax burden, not federal income tax. Therefore, your statement is 100% false in the context of this thread. I gave you an opportunity to correct your error. Unfortunately, it seems it was not an error at all - it was an intentional attempt to mislead those reading the thread. Too bad.

Obviously those who pay no federal income tax have a lower overall tax burden - but that's not what you said, now is it? As for the numbers your throwing out there - I get it pretty bad from the current tax code, and I'm not paying anywhere near 60% of my income. I highly doubt many people in the country have an effective tax rate of 60%. Which means you're throwing out more numbers solely for the sake of shock value.

That is what I said.

Federal income tax is by far the largest tax on someone.
If 50% of people pay nothing their tax burden will be infinitely lower than someone who pays something.

 

[hal2kilo]

Lets use some better logic. You said 50% of people paid nothing. This article is about total tax burden, not federal income tax. Therefore, your statement is 100% false in the context of this thread. I gave you an opportunity to correct your error. Unfortunately, it seems it was not an error at all - it was an intentional attempt to mislead those reading the thread. Too bad.

Obviously those who pay no federal income tax have a lower overall tax burden - but that's not what you said, now is it? As for the numbers your throwing out there - I get it pretty bad from the current tax code, and I'm not paying anywhere near 60% of my income. I highly doubt many people in the country have an effective tax rate of 60%. Which means you're throwing out more numbers solely for the sake of shock value.

I'd be suprised if you could find any individual that paid 40% and I don't think there is even a 60% bracket. Hyperbole much!

 

[heyheybooboo]

Why do you continue to post that bogus chart created by a biased organization??

Let me post some charts by Heritage that proves Obama is to blame and see how you react.

Your are entitled to your own propaganda, Johnny, but not your own facts.

Tell us again what Bush and the GOP Crime Cabal paid for the last ten years?

Give us a link on how they paid for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Give us a link explaining how they paid for the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Provide other links on how Bush and the GOP paid for the Part D drug program, homeland security and a 70% increase in the DoD.

Provide for us all those links on the tough fiscal oversight and regulation by Bush and the GOP as this nations financial institutions leveraged derivatives from $50 trillion to $500+ trillion in five years.

Then you can tell us about the new-found 'responsible' GOP and their fiscal conservatism ---- and think about removing your clown make-up.




--