The tax cuts on the middle class

[hislegacy]

according to the Pew Research Center. As of 2014, that falls between $24,000 and $73,000 for one person and $42,000 and $126,000 for a family of three.

A Portrait Of America's Middle Class, By The Numbers

So, an average income for a family of three is 84,000 and an average home price is 150,000 3% interest. And 4.6% state tax.

84,000 income
4,500 interest
3600 state tax
1300 property tax

All numbers are approximate but they are for general discussion.

So 4,319 divided by 52 weeks is 83.00 a week in taxes.

 

[Nithavela]

I think the main criticism was that the tax cuts on the middle class are very real, but are scheduled to vanish after a few years.

 

[Favourofone]

but are scheduled to vanish after a few years.

Funny how the tax cuts for the middle class and Trump have the same schedule.

 

[Doulosiesou]

There's been a lot of economic studies done on taxation, in general the federal government can tax around 17% of income any more than that and the economy slows thus reducing taxes.

IMO they should just go to a flat tax, 17% individual and corporate taxes and we could eliminate a lot of the IRS overhead.

 

[Winken]

There's been a lot of economic studies done on taxation, in general the federal government can tax around 17% of income any more than that and the economy slows thus reducing taxes.

IMO they should just go to a flat tax, 17% individual and corporate taxes and we could eliminate a lot of the IRS overhead.

YEA!!!!

 

[Rodan6]

I've always opposed a flat tax, but I must admit the idea has much more appeal these days. As the rich and powerful have prospered disproportionately to the rest of the population, people are becoming more and more cynical about the tax system. At least a flat tax would insure that all will pay some taxes and would be certain to improve buy-in among the people. With so many not paying any taxes at all, it will help eliminate the deficit and give the middle class a bit of relief.

 

[FenderTL5]

I've always opposed a flat tax, but I must admit the idea has much more appeal these days. As the rich and powerful have prospered disproportionately to the rest of the population, people are becoming more and more cynical about the tax system. At least a flat tax would insure that all will pay some taxes and would be certain to improve buy-in among the people. With so many not paying any taxes at all, it will help eliminate the deficit and give the middle class a bit of relief.

I appreciate where you're coming from. I'm not quoting you to be argumentative but to merely expand on your thought - as I see it.

I still oppose the flat tax proposals that I have seen thus far. The system monikered as The Fair Tax was everything but fair. It was a 30%~ sales tax.

The mega-wealthy and corporations would relish another tax cut down to 17%, while the working poor would have their tax burden doubled (almost, the current tax scheme that just passed has 10% as lowest tax bracket. a 17% flat-tax would be a 70% increase).
This is why it's considered 'regressive'.
Further; I have zero confidence, especially in any GOP/Dem led Congress that the wealth wouldn't lobby out (again) preferential treatment.
e.g. carried-interest and capital gains

 

[Dave Ellis]

There's been a lot of economic studies done on taxation, in general the federal government can tax around 17% of income any more than that and the economy slows thus reducing taxes.

IMO they should just go to a flat tax, 17% individual and corporate taxes and we could eliminate a lot of the IRS overhead.

Flat taxes sounds good in theory, but they're terrible in practice.

17% for a person making minimum wage is crippling, 17% for someone making millions is a drop in the bucket.

A far better idea is to tax capital gains as income for people making over a certain amount. A huge percentage of rich people make their living off of investment income which is taxed at a lower rate than income taxes. Keep capital gains where it is for say under $50,000 or 100,000 (give or take) of investment income, and tax anything above that as regular income. That keeps the preferential tax rate for the lower or middle class intact.

You'll create a revenue windfall, and you're only asking for people to pay what others are on their primary income source.

 

[Rodan6]

I appreciate where you're coming from. I'm not quoting you to be argumentative but to merely expand on your thought - as I see it.

I still oppose the flat tax proposals that I have seen thus far. The system monikered as The Fair Tax was everything but fair. It was a 30%~ sales tax.

The mega-wealthy and corporations would relish another tax cut down to 17%, while the working poor would have their tax burden doubled (almost, the current tax scheme that just passed has 10% as lowest tax bracket. a 17% flat-tax would be a 70% increase).
This is why it's considered 'regressive'.
Further; I have zero confidence, especially in any GOP/Dem led Congress that the wealth wouldn't lobby out (again) preferential treatment.
e.g. carried-interest and capital gains

Agreed on all points. The attractive aspect of a "flat tax" is the idea that those on the high end that pay NOTHING will pay SOMETHING. There is an obscene number of high earners that use the complex tax code we have (and it's at least as bad as it was before AFTER this so-called reform just passed) to avoid paying any income tax at all. But you are right that if the current congress moved towards a flat tax, there would be enough exemptions to maintain the status quo and make things worse for the rest of us.

Still, the concept has some theoretical merit that might one day be a part of a real reform effort.

 

[Fantine]

Hidden amidst the corporate and millionaire tax cuts, finding middle class tax cuts is like finding Waldo in the "Where's Waldo" books.