According to USA Today According to USA Today (link), tax bills are at the lowest they’ve been since 1950:
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.
I’m curious what the anecdotal piggington data says.
Aecetia
May 11, 2010 @
8:43 PM
Health care went up, food Health care went up, food went up, gas prices went up. I can’t think of much that went down, maybe some clothing prices or maybe there were just better mark downs at department stores.
briansd1
May 11, 2010 @
9:15 PM
If income went up, taxes went If income went up, taxes went up.
You should rephrase the question. Did your tax rate go?
afx114
May 11, 2010 @
9:22 PM
briansd1 wrote:
You should [quote=briansd1]
You should rephrase the question. Did your tax rate go?[/quote]
I figured it was implied based on the article that was posted. I guess I should have known what happens when one assumes.
briansd1
May 11, 2010 @
11:21 PM
afx114 wrote:briansd1 [quote=afx114][quote=briansd1]
You should rephrase the question. Did your tax rate go?[/quote]
I figured it was implied based on the article that was posted. I guess I should have known what happens when one assumes.[/quote]
Yes, but you should know how the Tea Partiers would answer. In talking to Obama haters, I find that they can never answer any specifics. They stick to hyperbole such as Obama Care and the like.
My own brother doesn’t really care for Obama but when I try to pin him down on policy, he’s like a political ad.
*
afx114, Let me rephrase the question for you.
Did your tax rate go up? If your tax rate went up, what was the percentage increase? And what was the percentage income increase?
Data please. Percentages will do.
afx114
May 11, 2010 @
11:27 PM
I voted ‘Not Sure.’ I’ll know I voted ‘Not Sure.’ I’ll know in October.
briansd1
May 11, 2010 @
11:32 PM
BTW, those of you who bought BTW, those of you who bought houses, your taxes should have gone down. Now, don’t lie. This poll is anonymous.
Aecetia
May 12, 2010 @
12:52 AM
Brian did your older brother Brian did your older brother beat you up a lot? Just asking.
meadandale
May 11, 2010 @
9:39 PM
briansd1 wrote:If income went [quote=briansd1]If income went up, taxes went up.
You should rephrase the question. Did your tax rate go?[/quote]
Both my actual tax paid and my effective tax rate went up. As far as I am concerned this article is just another propaganda puff piece in line with Obama’s “people should be thanking me” BS statement from a few weeks ago.
I’m not thanking you.
Coronita
May 12, 2010 @
5:46 AM
meadandale wrote:briansd1 [quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1]If income went up, taxes went up.
You should rephrase the question. Did your tax rate go?[/quote]
Both my actual tax paid and my effective tax rate went up. As far as I am concerned this article is just another propaganda puff piece in line with Obama’s “people should be thanking me” BS statement from a few weeks ago.
I’m not thanking you.[/quote]
+1
jimfickett
May 11, 2010 @
10:21 PM
Down, but that was because my Down, but that was because my income went down; I can’t really separate out the rate.
As for the nation …
scaredyclassic
May 11, 2010 @
10:25 PM
if you’re paying taxes, you if you’re paying taxes, you made money. be happy. we actually had our highest income year ever as a family last year. saved lots. paid a lot of taxes.
(former)FormerSanDiegan
May 11, 2010 @
10:40 PM
UP by all metrics. Thanks to UP by all metrics. Thanks to AMT.
an
May 11, 2010 @
10:47 PM
scaredycat wrote:if you’re [quote=scaredycat]if you’re paying taxes, you made money. be happy. we actually had our highest income year ever as a family last year. saved lots. paid a lot of taxes.[/quote]
Please sir, can I have some more.
Coronita
May 12, 2010 @
5:51 AM
AN wrote:scaredycat wrote:if [quote=AN][quote=scaredycat]if you’re paying taxes, you made money. be happy. we actually had our highest income year ever as a family last year. saved lots. paid a lot of taxes.[/quote]
Please sir, can I have some more.[/quote]
Lol…AN, I’m sorry to say. That as you get older and become more and more of a old buzzard like me, with family and kid(s), I fear you’ll end up becoming more an more conservative. Hell, I don’t know too many that aren’t more of less conservative leaning by the time they get to my age, with family and all. Next step, you get to a point when you’re just like “meh, I don’t care anymore”.
briansd1
May 12, 2010 @
8:05 AM
Do conservatives want to play Do conservatives want to play what ifs?
I have turbo tax for 2008 and 2009 on my computer. I’d be happy to a Joe Piggington return and post it.
AN bought a house. Did his taxes go up? Did his tax rate go up?
I thought that Piggington was supposed to be data rather than hyperbole.
meadandale
May 12, 2010 @
8:14 AM
briansd1 wrote:Do [quote=briansd1]Do conservatives want to play what ifs?
I have turbo tax for 2008 and 2009 on my computer. I’d be happy to a Joe Piggington return and post it.
AN bought a house. Did his taxes go up? Did his tax rate go up?
I thought that Piggington was supposed to be data rather than hyperbole.[/quote]
Yet, when you are presented with data you reject it.
My accountant provides me with a prior year comparison summary when he does my returns. I know exactly what the bottom line is for me when comparing 2008 to 2009 and it doesn’t fit into your neat little box so you choose to reject it.
briansd1
May 12, 2010 @
8:41 AM
meadandale, does your meadandale, does your accountant show you the tax rates you’re paying, or just the tax amounts? Most summaries that I see don’t show tax rates.
In any case, you’re lucky to be in a high tax bracket. I accept that. Good for you.
It makes perfect sense to me that you’d be anti-Obama.
But it makes no sense to me that Joe-the-Plumber who has neither steady job nor health care would oppose Obama’s policies.
What Tea Partyers fail to acknowledge is that taxes went down or stayed constant for the vast majority of Americans, including the vast majority of right wing voters.
Anybody wants to throw out some numbers? I’d be happy to run them.
meadandale
May 12, 2010 @
9:37 AM
briansd1 wrote:meadandale, [quote=briansd1]meadandale, does your accountant show you the tax rates you’re paying, or just the tax amounts? Most summaries that I see don’t show tax rates.[/quote]
I already said that it showed my effective tax rate. It shows virtually everything and shows the % diff for each category as well.
SK in CV
May 12, 2010 @
8:51 AM
meadandale wrote:
My [quote=meadandale]
My accountant provides me with a prior year comparison summary when he does my returns. I know exactly what the bottom line is for me when comparing 2008 to 2009 and it doesn’t fit into your neat little box so you choose to reject it.[/quote]
The thing is, you probably do fit into that neat little box. Your income went up. Your taxes went up. Your effective tax rate went up. Pretty much the same as it would have most every year in the last 30 years, save for a very few.
If you’re saying your taxable income didn’t change, and other tax items remained the same, and your taxes went up and your effective tax rate went up, I suspect you have no idea how to read the numbers on that summary. But it could happen. There’s a range of income where it is possible. Congratulations if your income is that high. Puts you in the top 1.5% of taxpayers in the country.
an
May 12, 2010 @
9:34 AM
briansd1 wrote:Do [quote=briansd1]Do conservatives want to play what ifs?
I have turbo tax for 2008 and 2009 on my computer. I’d be happy to a Joe Piggington return and post it.
AN bought a house. Did his taxes go up? Did his tax rate go up?
I thought that Piggington was supposed to be data rather than hyperbole.[/quote]
Like flu said, I should be put in the mad house if I think I can trust you with my financial information. Thanks for the offer, but no thanks.
briansd1
May 12, 2010 @
10:05 AM
AN wrote:
Like flu said, I [quote=AN]
Like flu said, I should be put in the mad house if I think I can trust you with my financial information. Thanks for the offer, but no thanks.[/quote]
Nobody asked you to share personal information.
But if you’re claiming that tax rates are going up, bring the data.
You do like to run what-if numbers on buying a house, don’t you? Put your math skills into supporting your tax position.
Data please!
an
May 12, 2010 @
10:15 AM
briansd1 wrote:
Nobody asked [quote=briansd1]
Nobody asked you to share personal information.
But if you’re claiming that tax rates are going up, bring the data.
You do like to run what-if numbers on buying a house, don’t you? Put your math skills into supporting your tax position.
Data please![/quote]
Once again, thanks but no thanks. I made a mistake here before, revealing too much info about myself. I’m not going to make that mistake again. So, I’ll pass. I have nothing to prove to you. Those data is for my eyes only. Why don’t you walk the walk instead of just talking the talk and share your data.
briansd1
May 12, 2010 @
10:29 AM
Again, I didn’t suggest to Again, I didn’t suggest to share personal data.
Make up some data.
You like to do rent/buy analysis. Why not do something similar to prove your position?
Do conservatives here want to look at a fictional family making:
Get another horse. That one Get another horse. That one is dead from all your flogging.
an
May 12, 2010 @
11:03 AM
briansd1 wrote:Again, I [quote=briansd1]Again, I didn’t suggest to share personal data.
Make up some data.
You like to do rent/buy analysis. Why not do something similar to prove your position?
Do conservatives here want to look at a fictional family making:
$50,000/year
$70,000/year
$100,000/Year
$150,000/Year ?[/quote]
Married couple filing jointly making $60k bought a home around $200k with 20% down. Interest would only be about $7k for the year, which mean it won’t clear standard deduct. So they still do standard deduction. Fed tax stay the same, CA income tax went up between 2008 and 2009. Renter don’t have to pay property tax, home owners do. So there you go, this couple would be paying more taxes in 2009 vs 2008.
surveyor
May 12, 2010 @
11:55 AM
Don’t forget, California
Don’t forget, California sales tax went up 1% to about 8.75% in San Diego in August 2009. So technically everyone is paying higher taxes.
By the way, many in the tea party are worried about the amount of debt and the large growth of government. They argue that these factors will give rise to higher taxes because they are unsustainable. Even if taxes are relatively low now, Obama will have no choice but to raise them in the future. With social security and medicare insolvent, add to it the health care price tab (which has been proven by the CBO to cost more than what was originally advertised), higher taxes are inevitable.
Anyways, I do not pay a lot of income taxes myself, due to structuring my taxes that way intentionally. One of the advantages of investing in real estate… But I do pay more taxes because of the sales taxes.
briansd1
May 12, 2010 @
12:24 PM
surveyor wrote:
By the way, [quote=surveyor]
By the way, many in the tea party are worried about the amount of debt and the large growth of government. They argue that these factors will give rise to higher taxes because they are unsustainable. Even if taxes are relatively low now, Obama will have no choice but to raise them in the future. With social security and medicare insolvent, add to it the health care price tab (which has been proven by the CBO to cost more than what was originally advertised), higher taxes are inevitable. [/quote]
I think that’s a valid concern, and I share that concern.
However, claiming that Obama policies already resulted in incremental tax increases is dishonest.
I think that Obama is kicking the can down the road for a future president to deal with. GHWB increased taxes and look what happened to him. Increasing taxes is not a good way to get reelected.
I believe that kicking the can down the road is for good reasons. The first order of business is getting out of this great recession.
SK in CV
May 12, 2010 @
12:04 PM
AN wrote:Married couple [quote=AN]Married couple filing jointly making $60k bought a home around $200k with 20% down. Interest would only be about $7k for the year, which mean it won’t clear standard deduct. So they still do standard deduction. Fed tax stay the same, CA income tax went up between 2008 and 2009. Renter don’t have to pay property tax, home owners do. So there you go, this couple would be paying more taxes in 2009 vs 2008.[/quote]
Probably wrong. Not worth going thru the exercise, but federal taxes would have gone down for sure even without buying the house. Nice interest rate you got them on the loan, btw. They would have paid deductible points to get 4.375%. So they would have itemized and saved a few more bucks. State income taxes probably would have stayed about the same, they would itemize on the state even without the points. Property taxes not really pertinent, except peripherally.
an
May 12, 2010 @
1:36 PM
SK in CV wrote:AN [quote=SK in CV][quote=AN]Married couple filing jointly making $60k bought a home around $200k with 20% down. Interest would only be about $7k for the year, which mean it won’t clear standard deduct. So they still do standard deduction. Fed tax stay the same, CA income tax went up between 2008 and 2009. Renter don’t have to pay property tax, home owners do. So there you go, this couple would be paying more taxes in 2009 vs 2008.[/quote]
Probably wrong. Not worth going thru the exercise, but federal taxes would have gone down for sure even without buying the house. Nice interest rate you got them on the loan, btw. They would have paid deductible points to get 4.375%. So they would have itemized and saved a few more bucks. State income taxes probably would have stayed about the same, they would itemize on the state even without the points. Property taxes not really pertinent, except peripherally.[/quote]
Would it make you feel better if I say they spend $8k in interest instead? Still under $10k limit for standard deduction. Why would Federal tax go down? Care you explain? I didn’t hear anything about tax rate changes. CA income tax went up ~.2% IIRC. Why is property tax not pertinent? Isn’t that $ you have to pay to the government? Why would you itemize anything if the total amount is still less than $10k?
SK in CV
May 12, 2010 @
3:09 PM
AN wrote:
Would it make you [quote=AN]
Would it make you feel better if I say they spend $8k in interest instead? Still under $10k limit for standard deduction. Why would Federal tax go down? Care you explain? I didn’t hear anything about tax rate changes. CA income tax went up ~.2% IIRC. Why is property tax not pertinent? Isn’t that $ you have to pay to the government? Why would you itemize anything if the total amount is still less than $10k?[/quote]
Yeah, $8,000 would make me feel better because it’s more reasonable. Could have actually happened that way. It is under the standard deduction, even after you add the approximately $2200 that they’ll pay in property taxes. Add in points on the new loan, and they’re over just over the $11,400 for a married filing jointly standard deduction and they’ll save a few bucks by itemizing. A few bucks benefit for their car registration and maybe the few bucks a week they put in the basket at church.
There havent been tax rate changes other than an inflation adjustment. But there is the “making work pay” tax credit that was part of the recover and reinvestment act, passed early last year. We don’t know much about this family, but they may also be eligible for increased child tax credits.
California tax rates did increase. Would have added a bit less than $80 to their taxes. At that income level, the largest effect would be the reduced exemption credit. If they don’t have kids, that would be about $200. But the standard deduction is only around $7,300 for the state, so their itemized deductions would come pretty close to balancing that out. Within $100 one way or the other.
I don’t think property tax is pertinent for the same reason that I’m not sure that the house purchase is all that pertinent. It kind of renders the poll meaningless. The poll asks if taxes went up or down. If i retired from my $200,000 a year job and lived off of social security in 2009, well, my taxes went down. So if you’re looking for a general concensus on whether peoples taxes were higher or lower, my vote in the poll will skew the results. As will any significant change in financial status. The purchase of a home means this families income and income tax comparison between the two years may not be an informative comparison.
an
May 12, 2010 @
3:25 PM
Brian asked me to make up a Brian asked me to make up a scenario where tax would go up. So I did just that.
At 5% interest rate today, you shouldn’t need to pay any point. Depending on when they bought in 2009, they could be getting 4.75%. That $200k house is just arbitrary. What if it’s only $160k since this “family” is very conservative w/ their money? The general gist is, if you buy a house cheap enough that it won’t break the standard deduction level, your taxes would be higher. If you buy a house that allow you itemize, then your taxes would be less, if you end up making more this year compare to last year due to salary gain (enough to get you to the next tax bracket), then you’ll be paying more in taxes. Not everyone pay more and not everyone pay less. That’s all I’m trying to say. Brian was just trying to get specifics but there are millions of different cases.
briansd1
May 12, 2010 @
4:34 PM
AN, yes, buying a house does AN, yes, buying a house does not necessary result in tax savings. As I was saying all along, a buyer should take into account the standard deduction when deciding to buy a house. But that’s for another thread.
I believe the main argument of this thread is whether Obama policies resulted in tax increases for Americans. That claim by the Tea Party is patently false.
Of course, individual will make personal choices that will result in more or less taxes. If you buy an expensive car, you’ll pay more sales taxes and registration taxes.
BTW, wasn’t there a nice tax credit for buying a house?
an
May 12, 2010 @
4:41 PM
Brain, just making sure you Brain, just making sure you don’t lump everyone that doesn’t agree with you into the Tea Party. I don’t believe Obama’s policy raised people’s taxes today.
There was a nice tax credit in 2009, too bad I missed it.
SK in CV
May 12, 2010 @
4:47 PM
briansd1 wrote:
BTW, wasn’t [quote=briansd1]
BTW, wasn’t there a nice tax credit for buying a house?[/quote]
Damn, i missed that one. Good catch. Good thing that couple didn’t pay me to do their taxes. (heh, they couldn’t afford me anyway) Net result, even inclusive of property taxes, total taxes went down.
Hobie
May 12, 2010 @
5:08 PM
SK in CV wrote:(heh, they [quote=SK in CV](heh, they couldn’t afford me anyway) [/quote]
Wow.
IT.MOM
May 13, 2010 @
8:51 AM
There is a income limit in There is a income limit in order to get tax credit for buying a house.
When your AGI is greater than $250K you get $0 for house credit. For a double professional income family, $250K is a threshold easy to reach. They still couldn’t enjoy the credit, even though they are living on the salary. And don’t forget the AMT is always waiting to make sure they pay……
Coronita
May 12, 2010 @
9:40 AM
briansd1 wrote:Do [quote=briansd1]Do conservatives want to play what ifs?
I have turbo tax for 2008 and 2009 on my computer. I’d be happy to a Joe Piggington return and post it.
AN bought a house. Did his taxes go up? Did his tax rate go up?
I thought that Piggington was supposed to be data rather than hyperbole.[/quote]
Dude, I think if you actually have time to redo someone else’s taxes 2008 and 2009 (assuming that person would be foolish enough to disclose just about every private finance thing about themselves to a complete stranger)…maybe rather than expecting others to pay more taxes so you can enjoy more social benefits for free, you should consider using some of that free time of yours to figure out how to make more money so you wouldn’t contribute to this nanny state nation we’re becoming.
BTW:
Be careful what you are signing up for….
My 2008 1040 was about 72 pages.
My 2009 1040 was about 89 pages.
And this does not include my kid’s return, and other biz returns.
Disclaimer: page length not an indication of financial well being. It could be a sign of trigger-happy speculation on part of financial “planners”. I’m sure there are others who are else in interesting tax situations.
And no, you may not re-enter this, because the last thing I need a is juvenile would-be accountant questioning everything my accountant has already signed off on, which I can totally see you doing. And I can assure you neither turbo tax 2008 premier or 2009 premier can handle my taxes, because let’s just say that when it comes to career opportunities, I’ve slept around in San Diego when it comes to hoarding for opportunities, and neither 2008 or 2009 can handle that many entries. That’s what’s Intuit’s pro-tax solutions are for.
Off topic… I never file electronically…If I’m going to bend over, might as well put the tax board employees to work sifting through all the attached schedules.
briansd1
May 12, 2010 @
9:58 AM
flu wrote:
Dude, I think if [quote=flu]
Dude, I think if you actually have time to redo someone else’s taxes 2008 and 2009 (assuming that person would be foolish enough to disclose just about every private finance thing about themselves to a complete stranger)…
[/quote]
Nobody is asking anyone to disclose anything.
Just like we run what-if numbers on buying a house, let’s run some what-ifs for people in different tax brackets.
Don’t claim that tax rates are going up when the evidence is to the contrary.
Bring the data please. Let’s looks at some “average” Americans in different tax brackets.
[quote=flu]
maybe rather than expecting others to pay more taxes so you can enjoy more social benefits for free,
[/quote]
The vast majority of Americans are not paying more taxes.
[quote=flu]
you should consider using some of that free time of yours to figure out how to make more money so you wouldn’t contribute to this nanny state nation we’re becoming.
[/quote]
I thought the idea was the more money one makes, the more one contributes. I’m confused here.
[quote=flu]
Be careful what you are signing up for….
My 2008 1040 was about 72 pages.
My 2009 1040 was about 89 pages.
[/quote]
You have more pages because you like to trade in an out of stocks. That’s a personal choice, I believe.
[quote=flu]
Off topic… I never file electronically…If I’m going to bend over, might as well put the tax board employees to work sifting through all the attached schedules.[/quote]
That’s very nice of you to give government workers more work. Very cooperative on your part.
air_ogi
May 12, 2010 @
8:48 AM
I did taxes for 6 people and I did taxes for 6 people and out of those mine were the only ones that went up, exclusively due to higher capital gains.
My tax rate was lower however.
IT.MOM
May 12, 2010 @
9:16 AM
“There’s a range of income “There’s a range of income where it is possible.”
Could you please explain more about the range that makes it possible?
UCGal
May 12, 2010 @
9:26 AM
My taxes went DOWN for a few My taxes went DOWN for a few reasons
– Less income. Hubby was partially unemployed/underemployed last year.
– Carry forward capital losses from 2008.
– I have an inherited IRA and did NOT have to take an RMD distribution – so that lowered my income as well. (I want it tax deferred as long as possible – if it gets distributed I might spend it.)
That combo put us in a lower bracket… The combo of the 1st and 3rd items reduced our income significantly. We’d been on the hairy edge of AMT in previous years – no worries at all about that this year.
Coronita
May 12, 2010 @
9:33 AM
UCGal wrote:My taxes went [quote=UCGal]My taxes went DOWN for a few reasons
– Less income. Hubby was partially unemployed/underemployed last year.
– Carry forward capital losses from 2008.
– I have an inherited IRA and did NOT have to take an RMD distribution – so that lowered my income as well. (I want it tax deferred as long as possible – if it gets distributed I might spend it.)
That combo put us in a lower bracket… The combo of the 1st and 3rd items reduced our income significantly. We’d been on the hairy edge of AMT in previous years – no worries at all about that this year.[/quote]
AMT is being eliminated for most, I believe.
SK in CV
May 12, 2010 @
9:40 AM
IT.MOM wrote:”There’s a range [quote=IT.MOM]”There’s a range of income where it is possible.”
Could you please explain more about the range that makes it possible?[/quote]
I’ll run some numbers when i have a few minutes. It’s possible that I’m wrong. There may not be any income ranges where identical income and deductions result in higher taxes. Too many issues to do in my head, but I’m thinking income somewhere between $125,000 and $250,000 a year there might be some funky income ranges with phaseouts of credits, deductions and exemptions that create higher tax in ’09 than ’08. The differences would be slight. Taxable income over $250,000 it’s highly unlikely. Tax rates stayed the same, brackets were adjusted for inflation. Taxes would have gone down a bit.
Aecetia
May 12, 2010 @
9:45 AM
I think that is true. I I think that is true. I believe it happened to us on a child credit phase out.
Coronita
May 12, 2010 @
9:52 AM
SK in CV wrote:IT.MOM [quote=SK in CV][quote=IT.MOM]”There’s a range of income where it is possible.”
Could you please explain more about the range that makes it possible?[/quote]
I’ll run some numbers when i have a few minutes. It’s possible that I’m wrong. There may not be any income ranges where identical income and deductions result in higher taxes. Too many issues to do in my head, but I’m thinking income somewhere between $125,000 and $250,000 a year there might be some funky income ranges with phaseouts of credits, deductions and exemptions that create higher tax in ’09 than ’08. The differences would be slight. Taxable income over $250,000 it’s highly unlikely. Tax rates stayed the same, brackets were adjusted for inflation. Taxes would have gone down a bit.[/quote]
Just one of many small changes….Small changes that add up.
* FICA tax rate cap…I would assume this hurts self employed slightly more than w-2. Not a big change, those there are several of these small changes. Should amount to a few hundred more. Self employed, more than that.
Not an accountant, but I also think changes like these are why it doesn’t hurt folks who are compensated in the majority by stock/equity compensation if structured correctly and can be recognized as cap gains, not ordinary income. Because there cap gains aren’t subject to this and many other taxes. So, Steve Jobs with a $0 salary probably doesn’t pay social security taxes (just kidding, sort of…Part of his stock/stock option is probably recognized as ordinary income at time of vesting).
May 11, 2010 @ 5:09 PM
According to USA Today
According to USA Today (link), tax bills are at the lowest they’ve been since 1950:
I’m curious what the anecdotal piggington data says.
May 11, 2010 @ 8:43 PM
Health care went up, food
Health care went up, food went up, gas prices went up. I can’t think of much that went down, maybe some clothing prices or maybe there were just better mark downs at department stores.
May 11, 2010 @ 9:15 PM
If income went up, taxes went
If income went up, taxes went up.
You should rephrase the question. Did your tax rate go?
May 11, 2010 @ 9:22 PM
briansd1 wrote:
You should
[quote=briansd1]
You should rephrase the question. Did your tax rate go?[/quote]
I figured it was implied based on the article that was posted. I guess I should have known what happens when one assumes.
May 11, 2010 @ 11:21 PM
afx114 wrote:briansd1
[quote=afx114][quote=briansd1]
You should rephrase the question. Did your tax rate go?[/quote]
I figured it was implied based on the article that was posted. I guess I should have known what happens when one assumes.[/quote]
Yes, but you should know how the Tea Partiers would answer. In talking to Obama haters, I find that they can never answer any specifics. They stick to hyperbole such as Obama Care and the like.
My own brother doesn’t really care for Obama but when I try to pin him down on policy, he’s like a political ad.
*
afx114, Let me rephrase the question for you.
Did your tax rate go up? If your tax rate went up, what was the percentage increase? And what was the percentage income increase?
Data please. Percentages will do.
May 11, 2010 @ 11:27 PM
I voted ‘Not Sure.’ I’ll know
I voted ‘Not Sure.’ I’ll know in October.
May 11, 2010 @ 11:32 PM
BTW, those of you who bought
BTW, those of you who bought houses, your taxes should have gone down. Now, don’t lie. This poll is anonymous.
May 12, 2010 @ 12:52 AM
Brian did your older brother
Brian did your older brother beat you up a lot? Just asking.
May 11, 2010 @ 9:39 PM
briansd1 wrote:If income went
[quote=briansd1]If income went up, taxes went up.
You should rephrase the question. Did your tax rate go?[/quote]
Both my actual tax paid and my effective tax rate went up. As far as I am concerned this article is just another propaganda puff piece in line with Obama’s “people should be thanking me” BS statement from a few weeks ago.
I’m not thanking you.
May 12, 2010 @ 5:46 AM
meadandale wrote:briansd1
[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1]If income went up, taxes went up.
You should rephrase the question. Did your tax rate go?[/quote]
Both my actual tax paid and my effective tax rate went up. As far as I am concerned this article is just another propaganda puff piece in line with Obama’s “people should be thanking me” BS statement from a few weeks ago.
I’m not thanking you.[/quote]
+1
May 11, 2010 @ 10:21 PM
Down, but that was because my
Down, but that was because my income went down; I can’t really separate out the rate.
As for the nation …
May 11, 2010 @ 10:25 PM
if you’re paying taxes, you
if you’re paying taxes, you made money. be happy. we actually had our highest income year ever as a family last year. saved lots. paid a lot of taxes.
May 11, 2010 @ 10:40 PM
UP by all metrics. Thanks to
UP by all metrics. Thanks to AMT.
May 11, 2010 @ 10:47 PM
scaredycat wrote:if you’re
[quote=scaredycat]if you’re paying taxes, you made money. be happy. we actually had our highest income year ever as a family last year. saved lots. paid a lot of taxes.[/quote]
Please sir, can I have some more.
May 12, 2010 @ 5:51 AM
AN wrote:scaredycat wrote:if
[quote=AN][quote=scaredycat]if you’re paying taxes, you made money. be happy. we actually had our highest income year ever as a family last year. saved lots. paid a lot of taxes.[/quote]
Please sir, can I have some more.[/quote]
Lol…AN, I’m sorry to say. That as you get older and become more and more of a old buzzard like me, with family and kid(s), I fear you’ll end up becoming more an more conservative. Hell, I don’t know too many that aren’t more of less conservative leaning by the time they get to my age, with family and all. Next step, you get to a point when you’re just like “meh, I don’t care anymore”.
May 12, 2010 @ 8:05 AM
Do conservatives want to play
Do conservatives want to play what ifs?
I have turbo tax for 2008 and 2009 on my computer. I’d be happy to a Joe Piggington return and post it.
AN bought a house. Did his taxes go up? Did his tax rate go up?
I thought that Piggington was supposed to be data rather than hyperbole.
May 12, 2010 @ 8:14 AM
briansd1 wrote:Do
[quote=briansd1]Do conservatives want to play what ifs?
I have turbo tax for 2008 and 2009 on my computer. I’d be happy to a Joe Piggington return and post it.
AN bought a house. Did his taxes go up? Did his tax rate go up?
I thought that Piggington was supposed to be data rather than hyperbole.[/quote]
Yet, when you are presented with data you reject it.
My accountant provides me with a prior year comparison summary when he does my returns. I know exactly what the bottom line is for me when comparing 2008 to 2009 and it doesn’t fit into your neat little box so you choose to reject it.
May 12, 2010 @ 8:41 AM
meadandale, does your
meadandale, does your accountant show you the tax rates you’re paying, or just the tax amounts? Most summaries that I see don’t show tax rates.
In any case, you’re lucky to be in a high tax bracket. I accept that. Good for you.
It makes perfect sense to me that you’d be anti-Obama.
But it makes no sense to me that Joe-the-Plumber who has neither steady job nor health care would oppose Obama’s policies.
What Tea Partyers fail to acknowledge is that taxes went down or stayed constant for the vast majority of Americans, including the vast majority of right wing voters.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/05/11/surprise-2009-tax-bill-lowest-in-nearly-60-years.aspx
Anybody wants to throw out some numbers? I’d be happy to run them.
May 12, 2010 @ 9:37 AM
briansd1 wrote:meadandale,
[quote=briansd1]meadandale, does your accountant show you the tax rates you’re paying, or just the tax amounts? Most summaries that I see don’t show tax rates.[/quote]
I already said that it showed my effective tax rate. It shows virtually everything and shows the % diff for each category as well.
May 12, 2010 @ 8:51 AM
meadandale wrote:
My
[quote=meadandale]
My accountant provides me with a prior year comparison summary when he does my returns. I know exactly what the bottom line is for me when comparing 2008 to 2009 and it doesn’t fit into your neat little box so you choose to reject it.[/quote]
The thing is, you probably do fit into that neat little box. Your income went up. Your taxes went up. Your effective tax rate went up. Pretty much the same as it would have most every year in the last 30 years, save for a very few.
If you’re saying your taxable income didn’t change, and other tax items remained the same, and your taxes went up and your effective tax rate went up, I suspect you have no idea how to read the numbers on that summary. But it could happen. There’s a range of income where it is possible. Congratulations if your income is that high. Puts you in the top 1.5% of taxpayers in the country.
May 12, 2010 @ 9:34 AM
briansd1 wrote:Do
[quote=briansd1]Do conservatives want to play what ifs?
I have turbo tax for 2008 and 2009 on my computer. I’d be happy to a Joe Piggington return and post it.
AN bought a house. Did his taxes go up? Did his tax rate go up?
I thought that Piggington was supposed to be data rather than hyperbole.[/quote]
Like flu said, I should be put in the mad house if I think I can trust you with my financial information. Thanks for the offer, but no thanks.
May 12, 2010 @ 10:05 AM
AN wrote:
Like flu said, I
[quote=AN]
Like flu said, I should be put in the mad house if I think I can trust you with my financial information. Thanks for the offer, but no thanks.[/quote]
Nobody asked you to share personal information.
But if you’re claiming that tax rates are going up, bring the data.
You do like to run what-if numbers on buying a house, don’t you? Put your math skills into supporting your tax position.
Data please!
May 12, 2010 @ 10:15 AM
briansd1 wrote:
Nobody asked
[quote=briansd1]
Nobody asked you to share personal information.
But if you’re claiming that tax rates are going up, bring the data.
You do like to run what-if numbers on buying a house, don’t you? Put your math skills into supporting your tax position.
Data please![/quote]
Once again, thanks but no thanks. I made a mistake here before, revealing too much info about myself. I’m not going to make that mistake again. So, I’ll pass. I have nothing to prove to you. Those data is for my eyes only. Why don’t you walk the walk instead of just talking the talk and share your data.
May 12, 2010 @ 10:29 AM
Again, I didn’t suggest to
Again, I didn’t suggest to share personal data.
Make up some data.
You like to do rent/buy analysis. Why not do something similar to prove your position?
Do conservatives here want to look at a fictional family making:
$50,000/year
$70,000/year
$100,000/Year
$150,000/Year ?
May 12, 2010 @ 10:34 AM
Get another horse. That one
Get another horse. That one is dead from all your flogging.
May 12, 2010 @ 11:03 AM
briansd1 wrote:Again, I
[quote=briansd1]Again, I didn’t suggest to share personal data.
Make up some data.
You like to do rent/buy analysis. Why not do something similar to prove your position?
Do conservatives here want to look at a fictional family making:
$50,000/year
$70,000/year
$100,000/Year
$150,000/Year ?[/quote]
Married couple filing jointly making $60k bought a home around $200k with 20% down. Interest would only be about $7k for the year, which mean it won’t clear standard deduct. So they still do standard deduction. Fed tax stay the same, CA income tax went up between 2008 and 2009. Renter don’t have to pay property tax, home owners do. So there you go, this couple would be paying more taxes in 2009 vs 2008.
May 12, 2010 @ 11:55 AM
Don’t forget, California
Don’t forget, California sales tax went up 1% to about 8.75% in San Diego in August 2009. So technically everyone is paying higher taxes.
By the way, many in the tea party are worried about the amount of debt and the large growth of government. They argue that these factors will give rise to higher taxes because they are unsustainable. Even if taxes are relatively low now, Obama will have no choice but to raise them in the future. With social security and medicare insolvent, add to it the health care price tab (which has been proven by the CBO to cost more than what was originally advertised), higher taxes are inevitable.
Anyways, I do not pay a lot of income taxes myself, due to structuring my taxes that way intentionally. One of the advantages of investing in real estate… But I do pay more taxes because of the sales taxes.
May 12, 2010 @ 12:24 PM
surveyor wrote:
By the way,
[quote=surveyor]
By the way, many in the tea party are worried about the amount of debt and the large growth of government. They argue that these factors will give rise to higher taxes because they are unsustainable. Even if taxes are relatively low now, Obama will have no choice but to raise them in the future. With social security and medicare insolvent, add to it the health care price tab (which has been proven by the CBO to cost more than what was originally advertised), higher taxes are inevitable. [/quote]
I think that’s a valid concern, and I share that concern.
However, claiming that Obama policies already resulted in incremental tax increases is dishonest.
I think that Obama is kicking the can down the road for a future president to deal with. GHWB increased taxes and look what happened to him. Increasing taxes is not a good way to get reelected.
I believe that kicking the can down the road is for good reasons. The first order of business is getting out of this great recession.
May 12, 2010 @ 12:04 PM
AN wrote:Married couple
[quote=AN]Married couple filing jointly making $60k bought a home around $200k with 20% down. Interest would only be about $7k for the year, which mean it won’t clear standard deduct. So they still do standard deduction. Fed tax stay the same, CA income tax went up between 2008 and 2009. Renter don’t have to pay property tax, home owners do. So there you go, this couple would be paying more taxes in 2009 vs 2008.[/quote]
Probably wrong. Not worth going thru the exercise, but federal taxes would have gone down for sure even without buying the house. Nice interest rate you got them on the loan, btw. They would have paid deductible points to get 4.375%. So they would have itemized and saved a few more bucks. State income taxes probably would have stayed about the same, they would itemize on the state even without the points. Property taxes not really pertinent, except peripherally.
May 12, 2010 @ 1:36 PM
SK in CV wrote:AN
[quote=SK in CV][quote=AN]Married couple filing jointly making $60k bought a home around $200k with 20% down. Interest would only be about $7k for the year, which mean it won’t clear standard deduct. So they still do standard deduction. Fed tax stay the same, CA income tax went up between 2008 and 2009. Renter don’t have to pay property tax, home owners do. So there you go, this couple would be paying more taxes in 2009 vs 2008.[/quote]
Probably wrong. Not worth going thru the exercise, but federal taxes would have gone down for sure even without buying the house. Nice interest rate you got them on the loan, btw. They would have paid deductible points to get 4.375%. So they would have itemized and saved a few more bucks. State income taxes probably would have stayed about the same, they would itemize on the state even without the points. Property taxes not really pertinent, except peripherally.[/quote]
Would it make you feel better if I say they spend $8k in interest instead? Still under $10k limit for standard deduction. Why would Federal tax go down? Care you explain? I didn’t hear anything about tax rate changes. CA income tax went up ~.2% IIRC. Why is property tax not pertinent? Isn’t that $ you have to pay to the government? Why would you itemize anything if the total amount is still less than $10k?
May 12, 2010 @ 3:09 PM
AN wrote:
Would it make you
[quote=AN]
Would it make you feel better if I say they spend $8k in interest instead? Still under $10k limit for standard deduction. Why would Federal tax go down? Care you explain? I didn’t hear anything about tax rate changes. CA income tax went up ~.2% IIRC. Why is property tax not pertinent? Isn’t that $ you have to pay to the government? Why would you itemize anything if the total amount is still less than $10k?[/quote]
Yeah, $8,000 would make me feel better because it’s more reasonable. Could have actually happened that way. It is under the standard deduction, even after you add the approximately $2200 that they’ll pay in property taxes. Add in points on the new loan, and they’re over just over the $11,400 for a married filing jointly standard deduction and they’ll save a few bucks by itemizing. A few bucks benefit for their car registration and maybe the few bucks a week they put in the basket at church.
There havent been tax rate changes other than an inflation adjustment. But there is the “making work pay” tax credit that was part of the recover and reinvestment act, passed early last year. We don’t know much about this family, but they may also be eligible for increased child tax credits.
California tax rates did increase. Would have added a bit less than $80 to their taxes. At that income level, the largest effect would be the reduced exemption credit. If they don’t have kids, that would be about $200. But the standard deduction is only around $7,300 for the state, so their itemized deductions would come pretty close to balancing that out. Within $100 one way or the other.
I don’t think property tax is pertinent for the same reason that I’m not sure that the house purchase is all that pertinent. It kind of renders the poll meaningless. The poll asks if taxes went up or down. If i retired from my $200,000 a year job and lived off of social security in 2009, well, my taxes went down. So if you’re looking for a general concensus on whether peoples taxes were higher or lower, my vote in the poll will skew the results. As will any significant change in financial status. The purchase of a home means this families income and income tax comparison between the two years may not be an informative comparison.
May 12, 2010 @ 3:25 PM
Brian asked me to make up a
Brian asked me to make up a scenario where tax would go up. So I did just that.
At 5% interest rate today, you shouldn’t need to pay any point. Depending on when they bought in 2009, they could be getting 4.75%. That $200k house is just arbitrary. What if it’s only $160k since this “family” is very conservative w/ their money? The general gist is, if you buy a house cheap enough that it won’t break the standard deduction level, your taxes would be higher. If you buy a house that allow you itemize, then your taxes would be less, if you end up making more this year compare to last year due to salary gain (enough to get you to the next tax bracket), then you’ll be paying more in taxes. Not everyone pay more and not everyone pay less. That’s all I’m trying to say. Brian was just trying to get specifics but there are millions of different cases.
May 12, 2010 @ 4:34 PM
AN, yes, buying a house does
AN, yes, buying a house does not necessary result in tax savings. As I was saying all along, a buyer should take into account the standard deduction when deciding to buy a house. But that’s for another thread.
I believe the main argument of this thread is whether Obama policies resulted in tax increases for Americans. That claim by the Tea Party is patently false.
Of course, individual will make personal choices that will result in more or less taxes. If you buy an expensive car, you’ll pay more sales taxes and registration taxes.
BTW, wasn’t there a nice tax credit for buying a house?
May 12, 2010 @ 4:41 PM
Brain, just making sure you
Brain, just making sure you don’t lump everyone that doesn’t agree with you into the Tea Party. I don’t believe Obama’s policy raised people’s taxes today.
There was a nice tax credit in 2009, too bad I missed it.
May 12, 2010 @ 4:47 PM
briansd1 wrote:
BTW, wasn’t
[quote=briansd1]
BTW, wasn’t there a nice tax credit for buying a house?[/quote]
Damn, i missed that one. Good catch. Good thing that couple didn’t pay me to do their taxes. (heh, they couldn’t afford me anyway) Net result, even inclusive of property taxes, total taxes went down.
May 12, 2010 @ 5:08 PM
SK in CV wrote:(heh, they
[quote=SK in CV](heh, they couldn’t afford me anyway) [/quote]
Wow.
May 13, 2010 @ 8:51 AM
There is a income limit in
There is a income limit in order to get tax credit for buying a house.
When your AGI is greater than $250K you get $0 for house credit. For a double professional income family, $250K is a threshold easy to reach. They still couldn’t enjoy the credit, even though they are living on the salary. And don’t forget the AMT is always waiting to make sure they pay……
May 12, 2010 @ 9:40 AM
briansd1 wrote:Do
[quote=briansd1]Do conservatives want to play what ifs?
I have turbo tax for 2008 and 2009 on my computer. I’d be happy to a Joe Piggington return and post it.
AN bought a house. Did his taxes go up? Did his tax rate go up?
I thought that Piggington was supposed to be data rather than hyperbole.[/quote]
Dude, I think if you actually have time to redo someone else’s taxes 2008 and 2009 (assuming that person would be foolish enough to disclose just about every private finance thing about themselves to a complete stranger)…maybe rather than expecting others to pay more taxes so you can enjoy more social benefits for free, you should consider using some of that free time of yours to figure out how to make more money so you wouldn’t contribute to this nanny state nation we’re becoming.
BTW:
Be careful what you are signing up for….
My 2008 1040 was about 72 pages.
My 2009 1040 was about 89 pages.
And this does not include my kid’s return, and other biz returns.
Disclaimer: page length not an indication of financial well being. It could be a sign of trigger-happy speculation on part of financial “planners”. I’m sure there are others who are else in interesting tax situations.
And no, you may not re-enter this, because the last thing I need a is juvenile would-be accountant questioning everything my accountant has already signed off on, which I can totally see you doing. And I can assure you neither turbo tax 2008 premier or 2009 premier can handle my taxes, because let’s just say that when it comes to career opportunities, I’ve slept around in San Diego when it comes to hoarding for opportunities, and neither 2008 or 2009 can handle that many entries. That’s what’s Intuit’s pro-tax solutions are for.
Off topic… I never file electronically…If I’m going to bend over, might as well put the tax board employees to work sifting through all the attached schedules.
May 12, 2010 @ 9:58 AM
flu wrote:
Dude, I think if
[quote=flu]
Dude, I think if you actually have time to redo someone else’s taxes 2008 and 2009 (assuming that person would be foolish enough to disclose just about every private finance thing about themselves to a complete stranger)…
[/quote]
Nobody is asking anyone to disclose anything.
Just like we run what-if numbers on buying a house, let’s run some what-ifs for people in different tax brackets.
Don’t claim that tax rates are going up when the evidence is to the contrary.
Bring the data please. Let’s looks at some “average” Americans in different tax brackets.
[quote=flu]
maybe rather than expecting others to pay more taxes so you can enjoy more social benefits for free,
[/quote]
The vast majority of Americans are not paying more taxes.
[quote=flu]
you should consider using some of that free time of yours to figure out how to make more money so you wouldn’t contribute to this nanny state nation we’re becoming.
[/quote]
I thought the idea was the more money one makes, the more one contributes. I’m confused here.
[quote=flu]
Be careful what you are signing up for….
My 2008 1040 was about 72 pages.
My 2009 1040 was about 89 pages.
[/quote]
You have more pages because you like to trade in an out of stocks. That’s a personal choice, I believe.
[quote=flu]
Off topic… I never file electronically…If I’m going to bend over, might as well put the tax board employees to work sifting through all the attached schedules.[/quote]
That’s very nice of you to give government workers more work. Very cooperative on your part.
May 12, 2010 @ 8:48 AM
I did taxes for 6 people and
I did taxes for 6 people and out of those mine were the only ones that went up, exclusively due to higher capital gains.
My tax rate was lower however.
May 12, 2010 @ 9:16 AM
“There’s a range of income
“There’s a range of income where it is possible.”
Could you please explain more about the range that makes it possible?
May 12, 2010 @ 9:26 AM
My taxes went DOWN for a few
My taxes went DOWN for a few reasons
– Less income. Hubby was partially unemployed/underemployed last year.
– Carry forward capital losses from 2008.
– I have an inherited IRA and did NOT have to take an RMD distribution – so that lowered my income as well. (I want it tax deferred as long as possible – if it gets distributed I might spend it.)
That combo put us in a lower bracket… The combo of the 1st and 3rd items reduced our income significantly. We’d been on the hairy edge of AMT in previous years – no worries at all about that this year.
May 12, 2010 @ 9:33 AM
UCGal wrote:My taxes went
[quote=UCGal]My taxes went DOWN for a few reasons
– Less income. Hubby was partially unemployed/underemployed last year.
– Carry forward capital losses from 2008.
– I have an inherited IRA and did NOT have to take an RMD distribution – so that lowered my income as well. (I want it tax deferred as long as possible – if it gets distributed I might spend it.)
That combo put us in a lower bracket… The combo of the 1st and 3rd items reduced our income significantly. We’d been on the hairy edge of AMT in previous years – no worries at all about that this year.[/quote]
AMT is being eliminated for most, I believe.
May 12, 2010 @ 9:40 AM
IT.MOM wrote:”There’s a range
[quote=IT.MOM]”There’s a range of income where it is possible.”
Could you please explain more about the range that makes it possible?[/quote]
I’ll run some numbers when i have a few minutes. It’s possible that I’m wrong. There may not be any income ranges where identical income and deductions result in higher taxes. Too many issues to do in my head, but I’m thinking income somewhere between $125,000 and $250,000 a year there might be some funky income ranges with phaseouts of credits, deductions and exemptions that create higher tax in ’09 than ’08. The differences would be slight. Taxable income over $250,000 it’s highly unlikely. Tax rates stayed the same, brackets were adjusted for inflation. Taxes would have gone down a bit.
May 12, 2010 @ 9:45 AM
I think that is true. I
I think that is true. I believe it happened to us on a child credit phase out.
May 12, 2010 @ 9:52 AM
SK in CV wrote:IT.MOM
[quote=SK in CV][quote=IT.MOM]”There’s a range of income where it is possible.”
Could you please explain more about the range that makes it possible?[/quote]
I’ll run some numbers when i have a few minutes. It’s possible that I’m wrong. There may not be any income ranges where identical income and deductions result in higher taxes. Too many issues to do in my head, but I’m thinking income somewhere between $125,000 and $250,000 a year there might be some funky income ranges with phaseouts of credits, deductions and exemptions that create higher tax in ’09 than ’08. The differences would be slight. Taxable income over $250,000 it’s highly unlikely. Tax rates stayed the same, brackets were adjusted for inflation. Taxes would have gone down a bit.[/quote]
Just one of many small changes….Small changes that add up.
* FICA tax rate cap…I would assume this hurts self employed slightly more than w-2. Not a big change, those there are several of these small changes. Should amount to a few hundred more. Self employed, more than that.
Not an accountant, but I also think changes like these are why it doesn’t hurt folks who are compensated in the majority by stock/equity compensation if structured correctly and can be recognized as cap gains, not ordinary income. Because there cap gains aren’t subject to this and many other taxes. So, Steve Jobs with a $0 salary probably doesn’t pay social security taxes (just kidding, sort of…Part of his stock/stock option is probably recognized as ordinary income at time of vesting).