Here are the new tax brackets for 2019

a reply to: Mandroid7

Roll another one and everything will be alright again.

a reply to: CriticalStinker


They can not, they will not fix the roads and bridges.

Remember Obama's big trillion dollar infrastructure bill?

Remember that was needed for roads and bridges.


They will never fix roads and bridges because then, they'd have to find another way to take more from us. Roads and bridges are non-partisan.

EVERYONE needs roads and bridges. You'd look like an idiot if you didn't need or want good roads and bridges. So they "USE" roads and bridges as a way of taxing the ever-loving sh#t out of us.

But they never ever ####ing fix the god-damned roads and bridges.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I dont think it's the lack of tax money that's the problem. We have a spending problem.
My old high school wants to build a 10 million dollar Fieldhouse "for education"...
Tax money of course.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm not confused by this.

We have politicians paid to do things against our best interest and a populace apothetic to that fact.

50% of people vote on a good day for high profile elections. God only knows how many of them keep up with current events (not spoon fed from mainstream entertainment media).

a reply to: Bluntone22

I dont think it's the lack of tax money that's the problem. We have a spending problem.

You won't see me argue that point, I opened with it.

So obviously we have an efficiency/effectiveness problem.

We could cut taxes and increase results if we truly demanded it.... I won't hold my breath though.

The problem with taxing based on consumption is after a point you have what you need and stop consuming. Everyone needs food, but you only need so much food. Everyone likes their toys, but for most people they only need so much.

After a certain point you just stop spending. Which means for those greedy gluttons in Washington to get the taxes they want, they need to tax the basics up the wazoo. Which will mean simply buying food will be so expensive only the rich will be able to afford a loaf of bread.

A consumption based tax rapes the poor and barely affects the rich.

If you are sepetatrd and cannot find your significant other in a store.

Tell, taxation’

If the reply isn’t

‘Theft’

Leave them, you can do better

Why don't you post the long game projections? Low and middle class tax goes up every year under this idiot.

I haven't paid federal income taxes since 2004, for the record. We shouldn't have to.

I do support local and sales tax.

originally posted by: Puppylove
The problem with taxing based on consumption is after a point you have what you need and stop consuming. Everyone needs food, but you only need so much food. Everyone likes their toys, but for most people they only need so much.

After a certain point you just stop spending. Which means for those greedy gluttons in Washington to get the taxes they want, they need to tax the basics up the wazoo. Which will mean simply buying food will be so expensive only the rich will be able to afford a loaf of bread.

A consumption based tax rapes the poor and barely affects the rich.

The fallacy though is that government needs to spend as much as they do.

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Why don't you post the long game projections? Low and middle class tax goes up every year under this idiot.

I haven't paid federal income taxes since 2004, for the record. We shouldn't have to.

I do support local and sales tax.

So no military, no public school aid, no infrastructure, etc., etc., in your world then?

a reply to: xuenchen

It is still far too much tax on people's hard earned income. Too bad the nudniks in Congress passed the 16th Amendment. As far as I am concerned all income taxes were and should be illegal as our founding fathers intended.

a reply to: Metallicus

but then they couldn't centrally plan the economy with a fiat currency that creates paradigms of artificial scarcity to control and prop markets up

a reply to: xuenchen

LOL awesome the gov't has been raping me hard for years but now they are raping me a little less. Yay .

While yes its better than before in some cases , the whole tax system is BS. I expect Bill gates to pay the same percentage of income to tax ratio that I do.

We need to get rid of the 85k page tax code and DEDUCTIONS . Right now the w2 employees which is the majority of the middle class are the ones that get the real burden of payint the majority of the taxes in this country.

The business owners especially the big Corps dont pay Sh1t after deductions. I have been on both sides as a business owner and w2 employee.

Even more crazy as a w2 employee who did a side job as a favor one year , I thought I was going to get double killed in taxes during fillings because jumping a tax bracket. What happened was because I did the side job as an independent contractor that year per my tax guys recommendations ,I actually paid less that year than years before. the reason why is because I got to legally write off a sh1t load of stuff as a self employed contracter.

As a small business owner making far more than as a w2 employee my accountant was able to get me to pay near 0 taxes at times and far less than as a w2 employee.

Again we shouldn't be complacent and celebrating this tax crap, they simply through us a little bone to make it APPEAR like a win. However this is not a win. What we need is redoing the whole tax system to make it fair and sustainable and NO DEDUCTIONS with equal tax to income ratios.

a reply to: interupt42

Holy crap someoneo with common sense

a reply to: interupt42

There are definitely differences between owning and working for a business.
Take social security.
Employees pay half, employers pay the other half.
Self employed plays it all.... If you pay that is.

A business also pays a higher property tax rate than an individual.

A person on and a business are not the same thing nor do I believe they should be taxed the same. Revenue is not the same as income.

Well considering the average rwnj doesn’t really have or own anything. They aren’t aware of how many deductions they lose under this plan. There’s gonna be a lot of weeping on the rwnj front when the weak minded nimrods find out they just got screwed over again. a reply to: xuenchen

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: interupt42

There are definitely differences between owning and working for a business.
Take social security.
Employees pay half, employers pay the other half.
Self employed plays it all.... If you pay that is.

A business also pays a higher property tax rate than an individual.

A person on and a business are not the same thing nor do I believe they should be taxed the same. Revenue is not the same as income.

I'm not necessarily fully sold on a treating a business different than an individual.
If its income it gets taxed the same , but I'm necessarily NOT 100% against a tax bracket either. However, what I'm opposed against is deduction and 85K pages of tax information that changes yearly.

If everyone including business get taxed the same with no deductions the majority of middle class Americans would pay lower taxes and gov;t frivolous spending will come down.

If BIG business and .0001% have to pay the same percentage based on income with no deductions you can bet they will use their lobbying power to stop frivolous spending and keep the tax rate as low as possible.

Right now the BIG business and .0001% dont really give a crap about taxes because they dont pay them after deductions, creative filing,and overseas hidden income.

Deductions and 85K pages of tax codes changing on yearly basis is like our Justice department, if you can afford the best attorney or accountant you get to walk free.

a reply to: Edumakated

Of course they don't, but they are damn well going to anyway, and the poor can't afford to take up the governments entire bill themselves.

The main reason the stupid concept of Trickle Down economics fails is the Rich don't spend enough of their money purchasing things already, to switch the system over to relying only on purchases would demolish the lower class and make the rich even richer.

a reply to: xuenchen

Yes, it's bad--these rates should cause our nation to be ashamed of itself. Looking at the middle bracket as an example and saying that I make $150K as a single person (which I don't...and I'm married), what in the ever-living hell makes the federal government think that it's entitled to take 1/4th of $65k of my income?

Income is a compensation for time/effort/skills, and nowhere in a capitalist society should a government be entitled to compensation for MY time/effort/skills.

What we need is a government that is reduced in size and scope by about 50% because it has grown far outside of the scope and size that it was ever intended to be, and our taxes could then be reduced proportionately, or even more.

Keep in mind, I'm not against taxes--I know that governments need to have money in order to function, but it does not have to be through taking my compensation for my time/effort/skills.

I find these numbers to be ridiculous...and even at these high numbers, we still have a nation consistently running on an embarrassing deficit each year, and our debt continues to grow at saddening rates and amounts.

No, this is not great, but I will tell you that as long as we can keep reducing the numbers, that's a decent path to be on. But the sixteenth amendment is an affront to the spirit of the United States.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Edumakated

Of course they don't, but they are damn well going to anyway, and the poor can't afford to take up the governments entire bill themselves.

The main reason the stupid concept of Trickle Down economics fails is the Rich don't spend enough of their money purchasing things already, to switch the system over to relying only on purchases would demolish the lower class and make the rich even richer.

The rich don't spend money purchasing things? Are you high? Blind? Both?

Who do you think buys all the luxury real estate? Cars? Clothing? Vacations? Air Travel? Construction? You don't see how their spending trickles down by creating jobs in those various industries?

We need lower taxes and less federal spending. I'd guess 75% of federal spending should be done at the individual state level. If an individual state wants to tax it's residents last penny, then by all means they should.