But income tax rates were lowered at every income level. The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.
Here's how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:
The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.
With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.
The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.
I don't get why we (and by "we", I mean John and I) are required to subsidize heteros need to propogate the species. I get why we pay a higher percentage of our income to build weapons and such, strictly compared to people who make less money than we do.. but I don't understand the forced inequity of being childless.
More appropriately, it's not a gay thing at all. It's the same for any childless Americans.
It is beyond ridiculous that the family of 4 making 50 grand are not only exempt from federal income taxes, but actually get a check from the fed. That is definately a "redistribution of wealth". No question about that one.
I can understand low income Americans have a much lower marginal rate than we have, but I don't get them having to pay nothing at all - and getting money for free is completely insane. Even if some low income person pays only 50 bucks to the fed, it seems reasonabile to me that all Americans contribute to sustaining the federal government.
Heck, if 50 bucks is unreasonable for a low income worker, let them volunteer to spend an afternoon of community service to earn a voucher exempting them from the tax..
... but to give people money simply because they have kids? The fuck?
We pay in federal tax more than what most people gross in a year. Then to come back at us and force us to subsidize public schools when we have no kids in the schools is completely irrational. You breed, you pay for the little shit heads... not me.
Maybe me and John should go all Ruby Ridge and shit.. eh?
4 comments:
...They didn't receive money for free. Unless they are self employed, they paid income tax through the whole year and now get $27 back.
Yes, they did receive money for free. Read it again.
The received back everything they paid in federal taxes during the year, plus an additional $31... asuming they are W2.
They did not pay any taxes and recieved $31 from the IRS if they are 1099.
The article isn't super clear, but did they receive a check for 2800 or for 31 dollars? Because it just says they had credits of 2800. They still paid into the system throughout the entire year, so to say they made a profit off of income tax wouldn't be correct.
Basically, the article never address what # is in box 2 of their W-2.
It's very clear. It's the point of the entire article. It's simple math and they do "show their work".
It doesn't even matter whether or not they are W2 or 1099, that's why the article doesn't even say anything about their federal with-holding because it's irrelevant.
You do know how W2's work, right? You do know that what somebody pays to the fed in with-holding is based on how many dependents they claim, right? Even if they claimed 4 dependents, the with-holding doesn't match up to what the tax bill is. You don't even know what the tax bill is going to be until you do your taxes.
If you over pay, you get a refund. If you under pay, you write a check.
If your credits exceed your tax liability (after deductions) you are due the balance from the fed. In the example, it's $31... plus whatever they have paid to the fed via with-holding, if anything. In the example, the net tax liability is $-31. My tax liability is something like $+(a lot).
It's not even algebra. It's addition and subtraction, and all the numbers are provided.
You ask an irrelevant question, if it's 2800 or 31. It's amazing you don't know why that's irrelevant.
Post a Comment