<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tax or No Tax?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.taxgirl.com/tax-or-no-tax/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.taxgirl.com/tax-or-no-tax/</link>
	<description>Paying taxes is painful... but reading about them shouldn&#039;t be.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:02:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: RAY</title>
		<link>http://www.taxgirl.com/tax-or-no-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-12879</link>
		<dc:creator>RAY</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:18:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxgirl.com/?p=4129#comment-12879</guid>
		<description>Taxgirl.You may find it interesting to delve into the Gov mandated cost of the W-comp premium which can reach in excess of 30% on top of wages.That cost,similar to FICA and other Fed and State mandated expenses,is paid VIA biz but paid FOR by THE CONSUMER to the ultimate disadvantage of domestic biz because these costs are passed on THRU biz to the consumer to the advantage of China. Your thoughts? You can reply via my email if you prefer. 
Later. RAY</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Taxgirl.You may find it interesting to delve into the Gov mandated cost of the W-comp premium which can reach in excess of 30% on top of wages.That cost,similar to FICA and other Fed and State mandated expenses,is paid VIA biz but paid FOR by THE CONSUMER to the ultimate disadvantage of domestic biz because these costs are passed on THRU biz to the consumer to the advantage of China. Your thoughts? You can reply via my email if you prefer.<br />
Later. RAY</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Staying Within Your Circle of Competence &#124; The Personal Finance Playbook</title>
		<link>http://www.taxgirl.com/tax-or-no-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-12370</link>
		<dc:creator>Staying Within Your Circle of Competence &#124; The Personal Finance Playbook</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:03:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxgirl.com/?p=4129#comment-12370</guid>
		<description>[...] For me, I think it&#8217;s the right choice.  I think it&#8217;s time.  Couple that with a diminishing amount of time for me and perhaps even less for my wife &#8211; I feel good about handing over the reigns.  Maybe an accountant can help me live in the better half of things. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] For me, I think it&#8217;s the right choice.  I think it&#8217;s time.  Couple that with a diminishing amount of time for me and perhaps even less for my wife &#8211; I feel good about handing over the reigns.  Maybe an accountant can help me live in the better half of things. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Oxnate</title>
		<link>http://www.taxgirl.com/tax-or-no-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-12323</link>
		<dc:creator>Oxnate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:35:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxgirl.com/?p=4129#comment-12323</guid>
		<description>Sadly, Jeff has a point.  (though an angry one)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sadly, Jeff has a point.  (though an angry one)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roth &#38; Company, P.C.</title>
		<link>http://www.taxgirl.com/tax-or-no-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-12322</link>
		<dc:creator>Roth &#38; Company, P.C.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:08:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxgirl.com/?p=4129#comment-12322</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Let&#039;s make you spend more on me...&lt;/strong&gt;

The TaxProf notes that the Tax Policy Center says 47% of households will pay no income tax this year. He......</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Let&#8217;s make you spend more on me&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>The TaxProf notes that the Tax Policy Center says 47% of households will pay no income tax this year. He&#8230;&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Day</title>
		<link>http://www.taxgirl.com/tax-or-no-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-12320</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Day</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:51:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxgirl.com/?p=4129#comment-12320</guid>
		<description>To say that the &quot;working poor&quot; pay social security taxes is  a misleading statement.  If a single parent with just one child has an income (as an employee) of $10,000 there is aproximately $750 withheld for social security taxes.  However the parent receives aproximately $3000 in earned income credit.  So was it the parent that paid the social security taxes or those that pay the income taxes that allow the government socialists to redistribute?

Effective 2009 parents can get earned income credit on three children instead of two.  The child tax credit is refundable with just $3500 income.
Therefore a person earns about $10,000 will get a refund on tax return almost as much as they made &quot;working&quot; all year.  And someone actually believes that person paid the $750 worth of social security taxes? And someone actually believs that person paid the sales taxes through out the year?

We have had terrible corruption for many years over the democrats socialist earned income credit. We have had a situation encouraging parents to not be married for many years, as a result of the same programs.  Now for the year 2009 with the new program on 3 children, the corruption will again go up exponentially.

Jeff Day</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To say that the &#8220;working poor&#8221; pay social security taxes is  a misleading statement.  If a single parent with just one child has an income (as an employee) of $10,000 there is aproximately $750 withheld for social security taxes.  However the parent receives aproximately $3000 in earned income credit.  So was it the parent that paid the social security taxes or those that pay the income taxes that allow the government socialists to redistribute?</p>
<p>Effective 2009 parents can get earned income credit on three children instead of two.  The child tax credit is refundable with just $3500 income.<br />
Therefore a person earns about $10,000 will get a refund on tax return almost as much as they made &#8220;working&#8221; all year.  And someone actually believes that person paid the $750 worth of social security taxes? And someone actually believs that person paid the sales taxes through out the year?</p>
<p>We have had terrible corruption for many years over the democrats socialist earned income credit. We have had a situation encouraging parents to not be married for many years, as a result of the same programs.  Now for the year 2009 with the new program on 3 children, the corruption will again go up exponentially.</p>
<p>Jeff Day</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mary O'Keeffe</title>
		<link>http://www.taxgirl.com/tax-or-no-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-12318</link>
		<dc:creator>Mary O'Keeffe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 02:43:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxgirl.com/?p=4129#comment-12318</guid>
		<description>J G, I&#039;m not sure what you mean by poor.  

If you mean that your income is below the federal poverty line, then your federal income tax burden should be less than or equal to zero.   

Last year, the federal poverty line was $10,400/year for a one person household, and it went up by $3,600 for each additional household member, so it would be $21,200 for a family of 4.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/POVERTY/figures-fed-reg.shtml

The exact calculation for a household will depend on marital status, age of children, etc. but it&#039;s really hard to see how anyone officially below the poverty level could have a large income tax bill.

That said, the poverty level is a highly flawed criterion in many ways.  For example, it doesn&#039;t take into account the cost of living in different areas.  It&#039;s much harder to raise a family of four on $21,200 in NYC than in rural Mississippi, for example.  The poverty level also doesn&#039;t take into account whether or not a person has high medical costs, health insurance status, and other important factors.

If you meet the criteria for VITA assistance (simple tax circumstances and income under $42,000 in 2008), I would strongly encourage you to bring your old tax returns to a VITA site and ask them to check them over to see if there are any tax breaks to which you are entitled.
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=107626,00.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>J G, I&#8217;m not sure what you mean by poor.  </p>
<p>If you mean that your income is below the federal poverty line, then your federal income tax burden should be less than or equal to zero.   </p>
<p>Last year, the federal poverty line was $10,400/year for a one person household, and it went up by $3,600 for each additional household member, so it would be $21,200 for a family of 4.<br />
<a href="http://aspe.hhs.gov/POVERTY/figures-fed-reg.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://aspe.hhs.gov/POVERTY/figures-fed-reg.shtml</a></p>
<p>The exact calculation for a household will depend on marital status, age of children, etc. but it&#8217;s really hard to see how anyone officially below the poverty level could have a large income tax bill.</p>
<p>That said, the poverty level is a highly flawed criterion in many ways.  For example, it doesn&#8217;t take into account the cost of living in different areas.  It&#8217;s much harder to raise a family of four on $21,200 in NYC than in rural Mississippi, for example.  The poverty level also doesn&#8217;t take into account whether or not a person has high medical costs, health insurance status, and other important factors.</p>
<p>If you meet the criteria for VITA assistance (simple tax circumstances and income under $42,000 in 2008), I would strongly encourage you to bring your old tax returns to a VITA site and ask them to check them over to see if there are any tax breaks to which you are entitled.<br />
<a href="http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=107626,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=107626,00.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: J G</title>
		<link>http://www.taxgirl.com/tax-or-no-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-12315</link>
		<dc:creator>J G</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:50:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxgirl.com/?p=4129#comment-12315</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m working, poor and paying a lot of income taxes. Where did I go wrong?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m working, poor and paying a lot of income taxes. Where did I go wrong?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mary O'Keeffe</title>
		<link>http://www.taxgirl.com/tax-or-no-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-12313</link>
		<dc:creator>Mary O'Keeffe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:25:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxgirl.com/?p=4129#comment-12313</guid>
		<description>Great job of doing a balanced treatment on this subject, Kelly.

And I agree that Joe&#039;s point is an important one to bear in mind.  It is true that payroll taxes hit low-income folks harder, but the benefit formula is also more progressive as well.

On the other hand, there are quite a few low-income folks who sadly don&#039;t live long enough to collect much or any Social Security benefits (or Medicare), because life expectancy and income are highly correlated.

This is especially true for the subset of low income Americans who happen to be smokers, who have also paid a great deal in tobacco taxes.   (Economists believe that cigarette smokers pay more in taxes than the costs they impose on society, in large part because they die too young to collect much Social Security and Medicare.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great job of doing a balanced treatment on this subject, Kelly.</p>
<p>And I agree that Joe&#8217;s point is an important one to bear in mind.  It is true that payroll taxes hit low-income folks harder, but the benefit formula is also more progressive as well.</p>
<p>On the other hand, there are quite a few low-income folks who sadly don&#8217;t live long enough to collect much or any Social Security benefits (or Medicare), because life expectancy and income are highly correlated.</p>
<p>This is especially true for the subset of low income Americans who happen to be smokers, who have also paid a great deal in tobacco taxes.   (Economists believe that cigarette smokers pay more in taxes than the costs they impose on society, in large part because they die too young to collect much Social Security and Medicare.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kelly</title>
		<link>http://www.taxgirl.com/tax-or-no-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-12310</link>
		<dc:creator>Kelly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:01:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxgirl.com/?p=4129#comment-12310</guid>
		<description>Joe, 
Thanks for the link.  After the AMT, I think SS is the most screwed up of all of the federal &quot;taxes&quot; (I know some folks argue it&#039;s not really a tax - blah, blah, blah).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Joe,<br />
Thanks for the link.  After the AMT, I think SS is the most screwed up of all of the federal &#8220;taxes&#8221; (I know some folks argue it&#8217;s not really a tax &#8211; blah, blah, blah).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JoeTaxpayer</title>
		<link>http://www.taxgirl.com/tax-or-no-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-12309</link>
		<dc:creator>JoeTaxpayer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:59:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxgirl.com/?p=4129#comment-12309</guid>
		<description>Regarding social security (payroll tax), let&#039;s not miss the fact that benefits, measured as a percent of earnings, drop with higher income. At $75,000/yr, I&#039;d pay twice the tax as a $37,500 earner but not twice the benefit. 
I wrote last year about this.
http://www.joetaxpayer.com/social-security-benefits-ii/
At earnings of $30K, SS replaces 48% at retirement.
But at $60K, SS replaces just 38%, so this wage earner needs to save more to get the same replacement rate of income at retirement. 
Joe</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding social security (payroll tax), let&#8217;s not miss the fact that benefits, measured as a percent of earnings, drop with higher income. At $75,000/yr, I&#8217;d pay twice the tax as a $37,500 earner but not twice the benefit.<br />
I wrote last year about this.<br />
<a href="http://www.joetaxpayer.com/social-security-benefits-ii/" rel="nofollow">http://www.joetaxpayer.com/social-security-benefits-ii/</a><br />
At earnings of $30K, SS replaces 48% at retirement.<br />
But at $60K, SS replaces just 38%, so this wage earner needs to save more to get the same replacement rate of income at retirement.<br />
Joe</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

