Highlights of 'fiscal cliff' bill and how it will affect you
»Play Video
Here are highlights of a bill Congress passed Tuesday aimed at averting wide tax increases and budget cuts scheduled to take effect with the new year.
The measure would raise taxes by about $600 billion over 10 years compared with tax policies that were due to expire at midnight Monday. It would also delay for two months across-the-board cuts to the budgets of the Pentagon and numerous domestic agencies.
The House and Senate passed the bill Tuesday and sent it to President Barack Obama for his signature.
Highlights include:
- Income tax rates: Extends decade-old tax cuts on incomes up to $400,000 for individuals, $450,000 for couples. Earnings above those amounts would be taxed at a rate of 39.6 percent, up from the current 35 percent. Extends Clinton-era caps on itemized deductions and the phase-out of the personal exemption for individuals making more than $250,000 and couples earning more than $300,000.
- Estate tax: Estates would be taxed at a top rate of 40 percent, with the first $5 million in value exempted for individual estates and $10 million for family estates. In 2012, such estates were subject to a top rate of 35 percent.
- Capital gains, dividends: Taxes on capital gains and dividend income exceeding $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for families would increase from 15 percent to 20 percent.
- Alternative minimum tax: Permanently addresses the alternative minimum tax and indexes it for inflation to prevent nearly 30 million middle- and upper-middle-income taxpayers from being hit with higher tax bills averaging almost $3,000. The tax was originally designed to ensure that the wealthy did not avoid owing taxes by using loopholes.
- Other tax changes: Extends for five years Obama-sought expansions of the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit, and an up-to-$2,500 tax credit for college tuition. Also extends for one year accelerated "bonus" depreciation of business investments in new property and equipment, a tax credit for research and development costs and a tax credit for renewable energy such as wind-generated electricity.
- Unemployment benefits: Extends jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed for one year.
- Cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors: Blocks a 27 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors for one year. The cut is the product of an obsolete 1997 budget formula.
- Social Security payroll tax cut: Allows a 2-percentage-point cut in the payroll tax first enacted two years ago to lapse, which restores the payroll tax to 6.2 percent.
- Across-the-board cuts: Delays for two months $109 billion worth of across-the-board spending cuts set to start striking the Pentagon and domestic agencies this week. Cost of $24 billion is divided between spending cuts and new revenues from rule changes on converting traditional individual retirement accounts into Roth IRAs.
How tax increases will affect households
The tax package passed by Congress will prevent one set of tax increases from hitting the vast majority of Americans, but it won't stop them all. A temporary Social Security payroll tax reduction is expiring, hitting nearly every wage earner, and income taxes on the wealthy are going up too.
How the tax increases will affect households at different income levels*:
Annual income: $20,000 to $30,000
Average tax increase: $297
Annual income: $30,000 to $40,000
Average tax increase: $445
Annual income: $40,000 to $50,000
Average tax increase: $579
Annual income: $50,000 to $75,000
Average tax increase: $822
Annual income: $75,000 to $100,000
Average tax increase: $1,206
Annual income: $100,000 to $200,000
Average tax increase: $1,784
Annual income: $200,000 to $500,000
Average tax increase: $2,711
Annual income: $500,000 to $1 million
Average tax increase: $14,812
Annual income: More than $1 million
Average tax increase: $170,341
*Source: Tax Policy Center
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.
Food for thought:
 Warren Buffett is dumping shares at an alarming rate.Â
Â
Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel.
Â
John Paulson, is clearing out of U.S. stocks
Â
If billionaires like these are pulling out there stocks, then who else are dumping there stocks?
So what do these people know that we do not?
@lee986321 "Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel." In September, after holding it less than a year. They've bought more stocks since then. There is a serious flaw with your source.
How can this be that everybody's taxes are going up? Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class. What happened? I know. He should never have been re-elected.
 @Rob C 503 It is to fund there Rum Adiction
$331 million to railroad operators, and $222 million for Puerto Rican.
 @Rob C 503 A 3.8% tax your medical benefits to help pay for OmamaCare that passed in 2010, the 2% hike in Social Security tax and 'stuff' that we have no control over. No mainstream medium in the U.S. will actually give one a true breakdown of how bad it is, and how bad it will get. Omama has plans to tax all of us at 59.1% while Russia laughs at us for re-electing 'The King...'
Oh, and he's on his way back to Hawaii.
@Rob C 503
Well, Obama does know how to redistribute wealth......he spent more than SEVEN million in December alone..........just on his families VACATIONS!? They are in Hawaii while thousands of famiies are in old cars,  FEMA tents or sleeping in cardboard, freezing their asses off trying to make it through to another day.
Â
Â
After all of this BS, other than Obama looking like the hero of the hour to his voting block, solely for once again getting back at the evil rich, and showing them who's boss, Obama has done NOTHING to help our situation. This will not lower the price of gas, this will not bring another customer into my business, (it will in fact deter them from spending money) this will not make it easier to borrow money, this will not improve the unemployment rate, what this will do is cause business to tighten up that much more. For the country's sake, I'd like 5% unemployment. But I think Obama wants 9% to be the norm. What's wrong with that guy?
 @last boyscout Nothing will lower the cost of gas (supply and demand, with big oil throttling the supply). Easy to borrow money is how we got into the financial meltdown, so I'm happy if you have to prove you can repay before you borrow (although I have to admit that the last time I borrowed any money, Ford was president). As for unemployment, nothing proposed by the conservative side was analyzed by the CBO to reduce unemployment (the opposite in fact). Unemployment will only be reduced by time and business innovation (how the economy really grows, as small businesses find niches that are unserviced).
Â
As for you customers, I agree they'll spend less. But I though a tax holiday on an entitlement program with issues already was the height of stupidity, just as I thought the Bush tax cuts without any spending curbs was an amazing feat of brainlessness by the other side.
Â
I hope the new year finds you with new services and products to offer that no one else in you industry has or has thought of. You and I are like every other business man: look at the rules, roll up you sleeves and go to work. Best wishes.
Â
As a note, the tax change will cost me over $250,000. Since I planed for such an eventuality, not a big deal as far as I'm concerned. The clown on Lars' show that was complaining that the increase was going to break him was actually funny: If you make $500,000, and a $4500 tax increase will break you, you have way more and bigger problems then taxes.
 @last boyscout He is 'The King!!' Don't ya' just love that smirk? Don't ya' love it, don't ya' love it, don't ya just love it...
It took some searching but it looks like grannies and gramps are being hit hard...what did I miss when I kept hearing taxes on those making etc., etc."Â Keep kissing the blarney-stone libbies...Social Security withholding goes back up to 6.2% from 4.2%...and if you make more than the $106k amount, that cap has also gone up by about $3600. also, Medicare goes up by 0.9%, and that is on all wages, not capped like social security is...
@KHEB I know many a conservative who bemoaned the payroll tax cut when Obama got it passed. They cried about how ineffective it would be for improving the economy, and used it as one more way to blast Obama. Now that the tax cut has expired it seems the people who miss it the most are the ones who liked it the least.
 @KHEB Hey KHEB. Could have saved yourself some googling - the SS withholding is mentioned in the article above. Also, unless grannie and gramps are still working and earning wages, they're not paying this. Same for the Medicare tax - unless G & G are working and making more than $250,000, they're not paying it: http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Questions-and-Answers-for-the-Additional-Medicare-Tax
Â
Also, kissing the Blarney Stone gives one the gift of eloquence.
Man how did we (the US) make it during the sixties, seventies when tax rates for the wealthiest among us was at 70% AND corporations actually paid taxes !
@sargerator   """""Man how did we (the US) make it during the sixties, seventies when tax rates for the wealthiest among us was at 70% AND corporations actually paid taxes !"""""""
With loopholes so large you could drive a truck thru them.  BTW, most corporations pay thru the nose in taxes. its just few well publizied examples like GE that don't. For example if you ever took the time to read a financial statement from Exxon you would see they paid BILLIONS in taxes.... yes thats with a B and plural.
 @sargerator You should study tax history a little more. The federal government's income tax revenues, as a % of GDP, have historically averaged between 14% and 20ish% of GDP, regardless of tax rate. The running average is somewhere around 16%/17%. This is why Steve Forbes proposed a 17% flat tax. Having a flat tax (either income or consumption) removes uncertainty and also eliminates the need for unproductive hours and hours or gobs of money spent on tax compliance. It's really simple. Earn $50,000, pay $8,500. Earn $100,000, pay $17,000. Total time required to calculate tax burden = 1 second. Doing today's tax paperwork for individuals is a few hours to a dozen hours or more. It's even worse for corporations. Now, imagine all of that work re-purposed into productivity, like building a product or delivering a service.
@Unknown You do know what gdp is ? What does that have to do with who (thats the operative word here) WHO is paying the majority of the "percent of gdp" ! As I stated above corporations have been paying less and less into the coffers ! Who bares the burden ? You and I ! That is just the facts and the second graph CLEARLY shows that. Now maybe you should take some of your own advise !
Â
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/tax-revenue-as-a-fraction-of-gdp/
One good thing that did come out of this is that the Alternative Minimum Tax is permanently indexed to inflation. It only took 33 years, but Congress finally addressed that item that it used to keep Americans hostage each year.
 @Unknown Wow,  you found the one kernel of corn in the proverbial turd.....lol
 @B Smizzle Awww haw haw! :-D
Isn't 2013 the year of the snake, how fittingâ¦.
There goes the old dented can rolling down Pennsylvania Ave? Collect $1 in taxes and spend $41.
At the rate Obama's going, there'll be no one left to pay taxes, soon. We'll all be wards of the state, the liberals idea of a perfect society serving the elite "leaders". What happened to no new taxes on the middle-class? Guess that got lost somewhere in the wee-small-hours of the morningâ¦
That is the Obama way. I reiterate âI can't wait for the cartoon depicting the US public bent over a tree stump with Obama behind them, doing what he does best.â
 @KHEB He Lied.
So much for hiring my first employee. I'll just have to work longer hours to keep my business growing.
Ouch! That $170,000 tax increase is going to hurt!
 @I812 I've already calculated that mine will be going up over $250,000. NO BIG DEAL. Unlike people who are unclear on the concept, I read the rules, plan for reality, make a budget with reserves, then work the plan. Dave Ramsey 101 (although I've been doing it since before Ramsey ever talked about it). That's how most people in that bracket operate.
Â
I don't drive newer cars (18 year old Toyota I "inherited" from my Dad when his eyes got too bad to drive, 11 year old Chevy van, 10 year old Ford my daughter drives). I don't buy a new TV as soon as something new hits the market (I wait till the old one has issues), and pay cash. I buy property at auction and pay cash (My vacation property is on Lake Wenatchee and was bought for $300,000 in 2002, for example.)
Â
Most people who are wealthy are that way because they PLAN.
@ShallowEnder @I812 And your point is?????
This comment has been deleted
Every time I see Gates, he looks like he gets his clothes at goodwill, or sleeps in the or something. But o' Buffett, now there is a guy who knows how to flaunt his $. Not that I blame him, it is, after all, his. Man, I wonder how much he does spend on his shoes? Or his suits?
@iamtroglodite You need to do a little research on Warren Buffett . He lives very frugally... buys his suits off the rack, lives in the same house he has lived in for 40 years, drives himself to work, prefers hamburgers to gourmet meals. Warren Buffett lives like a guy who makes $60,000 a year.Â
@Fed up Fed @iamtroglodite   """"""Kind of weird, really.  I thought they didn't have anything to do with Microsoft anymore"""""
Not weird at all.......How would it look for someone in the family of the single largest shareholder of MS to be sporting Apple products..... It's like somone in the Ford family (as in Henry Ford family) driving a Chevrolet.
Â
"""""Buffett always looks like a million bucks...literally. Man seems to know how to enjoy his fortune."""""
Seriously, are we talking about the same WB that is too cheap to even pay the taxes of his parent company Birkshire Hathaway? Yes the man who  tells others they should  pay more in taxes is behind in his own taxes.
Buffet is quite the miser..... at least by Billionaire standards. Lives in a very modest home (by billionaire standards) that he's owned since 1958, Drives himself in a licoln that is several years old, doesn't own a fleet of luxury cars.
Exactly how does WB "seem" to enjoy his fortune? just wondering.
Â
IMHO, Paul Allen is one who enjoys his billions.
Â
Â
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/kwze6btvQoc/Warren+Buffett+s+Home
Â
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/warren_buffett_hypocrite_E3BsmJmeQVE38q2Woq9yjJ
Â
Â
Â
It's regrettable they again delay the final fall of the American economy with a band-aid approach.
Like anything else, it's more humane for things to go quickly, rather than have us be the frogs
in a slowly boiling pot. The dollar's fate is already sealed.
Â
The last statistic in the article disguises (unintentionally) the real problem with inequality in this country.
Â
Annual income: More than $1 million
Average tax increase: $170,341
Â
This statistic includes everyone from a couple of successful doctors to..... the Koch brothers, Warren Buffet, and the Walmart heirs. The people at the bottom of this group have almost nothing in common economically with the people at towards the top. The average tax increase figure is meaningless.
 @Max Quinn You can raise income tax all you want on people who make over $1 million but that won't catch the majority of the super rich (Buffet, Romney, Obama, Koch brothers, the majority of congress....ect) who make income off of investment, which is charged at 15% but is going up to 20% for the rich, but staying 15% for everyone else (if I am reading it correctly)
 @B Smizzle No argument from me. I'd happily see investment income taxed as regular income (like it used to be).
 @Fed up Fed So true, but I can also agree to disagree! That is what makes our country so great, we can all have our own opinions!
 @Fed up Fed  @Max Quinn Actually, I agree with both of you on this part!  It is fair to tax everyone at the same rate or rates.  I believe those who make their money from capitol gains SHOULD be taxed at the same rate as income taxes.
Â
Personally I believe in the flat tax but until that time, we should ALL pay the same rate and be held to the same standards whatever they may be!
 @Max Quinn The "rich" pay the vast majority of the tax burden. Would you have them pay even more simply because they have more than you? I'd wager (in fact I know it to be true) that most school teachers and professors all own newer cars than I do. So, by the same logic, should they all give me some of their earnings so that I can drive a newer car and be equal to them? Even though they worked harder, studied longer, and tried harder to achieve their success? How are they different from the "rich" that you think aren't paying enough?
 @last boyscout Why do you have to put the word "rich" in quotes when talking about people who are... rich? Especially, when it comes to billionaires.
Â
The top 1% take in 24% of all income, and "In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 35% of all privately held stock, 64.4% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity." The bottom 40% have 0.3% of the wealth.
Â
Source: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Â
Now, you can say that this is all due to one group working harder, studying longer, and trying harder than another group - and there are certainly rich people who fit that description. But, there are also poor people who fit that description. To say that individual work ethic is all that is at play here is to be naive.
Â
Must have been quite survey to determine that most teachers and professors have nicer cars than you do. To answer your question, though: no. They shouldn't give you money so that you can have a nicer car. However, if they are as well off as Mr. Buffett, then they could pay more in taxes so that your kids can go to a nicer school and have an equal opportunity to join their ranks.
 @Fed up FedÂ
Â
1. I notice you STILL didn't answer my question because common sense tells us (and you) you are wrong.
Â
2. Show me where I said all poor people don't work! Never said it! Show me where I said all poor people have multiple kids, that was the scenario I pointed out yet you seem to think that it never happens! Ummmm yeah, go into a Wal-Mart buddy......
Â
3. I realize the reality that the working poor don't make very much money, thus they are poor. However, do you think the working poor should not only NOT pay taxes but actually pull money out of the system? Is that more of a drain on society than someone who makes billions and pays 15%?
Â
4. I don't watch Fox news or any MSM news as it is ALL a bunch of lies but again, I notice you go for the personal attack instead of answering the question. I do read KATU because I like posting on the message board! Also IMO Fox news is the worst of the liars, but that's a discussion for another time!
Â
5. How am I bashing Granny and Timmy? I am asking who is more of a detriment to society, someone who does not pay into the system but takes out of it, or someone who makes gobs of money and pays 15%. I don't care if someone pays no taxes, if they can get their tax liability to zero, more power to them......however, I also do not believe once your liability gets to zero you should then be able to get money back...yet you can't see to wrap your high and mighty intellect around this very real scanerio.
Â
6. I never said anything about people not making money from work. What I did say is that if someone works they should not be able to pull more tax money out than they put in. Simple concept, yet again you brilliant intellect can't seem to understand what I am saying. Maybe if I write it in crayon???
Â
So again which is worse
Â
A. Someone who WORKS but pays no taxes and takes money out of the system due to credits.
B. Someone who does not work, collects a billion in capital gains and pays 15% of that billion into the system.
Â
Simple question, yet you can't seem to answer it! It's okay, we know you know the correct answer....that is why you can't answer.....bwaahahahaha
 @Max Quinn You are right, with the attitudes now days expecting others to pick up the tab for you isn't extreme.....but working to pay your way is! And that is what is wrong with this country!
 @Unknown  @Max Quinn i'm with you on that since i've been paying to educate other people's children for years, but that's the price i'll pay to not have to be around dumb kids.  and i'll bet that the taxes i pay to educate other people's kids is a higher percentage of my income than it is for mr. buffett.
@B Smizzle @Fed up Fed Holy Christmas. A) Pay your own way, or B) don't pay your own way, which is better? That's a thinker... But not boorish or snooty.
Â
 @Fed up FedÂ
" Oh, THAT'S precious! ANSWER MY IDIOTIC FALSE DICHOTOMY OR I DECLARE VICTORY, MAX! Seriously, thank you. I needed that laugh after dealing with the pure idiocy that is @Unknown all day. You're a peach, by comparison"
Â
What did I say that was false? Â Point out specifically what fasle dichotomy did I make. Â Specific and point by point without attacking me and just the FACTS I pointed out.
Â
See that is the problem with someone who can't back up their beliefs.  Once you have be exposed to the fraud that is your belief, instead of saying "hey thanks for setting me straight" you attack the person!  I'm not attacking you, just showing you your logic is misguided.  It's okay thought, I learned about this in psychology....FIGHT, FLIGHT or FREEZE!Â
Â
 @Max Quinn  @B  @last Can't even answer a second simple question. Â
Â
It's okay max, we all know what the correct answer is even though you can't admit it.Â
Â
You know how I know I won the argument? Â You didn't answer the question then reverted to personal insults (jokingly or not).
Â
Happy New Year Max =P
 @Max Quinn  @B  @last Didn't answer
A. Not pay your way
B. Pay your way
Â
Which is more extreme?  You remind me of the guy who filibustered his own bill!
Â
Answer the question Max....wow, I don't live in an "intellectual bubble" yet painted you into a corner you have no way out of.....bwaaahahahahaaaa
 @Max Quinn  @B  @last "Not that you live in an intellectual bubble, though."
1. I told you he would be snooty.......and boorish!
Â
2. It was a joke max.....lighten up!
@B Smizzle @last boyscout I'll go with D - people who oversimplify complex problems in order to score cheap points are the greatest drain on society - you sponge ;)
@B Smizzle @last boyscout As a member of the B set, I'll stand by my original statement, which was not extreme to a rational person.
@B Smizzle @last boyscout First, you're not obliged to read anything I post. I don't care if you do or not. Second, wee bit arrogant to claim to be one in a zillion or so who take responsibility for their lives... Not that you live in an intellectual bubble, though.
 @last boyscout  @Max Quinn "the difference between me and so called 47 % is that I accept full responsibility for my position in life"
Â
That makes two of us last boyscout!
Â
I guess you could call us the .000000000000000000000000001%  We better watch it though, two white guys claiming to be part of club more exclusive than the 1% might get a call from the ACLU or at least a semi boorish lecture from @Max QuinnÂ
@Unknown @peckishpete "I agree with you regarding military expenditures. If we would actually follow the US Constitution, we'd have a military about 1/10th the size (or smaller) of what we have today."
Â
Clinton tried that and the republicons hunted him down on a stupid bj ! I would much rather have a happy prez than a war monger that starts 2 unfunded off budget wars !
 @Max Quinn  @last boyscout "Might be a moral failing on my part or that I'm not given to extremes. That most American citizens should work to have a lifestyle that includes shelter, food, and a chance for our kids to have at least the same"
Â
What is more of an "extreme" idea?
Â
A. Not work and expect the government to pick up the bill for you and your family.
Â
B. Work a job, pay your taxes, pay your bills and take care of yourself with no help from the government.
Â
I will be waiting patiently for a snooty reply   :p
 @Max Quinn  @last boyscout Max, of these 3 list in order of most draining on society
Â
A. A person who is poor, gets government benefits, who has multiple kids, pays nothing in taxes and actually get a tax refund (due to all the credits like EIC) of $3,000 - $4000. Net loss of $3000 - $4000!
Â
B. A person who earns an income of a million a year paying 35% tax. Â Net gain $350,000....lets be nice and use give them generous deductions and say they pay $125,000. Â Net gain of $125,000
Â
C A person who make a million or billions by investing their money who pays 15% capitol gains. Â $1,000,000,000 x .14 (Mitt Romney's rate after deductions) = $140,000,000 net gain
Â
If you are so worried about kids having a nice school and an equal opportunity why aren't you telling person A that leaching off a system, collecting benefits and money, while popping out the majority of the kids that need the "nicer school" to pay something?  Why no outrage there???  Why only the rich?
Â
If you want to talk fair, lets talk flat tax....EVERYONE pays it, and pays the same rate.  You can complain about "regressive tax" all you want, bottom line isn't it fair to hold everyone to the same standard?
@Unknown I know Fed up Fed will get back to you on that "Historical precedent" thing, I just wanted to ask: you know that the Eisenhower administration was not only after your 1913 date, but also after Fed's "1920's" right?
 @Fed up Fed US Constitution Section 1, Article 8 Clause 12
Â
Historical precedent after each major war established that most of the raised armies were demobilized. Post-WW2 is the exception.Also, the US Federal government deported illegal immigrants en masse during the Eisenhower administration.
 @peckishpete You're incorrect. Sales (consumption) taxes are good taxes because they are voluntary.Â
I agree with you regarding military expenditures. If we would actually follow the US Constitution, we'd have a military about 1/10th the size (or smaller) of what we have today. We should have demobilized after the Cold War ended (heck, sometimes I think well before) and closed all overseas bases. The armed citizenry is enough to prevent any foreign army invasions of the USA.
Securing the borders is one of the purposes of the US federal government and somehow the government was able to do that prior to 1913 without an income tax.
@Unknown Well I guess I shouldn't be forced to pay for the military that protects the freedoms everyone shouts about or the border patrol that everyone wants to keep those nasty illegals out. If I had a choice in this matter I, along with many others, would choose not to pay taxes to support these endeavors.Â
@Unknown I guess you've never heard of a good tax because its all forced. If not for taxes, we'd all be paying (or not) user fees from everything from fire protection to education. Again I'll ask the question of what to do with the many folks that couldn't afford to send their kids to school or pay for police and fire protection. I guess they are sh---it out of luck.
That was supposed to be..."wait for it"....I dislike very much this comment board format katu !
@iamtroglodite Ah, I went to public school when you had to learn these things for ...what for it...."flag day"...yep, guess I'm just an 'ol fart now hey ?
Â
http://www.google.com/search?q=e+pluribus+unum+and+the+seal+of+the+united+states&hl=en&tbo=u&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GGLR_enUS254&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=gZXkUO2bEsTniwKy6oGwBQ&ved=0CFMQsAQ&biw=1064&bih=730
@sargerator Sorry, I am confused; what does "Out of many, one" ("Out of many, one") got to do with anything?
Ah, peck, mq is for e plurbus unum as far as I read it !
@Unknown @Max Quinn Ya ! that whole "E pluribus unum" thingy (as someone like falin would put it) is blown way out of proportion !
@Unknown By the way, from your link: "some, if not all, of the cost difference might come from cream skimming, not from differences in administration" Always best to read the entire link, especially when coming from a source like about.com.
@Unknown I guess we just have different philosophies. I feel people should be free to be dumb. Not something I choose to do with my money or my kid. However, as libertarian as I am, I see the benefit of paying for items that donât directly benefit me, I certainly donât support all the things done with tax dollars, but I also donât support opting out. Besides, this article is talking about federal taxes and spending, if you think your (and everyone elses) federal taxes are covering the costs, then I have some real bad news for you.
 @JTesla Nah, my parents were great parents whom loved their children. They would have used the money they didn't have to pay in forced property taxes to go towards our education. They also would have prioritized our education over luxuries for themselves. Unlike many parents who prioritize beer, bon bons, cigarettes and cell phones over their kids' education, my parents would have sacrificed to guarantee their children a good education.
FACT: average private school tuition per pupil is less than government school tuition per pupil. (Source: http://economics.about.com/b/2007/10/28/are-private-schools-more-cost-effective-than-public-ones.htm)
@Unknown And if people who didnât have kids opted out of paying for public schools your parents paying for your education would have gotten you only K-3 via forced property taxes. Iâm thinking of opting out of paying for defense spending, I have a .22 so Iâm good.
 @peckishpete My parents paid for my education K-12 via forced property taxes. I paid for my college by working all through college. I currently pay for fire and police services via forced property taxes. Are you telling me that if I wasn't forced by government to pay taxes for these services that a private company wouldn't offer the services?Also, I've never benefited from city cops' service, all I see them do is act as revenue collectors when they sit in their patrol cars along roads and use radar guns on drivers.
 @last boyscout Let the 47% go. That figure has been thoroughly discredited.
Â
Your brother sounds like a great guy. I'm glad he's successful. I might want his federal income tax rate to go up to 39% from 35%, but I don't hate him.
 @Max Quinn I won't join forces with the "hate the rich crowd". The rich keep me employed, my family in a home, and my tank filled. One of my older brothers is very wealthy compared to me, I don't hate or despise him for working harder than I did, for managing his money better, or for working nearly 24/7 while I partied and bought cra p with my earnings. I'll ask him if he's seen a movie or tv series (this was a few years ago) and he'll say "I was working". Which he was. That's why he's wealthy and I'm not. The difference between me and so called 47 % is that I accept full responsibility for my position in life.
 @peckishpete Preaching to the choir, buddy. Unknown might take issue with you, but not me!
@Max Quinn Because it points out that you got part of your education from the good people of Connecticut, not all of whom had children in school either. Without them, your parents would have had to pay for you high school education. And from what you say, your parents must be fairly well off for them to have paid the majority of your education. Not everyone's parent could afford to do this. So what would you have children of these parents do? Not being able to go to school?Â
 @peckishpete Hey, Pete. I'm confused - might be Livefyre - I agree with you completely.
@Unknown @Max Quinn Who paid for you education Max? Who pays for your fire and police protection Max? Who puts money into a large insurance pool so that your health insurance can be cheaper Max! I could go on but all I'm saying unless you live on your own little island and are completely self sufficient, you are part of the social contract where or not you like and you benefit from it.
 @peckishpete  My parents paid for Catholic grade school, the good people of Connecticut paid for public high school, and then my parents kindly paid for Catholic college. Why do you ask?
@Unknown @Max Quinn Who paid for your education Max?
 @Unknown We're you privately educated? Have you ever driven on a road you didn't build? Or a bridge? Been to the library? Eaten food that was safe? Walked the streets at night and noticed the lights? And the police. I could go on. To paraphrase someone, you didn't build all that. You've benefited from it, but you didn't build it.
Â
Maybe not. You may well live on a private island for all I know.
 @Max Quinn I never signed any social contract. What are the terms? What's my return on investment?
Â
Maybe I just expect that people take responsibilities for their actions and don't force me to pay for their mistakes. Oh, what a horror that is, huh?
 @last boyscout Jesus might agree with you, but I don't.
Â
Might be a moral failing on my part or that I'm not given to extremes. That most American citizens should work to have a lifestyle that includes shelter, food, and a chance for our kids to have at least the same can't be compared to the resources of the mega-rich.
Â
And I'm not going all comrade on Mr. Buffett - in fact, I largely agree that his tax bill should be what he's been advocating his tax bill should be.
 @Unknown I take that unlike most men, you are an island.
Â
If you reject the entire notion of a social contract and view what other people might call responsibility as punishment, then we don't have much to talk about.
 @Max Quinn If you insist at looking at everything as a percentage, you, I, and every other American citizen should tear down their homes, and burn their cars, because as a percentage, the rest of the third world people live in dirt huts and shanties, and they do not own a car. Why should we have so much?Â
 @Max Quinn Income is earned, not taken.
Â
Would you expect a high school dropout to have the same income earning potential as someone who completes their MBA? That is why there is income disparity.Â
Why should Mr Buffett pay for someone else's kids? Shouldn't the burden of raising children fall to those who have the children? Why should people who don't have kids have to pay for those who have kids but don't financially prepare for it? Why should childless couples be punished because some people can't control their reckless sexual behavior?