Ownership Myth

And The Two-Income Syndrome

Published on September 14, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics

The current median income for a family of four is about $55,000 or approximately three times that of the poverty line at $19,000 for a family of four. The problem with these statistics when trying to arrive at a “living wage” that often is juxtaposed to the horrific rate of $5.15 an hour or $10,500, which if adjusted for inflation should be at $7.50 or $15,000, is in the difficulty of determining how much of the median and the poverty line owe to two salaries. If those at the four-family poverty line consists of two-incomes at the minimal wage the income would place the family at above the line by $2,000 or a total income of $21,000. This example, however, does not consider the costs of child care, whether governmentally assisted or out of pocket. Nor does it take into account the erosion of parental quality under such duress. For the median $55,000 may constitute some cushion for child care but leaving little room for building wealth or “ownership.” Moreover, the payroll tax, respectively, $1400 and $3500, substantially reduces the subsistence level of both groups. As for the income tax, chances are the minimal level will not be taxed at all, and those frozen on the median will be helped somewhat by having dependents; in spite of this, the move to “ownership” is out of the question.

If, however, the minimum wage rose the necessary 8.7%, it would also affect the median by perhaps an additional 5% so that the low level increased some $1800 and the median some $2700 and from there adjusted for inflation annually, some progress would be made on the road to ownership, but more importantly would increase the rolls of the middle class. This, of course, does not address the shame of the two-income family where it directly affects the degradation of raising children. Only those above the median can find the right child care through comfortably retired, or one-income grandparents or professional nanas. For the rest, most leave to chance the well-being of their children.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments (Page 8)

106

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 19, 2004

If you read the tax codes there is a set dollar amount that shows at what level you do not have to pay income taxes period. I think 8K is in the ballpark but it may be much lower than that.

the amount you're referring to is the standard deduction, I believe. It's not the "limit" to which you pay no taxes. If you are over 25 and unmarried, for instance, you qualify for the earned income credit if you make below $11,490 (source: www.irs.gov)

107

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 19, 2004

As a simple matter of fact nobody gets everything back.

actually, not true. That's the chief reason for earned income credit (which is over and above your refund).

108

Texas Wahine

on Sep 19, 2004

actually, not true. That's the chief reason for earned income credit (which is over and above your refund).

Ouch. My brain!

Actually, I was worried about our taxes this year since my husband is deployed. During deployment we don't pay federal income tax. We only save a minimal amount each month, and I was worried that our income would be so low (we would only be reporting like 2 or 3 months worth of income for this year since that's how long he was home) that we wouldn't be able to get credits or anything. I worked through the 1040 and we're getting almost as much back . . . the only difference is since we paid less taxes in, we get less taxes back. Our tax credits are just the same.

109

drmiler

on Sep 19, 2004

Once again you are talking about your refund. Not the level of taxes paid. As a simple matter of fact nobody gets everything back. You don't get what you pay in social security, medicaid, etc. back until you ar of elegible age to collect those benefits.

Actually you either didn't "read" my post or I didn't explain it right. I'm on "disability" (that's Social Security Disability) And the man is correct. You can't count social security OR medicaid as part of income taxes!

110

stevendedalus

on Sep 24, 2004

Wow, it seems there's a great need for a blog on the tax system!!

111

Draginol

on Sep 24, 2004

Even economists for Morgan Stanley and many other prominent "anything-but-liberal" financial analysts have said over and over again that the tax cuts enacted by Bush move a disproportionate share of the tax burden onto the lower middle class and low income families of America.

In order to pay no taxes you have to make less than 8K (maybe less) a year.

Feel free to back up your claims with..I don't know....EVIDENCE.

5% of the population pays 54% of the federal taxes.

http://draginol.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=542

Frankly, I think EVERY ADULT shoudl have to pay some taxes. I would love to see a "budget" tax that required every adult to pay some tiny % of the federal budget that would work out to roughly $100 per year even if they had no "income". Then maybe people would care more about how wasteful the government is.

But I always find it extremely offensive when someoen tries to argue that the rich aren't paying their share. Heck, the top 1% are paying 34% of the taxes. That's not enough? Sure, it WAS 37% before the tax break.

BTW, the bottom 50% of the population pays less than 4% of the total taxes. Last time I checked, they were using the same highways, schools, and defended by the same military as we are.

112

Draginol

on Sep 24, 2004

That tax system isn't that complicated.

For liberals reading this let me dumb it down for you: If you have $1000 per year deducated from your paychecks during the year and then get a refund of $1000 then you effectively didn't pay taxes (unless you were planning to put that $1000 into a savings account at which point you would have made about $8 in interest).

By contrast, when I pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes, I not only don't get that refunded but I then have to pay more. That money lost is money that I could have used to hire more people, invest in venture capital, save towards my children's college, or put back into the economy via purchases.

So I get a little annoyed when I see someone trying to argue that "the rich" (And most people who are "rich" are statistically small business owners in terms of raw numbers of families) aren't paying enough.

113

stevendedalus

on Sep 26, 2004

I already responded to this time-honored phrasing of yours in one of your comments.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!