Posts Tagged ‘representative’

How much do YOU pay in taxes??

April 1, 2009

Before you read any further, I would like to ask you to think about your answer.  How much do YOU pay in taxes???

Here is the Wikipedia definition of taxes.

We define taxes as ANY amount of money that we are compelled to pay the Government.  The government/politicians (past and present) use many different words to define what they TAKE from us, the citizens.  These range from taxes to fees, fines, levies, tolls, etc.

Here is a chart that we have compiled that gives a rough estimation for the amount of taxes that people pay per state.  We have done two cases, the first is a person with a $30,000 Adjusted Gross Income, and the second is a person with a $100,000 adjusted Gross Income.  For a more detailed breakdown of our calculations and where we arrived at the rates click here.Tax Rates

To keep this simple we have assumed a Single Tax Filer and we are not going to include the people in this country that, according to the press, do not pay any(?) taxes. 

This is where we would like to start the discussion. 

As you can see our basic calculations show that someone making $30,000 can expect to pay a minimum 26.86% in Wyoming, up to a maximum (when we say maximum, we mean in our calculations, this does not include PASS THROUGH taxes) 46.34% in New Jersey.  That means that for every $1 that you earn in Wyoming you will pay 27 cents to the government.  Another way of looking at this number, you have to work until the middle of March before you earn any money for yourself.  In New Jersey, for every $1 that you earn you will pay 46 cents.  You have to work into June before you earn any money for yourself.

These calculations are CONSERVATIVE, meaning that we feel any errors that we have made, actually produce a lower tax rate than reality.  We have assumed, for instance, that this tax payer never buys alcohol or cigarettes.  The taxes on these products is ASTRONOMICAL.  Also, we have not included in our calculations the matching amounts (federal tax and medicare) that an employer pays, on the workers behalf.  This amounts to another 7.65% of the filer’s earnings.  Just add it to the above numbers.  These taxes are paid by the employer, so they are a part of doing business and are included in the final price of products.  Ultimately this tax is paid by the final consumer.  Just because we have not included it in our calculation, does NOT mean that this filer does not pay it.  Another tax that is not included is any telecommunications taxes or fees.  If you have a telephone, you pay something.  If you use the internet, you pay something.

How much of what you pay for any product, can be attributed to a tax?  Did the company, that you purchased the product from, have any shipping?  They paid tax on any fuel used in transportation, and have included that amount in the final purchase price you paid.  I guarantee it.  If they do not include it, they are operating at a loss and will not be in business long.  This is basic and not the only example of taxes that are PASSED THROUGH to the final consumer.

How much do you think you should pay in Taxes?

Do you feel that it should take 60,000 pages, of Tax Code, to compel people to pay these taxes?

Write your Representatives and Senators, both local and federal.  This is the only way we can change the status quo.

Rep. Frank Pushes For Prosecutions Over Meltdown

March 26, 2009

First read this article that has been posted at CNBC.

In an interview with CNBC, Representative Barney Frank says he wants to push for prosecution of the people who caused the country’s financial meltdown.

The Massachusetts Democrat says he has no specific targets in mind, but says the most significant thing lawmakers can do is make past bad practices illegal.

Frank also said that he was glad some U.S. banks had been returning government TARP money and said that was a sign that the banks were feeling more stabilized.

Earlier in the day, Frank, who is chairman of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee, told reporters that he plans to move legislation this month on mortgage origination, predatory lending and credit cards. Vowing to turn his focus from stabilizing the financial system to reshaping it, Frank said he will hold hearings to examine creating “a strongly empowered systemic risk regulator.”

Hearings are set for March 17, 20, 24 and 26.

Frank has said in the past that he expects the Federal Reserve may be handed the new role of monitoring the financial system for risk.

Some lawmakers are concerned such duties could distract the Fed from its core role as manager of the nation’s monetary policy.

“While we will continue to work with the Obama administration on stabilization, it is now essential that we continue work on our reform agenda and address the need for financial regulatory restructuring,” Frank said in a statement distributed ahead of a news conference.

“Perhaps most importantly, the American public has the right to know what enforcement actions are contemplated against those irresponsible and, in some cases, criminal actions that lead to the current situation,” he said.

At a House financial services subcommittee hearing on Thursday, Wall Street groups agreed there should be one one risk regulator but were split on who should have that role.

The Financial Services Roundtable, which represents the largest financial services firms, advocates giving the Fed the responsibility for looking across the entire financial system and identifying risks.

But the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, said it has not decided whether the Fed should play that role.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, a collection of state regulators, oppose the creation of one super regulator.

And some key lawmakers have reservations giving the Fed more powers, citing potential conflicts with the board’s current responsibilities of setting monetary policy and supervising banks.

“Are any of you troubled with giving the Fed so much power?” asked Alabama Rep Spencer Bachus, the top Republican on the full House Financial Services committee.

Lawmakers at the subcommittee hearing also expressed reservations about rushing ahead with a plan to create a systemic risk regulator.

“We have to get this one right. We can’t just hurry to expeditiously conclude something that appears to be a fix, when it does not accomplish something of a significant nature,” said Pennsylvania Rep Paul Kanjorski, the Democratic chairman of the House subcommittee on capital markets and insurance.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29532023

I agree wholeheartedly with this article and Rep. Frank, and since Rep. Frank does NOT(?) know where to start, let me make a suggestion. 

I believe that we should start with the criminally negligent behavior and obvious conflicts of interest that are associated with Rep. Frank.

 The following are a few links to details of the specifics.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx

and from U.S. News and World Report:

These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/9/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle.html

Democrat Barney Frank, then ranking member and now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said, “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/10/06/democrats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac.html

From the Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/

And from Fox News:

Detailing the fact that Frank was dating/living with an Executive of Fannie Mae.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432501,00.html

And the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

And the Tax Foundation:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23617.html

And Barney Frank was one of the Top 30 politicians receiving campaign contributions from Fannie Mae

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

Along with Christopher Dodd and John Kerry and (although he only voted present, so maybe this does not count) Barack Obama.

Lets start with Representative Barney Frank in front of a Congressional Inquiry and Independent Prosecuter and we will go from there.

And for those that need more information from the beginning of the problem, here is an article from the New York Times, dated 1999 (Thank you President Clinton), written by Steven Holmes.

“But the government-subsidized corporation (Fannie Mae) may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.” (emphasis added)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink