Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 27 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Families pay more in income taxes
Published Saturday, November 7, 2009
Alabama families living at or below the poverty line pay higher income taxes than any other state.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Pike County had an estimate population of 30,381 in 2008.
Of the more than 30,000 residents, 27 percent of them are below the poverty line.
That equates to a little more than 8,000 people.
The median household income for 2008 was estimated to $25,817.
A national study released earlier this week by the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said a family of three earning at the federal poverty level of $17,165 will pay $333 in income taxes to the state, which is the highest in tax rate in the country.
According to Gibson and Carden Accountant Ross Jinright these families probably pay zero federal tax.
“Everybody pays 5 percent state income tax,” Jinright said.
The study said an Alabama family of four earning at the poverty line of $22,017 will pay $483, which is also the highest tax rate in the country.
For many years, Alabama had the lowest threshold for taxing the poor.
Changes enacted for 2007 dropped Alabama to third in the center’s rankings.
But the report showed Alabama is back to No. 1 in some categories and on the verge of being tops in other categories because other states have been reducing their taxes on the working poor.
“In Alabama the tax threshold has gone up. It’s a moving target depending on how big the family is,” Jinright said. “When people get taxed it depends on if they are single, married and how many dependents they have.”
Despite Alabamians having to pay state income tax, many are probably getting a federal refund.
“Actually they are probably getting an income tax credits depending on the age of the children and other credits available,” Jinright said.
“They are probably actually getting refunds.”
The study said the level where a single-parent family of three starts paying Alabama’s income tax is $9,800, the lowest threshold in the country. Montana ranks at close second at $10,000, but the majority of states begin taxing families who make above the poverty line.
A two-parent family of four begins paying income tax at $12,600. Only Montana is lower at $12,200.
Still, the state of Montana adjusts its rate for inflation, while Alabama doesn’t. With that, Alabama will soon move back to No. 1.
But, inflation-adjusted tax liabilities may not always be beneficial.
Poor families of four saw their inflatioin-adjusted liabilities increase by 46 percent in Mississippi, 45 percent in Arkansas and 18 percent in Missouri.
The state is one of 16 states that levies a state income tax on a family of four making below the federal poverty line.
According to the study most states set income tax thresholds high enough to exempt a family of three from taxes where the employed family member works full-time at minimum wage, but seven do require them to pay.
Alabama, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Montana, Ohio and Oregon all impose this tax on these families.
California has the nation’s highest threshold.
There is no income tax on a family of three making under $45, 900 or a family of four making under $48,300.
The levels set by California are more than twice the poverty lines for families those sizes.
Some 14 states not only steer clear of taxing poor families, but also offer tax credits that provide refunds for families with income at the poverty line.
The study’s author, Phil Oliff, said taxing the working poor undermines their efforts to work their way out of poverty.
“It is especially harmful in the current recession, when people are already struggling just to get by,” he said.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by oldhog (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Poorest educational system and yet the highest taxed. Governor Riley is an example of whats wrong with this state. Be A Rich Mans Sucker, Vote Republican. They will proect you from the evil lottery....Congrats to Mississippi, just keep paying off our polititians and we will continue to support your children.
Posted by bamaslick (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Truly Sad!
Posted by Benlin (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
“Everybody pays 5 percent state income tax,” Jinright said.
What is 5% $17,165 maybe close to$800.00 Not $333 that is less than 2% ??????
Posted by White_Lightning1 (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We're #1, We're #1! Gooooo Bama!!
Posted by Observer22 (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The poor ought to pay the most in taxes...they use government more than others. Food stamps, welfare checks, free housing, free public education, free lunch, free day care, WIC vouchers, free medical care at hospitals, free room and board in colleges and prisons, even free burial. When the poor try to help themselves by not having children they cannot afford they may qualify for sympathy.
Posted by elvis2 (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Observer22 , it must be nice to have been born into wealth and never had to worry where your next meal was coming from . You have no relatives nor friends that fall into the poor category ?? Why don't you see if you can't have these people banished to some other country . There is and always will be people who are poor through no fault of their own. There are thousands who hold jobs and work everyday yet they are called the working poor . I really think you need to look around you and truly see the world as it is . Yes there are free loaders who don't work and take advantage of every give away program there is , but don't classify all of the poor as being alike .
Posted by OldSchoolPike3Worker (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I just wish that we wouldn't tax a person's income and instead have a flat sales tax on their spending. Oh geez, did I say that out loud? There I go again being all extreme and everything. I better go before FoX sees me on here and starts citing the U.S Supreme Court to me.
Posted by bamaslick (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just love some of the comments by my neighbors...
Posted by FoX (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 6:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OldSchoolPike3Worker,
Don't worry, I won't post a long comment with lots of information that might be hard for you to understand. I'll just say that I have no kids and I have a good job so I have a lot of taxes taken out of my salary, but I'm not complaining about my taxes going to subsidize low income families. I'd much rather it go to fund domestic social programs for the poor than to fund war. Of course, I'm not a greedy, warmongering Conservative Christian like yourself.
Posted by dsimms8 (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lets see here...some of u folks say that oh rich people or financially sound people should pay all the taxes huh...at least that is what I am gathering here. Lets say donald trump lives and amkes money here in Alabama. and he made 1 million dollars one year (purely hypothetical) and he pays 5% state income tax. That's $50000 in state taxes alone. someone making at the poverty line of $17000 a year pays $850. The families making $17000 also get other credits and such and when they fill out there initial tax forms for work they either claim single and ever how many dependents or married. At the time they determine how they want to be taxed and if they did it right they probably only pay around $500 or so in taxes. Now does that seem fair to all you liberal pukes, honestly. It probably does, which is sad.
Posted by MessengerReader23 (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you're concerned about this sort of thing, there's a non-profit in Montgomery that is working on Alabama's tax and budget unfairness to the poor. They are leading the charge to get the regressive sales tax off of groceries and it might even happen this legislative session if enough people get active about it. I suggest taking a look at arisecitizens.org for more info about Alabama's imbalanced tax system.
Posted by FoX (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
dsimms8.
I suppose you think it is fair for a family making $17000/year to pay as much of their salary to taxes at someone making $1,000,000 when they can barely afford to basic necessities? There is this little thing in economics called 'utility' that measures relational value. This is Economics 101 stuff guy.
In your (purely hypothetical) scenario, the $850 for the family making $17000 is much more important to them than the $50,000 for Trump who just made $1,000,000 simply because there is a threshold at which point a considerable increase in income does not correlate into a considerable increase in quality of life. The utility value of yearly income is not linear.
Bill Gates could lose $40 billion (75% of his net worth) and he would suffer no degradation in his quality of life, but if you take 75% of a family barely able to pay their bills then they'd be devastated.
There are also the social repercussions of increasing the financial burden of the poor. Perhaps you should read up on crime in relation to poverty and large class gaps.
And I still find it ironic that it is the Conservative Christians who come down so harshly on the poor. I haven't read the Bible in a while, but I don't remember Jesus being some wealthy tycoon who resented the poor. I guess I'm just another evil, immoral atheist liberal who doesn't hate poor people.
Posted by OldSchoolPike3Worker (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jesus convinced people to give on their own. Not force them by raising their taxes and making them pay against their own will. But what do I know, I'm not as smart as FoX.
Posted by FoX (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, my bad OldSchoolPike3Worker, it sounded like you were complaining about what you think is an unfair tax structure where the upper class is taxed more heavily than the lower class. Is that not the case? I guess I misunderstood you. Now is seems your complaint is about taxes going to social programs that help the needy. I suppose if the government lowered your taxes you'd donate the difference to charities anyway wouldn't you?
That'd probably work out really well though. Just shut down all government social programs and just let the poor depend on donations. Yeah, there's no way that plan would fail.
You can't have it both ways buddy. You can't be a greedy Christian. Seems pretty obvious which one you are. Be honest, you just don't want any money you make going to taxes that benefits people besides yourself. Isn't that the real reason behind your argument?
"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s".
Posted by OldSchoolPike3Worker (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Do you understand what it means to give from your heart? That can't be forced upon someone by making them pay more taxes just because they can or other people think they should. Taking money from someone against their will and giving it to others that may or may not need it is not condoned in the Bible. Nice try though.
Posted by OldSchoolPike3Worker (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And quit putting words in my mouth. You are making a fool of yourself.
Posted by FoX (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think I have quoted you or claimed you said something you have not. So I am not sure where you are getting that from. Is it because I said you're a Christian? From some of your previous comments it seemed obvious to me that you were, was I wrong?
Secondly, complaining about taxes and social programs that benefit the low income individuals is not helping you look compassionate toward the poor. I think it is still quit clear that you're just a selfish individual.
But, if you are so adamant about the abolishment of what you feel are unfair taxes, then don't pay your taxes. If you think you are truly being oppressed by excessive taxes, then that is what you need to do. Or better yet, just purchase a gun and start a revolution. After all, it worked for the colonists back in the 18th century as you've previous noted. You've got a good chance too, since based upon that comment, you must think military strategy and technology hasn't changed much in 225 years?
Oh, and just out of curiosity, your flat sales tax plan that eliminates income tax, what percentage are we talking about realistically, maybe a 30-40% sale tax? Have you really thought this through? First off, is that tax going to include all purchases? Secondly, you do realize this type of tax is actually more harsh on lower income individuals because they are spending the majority of their income with little going to savings whereas individuals with high income can put money into savings thus avoiding taxes on those earning? Also, how are international transactions going to be monitored and regulated? Then there's the tiny problem with such a tax structure actually discouraging consumerism which would suck for manufacturers and retailers. Currently, subsidizing low income families as we current do actually boosts the economy because low income families usually do not have enough to save, so the bulk of their income goes right back into the economy.
Posted by timeforachange (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 8:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Anyone discouraged with the tax as we have now, should read the Fairtax Law that is already introduced in Congress.This is NOT a flat rate tax. Get the book, The Fairtax Book br Neal Boortz, and read it. I have read the book and it is fair to all levels of income. This Law would bring back the trillions of dollars that is invested over seas. I know there will be comments,but read the book or look up the law on the internet, then make your comment.
Posted by OldSchoolPike3Worker (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 10:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
FoX, I'm just saying that at some point there has to be a limit to the amount that is taken from a person's earnings. The federal government will not stop spending so taxes have to go up at some point in order to pay for this. There are a lot of Americans that don't agree with subsidizing the less fortunate with socialistic government programs. Just take a look at what "The Great Society" created. Generations of Americans that only know how to live on welfare. This is not fair to the them or those that are paying for it. It seems like every time that the federal government comes up with these gigantic programs that are supposed to eliminate poverty, illiteracy, or untreated illnesses, those programs just seem to exacerbate those problems. Why should we believe that health care will be any different?
What is offensive to me is when I disagree with federal spending for health care, my Christianity is called into question and Bible verses are quoted to me from people who would otherwise be in an uproar if those same verses were read to children in a public school. It is people like you FoX, that are trying to "have it both ways" when you quote Thomas Jefferson and give us history lessons on the meaning of the phrase "separation of church and state." The truth is, Jefferson wanted that separation to make it more difficult for tyranny to gain a foothold by distorting religion for the purpose of taking our freedoms. For years I have heard how secular our society is and that our country is not a Christian nation. I have heard the arguments from those that say we should remove the words "under God" from our pledge of allegiance or "In God we trust" from our currency.
And now, after years of being told that we are to separate religion from all things political and social, I am told that supporting the taking of property from unwilling Americans and giving it to people that politicians deem needy is the "Christian" thing to do. I am told that if I don't agree with paying for the medical check ups of other people that I am a hypocrite. I am called greedy for simply wanting to make the decisions in which money that I have rightfully earned is expended. I know what I did to earn my pay. What has the federal government done to justify taking such a large portion? At some point, it will make more financial sense to just stay at home on the couch than to try to earn a living. I know that I have to pay taxes. But when is it going to be enough? The truth is, there is no Biblical basis for the taking of property from one American that has earned it legally and giving it to another that has not. Thomas Jefferson knew this, I know this, and what troubles me FoX, is that you know this as well. This country is not on the path that led it to greatness. We are turning our back on hundreds of years of settled ideology.
Posted by FoX (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 12:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My references to your religion are in no way an attempt to merge religion with government, I am merely pointing out hypocrisy among Conservative Christians. I think helping the poor is the moral thing to do, yet as an atheist, my morality is constantly brought into question by people who claim to be "good Christians". I support providing aid to low income individuals, not because I subscribe to any religion, but on humanitarian grounds. The religious angle was to expose your seemingly contradicting ideology.
Also, we are not in a classroom, and my Bible quote was merely to point out to you, who is a professed Christian, that your Jesus says pay your taxes. It was done jokingly more than anything. Trust me, if you see me quoting from the Bible it is not done to point out hypocrisy or contradictions in Christians/Christianity.
Also, you might want to check, your history. Jefferson was a Deist, not a Christian, and the "separation of church and state" was done to ensure religious freedom. Government should show no preference to any religion or lack thereof. If this is the case, how was America founded on Christian beliefs? Do you mind giving me example of laws exclusive to Christian beliefs?
Furthermore, Jefferson said that "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law," and even went on to say that he looked forward to the dawn of reason when Christianity was classed as a fable.
As for "under God" and "In God We Trust" those both came about long after the founding fathers were gone. "In God We Trust" first appeared on a coin after the Civil War but did not become the US motto until the 1950s. "Under God" was also adding in the 1950s. Both of these acts were done to distance the US from the Soviet Union. Neither have roots that can be traced to the birth of this nation. In fact, there is only one mention of a god in Declaration of Independence and it is referred to as Nature's God (fitting considering Jefferson's Deist beliefs). There is only a mention of a Creator in the Constitution. Neither of these point to the Christian God.
If you do not like how you are being taxed vote for a conservative next time, and if you think your rights are being violated because of taxes imposed by Congress, then take it up with the courts.
Posted by bamaslick (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fox
Oldschoolpike3worker has a great point. "I am told that supporting the taking of property from unwilling Americans and giving it to people that politicians deem needy is the "Christian" thing to do".
This is capitalism not socialism. Capitalism must have poor or it will not work. The wider the gap between poor and rich, the better it works. If you try to bridge the gap then you are taking away from capitalism.
The government would like to run the nation like that but know that they cannot. If the poor got worse off then they already are and their numbers increasingly grow...then you would be looking at a massive revolt in the near future.
Who knows though, maybe as the rich get richer then their christian values of WWJD would come into play and they would give away their worldly possessions to be blessed in the sight of god. Supposedly it is hard for a rich man to get into heaven. And Jesus was the biggest socialist ever...wanting people to be and have the same. Capitalism and Christianity should not even be spoken together. Especially if Christianity derives from Jesus Christ like everyone thinks.
Our nation was not prosperous because of being Christian and god-like. It was prosperous for being the exact opposite but chooses to use that as a mask for reasoning why they have attained they have attained. Christians do not take land, slave trade, segregate, prosper off anothers despair, or do they? This is how America came to be a wealthy and great nation. This is how it can get back to that. We do not need Barack (AntiChrist) messing that up!
Posted by BeachGirl (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
if theyd reform welfare itd help..yes some people ARE truly needy but theres far more on welfare that are taking advantage of it..so give them a 6 month period of benefits..let them work for their income...its not fair that im middle class and stuggle sometimes but theyre lining their pockets at the expense of my income...i work hard like most of you guys and i think its completely unfair to see every week my earnings go away to others...case in point, they just built a habitat for humanity house in my neighborhood and the people living there are on welfare..what do they drive? an ESCALADE...anyone else se the irony there? so Observer22 i DO see where youre coming from.. many of them do leach the system...its sad..but i see no end to it any time soon..
and bringing jesus and christianity into this? what your spiritual belief is isnt going to have any affect on your tax standing, so its a moot point..come on guys...
Posted by bamaslick (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BeachGirl
How much money do you think a non-working mother of three receive on welfare? (Add in EBT & child support also)
Posted by FoX (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd say around $65,000-70,000 minimum. Close?
Posted by bamaslick (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fox
I like you...But slap yourself for that one! $65-70k over a 5yr period maybe.
If that it was not a sin and a blasphemy in my household growing up and the amount of greed that capitalism promotes in the republican party then I would probably be republican. Social programs are meant to make the poor stay poor and not try to get better. It keeps just slightly above homeless but still cannot make it level and drives you to giving up (hopelessness).
EBT buys food and that is it and they cut you off significantly if you start working any b/s job. If you have three kids and they could all different daddys, child support still would not be sufficient unless one of the fathers was Tom Brady. You can add in free housing to the equation. Who here on this forum lives in or wants to live in Dunbar Projects.
And I believe a mother of three gets about 600 a month...or at least that was around the amount when I was young.
Posted by Virtuous (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not sure how many people have been speaking from experience...SO, I'll be the first!
I have been on welfare before and I just moved back in "The Projects". I stayed on welfare for about 6 months. I can't remember exactly how much I was getting but it wasn't much.
Everyone who gets welfare don't stay on welfare. Everyone who lives in the projects are not lazy people and want to live there forever! I lived in the projects once before I moved back in this last time. I tried moving out of the projects before I was really ready. I had bills I didn't have in the projects when I moved out that I wasn't ready for so I had to move back in - start over - get back on my feet - and try it again. TRUST me, I'm NOT there to stay this time either.
Some people always want to look down and throw stones on the poor working class or even just the poor and have not once thought about what it is we go through. I can honestly say, that there are those who just want a free ride but that doesn't include everybody.
"The poor ought to pay the most in taxes...they use government more than others. Food stamps, welfare checks, free housing, free public education, free lunch, free day care, WIC vouchers, free medical care at hospitals, free room and board in colleges and prisons, even free burial. When the poor try to help themselves by not having children they cannot afford they may qualify for sympathy."
THAT is the most ridiculous statement I've ever read on this board. But I'm going to leave it alone.
Just know from someone who have been there and done that...We all don't get government assistance and abuse it. Some of us actually use it to move forward. All those years ago, I used it to help me after I decided to keep my son when I found out I was pregnant. I could've aborted him...I could've given him up for adoption...I even could've had him in threw him away. Of course if I had gone with one of these other choices, I'm pretty sure something would be said about that as well from someone like the person who left that ridiculous response.I had to do something quick, fast and in a hurry because it was not about me anymore. I had a child to take care of and at the time I needed the help. I enrolled for the welfare to work program (I don't think it was mandatory at the time - I don't remember) and I was placed on a job I didn't like but I went to work. At the time I would've picked up cow dunks if I had to in order to take care of my son.
Now, I have a good job, a car (I need another one - help Lord!), and I STILL live in the projects. But you better believe I will not be there long. I will be a homeowner some day and I just pray that I don't forget where I came from because I know one day I will be in the position to help families in need so they won't have to be frowned upon from people like the person who wrote that comment above.
Posted by BeachGirl (anonymous) on November 11, 2009 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
i see what youre saying bamaslick but exactly whose fault is it if thye have 3 kids by 3 daddies? It shouldnt be MY problem. im a 28 year old woman and i KNOW what causes babies. the programs are supposed to help them get on their feet, not keep them poor. Ive has patients tell me point blank 'im not working, the govt pays me so i dont have to, ill jsut keep having kids'.Too many of them stay on it so they dont have to work. not all people on welfare are bad people, but sadly too many of them are and its not fair to see the money I WORKED for go to them. I need my money, not some woman who has 3 kids by 3 daddies as you said. I went to school, got my education..its available for EVERYone...
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)