Affordable Care Act Upheld By Supreme Court

[iheartscience]

I don't know what the taxes are like in Australia, so can't really say. Here in America we have a top rate at 35%, scheduled to go to 39.5% on Jan 1, 2013. Plus since I live in California, the rate here is 10% at the top end, which you have to pay in addition to the Federal tax. Then there is a "social security tax" which varies a bit these days, but is around 5% of your earnings up til you earn about 108K. There is an additional "Medicare tax" on all your wages of 1.45%. Then in my State, there is a sales tax on things you purchase, around 8.5% of the price.

So it does all all up, I must say.

So maybe it's better if my family does not work so hard.

The current tax rates in the US are at very low levels compared to previous years. Additionally, the US has a much lower tax burden than many other industrialized nations. The trade off is that the other industrialized nations get a lot more for their higher taxes, including free health care, free college, great maternity leave, etc. I would happily pay higher taxes for their benefits. As kenny says, people vary.

I doubt working less hard in order to pay less taxes is truly advantageous, but I'd love to see the math if you have it.

 

[Beacon]

I don't know what the taxes are like in Australia, so can't really say. Here in America we have a top rate at 35%, scheduled to go to 39.5% on Jan 1, 2013. Plus since I live in California, the rate here is 10% at the top end, which you have to pay in addition to the Federal tax. Then there is a "social security tax" which varies a bit these days, but is around 5% of your earnings up til you earn about 108K. There is an additional "Medicare tax" on all your wages of 1.45%. Then in my State, there is a sales tax on things you purchase, around 8.5% of the price.

So it does all all up, I must say.

So maybe it's better if my family does not work so hard.

The current tax rates in the US are at very low levels compared to previous years. Additionally, the US has a much lower tax burden than many other industrialized nations. The trade off is that the other industrialized nations get a lot more for their higher taxes, including free health care, free college, great maternity leave, etc. I would happily pay higher taxes for their benefits. As kenny says, people vary.

I doubt working less hard in order to pay less taxes is truly advantageous, but I'd love to see the math if you have it.

Which years are you talking about? I've been around longer than you

For example, in 1988-1990, the top tax rate was 28%. In 1991 the top rate was 31%. In years where the rates were very, very high (WWII and post WWII) the top rate only was put upon taxpayers who made an inflation adjusted top income of over $2 million. (that was the nominal $200,000 that the top rate fell into for those years.

 

[iheartscience]

I don't know what the taxes are like in Australia, so can't really say. Here in America we have a top rate at 35%, scheduled to go to 39.5% on Jan 1, 2013. Plus since I live in California, the rate here is 10% at the top end, which you have to pay in addition to the Federal tax. Then there is a "social security tax" which varies a bit these days, but is around 5% of your earnings up til you earn about 108K. There is an additional "Medicare tax" on all your wages of 1.45%. Then in my State, there is a sales tax on things you purchase, around 8.5% of the price.

So it does all all up, I must say.

So maybe it's better if my family does not work so hard.

The current tax rates in the US are at very low levels compared to previous years. Additionally, the US has a much lower tax burden than many other industrialized nations. The trade off is that the other industrialized nations get a lot more for their higher taxes, including free health care, free college, great maternity leave, etc. I would happily pay higher taxes for their benefits. As kenny says, people vary.

I doubt working less hard in order to pay less taxes is truly advantageous, but I'd love to see the math if you have it.

Which years are you talking about? I've been around longer than you

For example, in 1988-1990, the top tax rate was 28%. In 1991 the top rate was 31%. In years where the rates were very, very high (WWII and post WWII) the top rate only was put upon taxpayers who made an inflation adjusted top income of over $2 million. (that was the nominal $200,000 that the top rate fell into for those years.

Aside from 5 years, the rate now is the lowest. "So, for five tax years -- 1988 through 1992 -- the top tax bracket had a lower rate than today’s top bracket." Further explanation here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-says-tax-rates-are-lowest-1950s-ceos-/

Alright, off to work to make more $ for the government to tax , but I'll be back on later!

ETA another good explanation here: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

 

[TooPatient]

Don't repudiate my feelings. I said I am tired of paying and I AM and I'm not the only one.

 

[movie zombie]

[quote="thing2of2|1340910150|3225297.......Says the guy whose wife works for the government. ....

you beat me to it.....and his daughter, too. both taking my tax payer dollars instead of doing the right thing and getting a job in the private sector as any real true fiscal conservative would do.

 

[Beacon]

Ha! Those are not including the much higher income thresholds that it took to get into the highest bracket, nor do they include the BIG deductions that used to exist, particularly during the 1970's. If anyone remembers all those limited partnerships, oil & gas partnerships, Sect 8 partnerships. Sure the nominal rate might have been higher, but the deductions were there to bring down the burden.

Interestingly, I took a look at the comments coming thru Yahoo. Over 8300 comments on the article and they are pretty darned negative. There is some serious blowback coming in America. See comments at the end.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/what-the-supreme-court-s-ruling-means-for-consumers.html

 

[TooPatient]

Ha! Those are not including the much higher income thresholds that it took to get into the highest bracket, nor do they include the BIG deductions that used to exist, particularly during the 1970's. If anyone remembers all those limited partnerships, oil & gas partnerships, Sect 8 partnerships. Sure the nominal rate might have been higher, but the deductions were there to bring down the burden.

Interestingly, I took a look at the comments coming thru Yahoo. Over 8300 comments on the article and they are pretty darned negative. There is some serious blowback coming in America. See comments at the end.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/what-the-supreme-court-s-ruling-means-for-consumers.html

It also doesn't consider the higher cost of living we now have.

 

[justginger]

It took me a while to figure out why I only lose about 20%, despite the official tax bracket being at 32%, Blackpaw. I *think* it's because DH and I are DOH employees and we can salary package. So we receive $9k of our salary tax free, and we have something like $17k of 'fringe benefits.'

Oh the joys of working for the government! (I DO get stung with my overtime though, sometimes losing $1500/fortnight in tax!)

 

[ericad]

I think this whole thread can some up American society in general. It seems to be split in half.

One side is very upset that their hard earned money goes to help others who they feel take advantage of it and act as if they are entitled to it. The believe in picking yourself up by your bootstraps and that you can only rely on yourself. They want their money to stay with them and are especially annoyed when they here stories of people abusing the system.

One side believes that shit happens in life and they want something to fall back on if it happens to them or their loved ones. They also value collective well being over the individual. They do not think the great quality of life discrepancy that is widening is good. They think of course those who work harder should reap those rewards, but not at the cost of other people's suffering. They are more likely to see the benefits of what their taxes pay and not feel resentful of paying them.

It is taken my entire life of 29 years as an American to figure this out. This applies to healthcare, social programs, student loans, abortion/birth control, etc...Some think you have just have to deal with the consequences of your actions and/or the luck you were handed in life and others would prefer society help those that face hard times. Invdividual vs. collective.

Of course never discount the pyschological effects of fear and religion in American politics as well.

Nkarma, you articulated this better than I ever could have, so I'm just gonna quote you It's mind boggling to me that so many other countries in this world have figured out these issues and their citizens enjoy such a high quality of life as a result. But our great country can't manage it. We've come too far down the wrong path, methinks, and despite my own personal wishlist for our government and society, I'm skeptical that we could ever actually achieve it here.

It's sad that I'm so grateful that my husband and daughter are French citizens (and I'm eligible to be as well, just need to pass an oral language proficiency exam) because it means that we can eventually retire early there (the need for health care being the biggest obstacle to early retirement for most). Or, in a catastrophic situation (lost jobs and major medical needs), we could even leave the US and relocate there as an alternative to death or bankruptcy (or both). My brother's partner is Canadian and they've been putting off going to Canada to marry because they're too busy, but I urge him to do the same for similar reasons. Back up foreign citizenship. It's a crying shame to even have to think along these lines.

 

[justginger]

You're skating on thin ice, Erica - the cries of "anti-American" are going to be ringing out in no time!

Despite the fact that I was beyond homesick for my first 3 years in Australia, I am so genuinely thankful for my upcoming dual citizenship as well. I am hoping with all I have that the States gets back on track (and soon!) - I'm still American, I still love so much about the whole country and what it encompasses, it is still the home of 90% of my family and friends. But the division is worse now than I thought possible. The old saying - united we stand, divided we fall? I feel like the first tremors of Rome's fall are being heard.

 

[ericad]

You're skating on thin ice, Erica - the cries of "anti-American" are going to be ringing out in no time!

Despite the fact that I was beyond homesick for my first 3 years in Australia, I am so genuinely thankful for my upcoming dual citizenship as well. I am hoping with all I have that the States gets back on track (and soon!) - I'm still American, I still love so much about the whole country and what it encompasses, it is still the home of 90% of my family and friends. But the division is worse now than I thought possible. The old saying - united we stand, divided we fall? I feel like the first tremors of Rome's fall are being heard.

Au contraire, actually. If it were up to DH, we would have moved to France more than a decade ago. It's because of my ties to the US and my love of this country (and hopes for what it could be) that we're still here. I'm fighting to stay, but the fight gets harder as time passes, and my energy wanes. So when I feel worried, I fantasize about leaving, but here I still sit

Actually, my parents are both foreign, so I have always had very strong ties to Europe and don't consider it an insult to this country to point out its flaws. I have a desire to make this country even better. I think that's very patriotic!

As for being accused of being anti-american, I sell diamonds after all. So I figure most people are just tuning me out anyway

 

[justginger]

For what it's worth, Erica, I agree - striving for better things *is* patriotic. But those heckles of 'just get out if you don't like it!' are quick to come from people who can't tolerate anything short of endless, mindless praise. Every culture has those people, and it seems that the American versions of them spend a lot of time commenting on online news articles!

 

[ericad]

For what it's worth, Erica, I agree - striving for better things *is* patriotic. But those heckles of 'just get out if you don't like it!' are quick to come from people who can't tolerate anything short of endless, mindless praise. Every culture has those people, and it seems that the American versions of them spend a lot of time commenting on online news articles!

Word.

 

[Beacon]

Of the 50 states in the USA, 27 of the State's Attorney Generals sued in court to prevent the ObamaCare law. That is why the Supreme court had to rule. Their ruling was 5 to 4 in favor, a narrow margin of victory. Very clearly this is a highly divided opinion in the USA.

It will get interesting from here.

 

[Circe]

A) My dearest friend's oldest friend died on her 25th birthday, from asthma that went untreated when she was a kid because they couldn't afford the inhalers. So I, for one, am really glad to see that this has passed - not because fat cats who can afford wine and smokes with the disposable income that (just guessing here) comes from their insurance-inclusive jobs might someday benefit, but so bright poor kids don't die young.

B) Vendors are part of this community, too: their opinions are valid, and it's really rude to say their jobs in the service industry make their comments are invalid. Has a faint whiff of "keeping to their place" to it.

C) To quote Inigo Montoya. That word. I do not think it means what you think it means. You can invalidate other people's feelings, you can delegitimize them, you can mock them. But YOU are the only one who can repudiate YOUR feelings.

D) Dude, this is what's wrong with American politics. They shouldn't be about feelings, but about logic. There IS an objective right - not a moral one, but a practical one. My friend's dead friend? Yeah, her ER bill cost the state a hell of a lot more than the money to buy inhalers would have. In the long run, this is the fiscally sensible decision: the fact that it's also the humane one is gravy.

E) Mm, gravy: methinks it is now time for dinner. Carry on!

 

[Beacon]

A)

B) Vendors are part of this community, too: their opinions are valid, and it's really rude to say their jobs in the service industry make their comments are invalid. Has a faint whiff of "keeping to their place" to it.

I understand your feelings and that was not my intention. What happened was that I expressed my feeling that I am paying a lot already and that I am tired of it and very much not interested in paying yet more. The vendor came up and told me that healthcare is a right and I should pay for it. Well guess what, I already do. She made snarky comments about how our system doesn't encourage prevention or education. That they profit from people's illness. I dont' think that is fair or accurate.

What I found irritating is that a person in the business of selling luxury goods should advocate that potential clients should suck it up and pay more to the government than they already do. That's one way to lose business.

 

[ericad]

A)

B) Vendors are part of this community, too: their opinions are valid, and it's really rude to say their jobs in the service industry make their comments are invalid. Has a faint whiff of "keeping to their place" to it.

I understand your feelings and that was not my intention. What happened was that I expressed my feeling that I am paying a lot already and that I am tired of it and very much not interested in paying yet more. The vendor came up and told me that healthcare is a right and I should pay for it. Well guess what, I already do. She made snarky comments about how our system doesn't encourage prevention or education. That they profit from people's illness. I dont' think that is fair or accurate.

What I found irritating is that a person in the business of selling luxury goods should advocate that potential clients should suck it up and pay more to the government than they already do. That's one way to lose business.

Beacon, you seem to have taken my post very personally.

Prevention is a key factor in reducing overall healthcare costs - this is a fact and I was pointing it out because you mentioned the overweight smokers who are contributing to healthcare costs due to their choices. I think that's a very reasonable assertion.

And I didn't say that you should pay more for anything. I stated that, in single payer countries, healthcare is a right of citizenship that's paid for via taxes - this is another fact. And that, to have a single payer system, we should expect to pay for it (in response to your statement that the people you were having lunch with expected to NOT have to pay for it) because we're already paying for healthcare. Instead of paying it to the insurance companies via our employers we would instead pay for it via taxes.

Please go back and re-read my post without the defensive colored glasses. I was in no way telling you what you should do - as I said before, I have no knowledge of what you pay or to whom. I don't know if you're rich. I don't know if you're on welfare. I was speaking in generalities.

I'm truly shocked that you took my post so personally. And I haven't seen you jump on any other poster in this thread, even those who have expressed similar opinions and who have replied to you directly.

If wanting universal healthcare for the protection of the underprivileged and those down on their luck means that I will lose business, I accept that. If it means that customers will have a little less money to spend in my store, and that my taxes will be a little higher, that's a small price to pay for what will be gained, IMO. We all have opinions and the right to politely disagree.

But I'm a citizen and voter in this country and will continue to share my views. After all, there was a time in my life when I was down on my luck (DH and I were unemployed at the same time, many years ago) and had to choose between health insurance and paying our mortgage. We went uninsured for about a year and it was just plain dumb luck that we made it through ok. We could have easily bankrupted our families with one single catastrophic injury or illness. This issue is very important to me and I won't stop sharing my views on the matter.

 

[Laila619]

Don't repudiate my feelings. I said I am tired of paying and I AM and I'm not the only one.

 

[rainwood]

My thanks to Thing and Circe and several others who so eloquently stated what I too feel. Those of us who know and love people who don't have insurance or are uninsurable realize that having basic medical care should be something that NO ONE should have to worry about. It shouldn't depend on if you're employed and the type of insurance your employer chooses to carry. I also agree that a single payer system would be the best option, but the ACA at least allows everyone to have access to medical insurance.

There are several reasons why the U.S. has the highest health care costs in the world. One is that we aren't a single payer system and therefore don't have the negotiating clout with pharmaceutical companies. That's why drugs in Canada are cheaper - the companies have to negotiate with the Canadian government which has a lot of leverage to get lower prices. The same is true for the European countries that have single payer programs. And because the U.S. doesn't have the clout, American consumers pay the bulk of the research and development cost for drugs which is another reason why drugs cost so much here. Again, single payer in the U.S. would force those R & D costs to be spread among the various first world countries, not just the U.S.

Another reason for high costs is that the administrative cost of having to deal with hundreds and even thousands of different health insurers with different policies is really time-consuming and expensive for both insurers and health providers. Ask any hospital, clinic, or physician in private practice how much of their operating costs come from administering insurance programs. It's a big, big percentage of their overhead which then has to be reflected in their fees. And the amount of paperwork and red tape and hassle that patients and their families have to go through on private insurance benefits is HUGE.

My husband has gone through a very serious and expensive series of medical treatments over the years, including a stem-cell transplant last August, which have largely been paid for by insurance. We know that if he had not been able to keep working and have insurance, we wouldn't have been able to afford that treatment and he would be dead. It's easy to say in the abstract that the U.S. medical system costs too much or provides too many expensive procedures, but you would feel differently if it's someone you love who needs that kind of expensive care.

Can the U.S. health system become more efficient? Yes, and those of us who are in regular contact with those systems and the people who work in them see steps being taken to provide high-quality services at a lower cost. Denying people access to good health care is not a humane, compassionate, or decent way to do that.

 

[ericad]

My thanks to Thing and Circe and several others who so eloquently stated what I too feel. Those of us who know and love people who don't have insurance or are uninsurable realize that having basic medical care should be something that NO ONE should have to worry about. It shouldn't depend on if you're employed and the type of insurance your employer chooses to carry. I also agree that a single payer system would be the best option, but the ACA at least allows everyone to have access to medical insurance.

There are several reasons why the U.S. has the highest health care costs in the world. One is that we aren't a single payer system and therefore don't have the negotiating clout with pharmaceutical companies. That's why drugs in Canada are cheaper - the companies have to negotiate with the Canadian government which has a lot of leverage to get lower prices. The same is true for the European countries that have single payer programs. And because the U.S. doesn't have the clout, American consumers pay the bulk of the research and development cost for drugs which is another reason why drugs cost so much here. Again, single payer in the U.S. would force those R & D costs to be spread among the various first world countries, not just the U.S.

Another reason for high costs is that the administrative cost of having to deal with hundreds and even thousands of different health insurers with different policies is really time-consuming and expensive for both insurers and health providers. Ask any hospital, clinic, or physician in private practice how much of their operating costs come from administering insurance programs. It's a big, big percentage of their overhead which then has to be reflected in their fees. And the amount of paperwork and red tape and hassle that patients and their families have to go through on private insurance benefits is HUGE.

My husband has gone through a very serious and expensive series of medical treatments over the years, including a stem-cell transplant last August, which have largely been paid for by insurance. We know that if he had not been able to keep working and have insurance, we wouldn't have been able to afford that treatment and he would be dead. It's easy to say in the abstract that the U.S. medical system costs too much or provides too many expensive procedures, but you would feel differently if it's someone you love who needs that kind of expensive care.

Can the U.S. health system become more efficient? Yes, and those of us who are in regular contact with those systems and the people who work in them see steps being taken to provide high-quality services at a lower cost. Denying people access to good health care is not a humane, compassionate, or decent way to do that.

And now it's my turn to bust out this emotie

 

[ericad]

Oops. Double post.

 

[TravelingGal]

You're skating on thin ice, Erica - the cries of "anti-American" are going to be ringing out in no time!

Despite the fact that I was beyond homesick for my first 3 years in Australia, I am so genuinely thankful for my upcoming dual citizenship as well. I am hoping with all I have that the States gets back on track (and soon!) - I'm still American, I still love so much about the whole country and what it encompasses, it is still the home of 90% of my family and friends. But the division is worse now than I thought possible. The old saying - united we stand, divided we fall? I feel like the first tremors of Rome's fall are being heard.

I do love being an American, and my husband is happy here. But I have to say (and I never thought it'd be an option for us) but I like having an option to move. We're getting Amelia's dual citizenship (Aussie/US) and I like that I do have the option of establishing residency and become an Aussie citizen myself.

 

[kenny]

I'm spending $950 a month for very crappy health insurance that covers only me.
I am canceling my policy tomorrow.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="thing2of2|1340910150|3225297.......Says the guy whose wife works for the government. ....

you beat me to it.....and his daughter, too. both taking my tax payer dollars instead of doing the right thing and getting a job in the private sector as any real true fiscal conservative would do.

yeah,but they have to work to get paid by the taxpayers unlike my neighbors Mr. & Mrs. Entitlement across street.

MZ here is a Q for you and Thing2...a Q that none of my liberal friends can answer yet.

why is that (as taxpayers) my wife and i can only afford to have two kids when my neighbors Mr. & Mrs. Entitlement across street can afford to have 5 kids running around w/o paying a single penny in taxes, don't you guys think there is something wrong with the system?

 

[amc80]

The more of this in America, coupled with higher and higher taxes to pay for it, I think it's time for my husband to go part time and we move to Nevada.

We'd love to have you

 

[Beacon]

Coz they can do things that really are not too fair.

For example, with this new insurance law, there will be a group of people who don't take the insurance and will pay the penalty, at 1% of AGI, which if they don't make too much money (and they probably don't) will not be much of a penalty. Then, if something goes wrong with their health, they will sign up to one of the new insurances (which cannot decline them for pre existing conditions) and have the services provided. Then, when well, they can cancel again.

That, DF, is how to game the system. Suspect your neighbors are pros at it. There are a million tricks out there.

 

[Beacon]

The more of this in America, coupled with higher and higher taxes to pay for it, I think it's time for my husband to go part time and we move to Nevada.

We'd love to have you

Thanks amc! We are considering this. My accountant told me many of her clients are leaving Cali and heading to NV, TX or NH. Not so sure why NH. I flew back from Vegas with an EVP for one of the big gaming companies. He flies to CA for board meetings and used to live here. Now permanent in Las Vegas. He says most of his building are people like him, who had enuf of the tax structure, live in Vegas and travel where they need to go for business.

Any good areas you recommend?

 

[amc80]

The more of this in America, coupled with higher and higher taxes to pay for it, I think it's time for my husband to go part time and we move to Nevada.

We'd love to have you

Thanks amc! We are considering this. My accountant told me many of her clients are leaving Cali and heading to NV, TX or NH. Not so sure why NH. I flew back from Vegas with an EVP for one of the big gaming companies. He flies to CA for board meetings and used to live here. Now permanent in Las Vegas. He says most of his building are people like him, who had enuf of the tax structure, live in Vegas and travel where they need to go for business.

Any good areas you recommend?

Funny, I work for one of those big gaming companies...but I'm in Reno. Personally, I hate Vegas...but that's because I prefer seasons and don't really like crowds. Reno is nice because it's fairly isolated, which means you get that smaller town feeling...but it still has everything you need. Plus it's close to Tahoe which is one of the most beautiful places anywhere, IMHO. The Bay Area is a 3.5 hour drive, and Sac is only 2 hours...OH, and I just read an article about the median home price here- $137k.

Not a whole lot going on between the Reno area and the Vegas area, though.

 

[nkarma]

[quote="thing2of2|1340910150|3225297.......Says the guy whose wife works for the government. ....

you beat me to it.....and his daughter, too. both taking my tax payer dollars instead of doing the right thing and getting a job in the private sector as any real true fiscal conservative would do.

yeah,but they have to work to get paid by the taxpayers unlike my neighbors Mr. & Mrs. Entitlement across street.

MZ here is a Q for you and Thing2...a Q that none of my liberal friends can answer yet.

why is that (as taxpayers) my wife and i can only afford to have two kids when my neighbors Mr. & Mrs. Entitlement across street can afford to have 5 kids running around w/o paying a single penny in taxes, don't you guys think there is something wrong with the system?

I am sure we all know what it feels like to be taken advantage of and I know you feel that DF with paying taxes and seeing other people benefit from your hard earned money. I am not sure what your neighbors are doing because you did not specify.

What is afford? That is SO subjective. I am more than positive that you could afford to have five kids with clothes, food, schooling, and all their other basic needs. Now could you afford to buy them expensive jewelry, a mid size CA wedding, and a down payment on a Sac, CA home? I do not know what you make so I cannot answer that. But my addition skills say that you could provide very well for five kids.

My question to you is, why don't you become Mr. & Mrs. Entitlement neighbor if their lives are so great?

 

[Beacon]

[quote="thing2of2|1340910150|3225297.......Says the guy whose wife works for the government. ....

you beat me to it.....and his daughter, too. both taking my tax payer dollars instead of doing the right thing and getting a job in the private sector as any real true fiscal conservative would do.

yeah,but they have to work to get paid by the taxpayers unlike my neighbors Mr. & Mrs. Entitlement across street.

MZ here is a Q for you and Thing2...a Q that none of my liberal friends can answer yet.

why is that (as taxpayers) my wife and i can only afford to have two kids when my neighbors Mr. & Mrs. Entitlement across street can afford to have 5 kids running around w/o paying a single penny in taxes, don't you guys think there is something wrong with the system?

I am sure we all know what it feels like to be taken advantage of and I know you feel that DF with paying taxes and seeing other people benefit from your hard earned money. I am not sure what your neighbors are doing because you did not specify.

What is afford? That is SO subjective. I am more than positive that you could afford to have five kids with clothes, food, schooling, and all their other basic needs. Now could you afford to buy them expensive jewelry, a mid size CA wedding, and a down payment on a Sac, CA home? I do not know what you make so I cannot answer that. But my addition skills say that you could provide very well for five kids.

My question to you is, why don't you become Mr. & Mrs. Entitlement neighbor if their lives are so great?

DF, your neigbors might get a bit of a let down if the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year. If they make any money at all, the lowest tax bracket will rise from 10% to 15%. Plus, the child credit, which is currently at $1000 per child will reduce to $500. That particular credit is the kind where if you have zero taxes due, they cut a check to you for the credit amount. So neigbors will be short $2500 from what they are used to taking off the government. People have this mistaken idea that the Bush tax cuts were only for the wealthy. Well, they are wrong about that! I am in tax class now at Stanford and we did the scenario last night for a theoretical family with 4 kids, earning $50K, a modest income. Their taxes will rise $4125 per year when the Bush Tax cuts expire Jan 1, 2013 unless the congress does something and they seem incapable of doing much!