wtf taxes

[d0z3rr]

I have to pay a penalty for owing state taxes this year. WTF?! That sounds like paying a fee for having to pay a fee. Or being ass raped because you were ass raped.

[Yamio]

It just piles on doesn't it?

Me and my ex-wife owed on our taxes every year for the last 6 years of our marriage. Roughly about 6 grand a year. We had to pay so much and for so long that when I saw your post, I just sighed and thought "oh well", just like if I was still married and finding out I owed even more. They bend us over a table and force us to keep taking it over and over until our legs give out.

And then we take it some more.

[Coltimar]

Taxes are so messed up. It's hard to feel sorry for the politicians that keep falling out of Obama's cabinet, but in a way you do. One accounts says one thing, one says another. Then you are stuck looking like the schlep who don't pay his taxes.

[Skuggomann]

Come to iceland man, the economy is shit yea but atleast the tax is only 37,2%(befor tax discount). Im currently palying 0.00000% tax (cuz i is pro, naa its my discount :P)
Also companys get a nice discount ( ther tax is set @ 15%)

[Frosty]

Move to New York..there's no taxes here... :whistling:

We have a tax that was passed (in the pure interest of the people's health) that requires any drink with sugar be taxed extra.
Great right? We need to be healthier!
Just saw on the news they are pushing a tax now on gym memberships! WTF?

[Basilikos]

Being out of work, I was bumped down two income brackets (as far as 2008 goes) and got some money back. In my situation, it's actually quite a bit of money. And now you all hate me, but don't start the hate so fast - you all have jobs (I assume).
Anyhow, garbage like this is exactly why I stopped looking for work in certain places and states. The taxes are so screwed up that there is no reason to live there unless you're attached to the area, and clearly I'm not. A few days ago, I heard that those in California that should get money back from the state aren't going to do so for quite some time because their refund checks are being held to balance the budget. Great.

[d0z3rr]

Yeah not really that mad about owing, after all I still do have a job and have not been layed off.

I was mostly pissed because I have no idea what the hell the penalty I owe is. Instead, I have to fill out some convuluted form 760c or some shit, with like 80 different boxes and 50 different calculations on how to figure out what my penatly is for owing over $150 in state taxes!

Couldn't me more confusing......

[Bigfish]

Geez, what state is that?

[Bigfish]

Being out of work, I was bumped down two income brackets (as far as 2008 goes) and got some money back. In my situation, it's actually quite a bit of money. And now you all hate me, but don't start the hate so fast - you all have jobs (I assume).
Anyhow, garbage like this is exactly why I stopped looking for work in certain places and states. The taxes are so screwed up that there is no reason to live there unless you're attached to the area, and clearly I'm not. A few days ago, I heard that those in California that should get money back from the state aren't going to do so for quite some time because their refund checks are being held to balance the budget. Great.

No, I'm actually quite happy for you. Being out of work sucks, and I'm sure the refund will help out. Here's to hoping your refund check is as fat as possible.

[-silencer-]

And how do we feel that so much of our tax money is going towards businesses with failed financial policies? How large is the federal deficit going to be in next year's budget? What will the total national debt be? $12 trillion? Do you know what amount of our taxes last year were wasted on paying just the INTEREST on the national debt? Try around 8% of the total budget. That's 8% of your tax dollars taken last year just to keep the national debt from growing on interest. Would you have rather had 8% less money taken out of your taxes in the first place? That's the problem with carrying a national debt. There's a reason the national debt has grown every year (including all 8 of Bill Clinton's years, even though he likes to claim a "surplus") - we blow so much money on paying interest on the debt. We'd be lucky to squeeze a $500 billion surplus (AFTER interest has been paid *cough* Clinton *cough*) out of Washington every year.. that'll pay off that national debt by 2033. Yeah, that'll happen.

[Basilikos]

Silencer - no kidding. I'm not in favor of business welfare for ANY company, but supporting the failures is even worse! If they're not successful, it's like burning the cash we're giving them since there's no return on it.

[keyclone]

want lower taxes? don't want the government looking through your sofa cushions for all the extra pennies it can find, in order to fund their big parties and pay off all their rich friends... well... you'll have to wait 4 years to try and change that.

[Basilikos]

want lower taxes? don't want the government looking through your sofa cushions for all the extra pennies it can find, in order to fund their big parties and pay off all their rich friends... well... you'll have to wait 4 years to try and change that.
Maybe, maybe not. Depending how things go in the near future, the political landscape could be very different in two years. And as much as I don't like the tax rate as it is right now, I'd be a little less cross if the taxes actually helped more than they do. I'm grateful for the roads and the defense that the government affords me, but that's just a slice of the budget at any level of government.

[Starbuck_Jones]

Im still waiting on some information before I can file my taxes, but this year was a pain. I made a nice amount on paper, but I have nothing to show for it. Ive already paid in more taxes than all my bills and utilities combined.

[Bigfish]

Well, maintaining a national debt isn't necesarily a bad thing, but keeping it under control is certainly important. Hugely deepening it during an expansion didn't help anything, because now that we need to get out of a recession, we're looking at increasing our debt to GDP ratio even higher.

[Bigfish]

What's really getting me is all these cabinet appointees who haven't paid their taxes. I mean, what the hell? This is supposed to be the party that understands the necesity of taxes and utilizing them for the public good. Makes it real to take them seriously when they keep running in to "ope, so and so didn't pay their taxes either!"

[Owltoid]

want lower taxes? don't want the government looking through your sofa cushions for all the extra pennies it can find, in order to fund their big parties and pay off all their rich friends... well... you'll have to wait 4 years to try and change that.

Um, yeah, these last 8 years we've seen a dramatic decrease in the size of government...

[keyclone]

hmm... spend 8 years defunding defense and intelligence... then the new guy comes in, gets hit within 6 months, turns to see what assests he's got to deal with it and... ??? next thing you know you need to recoup those 8 years of non spending. hmm... that wouldn't be an age old political trick, would it? and now the new administration wants to dismantle 80% of the US nuclear arsenal... all the while defunding intelligence?? didn't we see what happened the last time we did that? (anyone remember 9-11??)

yea, bright moves.

and no, your income taxes do not go to the roads. that would be the gas taxes. fire & police? property taxes. schools? some property taxes, and the fed pushes money into the schools (from income taxes) in order to keep control.

what's really needed... i mean, if you really want change... would be to have a FULL accounting of EVERY DIME brought in... and EVERY DIME being spent. you'd be surprised how many hundred of millions, if not billions, go to parties (drives me crazy). don't think so? did you miss the $180m inaugral party 2 weeks ago?

i thought these were tough times... if so, don't go partying on my dime.

[Owltoid]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Dems are going to do much better than the Repubs have (it's truly hard to do worse), I just don't buy the argument that Republican = smaller gov't anymore (and haven't for awhile). In other words, just because a D is in office I don't think it's significantly more likely that the spending will go through the roof because both D and R love to support their special interests, just the money will be spent differently.

I'd vote Republican in a second if Republicans were actual Republicans and not the gov't expansionist bible thumping political mutants they have become... better yet a true Libertarian would be my choice (abolish the Fed, reinstate the gold standard or some function where a private corporation (the Fed) isn't controlling inflation).

[keyclone]

the thing about the GOP is the 'big tent' mindset. they have been expanding it to try and include everyone, while losing the core beliefs. basically, the expansion has been an expansion to the left. i h ave listened to rush a few times, and he goes crazy when the gop bow down to socialist principles (which we have going on now). i would say that rush is probably a proper example of what the gop should be... and the difference between rush and mccain are night and day.

btw... i'm a constitutional libertarian (there's like 5 of us)

[-silencer-]

What's really getting me is all these cabinet appointees who haven't paid their taxes. I mean, what the hell? This is supposed to be the party that understands the necesity of taxes and utilizing them for the public good. Makes it real to take them seriously when they keep running in to "ope, so and so didn't pay their taxes either!"
LOL please don't tell me that you believe that bullshit. Both major parties are remarkably similar, but they don't want you to know that.. so they bicker about the relatively little differences they have - usually regarding social issues.

[-silencer-]

btw... i'm a constitutional libertarian (there's like 5 of us)
Make it 6.

[aboron]

Yeah not really that mad about owing, after all I still do have a job and have not been layed off.

I was mostly pissed because I have no idea what the hell the penalty I owe is. Instead, I have to fill out some convuluted form 760c or some shit, with like 80 different boxes and 50 different calculations on how to figure out what my penatly is for owing over $150 in state taxes!

Couldn't be more confusing......

Waaay back when "I was young and needed the money" i worked a summer job at the IRS and even though your problem is with the state, they may be similar in that: If you call them up in person (maybe later, after paying your penalty as a sign of good faith) you can usually find someone to talk to who has discretionary power to abate minor penalties for first offenders or people with exceptional circumstances. Usually if it's the first time you can just claim that you were unaware of the rule that cause you the penalty "but now you are, and it won't happen again". I know when i worked there I would practically lead people into what they needed to tell me so I could do that for them, as long as I made sure they saw why it happened so they could avoid it next time (usually involved things like total $ amount due exceeding a threshold and having to make a quarterly payment or some such). It certainly sounds to me like you qualify for an abatement, plus you can ask them to explain the rules at the same time so you know what happened for future. I'm sure they won't consider you a big fish they have to worry about for the penalty on $150 in tax.

The best thing about that job is all the inside details it gave me have served me well in my tax dealings since, one should always try to walk a mile in the enemy's shoes, or at least infiltrate a command center once in a while, just for the info. ;)




Quoted from "keyclone"

btw... i'm a constitutional libertarian (there's like 5 of us)


I'm just the regular kind of libertarian, seeing no need to hold on to the constitution if it doesn't serve us towards the ends of eliminating as much government as humanly possible. Though I see no need to rush out and change it, since there are still trillions of things that can be cut out of government today within the framework. And I don't realistically see us ever paring things down to a point where it would be an issue, it's more likely that the whole thing will collapse under it's own weight first.

[Bigfish]

LOL please don't tell me that you believe that bullshit. Both major parties are remarkably similar, but they don't want you to know that.. so they bicker about the relatively little differences they have - usually regarding social issues.

Don't be silly. Its more an annoyance at the public facade of either party and the hypocrisy of their statements and actions, namely the irony of the party that wants to raise taxes appointing a bunch of people who don't pay their taxes.

[keyclone]

(does the following require tinfoil? i dunno... i've been watching the landscape and the players trying to understand it so i can avoid the splatter... sometimes it helps to take the tinfoil off for a bit. oh... and i apologize now for the small wall o' text rant)

the current administration has until about june to crater the economy and still be able to blame the republicans. the current economic situation was manufactured to gain political power for the left. don't think so? look into which party was in-bed (literally) with fannie mae and freddy mac. check to see whose boyfriend was running fannie... and which government oversight committee he ran that was supposed to insure this situation never happened. check out who was saying the mortgage industry was fine... even up to july '08 (you can also find 2 promote politicans trying to fight against that bs in 2002, 2004, and 2005). you should also check to see who was an attorney for the group forcing banks to make bad loans... and his group is about to get something like $1 billion from the 'stimulus' package (a nice little thank you for stuffing 11 states worth of ballot boxes... the fbi has been investigating since november.. don't hold your breath)

it's all amazingly one sided, from a political party standpoint. why doesn't the press start 'investigating' this whole thing? people have been financially hosed... why won't they report on the cause? simple. the press has been biased in one direction since the 60s at least... and they are complicate in putting on this facade.

i anticipate the dems cratering the economy into a 1929-ish scenario. the 'stimulus' bill doesn't even have anything that will help make the economy grow until 3 years from now (helpful)... just in time for the next presidential elections. meanwhile, people will be even more screwed... and will end up either needing social programs or getting closer to needing them. at that point, just like in 1929, the dems will be assured power for 20-40 years... since people will need the social program, they will keep voting in the party of the social program.

could i be wrong? maybe. but then again, i was predicting where we are today about 2-3 years ago (i just didn't think the banks would hold tight for so long)

what can be done on a personal level? that's why i've been studying the playing field... trying to see where/when it's going to go south so i can take advantage/minimize impact. normally, you can depend on the market doing what's best for the market. but when you push $9.7 trillion around to buy up companies and pushing government into corporations, things get wonky. my best guess so far has been gold. it'll keep its buying power... and if the 2nd shoe drops(inflation... we are hitting a bit of deflation while overstocked inventory slows down to meet the reduced demand.. once that's over, in about 8-18 months... inflation would hit), it'll gain strength.

if anyone has any good ideas how to avoid the splatter, besides gold, i'm all ears

[Golle]

Hm, the whole world-economy is going nuts and you complain about high taxes? Reading this post (from a non-american point of view) has given me quite a laugh.

Somewhere on the first page, someone were critizising the dismantling of the US army by reminding us of the 9-11. Well, if your president would have had some self-control you wouldn't have had a couple of planes crashing into your oh so beautiful towers. In Sweden we have this saying - om du ger dig in i leken får du leken tåla - which approximately means: if you started playing the game, make sure you will be able to handle the consequences. You put the highest % of your budget into the army in the whole world! And now with all your enemies you apparently cannot afford to dismantle it, because of the terrorist threat.
I wonder how the feeling of insecurity must be for you just and noble US-citizens. Maybe it might be somewhat similar to what the Iraqies felt when your dropped your bombs. Correct me if I am wrong, but a recent study has shown that the american's are more safe than ever before in history. A dismantle of the army wouldn't be such a bad choice, as you really could use the money. But no, remember the 9-11! It was an attack completelely unprovoced and without reason.
My memory may be failing me, but as I remember you were the one who attacked first.

Additionally, as the war against a country who wanted to, just like you, defend themselves simply wasn't enough, you were taking loanes with your houses as security. This did as we all know, end in one of the worst recessions since... I don't know when actually. But still some of you are debating with such patriotism I could almost expect the whole website to turn red, white and blue.

My point is, from what your beloved country has succeeded to come up with, all you are doing is complaining about your taxes. Shape up!

(Let the flaming begin)

[Bigfish]

I remember you were the one who attacked first.

Are you fucking insane?

[Yamio]

Wait. I thought 9/11 happened because we helped the Afghans in their war with the Russians, and after it was over we didn't do anything to help the Afghans rebuild their country. That's how I understand it, but Golle, who did we attack first? Remind me please.

[Basilikos]

Hm, the whole world-economy is going nuts and you complain about high taxes? Reading this post (from a non-american point of view) has given me quite a laugh.
The economy, as recognized by a certain portion of our population, is largely a smokescreen that was used to alter the most recent election. And no, I'm not a McCain guy, either.


Somewhere on the first page, someone were critizising the dismantling of the US army by reminding us of the 9-11. Well, if your president would have had some self-control you wouldn't have had a couple of planes crashing into your oh so beautiful towers.
President who? Clinton? He was on watch when the first attack happened...


In Sweden we have this saying - om du ger dig in i leken får du leken tåla - which approximately means: if you started playing the game, make sure you will be able to handle the consequences.
Perhaps this should have been communicated to Al Qaeda before this got started, then.


You put the highest % of your budget into the army in the whole world! And now with all your enemies you apparently cannot afford to dismantle it, because of the terrorist threat.
And?


I wonder how the feeling of insecurity must be for you just and noble US-citizens. Maybe it might be somewhat similar to what the Iraqies felt when your dropped your bombs.
Yeah, war kills innocent people. Do note that the reason the U.S. military casualties would be close to zero if they didn't go out of their way to avoid killing civilians. And yes, I'm against the school of thought that avoids killing civilians just for PR purposes.


Correct me if I am wrong, but a recent study has shown that the american's are more safe than ever before in history.
I haven't heard that.


A dismantle of the army wouldn't be such a bad choice, as you really could use the money.
We could use the defense more. And while we're at it, don't forget that our military defends a large portion of the world. Europe included.


But no, remember the 9-11! It was an attack completelely unprovoced and without reason. My memory may be failing me, but as I remember you were the one who attacked first.
Military action =/= blowing up civilians. A lot of people think it does, but that's because they have the luxury of staying under our protection to shoot their mouths off.


Additionally, as the war against a country who wanted to, just like you, defend themselves simply wasn't enough, you were taking loanes with your houses as security. This did as we all know, end in one of the worst recessions since... I don't know when actually. But still some of you are debating with such patriotism I could almost expect the whole website to turn red, white and blue.
I'm afraid you're out on your own with this one. Every recession in U.S. history has been worse than this one so far. Every one of them. The only time you're going to hear someone talk about this being the worst recession on U.S. history is if they're fueling a political point.


My point is, from what your beloved country has succeeded to come up with, all you are doing is complaining about your taxes. Shape up!
Right now, our country is screwing itself worse in that we're following failed European economics and going for another bailout. How many countries in Europe are almost wrecked because they couldn't understand how piss-poor an idea government bailouts are? Recall that when the financial sector got into trouble a few months ago, no one suspected it would do anything to the overall economy. The bailouts are what tanked us. And we're just going to tank again when everyone realizes we've jacked up the tax rates for the next generation.

[Los]

Why so self righteous about the US, or any other country for that matter. Its all crap and we will be all sucking up the smack the people higher up the ladder are making.

[Knobley]

normally, you can depend on the market doing what's best for the market. but when you push $9.7 trillion around to buy up companies and pushing government into corporations, things get wonky.

Well said.

Now watch the pundits say that capitalism doesn't work. What they should be saying is, capitalism that's been manipulated beyond recognition can't carry the load of non-participants indefinatly.

Eventually, Atlas shrugs.

You're thinking on this is very similar to my own. I'm not sure whether it's too late for the gold move or not, but don't underestimate the ability of the government to change the rules.

The great FDR (with whom our current administration is so frequently compared) was not above making it illegal to own private gold.

Knobley

[Kaynin]

Recession?

I'm growing faster this year then any year before.

:>

Economy growth = population growth in the long term. Recessions are just a means to become rich once economy stabelizes later on. Which it will, as we didn't loose consumer growth!

[dbick]

Well, if your president would have had some self-control you wouldn't have had a couple of planes crashing into your oh so beautiful towers.
You are so right! Our President shoulda had more self control!..wait you did mean Clinton right? You know, the sex crazed maniac that was sitting in the Oval office getting a BJ when they attacked the Twin Towers the first time. Typical liberals create a mess, make someone else come in to clean it up then blame someone else for creating the mess in the first place.

I agree with Keyclone that this down economy was created by the liberals not only to win the election but to scare us into letting them place more rules and regualtions on the US citizens. The only way most of the crap in the stimuls package could/would ever pass is if the American people were to panicked to care.

[keyclone]

i had predicted the 6,000 mark last aug/sep... and if we hit that, 4,500 is the next stop.

1929 would be 3,000

and 0bama is doing nothing to slow this train wreck (actually helping to push it into the ground faster)

if anyone wants to see how we got here, here's a good link (canadian press... so it was allowed to be printed ('http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7992') )

[Naysayer]

Hm, the whole world-economy is going nuts and you complain about high taxes? Reading this post (from a non-american point of view) has given me quite a laugh.

Somewhere on the first page, someone were critizising the dismantling of the US army by reminding us of the 9-11. Well, if your president would have had some self-control you wouldn't have had a couple of planes crashing into your oh so beautiful towers. In Sweden we have this saying - om du ger dig in i leken får du leken tåla - which approximately means: if you started playing the game, make sure you will be able to handle the consequences. You put the highest % of your budget into the army in the whole world! And now with all your enemies you apparently cannot afford to dismantle it, because of the terrorist threat.
I wonder how the feeling of insecurity must be for you just and noble US-citizens. Maybe it might be somewhat similar to what the Iraqies felt when your dropped your bombs. Correct me if I am wrong, but a recent study has shown that the american's are more safe than ever before in history. A dismantle of the army wouldn't be such a bad choice, as you really could use the money. But no, remember the 9-11! It was an attack completelely unprovoced and without reason.
My memory may be failing me, but as I remember you were the one who attacked first.

Additionally, as the war against a country who wanted to, just like you, defend themselves simply wasn't enough, you were taking loanes with your houses as security. This did as we all know, end in one of the worst recessions since... I don't know when actually. But still some of you are debating with such patriotism I could almost expect the whole website to turn red, white and blue.

My point is, from what your beloved country has succeeded to come up with, all you are doing is complaining about your taxes. Shape up!

(Let the flaming begin)You're sooooo cool. I wish I could make shit up and try to hate on the U.S like you. Then I'd be cool like you, you rebel.

Cool as ice. :thumbup:

[dbick]

OneBigAssMistakeAmerica

[Bettysue]

My memory may be failing me, but as I remember you were the one who attacked first.

You may want to go review some history books - because you're talking out your ass right now.Fur I can not help laughing my ass off when you go off on this guy with your avatar. Silly Swedes...

The media in Sweden most likely spins the story a different way. That's the problem with having different countries, different languages, different religions, and different cultures. All of them are right, and the other guy is wrong... I don't think we really need to argue about who has the best country. Sweden remains neutral in most large-scale world affairs, and therefore, shouldn't be allowed to speak on actions taken, I do however, believe they can criticize our culture all they want, that way when they finally decide to take action we too can criticize.

Our economy is screwed not because we were attacked, but because we live in a society that bends to the will of the lowest common denominator. We try to take from the rich and give to the poor by beating the shit out of robin hood, it never quite works... We need to allow the natural progression of capitalism take its course, instead we continue to throw money at the guy that can't control his spending. I think it was best said as "capitalism without failure is like religion without sin."

[Bigfish]

I'd argue the latest economic meltdown is being caused by and large by a "take from the poor (and middleclass) to give to the rich" mentality, which is to say we have a lot of educated high-up-the-corporate ladder businessmen who for the last decade+ have made millions off America's lavish spending habits, telling them they can pay tomorrow for the crap they want today. Economy boomed, billions were made, and all was well.

Until Tommorow came.

Now we're stuck looking at bankruptcies, foreclosures, and large contractions in consumer spending because people now realize that eventually the bill comes due. The best part is, we're not holding anyone responsible. Bob McMason the CEO gets to resign "in shame" to his millions of dollars and early retirement, thus leaving the current generation to pick up the pieces and figure out who specifically fucked up where.

50 years from now, when economists and historians look at "the 2nd Great Depression", they're going to think the same things we do now about the backwards economics of the early 20th century.

[dbick]

The facts are that its those evil ceo types that are paying the majority of the taxes in the USA. You want to bring them down because they are rich? Then who is going to pay for all the liberal social programs?




Less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.


http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/spc.gif

This Doesn't exactly sound like "Take from the poor to give to the rich" to me. How do people who don't pay federal income taxes deserve a tax cut? You wanna see economic stimulus? I say give the business in this country more tax cuts, reduce capital gains taxes, eliminate the "death taxes" and reduce taxes on energy. Where's Ronnie when we need him:(

[Basilikos]

Where's Ronnie when we need him:(

Indeed.

[Bigfish]

This Doesn't exactly sound like "Take from the poor to give to the rich" to me. How do people who don't pay federal income taxes deserve a tax cut? You wanna see economic stimulus? I say give the business in this country more tax cuts, reduce capital gains taxes, eliminate the "death taxes" and reduce taxes on energy. Where's Ronnie when we need him

Yeah, I feel real bad that the millionares and billionares of the country pay a shit ton of taxes before they walk away with their 7 figure after-tax salaries. You know, especially when those people are the exact same ones who engage in predatory lending and business practices. Lets continue to reward the people who puff up the economy and then cash out and spend their depression days sunning themselves on one of their yaghts.

Of course, I'm not sure how you got in to tax cuts anyway, but its interesting you bring up those numbers. The top 1% makes 17% of the total income. The bottom 50% take home 14%. Of course, if you actually distribute that out, the top 1% makes 17% of the total income of EACH of the bottom 50% make .28%, someone in the top 1% makes 60 times more than someone in the bottom 50%, yet complain that they get stuck with just 10 times the taxes? Seems kind of silly to me.

Seriosuly, do you even know what that looks like graphed? The bottom 50% make only slightly more than 0%, at best what could be called subsitance. The top 1% earns 4 time more than the next 4% below it, 8 times as much as the 5% after that, 12 times at much as the 15% below that, and they have the nerve to complain that they shoulder a larger portion of tax burden than someone living in the bottom 50%? Cry me a river laden with the golden tears of the poor, abused top 1% who, despite paying 10 times as much as Joe Schmoe, have more money than 99% of the country will ever see. Boo hoo.

[Clanked]

I am also a libertarian for the most part. (count to 7 now) Not exactly full on, but that's their ideals are the closest to mine.

I think a flat tax would be amazing. Completely get rid of the IRS, and have a 10-15% flat tax. Then get rid of all un-needed agencies over time, so you can reduce said tax. The federal government should be there solely for national security, and dealing with foreign nations. Basically a military and diplomacy, that's it. Let the states handle the rest.

I honestly cannot believe that all this debt is being thrown onto my shoulders (I'm 22) by people that will be living on pensions when it comes time to pay for it. The worst part is I can't really do much about it. People will go vote for whoever MTV and Hollywood tells them to. So my informed vote is rather worthless compared to the five people standing behind me at the poll that voted for Obama solely because he is black, without having the slightest idea what his campaign was. (I'm not racist by any means, but don't kid yourself that that didn't happen)

So I go out and lobby for my cause. Well my ideals aren't in line with the mass media, so it gets no coverage.

Thankfully I know that a lot more people are growing ever more pissed off, and the number grows by the day. But what can we really do?

[Bigfish]

You know the national debt never has to be paid? Its not like the government is obligating anyone to pay this stuff off. It just gets passed on and on and on, down the line, the intent being that so long as the national debt remains within a certain range of the size of the economy, it is floated and its weight shrunk from inflation. That's the idea anyway, and it more or less works when the economy is expanding. Problem is a certain SOMEONE hiked the thing up, and now that we're facing economic meltdown, the national debt gets a lot heavier.

Of course, that still has very little to do with the burden being placed on the citizenry. The government would have to default first, and then it wouldn't be able to borrow money for a while, which arguably could be a good thing, since nothing balances a gudget like a lack of funds. Only problem is its going to hurt like hell if it ever gets to that, since defecit spending would be largely curtailed, making it more difficult to spend our way out of a recession.

[Basilikos]

BigFish, you seem to have missed the fact that the income of the top isn't up for grabs. No one has the moral right to decide that a certain demographic should lose two-thirds of their income to taxes and that others should pay much less. I'm not in the group being completely raped right now, but that doesn't change the argument any. I wouldn't do the jobs these people do for the net they end up with. I just wouldn't - the effort is too great and the return is too little. What we really need to do is thank business owners and executives for not packing up shop because of the way they're treated.

[Basilikos]

You know the national debt never has to be paid?

That's not at all true. And I agree that W's spending spree was one of the most foolish things I've ever seen, but that's not what caused all this. Forcing banks to give loans that weren't going to be paid back for a period of years is what did this. Driving up prices of homes (and other things associated with them) with false demand is what created the bubble.

All debts have to be paid. Not paying debt is what got us here. You do understand that other people in the world own the debt of the USA and if they called it in, we'd be screwed.

[Bigfish]

Don't get me wrong, the guys at the top are at the top for a reason. I just don't buy it when people complain the people with the highest level of income have to pay the highest taxes. Both the share of tax burden and income increase exponentially as you get higher and higher to the richer portions of the populace, and to an extent I can understand the higher tax rates in so much that the richer portion of the populace utilize the regulatory aspects of the government more than the poorer. Tax laws are a complicated issue, and rarely amount a simple "cut taxes here" while raising them somewhere else. I've seen proprety taxes get cut in favor of a sales tax increase, which struck me as quite possibly the most ridiculous change in tax policy I'd ever seen in that state because it was a shift from a tax on the people who hold the express ability to pay to a fiat tax that affected everone from the bottom up.

Bottom line, the people complaining about their huge tax burden are largely doing so despite the fact that they make huge amounts of money and hold large tracts of wealth. That's fine, but pardon my lack of empathy when someone only took home 3 million dollars instead of 6.

And no, the national debt never has to be totally paid off. We've been carrying it around for centuries, and will continue to do so. Portions of it get payed off, which is soon replaced by more debt somewhere else. Its really just another form of taxation, but tied to GDP rather than actual income or transactions.

And its not like someone can just say "Time to pay up, America", both because of the terms of repayment, and the fact that if they DID try and collect it all at once, it would likely force the U.S. in to default, which means they lose all the money they invested here, and the global economy tanks even MORE.

[keyclone]

at no time does it make sense to work 80-100 hr/weeks for years to get ahead... only to take 50-80% of your income and hand it to those people that were getting stoned instead of working or going to school.

the people that are actually making the big money will go elsewhere (like asia where taxes are like 10-15%)... and at that point, you'll see people complain there are no jobs. geee... really? you mean those 'evil rich types' that fund companies would rather keep their money and put it into companies in countries where they can hire 20 people instead of 1? they'd move their cash to a location where they get more for the money instead of more failed government programs, which are really just set up to buy votes

and yes, i have been in the room trying to raise venture capital... trying to argue for using Americans and not offshoring. it doesn't go well if the VCs know the actual numbers.

in the end, you need those people that have the cash... in order to pay for the jobs held by those without cash.

[Bigfish]

It works the other way too, with the rich hiring lobbyists and making outrageous campaign contributions. I'd think you'd also need to have some pretty clear data on voter demographics to determine the correlation of tax policy with voting trends.

But seriously, was there a point in there where you weren't offering tired rhetoric about stoners perpetually living off Uncle Sam's teet in some magical welfare state where they don't have to work? I'd like to get in on that.

[dbick]

I think a flat tax would be amazing. Completely get rid of the IRS, and have a 10-15% flat tax. Then get rid of all un-needed agencies over time, so you can reduce said tax. The federal government should be there solely for national security, and dealing with foreign nations. Basically a military and diplomacy, that's it. Let the states handle the rest.


This is a great idea. I would only add to it to say that it should be a sales tax (the rate would have to be determined) If you are rich you would pay more taxes because you are buying more and the poor would pay less because they are buying less. We could add in some exceptions for staples such as food and things. One of the major problems with illegal immigration is that they are here using our resources (roads, hospitals, etc) without paying into the system. A flat sales tax would ensure that illegals pay taxes like everyone else. If people want to come to the USA to work and make a better life for themselves I say open the borders and let them in as long as they share some of the tax burden. A flat sales tax would also tax your local drug dealer every time he goes out and buys that fancy home or car.

I just don't understand the class envy that is going on in this nation today. Most of those "rich evil" ceos that make huge amounts of money also run huge businesses that employ thousands of people. Think about what they could do if the government got out of the way and let them make even more money. They might employ a few thousand more people. These employees then might go out and buy new homes, new cars, make investments, buy my products or hire others. Most weathly people spend allot of money on thier lifestyles, I guess i'd rather them spend it in the free market then hand it over to the government just so Nancy Pelosi can travel in a huge private jet between California and DC. You know thay they estimate it cost us over 5 millon a year just to move Queen Pelosi back and forth? When Newt Gingrich was speaker of the house, he traveled on comercial airlines. Its just plain audacity of the governmant to think that they know better how to spend our money. They redistribute the wealth in order to fund their worthless liberal social agendas.

Breaking News....

Blizzard has decided to hire a new CEO, except this time those that have WOW accounts get to vote on who gets the job. This is one of the candidates speeches:
"Dear World of Warcraft Players,
I feel your pain. In these times of economic crisis you are struggling to pay your subscription rates while these rich evil multiboxers are stomping you in the battlegrounds and stealing all your phat lewts. These evil mulitboxers not only have so much money that they can afford to pay for multiple accounts, they also have very expensive top of the line computers, the best video cards, the fastest processors and multiple widescreen monitors. Its just not fair. Ladies and gentlemen, vote for me and I will not only raise the subscritpion rates on multiboxers, I will make them pay for your accounts as well. Vote for me and you will get to play WoW for free AND I will give you a free epic set of your choosing. Those of you that have muliple accounts, i'm sorry but you are just too greedy and sometimes it is just necessary to spread the wealth around for the betterment of all. Anyone who has more then one WOW account will see their subscription rate double and then double again for any additional accounts therafter. I know this seems extreme but this is a crisis. Just think about all of the good vibes you will get for paying for everyone else. Thank you very much and don't forget to vote now and vote often."

...meanwhile all of the multiboxers say "F this" and start playing another mmo based out of Asia that not only is very multibox friendly, it has lower subscriotion rates as well. Since all of the people who actually pay to play have gone, WOW has to close its servers down and all of the "one boxers" cry and moan about those "evil mulitboxers" who were so greeedy and left.....THE END

[Bigfish]

This is a great idea. I would only add to it to say that it should be a sales tax (the rate would have to be determined) If you are rich you would pay more taxes because you are buying more and the poor would pay less because they are buying less. We could add in some exceptions for staples such as food and things. One of the major problems with illegal immigration is that they are here using our resources (roads, hospitals, etc) without paying into the system. A flat sales tax would ensure that illegals pay taxes like everyone else. If people want to come to the USA to work and make a better life for themselves I say open the borders and let them in as long as they share some of the tax burden. A flat sales tax would also tax your local drug dealer every time he goes out and buys that fancy home or car.

Not to nit pick, but a sales tax is a larger burden on the portion of the populace that spends all their income on subsisting. Namely, up to a certain income level, people spend all their money, and past that, people have more money than they can spend, which is where venture capitalists and investment come in. Now if that's where your value judgement on where taxes should be lies, so be it, but keep in mind its a burden on consumer spending, a hefty portion of our GDP.

Personally, I'd rather see a reformat of Capital Gains Taxes, but that's just me.


Breaking News....

Blizzard has decided to hire a new CEO, except this time those that have WOW accounts get to vote on who gets the job. This is one of the candidates speeches:
"Dear World of Warcraft Players,
I feel your pain. In these times of economic crisis you are struggling to pay your subscription rates while these rich evil multiboxers are stomping you in the battlegrounds and stealing all your phat lewts. These evil mulitboxers not only have so much money that they can afford to pay for multiple accounts, they also have very expensive top of the line computers, the best video cards, the fastest processors and multiple widescreen monitors. Its just not fair. Ladies and gentlemen, vote for me and I will not only raise the subscritpion rates on multiboxers, I will make them pay for your accounts as well. Vote for me and you will get to play WoW for free AND I will give you a free epic set of your choosing. Those of you that have muliple accounts, i'm sorry but you are just too greedy and sometimes it is just necessary to spread the wealth around for the betterment of all. Anyone who has more then one WOW account will see their subscription rate double and then double again for any additional accounts therafter. I know this seems extreme but this is a crisis. Just think about all of the good vibes you will get for paying for everyone else. Thank you very much and don't forget to vote now and vote often."

What a ridiculous supposition.

[keyclone]

But seriously, was there a point in there where you weren't offering tired rhetoric about stoners perpetually living off Uncle Sam's teet in some magical welfare state where they don't have to work? I'd like to get in on that. what? you haven't been to a state run university in the northeast (zoo-mass), have you? (truth be told, it'd been a while for me as well)

meanwhile, here's another thought. since the idea getting pushed around is that those with something should share a healthy portion of it with those without. ok... say... what's your girlfriend look like? i know quite a few people without one... i think you need to share 66% of her time with them. (how's that for slippery slope)

BTW... i would also imagine you have no idea what level of taxes were just so amazingly high that the founders of this country just had to go grab the field infantry rifle of the day (musket) and start popping off some red coats. want to know? 3%. that's right. 3 whole percent without any say in where it was going was just so crazy... we had to have a revolution. can you imagine what they would say to 65-80%? (btw, the highest tax bracket was 91% until Reagan came into office. he dropped it to 50 then 28%)

having high taxes on those that are working does absolutely nothing to cure lazy ass. just because you gave them money today will not change anything in the future. this is why the 'stimulus' bill will fail. you have the same people doing the same things... and expect a different outcome? (definition of insanity anyone?) all it did was put off the inevitable. (stimulus 2 anyone?)

as a person, if you don't want to end up in this situation... study hard, work hard, spend wisely, and save as much as you can. keep your materialistic desires in check.. and you'll be fine. one suggestion i made to a friends sister that wanted to move out of her parents home @ 19 was for her to stay there for 6+ months more... and each month, put at least $1,000 into a savings account. then after 6+ months, she would have a solid financial basis with which to start. she did it (10 months actually and $1,250/month) and bought her own place within 2 years of moving out. she was ~22.

so please, get over the 'rich should pay more' bullcrap. they already pay a ton and get NOTHING for it. hell, with what i'm making, i get nothing for my tax money. i'm self sufficient and have never been given or have taken anything from the fedgov. my public school education was paid for by my parents property taxes... and my college education was paid for by myself and my Dad (2 or 3 jobs while in school). fire and police are now paid for by my property taxes. roads by the gas tax. and don't say i get military unless i can call in air strikes. (seriously... what do federal income taxes pay for? not social security and medicare... the income taxes)

if i were making $130k (the line 0bama has drawn for singles to have their taxes jacked; $250 for a household), and living in CA, i'd be paying like $80k in taxes. all i can say is holy crap. work that hard and only take home $4k a month? and what other single year purchase is even close to that amount of money? cars and homes are multi-year purchases. a TV? that's only $3k. seriously... wtf would someone in that bracket get for their money? the ability to pay octo-mom's mortgage since she is unable?? screw that... why bother working in the first place

as someone that worked the 80-100 hr weeks for months/years on end... making good money but having no life along the way... i obviously have an issue with the mindset of taking money from those that work just because someone would like more without having to work for it. but then again, i'm just a sick and twisted freak and am obviously not 'enlightened enough' to understand the finer points of socialistic totalitarianism

[Basilikos]

I just don't buy it when people complain the people with the highest level of income have to pay the highest taxes. Both the share of tax burden and income increase exponentially as you get higher and higher to the richer portions of the populace, and to an extent I can understand the higher tax rates in so much that the richer portion of the populace utilize the regulatory aspects of the government more than the poorer.
I see your reasoning, but it doesn't change the problem.


Tax laws are a complicated issue,
Aside from the main track of discussion here, tax laws don't need to be anything more than, "Everyone pay X% of your paycheck each time you get paid. I realize you're not the one who ruined the tax code, but let's not lose sight of the fact that the government isn't legally permitted to due about 80-85% of what they currently do.


and rarely amount a simple "cut taxes here" while raising them somewhere else.
Sure, but let's recall that tax cuts overall work out well.


I've seen proprety taxes get cut in favor of a sales tax increase, which struck me as quite possibly the most ridiculous change in tax policy I'd ever seen in that state because it was a shift from a tax on the people who hold the express ability to pay to a fiat tax that affected everone from the bottom up.
Everyone has the ability to pay proper taxes - don't lose sight of that, either. I say get rid of everything but a single income tax and slash that rate to all heck. It would solve every financial problem we have right now.


Bottom line, the people complaining about their huge tax burden are largely doing so despite the fact that they make huge amounts of money and hold large tracts of wealth. That's fine, but pardon my lack of empathy when someone only took home 3 million dollars instead of 6.
I think you're missing the moral outrage of the entire problem (for people of all income brackets, too). I've been heavily taxed my whole adult life, but I'm okay. I completely understand your lack of empathy (good choice of words, too). Unlike me, others don't do so well. Let's use a not-so-far off metaphor (rape) to illustrate. Imagine that two people get raped and only one of them sustains serious injury because of it. Naturally, we're all going to sympathize with the one who was more seriously damaged (not the rich guy). The sympathy is not at all related to the true problem.

Of course, anyone who wants to could make a case that the rich aren't nearly as bad off as the poor in this situation (and not because of finances, either). The poor are the ones that have far less obligation to society, which actually makes the class divide worse. The rich will end up seeing themselves as far more fit to have more political power due to the fact that they are the ones paying for the country to operate. That attitude would be wrong, of course, but it does show one of the effects of graduated taxes on the poor. That, and the the poor are at a loss due to the fact that they aren't likely to truly understand what goes on from day to day. They'll never understand what it really takes to tolerate such abuse since they aren't subject to it.


And no, the national debt never has to be totally paid off. We've been carrying it around for centuries, and will continue to do so. Portions of it get payed off, which is soon replaced by more debt somewhere else. Its really just another form of taxation, but tied to GDP rather than actual income or transactions.
Regardless of the conditions attached to the national debt, if the people that own it want it, they'll get it one way or the other.


And its not like someone can just say "Time to pay up, America", both because of the terms of repayment, and the fact that if they DID try and collect it all at once, it would likely force the U.S. in to default, which means they lose all the money they invested here, and the global economy tanks even MORE.
That doesn't mean they won't tolerate the consequences of calling the debt in. I've not researched the terms of repayment (and I doubt any elected officials have, either, not that it's material to us right now), but I would suspect that default isn't an option since it would be too easily used as a safety net to avoid repayment at all. I realize those who own our debt probably make nice interest on it every year, but ultimately it has to be paid down or bad things happen.

We know what happens when debts aren't paid.

[dbick]

What a ridiculous supposition.

Of course its ridiculous! Its also an illustration of absurdity by being absurd. Tell me you can't find any similarities between my absurd little story and what just happened in America in November. The democrat party bought this election by creating class envy and relying on people willing to take what they have not earned. Obama promised to give in return for votes. A friend of mine at the local welfare office told me the office was swamped with calls the day after Obama won the election with people asking how much their welfare check was going to increase. You've got one party that says (or should have said...McCain was a poor choice) "It's your money, we're gonna get out of your way and let you spend it how you see fit" and another party that said "Their(the rich's) money will be our(the governments) money and we are going to redistribute it how we deem appropriate." One party that wants to teach a man to fish and another that says "hell no don't fish! we'll give you the fish, just sit there on your ass and eat it!" (Someday will come when you get tired of the governments fish but you won't know how to go out and get your own..well that's another story.)

Used to be in this country that most people had pride and would ask the government to stand aside and let them help themselves. Nowadays it seems like the majority just want to sit back and let the government feed them instead of working for it. I think we have reached a tipping point in America where 50% or more of the voting public is either on the public dole or relying some way on a public social program. All politicians need to do now to win elections is promise to increase what the government is giving to the people that take. The people that are paying the bill will eventually start a revolution and leave..true story bro.

Anyways why are we arguing this anyway. History tells us that socialism has failed all over the world anywhere that it has been tried. Tax cuts have proven to help pull us out of a recession...

[keyclone]

Anyways why are we arguing this anyway. History tells us that socialism has failed all over the world anywhere that it has been tried. Tax cuts have proven to help pull us out of a recession... QFT

[Stealthy]

I am so glad I live in Australia right now (apart from the crappy ping times that is)! :P

[Bigfish]

(btw, the highest tax bracket was 91% until Reagan came into office. he dropped it to 50 then 28%)

That actually had more to do with a simplifying of tax code. Not to say Reagan didn't cut taxes as well, but the change in tax code from 91% to 28% had a lot to do with the fact that there were so many deductions you could take in the first place. Tax revenues didn't change that much, just the calculation used to come up with how much you pay. The final result was still more or less the same.

Also, it's absolutely absurd to suggest the 3% tax was the cause of the American Revolution.

Regardless, no one seems to be grasping that tax cuts are not a panacea for economic issues, nor the issues of public good provision, the free rider problem, or social insurance. Lets just dissolve the government, eliminate taxes, and be done with it. I don't want to pay taxes more than anyone else, so lets just drop the system.

Despite what great storytelling it makes, all the good things in the world being the work of good hearted people and all the evil things of the world being the work of the evil hearted is a fairy tale.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Viva la Revolution! Down with the corrupt, greedy politicians who line their own pockets with taxes and provide nothing in return!

[Bigfish]

Tell me you can't find any similarities between my absurd little story and what just happened in America in November.

I see a poorly constructed conspiracy theory. The American people were bribed by tax hikes and social programs? Please. Bush and Cheney dug their own hole and more or less handed the election to the dems. It didn't help that McCain turned a blind eye to the single biggest incoming economic crisis in decades and picked what amounted to a bat-shit insane nutjob from Alaska for a running mate.

I'm no fan of the democrats, and I'd like nothing more than a competant republican to get in to office, but honestly, you're kidding yourself if you think any option was sunshine and roses.

[dbick]

you're kidding yourself if you think any option was sunshine and roses.

You are absolutely right. I have never liked McCain and I held my nose when I voted for him. The republican party has really lost allot of its base the last few years, although I'd argue it wasn't Bush/cheeny, it was more of the pandering to the left and diluting it's conservative principles that lost them major support.


"bat-shit insane nutjob from Alaska for a running mate. "

Well at least I understand where you are coming from now...guess I'm bat-shit insane too because until he picked her for VP I was not going to vote at all.

[keyclone]

It didn't help that McCain turned a blind eye to the single biggest incoming economic crisis in decades and picked what amounted to a bat-shit insane nutjob from Alaska for a running mate. when your political opposites are attacking someone, you know you have the right candidate.

Romney was attacked more then a year before the primaries started, as he was the toughest one to defeat, in their eyes. he couldn't get in front of a camera without the press asking "so... you're a mormon, huh? what's that about?" meanwhile, the press was not allowed to mention 0bama's middle name, let alone his muslim background, without cries of racism and intolerance. (yet, he asked to use his middle name for the swearing in... shocking many people on the mall that hadn't heard that before)

mccain was selected by the left because they knew they could easily defeat him (old and crusty never wins). same with huckabee. ron paul has no real political infrastructure, so the left did all they could to keep him in the race and drain votes from the eventual GOP candidate (this years Ross Perot).

oh yea... the 'smooth talking uniter of the world' has done wonders. people that voted for him should be honest and start to rethink the choice. he wasn't vetted by the press and no one knew how bad he was off prompter. his prejudices, currently on display with the British PM, are appaling. the fumbles of he and hrclinton are total amatuer hour, especially when you consider they brought in the seasoned crew from the clinton administration. when i heard about the 25 dvds, i was actually embarassed for my country (i apologize to any British that may be reading this)

if Palin had made any of these mistakes, the press would be bashing her nonstop. hypocracy and inconsistencies in reporting/treatment drive me crazy.

[dbick]

Don't forget the "staples easy button" gift to Russia that the smartest female in the world Clinton gave. Not only was it a stupid gift in the first place, they got the word for "reset" wrong and instead it said "overcharge". Hillary said that they worked hard to get the word right. Really Hillary? The Secretary of State of the USA "worked hard" on finding a Russian word for "reset" and got it wrong? Wow..that's sad. Maybe she should have picked up the phone and asked Condi Rice since she speaks Russian among many other languages. Keep in mind that these are the same people who smugly tried to suggest that they were smarter than Bush. This is total amateur hour folks and it's embarrassing as hell. Compare that and the 25 DVD's to the PM of Britain to any of the contrived manipulated blunders that the left reamed Palin for..there is no comparison. The media is fully and completely in the tank for the left.