soybomb,
Next time pay enough taxes to get a refund. What was you total tax liability for last year?
Next time pay enough taxes to get a refund. What was you total tax liability for last year?
I think total taxes paid was about $800-ish. I've got some stocks too, not just the job that I mentioned earlier that adds extra income 
I don't expect $600 back from $800, but if there is extra to return to people why shouldnt I get a share, a smaller share of it back? Did I not pay in the same kind of money that other epople did?
I don't expect $600 back from $800, but if there is extra to return to people why shouldnt I get a share, a smaller share of it back? Did I not pay in the same kind of money that other epople did?Soybomb - Did I not pay in the same kind of money that other people did?
You paid mainly FICA taxes and those don't count. You see, rich folks don't have to pay those taxes on incomes above $73K. Taking a flat percentage on their upper incomes for FICA without any deductions or loopholes would hurt them badly. So they fight hard to make the lower income groups pay these taxes (without loopholes) while they go to their accountants and get deductions for their income taxes and then campaign for people like Bush to pass income tax cut packages. Doing this, they come out way ahead. If they did pay FICA on income above $73K, you can bet Bush's tax cut would have been structured alot different than the legislation that was just passed.
You paid mainly FICA taxes and those don't count. You see, rich folks don't have to pay those taxes on incomes above $73K. Taking a flat percentage on their upper incomes for FICA without any deductions or loopholes would hurt them badly. So they fight hard to make the lower income groups pay these taxes (without loopholes) while they go to their accountants and get deductions for their income taxes and then campaign for people like Bush to pass income tax cut packages. Doing this, they come out way ahead. If they did pay FICA on income above $73K, you can bet Bush's tax cut would have been structured alot different than the legislation that was just passed.
GasX
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2001
- 29,033
- 6
- 81
Also, for all of you crying poor:
<< Every day at a few minutes past noon ten men walk into Daschles Diner on the
outskirts of Washington D.C. These are men of habit, a habit which dictates
that they will all order the exact same meals every day, and every day the
final tab will come to the exact same total. The ten meals are priced at $10
each, so the tab was $100. One hundred dollars each and every day.
Does every man pay the price of his $10 meal as he leaves? Not at
Daschle's Diner. No sir! At Daschles Diner the motto is "From each according
to their ability, to each according to their hunger." So, each man was
charged for his meal according to his ability to pay!
So, every day the ten diners would finish their lunch and lineup in
exactly the same order as they pass the cashier and leave.The first four men
would walk right past the cashier without paying a thing. A free meal!
The fifth man in line would hand over $1 as he left. At least he was
paying something. Diner number six would hand over $3 to the cashier. Number
seven would pay $7. Diner number eight paid $12. That was more than the
value of his meal, but he, like those who followed him in line, had been
very lucky in life and was, therefore, he was in a position to pay for his
meal and for a part of someone elses. Diner number nine paid $18.
Then comes diner number 10. He is the wealthiest of the ten diners. He's
taken some real chances and has worked well into the night when the other
diners were home, and it has paid off. When number 10 gets to the cashier he
pays the balance of the bill. He forks over $59.
One day an amazing thing happens. It seems that Daschle has a partner in
Daschles Diner. The partner runs an upscale restaurant, Trentt's Trattoria,
located in a wealthier section of D.C. Times have been good and the
partnership has been raking in record profits, so the partner, who controls
51% of the partnership, orders a 20% reduction in the price of meals.
The next day the ten diners arrive on schedule.They sit down and eat
their same meals. This time, though, the 20% price cut has gone into effect
and the bill comes to $80. Eight bucks per diner. The diners line up at the
cashier in the same order as before.
For the first four diners, no change. They march out without paying a
cent. Free meal. Diner number five and six lay claim to their portion of the
$20 price cut right away. Five used to pay $1. Today, though, he walks out
with the first four and pays nothing. That's one more diner on the
freeloaders list.
Diner number six cuts his share of the tab from $3 to $2. Life is good.
Diner number seven? His tab before the price cut was $7. He now gets by with
just $5. Diner number eight lowers his payment from $12 to $9. He moves
ever-so-slightly into the freeloading category. Next is diner number nine.
He's still paying more than his share, but that's OK, he's been successful
(lucky) and can afford it. He pays $12.
Now --- here comes diner number ten. He, too, wants his share of the $20
price cut, so his share of the tab goes from $59 to $52.He saves $7.00 per
day!
Outside the restaurant there is unrest. The first nine diners have
convened on the street corner to discuss the events of the day. Diner six
spots diner ten with $7 in his hand. "Not fair!" he screams. "I only got $1.
He got 7!" Diner five, who now eats for free, is similarly outraged. "I only
got one dollar too! This is wrong!" Diner seven joins the rumblings; "Hey! I
only get 2 bucks back! Why should he get 7?"
The unrest spreads. Now the first four men - men who have been getting a
free ride all along - join in. They demand to know why they didnt share in
the savings from the $20 price cut! Sure, they haven't been paying for their
meals anyway, but they do have other bills to pay and they felt that a share
of the $20 savings should have gone to them.
Now we have a mob. The laws of Democracy - mob rule - take over and they
turn on the tenth diner. They grab him, tie him up, then take him to the top
of a hill and lynch him.
At the bottom of the hill proprietor Daschle watches the goings-on, and
smiles.
The next day nine men show up at Dashles Diner for their noon meal. When
the meal is over they're $52 short.
>>
<< Every day at a few minutes past noon ten men walk into Daschles Diner on the
outskirts of Washington D.C. These are men of habit, a habit which dictates
that they will all order the exact same meals every day, and every day the
final tab will come to the exact same total. The ten meals are priced at $10
each, so the tab was $100. One hundred dollars each and every day.
Does every man pay the price of his $10 meal as he leaves? Not at
Daschle's Diner. No sir! At Daschles Diner the motto is "From each according
to their ability, to each according to their hunger." So, each man was
charged for his meal according to his ability to pay!
So, every day the ten diners would finish their lunch and lineup in
exactly the same order as they pass the cashier and leave.The first four men
would walk right past the cashier without paying a thing. A free meal!
The fifth man in line would hand over $1 as he left. At least he was
paying something. Diner number six would hand over $3 to the cashier. Number
seven would pay $7. Diner number eight paid $12. That was more than the
value of his meal, but he, like those who followed him in line, had been
very lucky in life and was, therefore, he was in a position to pay for his
meal and for a part of someone elses. Diner number nine paid $18.
Then comes diner number 10. He is the wealthiest of the ten diners. He's
taken some real chances and has worked well into the night when the other
diners were home, and it has paid off. When number 10 gets to the cashier he
pays the balance of the bill. He forks over $59.
One day an amazing thing happens. It seems that Daschle has a partner in
Daschles Diner. The partner runs an upscale restaurant, Trentt's Trattoria,
located in a wealthier section of D.C. Times have been good and the
partnership has been raking in record profits, so the partner, who controls
51% of the partnership, orders a 20% reduction in the price of meals.
The next day the ten diners arrive on schedule.They sit down and eat
their same meals. This time, though, the 20% price cut has gone into effect
and the bill comes to $80. Eight bucks per diner. The diners line up at the
cashier in the same order as before.
For the first four diners, no change. They march out without paying a
cent. Free meal. Diner number five and six lay claim to their portion of the
$20 price cut right away. Five used to pay $1. Today, though, he walks out
with the first four and pays nothing. That's one more diner on the
freeloaders list.
Diner number six cuts his share of the tab from $3 to $2. Life is good.
Diner number seven? His tab before the price cut was $7. He now gets by with
just $5. Diner number eight lowers his payment from $12 to $9. He moves
ever-so-slightly into the freeloading category. Next is diner number nine.
He's still paying more than his share, but that's OK, he's been successful
(lucky) and can afford it. He pays $12.
Now --- here comes diner number ten. He, too, wants his share of the $20
price cut, so his share of the tab goes from $59 to $52.He saves $7.00 per
day!
Outside the restaurant there is unrest. The first nine diners have
convened on the street corner to discuss the events of the day. Diner six
spots diner ten with $7 in his hand. "Not fair!" he screams. "I only got $1.
He got 7!" Diner five, who now eats for free, is similarly outraged. "I only
got one dollar too! This is wrong!" Diner seven joins the rumblings; "Hey! I
only get 2 bucks back! Why should he get 7?"
The unrest spreads. Now the first four men - men who have been getting a
free ride all along - join in. They demand to know why they didnt share in
the savings from the $20 price cut! Sure, they haven't been paying for their
meals anyway, but they do have other bills to pay and they felt that a share
of the $20 savings should have gone to them.
Now we have a mob. The laws of Democracy - mob rule - take over and they
turn on the tenth diner. They grab him, tie him up, then take him to the top
of a hill and lynch him.
At the bottom of the hill proprietor Daschle watches the goings-on, and
smiles.
The next day nine men show up at Dashles Diner for their noon meal. When
the meal is over they're $52 short.
>>
<< You paid $800 in taxes and you want some back? >>
Instead of trying to come up with insulting stuff why don't you actually come up with a sound arguement. I know, new idea, but try it sometime. I paid the same kind of money you did for taxes, why do you deserve a share back and I don't?
<< Nice ...everyone's looking for handouts nowadays, sir. >>
Please see above sir. Its not a handout I'm looking for. If tax payers as a whole get a refund, why don't I get my share of the refund too? Actually if you knew my economic ideaology you'd know that I support flat tax rates and would be the last person in line looking for a handout. But if the taxpayers get a refund, I think being a taxpayer I should get my part of the refund too no matter how small or insignificant it is to you.
Mwildung - I don't believe the rich should pay more taxes. Taxes should be equal. However, right now, they are not. Why, because today more than ever before there are so many loopholes for upper income groups. How do we know this? Well, since the early 80's, the tax code has been modified so that people making $5K or less are paying 18% more than they used to, people making $50K or less are paying the same but pay 5% more in social security, and people making above $50K are getting 57% more than they used to.
I would support elimination of loopholes (all loopholes) for personal income taxes and more progressive business taxes which show favor to small and startup businesses while making the corporate giants pay a higher rate on the higher portion of their incomes.
Our progressive system is a pretty fair one. The only problems are the loopholes which enable politicians to curry favor among the classes. This needs to be stopped (but I doubt it ever will because Congress likes the control and power it gives them) and corporations pretty much run the show overriding democracies in the states and around the world. They have no desire to be controlled by any petty government officials.
I would support elimination of loopholes (all loopholes) for personal income taxes and more progressive business taxes which show favor to small and startup businesses while making the corporate giants pay a higher rate on the higher portion of their incomes.
Our progressive system is a pretty fair one. The only problems are the loopholes which enable politicians to curry favor among the classes. This needs to be stopped (but I doubt it ever will because Congress likes the control and power it gives them) and corporations pretty much run the show overriding democracies in the states and around the world. They have no desire to be controlled by any petty government officials.
Mwildung - I believe the progressive income tax system is fair. This is why it was ratified by some of the most brilliant folks in our nation's history (from Lincoln on down the line). Where it starts getting into trouble is in the loopholes and business exclusions. It's interesting that once these tools became quite popular in the early 1900's, then the government had to start pushing taxes onto income groups who had never even fallen into the progressive system by the time the depression rolled around. This made the economic recovery that much worse since ordinary people were now paying taxes. From there on, it's been an erosion to the system we have today.
Many of the flat tax proposals I have seen do not consider all forms of income, only wage income. This is why I do not consider them representative of "fair" taxation and why I won't support them.
Many of the flat tax proposals I have seen do not consider all forms of income, only wage income. This is why I do not consider them representative of "fair" taxation and why I won't support them.
XMan
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 12,513
- 49
- 91
If tax payers as a whole get a refund, why don't I get my share of the refund too?
First of all, it's not a refund.
Taxes have been lowered from 15% to 10% on the first 20-30,000 that people make. The money being returned is the money that has been paid to the government since Jan. 1 that is over and above that new 10% limit.
Soy, the money being returned comes from Federal income tax. You got a return last year, right? The money returned to you was the federal income tax that you paid. The $800 was your Social Security, state taxes, and Medicare payments. You should make a small enough amount that you don't actually pay much of anything in Federal taxes.
First of all, it's not a refund.
Taxes have been lowered from 15% to 10% on the first 20-30,000 that people make. The money being returned is the money that has been paid to the government since Jan. 1 that is over and above that new 10% limit.
Soy, the money being returned comes from Federal income tax. You got a return last year, right? The money returned to you was the federal income tax that you paid. The $800 was your Social Security, state taxes, and Medicare payments. You should make a small enough amount that you don't actually pay much of anything in Federal taxes.
Mwildung - It's fair because, progressive taxes (such as income taxes) pay mostly for Rich Boy toys: Desert Storm, Cold War, gunboat diplomacy, the Fed's infinite labor pool (WANTED: unemployment) and any related poverty, NAFTA, GAT, free trade agreements, interstate freeways, National Parks, FBI, CIA, a hot-shot standing military, etc. And regressive taxes: (mostly local sales taxes and fees) go for Poor Boy toys: local roads, hospitals, schools, local parks, libraries, cops, city/county councils, fire fighting, etc.
If "toys" sounds too flippant, feel free to swap with a term that rings true for you, such as "tools of the trade", or "economic infrastructures."
To oversimplify a bit, a carpenter does not require the Rich Boy toys, and the CEO of GM does not require the Poor Boy toys. And progressive (mostly federal income) taxes soak the rich, regressive (mostly local sales) taxes soak the poor.
So each Boy is largely paying for his own meal.
Some say that the American meal is the best meal in the world. If you have eaten of it, pay your debts, and don't try and sneak out the back door.
If "toys" sounds too flippant, feel free to swap with a term that rings true for you, such as "tools of the trade", or "economic infrastructures."
To oversimplify a bit, a carpenter does not require the Rich Boy toys, and the CEO of GM does not require the Poor Boy toys. And progressive (mostly federal income) taxes soak the rich, regressive (mostly local sales) taxes soak the poor.
So each Boy is largely paying for his own meal.
Some say that the American meal is the best meal in the world. If you have eaten of it, pay your debts, and don't try and sneak out the back door.
GasX
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2001
- 29,033
- 6
- 81
shiforbrains - A carpenter can ill afford to pay $5 per gallon for gas for hig 7mpg Ford F350. He had as much if not more to lose than a "rich boy" by not entering into the Gulf War. The same carpenter probably rides to work on an interstate highway...
And actually, before I refure your statements, can I dwell on the use of the phrase "rich boy toys" for a moment. WTF? I mean WTF? Seriously, WTF?
Is welfare a rich boy toy?
what about social security?
who pays for them?
national parks? I think EVERYONE uses them
God, your last post was so absurd I can't even coherently reply because there are so manythings to attack.
If you want to continue this discussion, please repost your views without trite meaningless catch phrases.
And actually, before I refure your statements, can I dwell on the use of the phrase "rich boy toys" for a moment. WTF? I mean WTF? Seriously, WTF?
Is welfare a rich boy toy?
what about social security?
who pays for them?
national parks? I think EVERYONE uses them
God, your last post was so absurd I can't even coherently reply because there are so manythings to attack.
If you want to continue this discussion, please repost your views without trite meaningless catch phrases.
Mwil"dingbat" - If you cannot understand the balance of progressive/regressive tax systems such as we have in the US, then there is nothing I can say to enlighten you because you've closed your mind off (or you don't have the ability to think on a higher level) and have no desire for a better understanding. Most all of the world's systems have been based on this form of taxation from the beginning of history and there is a good reason for it.
Welfare was at one time considered desirable for the wealthy to fund and hence it's first enactment during the depression. It provided an income for people who otherwise did not have one and kept them from resorting to violence and theft during a time when the country was undergoing massive transition and destabilization. However, now that we have achieved stability through massive building of prisons and increase in law enforcement over the past few decades, welfare has slowly been rescinded it looks like society is still stabilized with the dropping crime rates reported throughout the 1990's. I doubt government will consider funding welfare unless destabilization occurs on a wider scale in the future.
Social security is a flat tax that benefits mainly the poor (anyone with incomes less than $73K)and is therefore mostly regressive. That's why there is an income limitation of $73K. Business does pay their own equal share, but it is limited as well. This is becoming a problem though for businesses as they try to maintain profitability in a world of increasing competition. Hence, I think we'll start hearing more about privatization to increase individuals benefits and possibly reduce the burden which business has to match. Bush already has a team working on this.
As for the Gulf War, you really can't be so naive. The US doesn't even receive much of it's oil from the middle east, that oil goes mainly to Asia. And many corporations and investors made quite a bit of money off of that war. Even Cheney has been in the news recently with articles denoting how he was not forthcoming with the dealings he had. Haven't you ever heard of the phrase, "jingoes should pay for jingoism". It was quite popular when the tax system was first enacted and still holds true for conflicts we have had ranging from World War 2 to Vietnam to Korea to the Gulf War.
You really should get a clue. The country is fine with a progressive/regressive tax system. It only needs a few reforms to make sure the balance doesn't get shifted too much.
Welfare was at one time considered desirable for the wealthy to fund and hence it's first enactment during the depression. It provided an income for people who otherwise did not have one and kept them from resorting to violence and theft during a time when the country was undergoing massive transition and destabilization. However, now that we have achieved stability through massive building of prisons and increase in law enforcement over the past few decades, welfare has slowly been rescinded it looks like society is still stabilized with the dropping crime rates reported throughout the 1990's. I doubt government will consider funding welfare unless destabilization occurs on a wider scale in the future.
Social security is a flat tax that benefits mainly the poor (anyone with incomes less than $73K)and is therefore mostly regressive. That's why there is an income limitation of $73K. Business does pay their own equal share, but it is limited as well. This is becoming a problem though for businesses as they try to maintain profitability in a world of increasing competition. Hence, I think we'll start hearing more about privatization to increase individuals benefits and possibly reduce the burden which business has to match. Bush already has a team working on this.
As for the Gulf War, you really can't be so naive. The US doesn't even receive much of it's oil from the middle east, that oil goes mainly to Asia. And many corporations and investors made quite a bit of money off of that war. Even Cheney has been in the news recently with articles denoting how he was not forthcoming with the dealings he had. Haven't you ever heard of the phrase, "jingoes should pay for jingoism". It was quite popular when the tax system was first enacted and still holds true for conflicts we have had ranging from World War 2 to Vietnam to Korea to the Gulf War.
You really should get a clue. The country is fine with a progressive/regressive tax system. It only needs a few reforms to make sure the balance doesn't get shifted too much.
GasX
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2001
- 29,033
- 6
- 81
Thank you for restating your position intelligently. You have still failed to answer my question regarding fairness. I am not against progressive taxes, I am just trying to point out that they are not entirely fair.
I am a registered Republican, but I have libertarian leanings- i.e. no government is good government. To that end, paying a higher and higher percentage of the cost of government services the less I need those services is not fair IMO.
I understand where you are going with the rich/poor thing, but I don't agree with it. Cheney is a bad example, beause he is in a position of undue influence. I am sure there are other examples though...
I am a registered Republican, but I have libertarian leanings- i.e. no government is good government. To that end, paying a higher and higher percentage of the cost of government services the less I need those services is not fair IMO.
I understand where you are going with the rich/poor thing, but I don't agree with it. Cheney is a bad example, beause he is in a position of undue influence. I am sure there are other examples though...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter