Author Topic: TaxDay (Read 1479 times)

Eagler · « **Reply #30 on:** April 15, 2002, 03:25:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
I'm reading............Happy Birthday Eagler

thank you sir

streakeagle · « **Reply #31 on:** April 15, 2002, 03:30:23 PM »

Flat tax may not work, but neither does the scaled tax. It does no good to charge rich people more when they are able to find more loopholes and still pay less taxes than poor people percentagewise.

I think the solution is simple: a flat rate national sales tax but necessities aren't taxed, so poor people who don't spend their money on luxuries are almost wholly exempt. I am sure the rich would still find a way around such a system.

Of course the present system isn't going to be radically changed anytime soon. Too many people's jobs depend on our current tax laws. IRS, tax lawyers, H&R Block, etc. A flat rate sales tax would virtually eliminate all of those.

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #32 on:** April 15, 2002, 03:33:31 PM »

Quote

No joke. I would submit to you that if you think somebody is crazy for squeaking about how much tax they pay you are the one with the head "far up your hass" Smells good eh?

I think its crazy that someone is squeaking that they only get $600 free money totally clear for doing absolutely nothing other then being present during a booming economy.

Seems to make a tad more sence than feeling that the goverment is only out to screw everyone over any opportunity they get and they'd steal your farm if you even give them the chance because that's what they really enjoy doing.

AKDejaVu

midnight Target · « **Reply #33 on:** April 15, 2002, 03:33:42 PM »

I'm all for a simplified tax system too. Has anyone ever calculated the flat tax rate necessary to maintain the budget?
And Udie......what about single FATHERS? I was in that category for many years, and I got really really sick of hearing about single moms this and single moms that. Freakin judge didn't even make that "B" I was married to pay child support!! Single mom's got it easy compared to single dads.
Case in point - Take your 5 year old daughter to a ball game, and then hear she has to go to the bathroom:eek: . Now switch the sexes and it is no longer an issue.

Udie · « **Reply #34 on:** April 15, 2002, 03:36:45 PM »

Originally posted by AKDejaVu
I think its crazy that someone is squeaking that they only get $600 free money totally clear for doing absolutely nothing other then being present during a booming economy.

Well they sure as hell did alot more work for the money than the Feds did, just by showing up they did. That line cracks me up man, you just explained the 8 years of the Clinton administration (ie. place holder and he even screwed that up)

Seems to make a tad more sence than feeling that the goverment is only out to screw everyone over any opportunity they get and they'd steal your farm if you even give them the chance because that's what they really enjoy doing.

Well if they don't enjoy it how come they do it so much?

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #35 on:** April 15, 2002, 03:43:15 PM »

Umm.. udie... you sure as hell talk like its revenue for the feds. Do they get bonuses based on how much they earn in taxes? You think the IRS announces "$1000 per employee for having a stellar year!"?

Its what we commoners call "INCOME". It doesn't seem too suprising that something called an "INCOME TAX" would be applied to it. Though... many would take the opportunity to try and explain why they really deserve much more than they are getting. Of coure... many also explain why they deserve to continue getting welfare without attempting to better their situation also.

Quote

Well if they don't enjoy it how come they do it so much?

That's the point handsomehunk. They don't. People like to say they do... and they like to say it happens all the time. The truth is... it doesn't.

Unless... maybe... just maybe... you can support this with some figures?

AKDejaVu

mietla · « **Reply #36 on:** April 15, 2002, 03:59:33 PM »

That's it, the socialists have won.

Not only they've succeded in conditioning people to accept the income tax, they've bread a generations of dependent recipients who will actually defend it and demand more.

Sad

Wonder what would Founding Fathers say?

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #37 on:** April 15, 2002, 04:07:01 PM »

LOL! So.. we didn't have income tax because the founding fathers thought it was socialistic?

I do believe our founding fathers would have suggested having some kind of say-so in where your tax dollars were going and having some accountability for tax increases. I believe they called it representation.

It wasn't the taxation that was the problem...

AKDejaVu

majic · « **Reply #38 on:** April 15, 2002, 04:10:43 PM »

Umm... if you had a 12 dollar minimum wage (about 24k a year), how much do you think it would cost to eat at McDonalds? (or purchase anything?) The poverty line would just go higher and inflation would soar. (Warning: this is just a theory as I have no degree in economics, so correct me if I'm wrong and you have said degree.)

Udie · « **Reply #39 on:** April 15, 2002, 04:12:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target

And Udie......what about single FATHERS? I was in that category for many years, and I got really really sick of hearing about single moms this and single moms that. Freakin judge didn't even make that "B" I was married to pay child support!! Single mom's got it easy compared to single dads.
Case in point - Take your 5 year old daughter to a ball game, and then hear she has to go to the bathroom:eek: . Now switch the sexes and it is no longer an issue.

YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I forgot them

same as the single moms!!!! You should have seen the crap the state of Tx put my roommate through for the past 18 yrs. It included jail (missed 1 payment) and it included not seeing his son for 3 yrs while having to send money to the state while they sent it to his ex, when he didn't even know what state she was in with thier child......

Toad · « **Reply #40 on:** April 15, 2002, 04:19:11 PM »

The Founding Fathers would probably say "Income tax? Income tax? We didn't put no stinking "income tax" in this system! Get it out of there!"

BTW, you guys did hear that the "top 5%" bracket starts around $121K or $122K, right? That's "feelthy rich"?

I don't mind picking up the slack for folks in trouble , are ill or who have problems through no fault of their own.

It's the goof-offs that are able-bodied and reasonably intelligent that are basically along for a free ride that make me think twice about "progressive"

income tax. Some folks strive to achieve and some don't. So we should penalize the achievers and reward the slackers? Oh well.

Quote

Deja: "The main reason that 1 person can pay as much in taxes as 10 people is that he is actually making 10 times more."

As they say in the car rental biz.. "not exactly". The "progressive" system insures that the more you make the more you pay and it's not exactly linear. Depends on which income group you pick the 10 people out of, doesn't it? Take a guy at the top 1% of income and I'll wager he pays FAR more tax overall than 10 guys in the bottom 1% payer bracket.

...... end of random thoughts, please continue.

Eagler · « **Reply #41 on:** April 15, 2002, 04:30:36 PM »

BTW, you guys did hear that the "top 5%" bracket starts around $121K or $122K, right? That's "feelthy rich"?

to the guy struggling at < 25k it is

but you are right, many two family incomes now fall into the "top 5%"

I think joe six pack thinks of the Bill Gates & co when "top 5%" is mentioned

Just peeves me to see these fat arse politicans spewing this nonsense we can't do without heavy taxation. And with 50% only paying 5%, they have many ignorant ears to spew too ...

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #42 on:** April 15, 2002, 04:41:53 PM »

Quote

As they say in the car rental biz.. "not exactly". The "progressive" system insures that the more you make the more you pay and it's not exactly linear. Depends on which income group you pick the 10 people out of, doesn't it? Take a guy at the top 1% of income and I'll wager he pays FAR more tax overall than 10 guys in the bottom 1% payer bracket.

And.. while I'd like to feel sorry for those poor souls trying to scrape by in the top 1% of the income bracket... I'm just not mustering it.

I don't like the free-loading permanent welfare types. Not the ones that just can't climb up... but the ones that don't even reach for the rungs.

I just feel it isn't all that unreasonable for someone to give up a little more to take up for the fact that some people just can't afford to. I seriously doubt the extra taxation will be more of an irritation than worrying if you will be able to feed your children next week.

Personally... I'm very near the "upper 5%". I feel the crunch of taxes since my wife and I both work and have no children. I still maintain that me having to complain about the taxes I pay on $100,000 per year pale in comparison to the worries that many others have to endure.

Yet.. here we go again.

AKDejaVu

Toad · « **Reply #43 on:** April 15, 2002, 04:43:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
I think joe six pack thinks of the Bill Gates & co when "top 5%" is mentioned

Of course; you're exactly right.

However, as you point out, many "typical" US married couples, with both partners working, that busted their *sses to get educated in their chosen fields and then busted their *sses to get good at what they do and then busted their *sses to get a good job in those fields..... make up a significant portion of those haughty, spoiled, rich bastiges in the "top 5%".

They must be punished for their success! Light the bonfire!

Toad · « **Reply #44 on:** April 15, 2002, 04:50:59 PM »

Deja, it's why the whole system needs a serious overhaul and change of direction.

As someone pointed out, however, that won't happen because "taxes" are big business. HR Block isn't going to support a "simple" tax.

I recognize the need for some people to be exempt by income. Therefore, you're always going to have some paying more than others.

I personally favor a "flat tax + national sales tax combo". I'd exempt people below a certain level of income from the flat tax and I'd only put the sales tax on items that are not "necessity"
items.

I think that system would have a whole lot more "fairness" in it than the one we have now.

The other factor is that there have been a few studies around the world that show one common point. When tax rates approach 40% on "the rich", "the rich" shift to spending more time/money into avoiding paying taxes rather than making more money which a goverment can then tax (building their businesses). I think the most famous study was done in Sweden on it. Guess where the top US bracket is now?