Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on January 20, 2004, 08:48:19 PM
-
I've heard all about this "tax cuts for the rich" stuff as of late and I have to say I must be rich. I just filed my taxes for 2003 this week and my refund is just under twice as big as it was before the "tax cuts for the rich" (2002) PLUS I got a nice check last summer to boot!
Whats so funny is I'm active duty military that takes the standard deduction with two kids who makes under 30K a year (combined household income). I guess they've lowered the bar for who is "rich"
Thanks Mr President. I might get my 42" flat panel this year after all
-
is anyone who is not on welfare
-
Originally posted by Eagler
is anyone who is not on welfare
:rofl
I must be rolling in dough then!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
is anyone who is not on welfare
Do people actually pay taxes on welfare? I know I never payed taxes on my unemployment when I was on it for a while.
If not how can you give them tax cuts. If I'm considered "poor" and the govt is allready giving me back 150% of what I pay in how can they acutally "CUT" my taxes. Its sad cause this kind of program really helps people and the left would just call this "buying votes"
-
Gunslinger do VAT exist in the US ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Gunslinger do VAT exist in the US ?
Value Added tax? Not in the sense that Europe may have. We have a luxury tax on certain items over a certain dollar amount.
-
i hate you "rich" people :)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Value Added tax? Not in the sense that Europe may have. We have a luxury tax on certain items over a certain dollar amount.
arggggggggggggggghhhhh
Lucky bastiges :)
-
Isn't VAT what Americans call (local/state) sales tax?
-
If it is mickey I live virtually tax free. I am a Texas state resident (no state income taxes) and I live on a military instalation so if I shop on base I pay no sales tax either.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Isn't VAT what Americans call (local/state) sales tax?
Well, at a high level, it may look similiar.
Tax reformists want to add a VAT to our current sales tax too, then do away with federal income taxes.
The value added tax is similar to the national sales tax, however, instead of implementing one tax of a certain percentage at the time of retail sale, there is a smaller tax, proposed at 5%, added each time the product is resold or when value has been added. For example a tax is added when a product is passed from a manufacturer to a wholesaler, and again from the wholesaler to the retailer. Most products would be priced higher than they are today because the cost of goods would include this built in tax. The Value added tax proposal is sponsored by Representative Sam Gibbons of Florida and Senator Ernest Hollings of South Carolina.
-
Do people actually pay taxes on welfare? I know I never payed taxes on my unemployment when I was on it for a while. gunslinger
You should have.. Unemployment compansation is taxable and is taxed..
-
If you get low enough income, you actually get EIC, credits.
One year in grad school, I had very little income, spent almost all of it on educational expenses, and I got all of my income taxes refunded plus some extra.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I've heard all about this "tax cuts for the rich" stuff as of late and I have to say I must be rich. I just filed my taxes for 2003 this week and my refund is just under twice as big as it was before the "tax cuts for the rich" (2002) PLUS I got a nice check last summer to boot!
Whats so funny is I'm active duty military that takes the standard deduction with two kids who makes under 30K a year (combined household income). I guess they've lowered the bar for who is "rich"
Thanks Mr President. I might get my 42" flat panel this year after all
Your refund is twice as big this year because of tax laws that changed. If you didn't file a new W4 after they changed, they withheld more than they were supposed to until May 31, 2003. Therefore you get back more than usual because you paid in more than you were supposed to. Your return will be back to normal next year. Nothing to do with "tax cuts for the rich" but more "taxs laws changed, everyone pays less"
-
It's YOUR money .. you should get it back...you earned it not the gov!
-
Boy I can't wait to see what good old uncle sam is giving me and the wife for having a second child this past year. :D
-
Originally posted by Munkii
Your refund is twice as big this year because of tax laws that changed. If you didn't file a new W4 after they changed, they withheld more than they were supposed to until May 31, 2003. Therefore you get back more than usual because you paid in more than you were supposed to. Your return will be back to normal next year. Nothing to do with "tax cuts for the rich" but more "taxs laws changed, everyone pays less"
OK my question now would be this: Were the "tax changes" a result of the Bush economic stimulus package? or were they just new tax laws. Cause this was my whole point. People point out that bush only gave tax cuts to rich people....I myself am not rich but I am getting more money back in this year's refund. I did not notice a difference at all in my witholding rate on any of my LESs. Plus, we cant forget about the increase in tax child credit. I guess rich people only have kids now so that we can back up the "tax cuts for the rich" statement.....or you can twist it and say a credit has nothing to do with a tax cut?
-
I heard that all Bush hating Liberals were going to donate their tax refunds to the UN to help the oppressed Third World victims of U.S aggression and exploitation.
Or was it going to be a down payment on a Lexus?
I forget.....
-
January 21, 2004
Steve Lopez:
Points West
Surcharge Not Too Taxing for Wealthy
So what would you say if I told you there's a way to wipe out the entire state budget deficit, and it wouldn't cost one red cent for the vast majority of Californians?
We wouldn't have to turn kids away from college, kill transportation projects, leave cops and firefighters in the lurch, or take a stick to children, the elderly and the lame.
Twice now I've mentioned the proposal by two professors to put a temporary surcharge on wealth, and each time, readers have wondered if there's a petition they can sign.
Not yet. But let me give you the background.
"When we heard Arnold Schwarzenegger say the only way to do this was with a $15-billion bond measure, we wanted to come up with an alternative that wouldn't substantially change the lifestyle of any Californian," says Paul O'Lague, who teaches molecular biology at UCLA.
O'Lague and his pal John Bachar, who teaches statistics and probability at Cal State Long Beach, have been studying income taxes and wealth distribution for years, and hosting salons to hash out their ideas.
They came up with a proposal that puts a surcharge on California residents with an income above $200,000, including a joint filing in which husband and wife make that much combined.
The surcharge would start at 0.5% for light heavyweights making $200,000, and climb to 7% for bombers hauling in $5 million a year or more. All told, this $200k-plus group accounts for just 3.1% of all tax returns, but has 35.9% of total personal income in the state.
The surcharge would generate a fat $13 billion a year, because California has more millionaires per capita than any state. (And Golden State billionaires, who account for more than one-fifth of the nation's billionaires, have a net worth of $102.9 billion.)
"How much money can you spend on yourself?" asked Bachar. He echoed his colleague's point that for the state's aristocracy, the hardship of a surcharge could mean having to settle for a $9.5-million mansion instead of a $10-million estate.
As some readers said, people making $200,000 aren't exactly rich in this day and age, and they're right.
But in 2000, Bachar said, 6,455 Californians made $5 million or more, and the average in that group was $15.6 million. We lost some of those millionaires after the dot-com crash, but we've gained some recently.
Not everyone turned cartwheels when I first mentioned O'Lague and Bachar's cage-rattling idea. I heard from the growing legions of trained chimps who can't get through a day without saying "no new taxes," even in a state that's in the middle of the pack in taxation.
Others called me a dope for a plan that would drive millionaires out of the state. But not all of them would leave. And if enough of them did, maybe it would burst the real estate bubble so more people could afford a house.
I also heard from readers telling me about all the hard work that goes into striking it rich. Some of them carped about having to keep shelling out for society's laggards and dregs.
First of all, for the super rich, a good chunk of their income doesn't come from working up a sweat. It comes from capital gains, dividends, stock options and other non-aerobic activities.
These folks have got shelters and deferrals and all sorts of tricks the average Joe doesn't have. Because of it, they control more of the nation's wealth than ever, but their share of taxes has been dwindling for roughly 20 years.
If you don't believe me, I refer you to a former colleague, David Cay Johnston, who has a new book on the subject. The title, not exactly subtle, is:
"Perfectly Legal, the Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich — and Cheat Everybody Else."
Johnston saw my reference to O'Lague and Bachar and called to say that in 2000, the 27,000 richest Americans had as much income as the bottom 96 million combined. And the gap is growing.
"The rich really are getting richer and the poor poorer," said Johnston, who writes about taxes for the New York Times. His book is filled with examples of the tax burden being shifted from the famously rich to average blokes.
No mystery there. Money, in the form of campaign donations, buys access. And access has meant that corporations and the wealthiest Americans have umpteen ways to shrink taxable income.
"The richest 1% are taxed more lightly than the middle class" when you add up all their tax and investment advantages, Johnston writes. "The same data show that the poor are taxed almost as heavily as the rich are — and even more heavily than the super rich."
It seems all the more reason to consider the O'Lague/Bachar plan here in the Golden State.
To pick a California millionaire entirely at random, let's take Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who's asking us to pay for a $15-billion bond measure and billions more in interest. For the sake of discussion, let's guesstimate that he made $15 million for the Terminator movie and other ventures.
He'd have a 7% surcharge, or a mere $1 million, added to his tax bill.
Would Schwarzenegger have to sell the mansion in Brentwood?
No.
Would he have to sell the jet or the fleet of Hummers?
No.
Would the kids get yanked from private school?
No.
The same is probably true for the rest of the state's thousands of millionaires.
Look, we don't have to balance the entire budget on their backs. But doesn't a combination of less borrowing, fewer program cuts and some tax hikes make more sense than what's being proposed?
Schwarzenegger and the rest of the high-rollers would barely notice the sacrifice.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
OK my question now would be this: Were the "tax changes" a result of the Bush economic stimulus package? or were they just new tax laws. Cause this was my whole point. People point out that bush only gave tax cuts to rich people....I myself am not rich but I am getting more money back in this year's refund. I did not notice a difference at all in my witholding rate on any of my LESs. Plus, we cant forget about the increase in tax child credit. I guess rich people only have kids now so that we can back up the "tax cuts for the rich" statement.....or you can twist it and say a credit has nothing to do with a tax cut?
That I haven't researched yet, I think the changes came about because of the Bush tax plan. I think it was something in the works for awhile now, but don't hold me to that. Either way, I'm not necesarrily sure that cutting taxes, while signing every spending bill going across Bush's desk is helping the economy. In fact I'd go so far as to say that nothing Bush does to help the economy is really going to make a difference. I think we are on an upward leg before we drop again into resession. Economic theory is another thread though :D
-
i dont know, are you rich?
http://www.usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/povfacts.htm
do you see a kind of a trend with those numbers?
seems to me that we have enough "of your tired, poor huddled masses yearning to be free." this is a problem, a big problem if the trend continues. i used to know a Khmer Rouge soldier that emigrated here about 10 years ago. some of the stories he told me would put your hair on end. but we both had something to talk about because i hadnt been out of the army that long myself. the point is, put enough space between the haves and the have nots and your just asking for trouble. heres a quick guide to the Khmer Rouge
http://edwebproject.org/sideshow/khmeryears/
almost sounds like a bad Kevin Costner movie huh.
-
Eat the Rich: A Treatise on Economics by P. J. O'Rourke (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0871137194/102-5794418-1204941?v=glance)
Funny book by a funny guy.
Maybe we could just whack them over the head and take ALL their money and just call it "taxation".
That'd be fair.
I think....... wouldn't it?
-
It's impossible to multiply wealth by dividing it.
-
Montezuma
Joke right? right???
-
According to the IRS, the top 50% of wage earners in this country pay 94% of the federal taxes. That means that the bottom 50% pays just FOUR percent. Sounds as if the rich are already paying more than their fair share. And yes, Gunslinger, your larger than expected tax return is due to the tax cuts championed by President Bush and passed by the nearly evenly divided Congress. The tax cuts were retroactive, which is why some got a refund check before the end of the year. Nonetheless, your withholding amount stayed the same, but your tax rate went down. Hence, you overpaid to a greater exent due to the lowering of your tax rate, and thus received a larger return. When the author of that article Monti posted says "wealth distribution" what he really means is "wealth redistribution," i.e. socialism. I fought hard to go from making $800 dollars a month when first married (21+ years ago) to over six figures a year. Now that I'm considered "rich", I'm the target of so-called progressive taxation. Personnally, I think a flat tax is the most truly progressive tax plan, or perhaps a sales tax taking the place of income tax.
-
I guess to me it's a question of do you really want the rich to pay their "fair share" or do you want them to pay it all so the rest can be "freeloaders".
-
Originally posted by Toad
I guess to me it's a question of do you really want the rich to pay their "fair share" or do you want them to pay it all so the rest can be "freeloaders".
oh oh...I know...I know!!!
-
Originally posted by Toad
I guess to me it's a question of do you really want the rich to pay their "fair share" or do you want them to pay it all so the rest can be "freeloaders".
(Waves to Saw in Belgium) ;)
-
maybe we could tax everyone less and simply.....
spend less.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
January 21, 2004
Steve Lopez:
Points West
Surcharge Not Too Taxing for Wealthy....
Thieves
-
Originally posted by lazs2
maybe we could tax everyone less and simply.....
spend less.
lazs
BLASPHEMER!!!
-
That or make taxes a percentage of capital. The more you own, the more you pay. :D
-
Originally posted by texace
That or make taxes a percentage of capital. The more you own, the more you pay. :D
Yet another genius. How about making taxes based on a size of your d..k?
-
Originally posted by mietla
Yet another genius. How about making taxes based on a size of your d..k?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO that'd mean I'd be paying tons and all NON-conservatives wouldnt be paying ANY.....HOW FAIR IS THAT? lol
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO that'd mean I'd be paying tons and all NON-conservatives wouldnt be paying ANY.....HOW FAIR IS THAT? lol
I meant... you pay more for a smaller one. 8" gets you exempt.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
maybe we could tax everyone less and simply.....
spend less.
lazs
Or how about we cut taxes, spend more than ever, then barrow the rest?
-
yea and if it dosen't work try it again.