are you in favorite of a flat % income tax ?...

[onedrop]

Not to sound pious, but I try not to deal in stereotypes because often the stereotyping is totally off-base. But I do see your point F&I. Obviously there are negative/misinformed perceptions about both the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy. I cannot answer why there would be more negativity associated with the wealthy. But I can say that in my experience I would say that I have heard plenty of negativity aimed at folks on both sides of the economic spectrum.

To the question at hand: I am more concerned about how the taxes are used rather than the amount of taxes paid. If for instance we all play the same flat rate, and the school system in my area is improved and the streets are paved and the emergency services are well-staffed and trained, then I am all for it!

 

[ame]

Date: 8/4/2005 6:28:15 AM
Author: Momoftwo
Social Security Tax is not income tax per se, it''s SS tax. Also, if you think someone making 87K per year is wealthy that''s sad. And that''s the problem here.Well, we make twice that and let me tell you, we pay more than our fair share of taxes every year and we are not wealthy by any means. It''s all relative to where you live. I have a great house, yes and two kids in college, but we drive old cars and dont'' travel a lot. The IRS will also tell you the tax burden on the so-called wealthy is higher as a percentage. We never got any child tax credits, or any other tax credits aimed at lower incomes. That''s not fair either if you want to talk tax advantages. The reality is that the top 20% of income earners in this country include most of the middle class. You have to factor in demographics. Didn''t realize we were discussing state taxes and the flat tax would not apply to that. I also didn''t realize we lived in a socialist country! Capitalism is what allows people to make as much money as they can and no one should not be penalized for that. That''s what supports this economy. There are also plenty of statistics that show who pays the most taxes in this country and the overall TOTAL tax burden is carried by those in the top income brackets. Capitalism is also what allows for anyone to succeed and move into those tax brackets. If you notice, politicians screaming about the poor and taxes dont'' exactly give up any of their income to ''help'' anyone. Did you read the link I posted? The IRS also keeps statistics and they show the burden is on the top earners. The top 1% of earners in this country is a very, very small number of people relative to population and increasing their taxes would bring in very little. So, that is not the answer to your perceived problem with the wealthy having money. I agree with the flat tax. Fair across the board. Everyone paying the same percentage of income without penalizing anyone and to keep the economy going, some writeoffs for those that choose to take risks and invest.


And your last quote, ''socialism at it''s worst''? Excuse me? Adjusting taxes the way you want would be socialism.

Actually, if it was adjusted the way it should be, it would be socialism at its BEST.

Depending on how you define "wealthy" it''s really not sad at all. There are MILLIONS of people forced to live on less than a dollar a day they, and certainly a much larger chunk of individuals would look at someone making $87,000 a year as quite wealthy. It''s all subjective. Regardless of this, you are putting words into my mouth. I didn''t say that someone making $87,000+ is "wealthy". I happen to think they are, but I wouldn''t be so deceptive as to try to use a subjective term to make a point. The POINT that you seem to wish to ignore is that people who make more than $87,000 are exempt from Social Security tax on each dollar over the $87,000 threshold. Why this is important is that you seem to think it''s very important for taxation to be "fair" another subjective term. The IRS will tell you that the "INCOME TAX" does reflect a higher burden on the wealthy. Let''s see if we can analyze why that might be... Perhaps it is because they have a disproportionate amount of income?

You want to talk about "fair" and you claim a flat income tax is "fair"... Let''s look at that more closely. I am going to make up some figures to illustrate my point, they will be near to accurate, but not down to the decimal point, so please bear with me.

I am going to compare someone making $50,000 a year to someone making $500,000 and someone else making $5,000,000 a year.

At $50,000 pays $3,100 or 6.2% of their salary to Social Security Taxes.

At $500,000 pays $5,394 or 1.1% (rounded up) of their salary to Social Security Taxes.

At $5,000,000 pays $5,394 or .1%(rounded down) of their salary to Social Security Taxes.

Now you want to take another 15% away from each person based on a flat income tax, when clearly no other tax is even close to flat... Do you still think that''s fair? Consider that The lower salaried individuals are going to pay a larger percentage of their salary to state and local taxes as well, and you are advocating forcing the poor to pay a tremendous percentage of their salary to taxes by comparison to those that make significantly more.

It really isn''t very relative to where you live. It is relative to how you choose to live. The reality of the current tax system is that individuals such as you are seriously hurt by the way the tax system is set up. I am assuming you are not a member of the super rich political donor class, and that you and your spouse make less than $200,000 combined in yearly salaries. I can''t have a whole lot of sympathy for someone describing the hardships of their life as not travelling a lot and having TWO older cars... You are aware that millions don''t eat each day, right? Anyway, I will try to refrain from impugning you further than that.

Individuals in the "upper middle class" tax bracket are brutalized by taxes because they fall prey to the Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT) in many cases. I imagine that is what you and your spouse deal with especially considering you have two kids. The AMT prevents you from taking deductions on things like the interest on your home, or claiming dependancy credits for children. The AMT was created in 1969 in an attempt to "catch" a few people that paid no tax but had incomes over $200,000. Of course Congress wasn''t far-sighted enough to include provisions for things like inflation, so now the AMT is hammering what you and I might describe as "middle class" individuals making between $90,000 and $200,000 a year. It is only going to get worse as inflation continues and the AMT does not adjust for this.

I don''t know where you got the idea that I claimed we lived in a "socialist" country, but if you took the time to examine just how many subsidies the United States government DOES pay out (primarily to corporations) you would notice that we do in fact practice one of the worst forms of Socialism on the planet all the while claiming to be a Capitalist nation. I don''t know if you were aware but there are wealthy people in countries like Sweden that do practice a much heavier level of people-oriented Socialism than the United States does. They do make money, and they aren''t penalized for it. In fact they are rewarded with a society that values things like cheap, readily available public transportation, allowing anyone to get around whether they have two old cars or none at all.

To suggest that our "capitalist" practices "support this economy" is a generalization of the worst sort, and hardly worth refuting.

There are plenty of statistics to show anything you want to show. That''s what statistics is all about. The reality is that as far as total taxes are concerned the United States already practices a "flat tax" scenario. As far as income taxes are concerned those who make the most income pay the largest percentage of income tax... How you can find this objectionable is beyond the pale in my view, but again we clearly have many philosophical differences.

Capitalism doesn''t guarantee any more financial movement from one tax bracket to the next at all. You clearly hold onto the dream that one day if you just work hard enough you''ll be a multi-millionaire. The reality is far different from that, not that I don''t wish you all the luck in the world. I think it is unfortunate that you are so bitter about the income taxes that you do pay that you can''t enjoy your lovely house, the fact that both of your children are attending higher level educational facilities that will allow them the opportunities to earn substantially greater incomes than their peers who do not have the same opportunities, but to each their own.

I do notice that politicians are very frequently hypocritical. That''s one of the reasons that I don''t model my life after how they behave. Clearly you may choose to do so, but I don''t think you should expect to be lauded for wanting to take care of yourself at everyone else''s expense. You do realize that statement reads as "The politicians do it so why shouldn''t I?", right?

That top 1% is a small group of individuals certainly, and that small group of individuals earns vast sums of money that have grown significantly. In fact here''s some evidence of this for you...

The average income of the top 10 percent (about 13.4 million people) of American Taxpayers rose 88.6 percent from 1970 to 2000 from $119,249 to $224,877 (adjusted for inflation). Their share of national income grew from 33% in 1970 to 48% in 2000. The top 10% of American Taxpayers earned FORTY EIGHT PERCENT of income in 2000... Let that sink in please. 90% of Americans earn 52% of the income of all Taxpaying Americans.

Furthermore average income among the bottom 90 percent (120.6 million people) stagnated over the last there decades, slipping from $27,060 in 1970 to $27,035 in 2000. Their share of the national income fell from 67% to 52%.

Breaking it down further:

The sare of all income going to the bottom 90 percent of Americans shrank between 1970 and 2000. Among the top 10 percent, the higher a person ranked the more one''s slice of the economic pie grew. Does this really sound like capitalism is working to you??

The following is a comparison of income from 1970 to 2000.

Group, 1970 % of National income vs. 2000 percentage of national income.

Bottom 90% get 67.1% of income by 2000 it''s 52% (-22.5% reduction)
90 to 95% get 11.1% by 2000 it''s still 11.1% (.4% increase)
95 to 99% get 12.7% by 2000 it''s 15.2% (19.5% increase)
99 to 99.5% get 2.8% by 2000 it''s 4.1% (47% increase)
99.5% to 99.9% get 3.5% by 2000 it''s 6.6% (90% increase)
99.9% to 99.99% get 1.8% by 2000 it''s 5.9% (227% increase)
Top 13,360 households get 1% by 2000 it''s 5.1% (412% increase)

So the people you are advocating for as needing tax breaks have seen their income increase 412% and their income taxes have been cut, and cut again, in fact they''ve been cut so much that these people now esentially pay the same percentage in overall taxes as you or I do, even though they make thousands of times what we make. It''s not important that the top 1% of individuals is a small number of people when that top 1% is collecting 21.9% of all national income.... You have to collect the taxes from the people that can pay them.

I read the link you posted, from a conservative website presenting solely INCOME tax percentages, and not factoring in all the other taxes that individuals have to pay as a percentage of their income. An entirely unfair, and disingenuous way to represent tax information.

To explain the element of "socialism at it''s worst" I will have to give you a moment after using the word "socialism" for you to get over your knee-jerk reaction of "SOCIALISM IS BAD!" so that you can actually read what I wrote.... The United States Government GAVE, SUBSIDIZED, PRACTICED SOCIALISM not in favor of the "working man" but for corporations that are RAKING in money from the "working man"... They are GIVING our tax dollars to profitable companies, and telling us we need to consider cutbacks in Medicare and Social Security because there''s no money to be had...

But please, take a moment to reflect on how good your life is compared to so many even in America and perhaps you''ll have a different outlook on how a flat tax would impact everyone. Assuming you are capable of enjoying your success, and giving a crap about other people less fortunate than you.

 

[ame]

Date: 8/4/2005 10:40:32 AM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 8/3/2005 10:49:26 PM

Author: ame

Clearly if you are making over $87,000 annually you have more free time to complain about your federal tax burden, and more money with which to back your viewpoint up. But is that really fair or just?

Yes, you are absolutely correct. We have TONS of free time.

You no of not what you speak. PERIOD. I know how much taxes we pay.


Simiply put, and my last comment to your tirade. You are wrong.

So I take the time to post the research I have done, which you specifically said I needed to do, complete with facts AND anecdotal evidence to substantiate my claims, and all you can come up with is "you KNOW of not what you speak?" And I "am wrong"? But no proof or evidence to substantiate *your* claims?

Sounds to me like you yourself have no idea what you are talking about. So go ahead, put your hands back over your ears and eyes and continue singing "lalalalalallalalalala".

 

[ame]

Date: 8/4/2005 9:20:27 AM
Author: lmurden
You might reconsider the flat tax if you read this book


Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else, by David Cay Johnston

Ironically, I own that and know it pretty well.

It is a great read, slightly enraging if you are completely under a rock about the American tax system.

 

[ame]

Date: 8/4/2005 12:12:13 PM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 8/4/2005 11:39:09 AM

Author: Logan Sapphire

I''m not trying to get into an argument with anyone, and perhaps this should be in the different thread, but sometimes it appears that sometimes there are negative moral judgments about those who are wealthy. Why is this? Why do some people assume that because a person has money, it must be that they didn''t work hard and sacrifice to get where they are today? I''m just curious (and in no way wealthy myself).

First, the term ''wealthy'' is relative.


But, yes, it would seem so. I don''t have an answer except that perhaps it is a way of rationalizing their own situation. being wealthy = being immoral - so why would I want to be immoral?


Morality isn''t about your financial situation. I''ve known fine wealthy people & fine poorer people. And, I''ve seen the reverse be true as well.


When it''s all said and done, a family with an income of $300,000.00 will pay far in excess of $100,000.00 in taxes. For a family making $50k a year, it will take close to 15 years to pay off a $100,000.00 tax liability.

And, that is just straight income tax without EIC, etc. I know of one individual that made about 18k. She paid NO income tax & received money back from the government.


Oh, and one more thing, your deductions & exemptions etc., are all less and except or limited over a certain about of income.

So you are saying that it is "unfair" for someone making $300,000 to have to make due with a bit under $200,000 whilst someone making $18,000 actually gets a refund of the money they paid to the government at the end of the year?

I mean what ARE you advocating? You feel people who make $18,000 a year should pay MORE money than they do already to the tax system in order to give the individuals NETTING $200,000 a bigger tax break because they need more money?

The deductions are less because THEY HAVE DISPOSABLE INCOME!! People making $18,000 aren''t buying yachts and luxury vehicles (well, some probably are, but they are going to end up in debt or prison for most of their adult lives...)

Are you completely heartless?

 

[oldminer]

Taxes, a foul subject. There is no getting by without them unless there is anarchy and no public services.

A flat tax hurts the working poor and middle classes by raising the actual amount of real tax they pay. It may collect less from some wealthy folks, yet some will figure out how to avoid a lot of the tax anyway. You know they can really afford excellent accountants and tax advisers that regular people won''t use.

The biggest thing I''d suggest is a VAT versus a flat tax. VAT is collected in a way that makes evasion nearly impossible. It is more a sales tax than an income tax. If you save money, no tax is collected, but when you see fit to spend money, you pay the tax. Internet purchases would surely be taxed with a VAT as it is collected all through the chain of delivery and not just at the end.

One must consider a flat tax with an untaxed basic income threshold and graduated rates in the low range above the zero level. This encourages people to earn their living and get off the dole. At the upper end, we need to realize that the rich are the ones who create most jobs and own businesses. They re-invest their money and don''t keep it under their beds. Rich folks stimulate the economy, so killing them with high rates only stagnates our economy. Everyone above a certain threshold should pay taxes, so true. But the reality will be that a certain amount of tax needs to be collected and seeing it collected in a fair way, with way less paperwork would be desirable.

 

[ame]

Date: 8/4/2005 4:33:53 PM
Author: oldminer


The biggest thing I''d suggest is a VAT versus a flat tax. VAT is collected in a way that makes evasion nearly impossible. It is more a sales tax than an income tax. If you save money, no tax is collected, but when you see fit to spend money, you pay the tax. Internet purchases would surely be taxed with a VAT as it is collected all through the chain of delivery and not just at the end.

I could definitely live with that.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 8/4/2005 4:25:39 PM
Author: ame

Date: 8/4/2005 10:40:32 AM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 8/3/2005 10:49:26 PM

Author: ame

Clearly if you are making over $87,000 annually you have more free time to complain about your federal tax burden, and more money with which to back your viewpoint up. But is that really fair or just?

Yes, you are absolutely correct. We have TONS of free time.

You no of not what you speak. PERIOD. I know how much taxes we pay.


Simiply put, and my last comment to your tirade. You are wrong.

So I take the time to post the research I have done, which you specifically said I needed to do, complete with facts AND anecdotal evidence to substantiate my claims, and all you can come up with is ''you KNOW of not what you speak?'' And I ''am wrong''? But no proof or evidence to substantiate *your* claims?

Sounds to me like you yourself have no idea what you are talking about. So go ahead, put your hands back over your ears and eyes and continue singing ''lalalalalallalalalala''.

So much anger; so little real life experience.

And, I''m not putting my hands back over my ears. YOU DON''T GET IT. I am the one paying the Lion''s Share in taxes. You are the one singing lalala. YOU HAVE NO EXPERIENCE or idea with how much taxes someone into the six figures pays. Yet, you ASSUME that the "wealthy" (a relative term) are taking all these tax breaks & not paying their fair share. It''s simply not true.

Here''s some real life facts
319,000 pays approx. 88,000.00 in income taxes
30,000 pays approx 3,700.00
Deficet between the two taxpayers = 84,300 in an annum.
Taxpaper 30k would have to pay taxes for an extra 23 years to make up the one year tax liablity of the 319,000.00

I didn''t see your argument in any of your tirade. And, find it rather convenient that you don''t believe something that is a matter of public record. A record that has been singing the same song REGARDLESS of who is in office.

And, I believe the maxing out of S.S. is fair. We are paying into a system of which we will ALL benefit relatively the same (provided SS is around when we retire). First, I''m not counting on that benefit. Second, if you knew how much one gets in SS vs what one pays - it''s a pretty silly argument. The benefit for my paying total 87k is relativelyclose to someone paying in at 30k.

The reason for the max out in SS is THAT YOU MAX OUT ON WHAT YOU ARE PAID UPON RETIREMENT. Do the math. Over 20 years, the person maxing out on SS will pay 130k +/- They raise the limit periodically. A person making 30k will pay 45k over 20 years. That is a 85k deficet. I would have to live to be well over 100 to reap the benefits of the difference. I see it in GREEN BLACK AND WHITE on our vested social security sheet. Again, I am speaking from experience.

Local taxes? Are you refering to property tax? Property taxes are relative to value not income. Makes no sense it would. If we were to make prop. taxes relative to anything but value, I''d pay signigicantly LESS than someone with 4 children in a house valued at 1/2 the cost. We SUBSIDIZE people with children. I''m not calling foul. Prop taxes based on value is a fair way to assess taxes.

State Taxes? 5.75 across the board once a person has a salary in excess of 17k. Don''t think it could get much fairer than that.

Finally, I do not have the statistics at hand - but the number of audits of people making in excess of 100k is completely skewed to general amount of audits. The more you make; the more they audit. Have you ever been through an audit?

I don''t know why I bother. You''re gonna believe what your gonna believe.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 8/4/2005 4:30:57 PM
Author: ame

Date: 8/4/2005 12:12:13 PM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 8/4/2005 11:39:09 AM

Author: Logan Sapphire

I''m not trying to get into an argument with anyone, and perhaps this should be in the different thread, but sometimes it appears that sometimes there are negative moral judgments about those who are wealthy. Why is this? Why do some people assume that because a person has money, it must be that they didn''t work hard and sacrifice to get where they are today? I''m just curious (and in no way wealthy myself).

First, the term ''wealthy'' is relative.


But, yes, it would seem so. I don''t have an answer except that perhaps it is a way of rationalizing their own situation. being wealthy = being immoral - so why would I want to be immoral?


Morality isn''t about your financial situation. I''ve known fine wealthy people & fine poorer people. And, I''ve seen the reverse be true as well.


When it''s all said and done, a family with an income of $300,000.00 will pay far in excess of $100,000.00 in taxes. For a family making $50k a year, it will take close to 15 years to pay off a $100,000.00 tax liability.

And, that is just straight income tax without EIC, etc. I know of one individual that made about 18k. She paid NO income tax & received money back from the government.


Oh, and one more thing, your deductions & exemptions etc., are all less and except or limited over a certain about of income.

So you are saying that it is ''unfair'' for someone making $300,000 to have to make due with a bit under $200,000 whilst someone making $18,000 actually gets a refund of the money they paid to the government at the end of the year?

I mean what ARE you advocating? You feel people who make $18,000 a year should pay MORE money than they do already to the tax system in order to give the individuals NETTING $200,000 a bigger tax break because they need more money?

The deductions are less because THEY HAVE DISPOSABLE INCOME!! People making $18,000 aren''t buying yachts and luxury vehicles (well, some probably are, but they are going to end up in debt or prison for most of their adult lives...)

Are you completely heartless?

Clearly. You completely understood my point. Yes, I am heartless.

I expect the person making 18K to pay my tax bill. IT WAS YOU who said that the wealthy (?) don''t pay their fair share. Not I.

I thought your whole arguement was that the lower income people pay a disporportionate *percentage* (which is flawed logic). So, my example seemed to escape you that the person paying 300k is paying +35%. How can this be a less than someone who, not only paid NO PERCENTAGE, also received money back?

Why do I argue with the young.

 

[ame]

(edited to remove excessive nested quotes, poorly done HTML and to combine posts to-hopefully-save board space)

In response to your first post:

So much anger; so little real life experience.

Please let me know the magical biological age for someone that has had "enough" real life experience to have a valid opinion in your narrow-sighted biased view.

And, I'm not putting my hands back over my ears. YOU DON'T GET IT. I am the one paying the Lion's Share in taxes. You are the one singing lalala. YOU HAVE NO EXPERIENCE or idea with how much taxes someone into the six figures pays. Yet, you ASSUME that the "wealthy" (a relative term) are taking all these tax breaks & not paying their fair share. It's simply not true.

No, clearly statements like "You R Rong!" is the height of intelligent discourse.

You are paying the "lion's share" of INCOME TAXES. You are paying the same PERCENTAGE in overall taxes as anyone else. I have experience with paying taxes, and I have something even better that you might want to look into... Experience with LEARNING about how the tax system actually works to benefit the super rich, and the corporations. I don't "ASSUME" anything I point to specific cases such as Roberto C. Goizueta or John F Welch Jr, or Louis V. Gerstner Jr, or even Lawrence Bossidy of Allied-Signal Companies, and TENS of THOUSANDS of other executives.

Few realize that executives like this do not pay taxes on their compensation immediately. The way Congress says everyone who makes much less must. The special rules for senior executives also extend to top slaespeople as well as to movie stars and atheletes, whose outsize pay is promoted as part of a strategy to enhance their career image and to make them even more valuable. Congress lets these Americans put off paying taxes for years or even decades and there is no limit on how much they can set aside untaxed.

Here is how it works: The executives decline to take delivery of a big chunk of their pay, instead deferring reciept of the money to some future year. No taxes are taken out because, technically the executives have not been paid. That means that the executive gets to invest the full amount that is deferred, unlike everyone else who can only invest their after-tax income.

The company he or she works for invests the money that the executive defers. The money may simply be plowed back into the company as part of its working capital. But in most cases the money is set aside in a separate account and cannot be used to finance the company's operations. Money in such separate trusts is often invested in life insurance, mutual funds, or as with Goizueta, the stock of the company. The dividends and interest earned in the deferral account usually keep building up inside the account, untaxed. But a few executives choose to have the divdends paid out, in whcih case they become immediately taxable. When the executive cashes out, usually at retirement, the company witholds income taxes and pays the executive the balance, usuallly installments over a period of years.

Such deals for executives to defer compensation amount to an unlimited 401(k) plan. But while Congress limits how much you and I can save in these plans to about $1,000 a month, executives can defer unlimited amounts. But there's a catch to these unlimited plans. They are VERY expensive for shareholders, rank-and-file workers, and taxpayers.

Money an executive defers cannot be deducted on the company's tax return. So instead of deducting $86 million from its profits on Mr. Goizueta's pay in 1991, Coca-Cola deducted only the nearly $5 million that it paid to him immediately. As a result Coca-Cola's corporate income tax bill was about $29 million higher than if Mr. Goizueta had not deferred his pay. In effect, Coca-Cola shareholders loaned Goizueta that $29 million, interest-free.

Now think about the entire world of tax deferral for all the executives in America. Many tens of thousands of executives defer part of their pay, from the modest sums put aside by junior executives to the tens of millions of dollars deferred by chief executives like Goizueta. Each year another round of deferrals takes place, adding to the interest-free loans companies grant these >executives.

Welch, the GE chief executive, worked out an even better deal for himself when he deferred half of his $2 million base salary in 1995. First, GE gave Welch a $35,000 matching contribution, the same 3.5 percent rate that the company gave employees on money they saved on the company's 401(k) plan. But while GE deducted on its corporate tax return the much smaller sums each worker could collect in 401(k) match money, no deduction was allowed on Welch's $35,000 until his deferral ended. GE's taxes thus increased by about $12,000 and the real cost to shareholders of Welch's match was $47,000.

Second, GE agreed to pay Welch 14 percent interst on his money until he retired. At 14 percent, Welch's monney would nearly double in five years, when he was scheduled to retire. After paying Federal and Connecticut state taxes, Welch would have more than $1.1 million left to spend.

Had Welch NOT deferred the million dollars, he would have had to pay his taxes immediately. After taxes he would have been left with about $572,000 to invest. Even if Welch had been lucky enough to earn 14 percent interst on this sum, he would, after five years, have about $810,000 to spend or about $300,000 less than with the deferral.

At the time, GE was borrowing money in the securities market for five years at 4.5 percent interest. Thus GE paid its chief executive more than three times the market rate on the million dollars he left on deposit with the company until retirement. Paying three times the market rate of interest is a subsidy from shareholders to the CEO.

And these are just a couple of examples... If you look at what the tax lawyers of the super rich like Jonathan Blattmachr, and Bud Crystal are doing you will understand how the "average" American taxpayer is being ripped off by the ultra rich.

Here's some real life facts
319,000 pays approx. 88,000.00 in income taxes
30,000 pays approx 3,700.00
Deficet between the two taxpayers = 84,300 in an annum.
Taxpaper 30k would have to pay taxes for an extra 23 years to make up the one year tax liablity of the 319, 000.00

This is a classic fallacy argument. You want to switch from % to $ to show that people who make more pay more... Comparing dollar amounts is a LOT different than comparing PERCENTAGES. I realize your grip on reality is feeble, and that you somehow can't comprehend that it's a lot harder to "make ends meet" when you are trying to live on an annual salary of $30,000 as opposed to $319,000. I don't know if you realize this, but with a "flat tax" the person making $319,000 still pays a larger dollar amount than the person making $30,000. So what is it that you are doing here beyond trying to dazzle people with the idea that people who make exorbitant salaries have to pay a lot more in taxes than people who are just scraping by?

I didn't see your argument in any of your tirade. And, find it rather convenient that you don't believe something that is a matter of public record. A record that has been singing the same song REGARDLESS of who is in office.

I'm not really sure what this means because I don't remember introducing the current or any past administrations into my arguments. Try again.

And, I believe the maxing out of S.S. is fair. We are paying into a system of which we will ALL benefit relatively the same (provided SS is around when we retire). First, I'm not counting on that benefit. Second, if you knew how much one gets in SS vs what one pays - it's a pretty silly argument. The benefit for my paying total 87k is relativelyclose to someone paying in at 30k.

I have no doubt that you believe it is "fair" since it benefits you, and clearly you are all about keeping the money you are paid. You are a "capitalist" after all. You probably claim to be a "Christian" as well. I don't know too many people making six figures annually that expect to live off of or even claim Social Security benefits... You see, they earned six figures for a number of years and therefore can live comfortably off of what they have. Out of pure self interest they like the idea of the social security safety net just so retirees aren't so desperate for food and shelter that they feel the need to steal from them.

The reason for the max out in SS is THAT YOU MAX OUT ON WHAT YOU ARE PAID UPON RETIREMENT. Do the math. Over 20 years, the person maxing out on SS will pay 130k +/- They raise the limit periodically. A person making 30k will pay 45k over 20 years. That is a 85k deficet. I would have to live to be well over 100 to reap the benefits of the difference. I see it in GREEN BLACK AND WHITE on our vested social security sheet. Again, I am speaking from experience.

Local taxes? Are you refering to property tax? Property taxes are relative to value not income. Makes no sense it would. If we were to make prop. taxes relative to anything but value, I'd pay signigicantly LESS than someone with 4 children in a house valued at 1/2 the cost. We SUBSIDIZE people with children. I'm not calling foul. Prop taxes based on value is a fair way to assess taxes.

I am talking about all other local and state taxes that take a percentage of an individuals salary. I don't know who proposed changing property tax laws, oh, wait, it was you, fruit loop. Talk about a specious argument... You are arguing with yourself!! News flash... Not every state even HAS property tax!

State Taxes? 5.75 across the board once a person has a salary in excess of 17k. Don't think it could get much fairer than that.

You live in the United States, right?

Finally, I do not have the statistics at hand - but the number of audits of people making in excess of 100k is completely skewed to general amount of audits. The more you make; the more they audit. Have you ever been through an audit?

Shocking, you don't have the statistics. I think we established that long ago by reading any of your other unfounded claims in your previous posts that you had nothing with which to back your ridiculous claims up. Don't really know why you felt the need to point it out as it was already painfully obvious.

I don't know why I bother. You're gonna believe what your gonna believe.

Hey, at least we have had this thought in common.


And your second:

You are only talking about income tax, and I am talking about tax.  Every tax paying American pays about 19% in taxes.  EVERY ONE.  If you look at SOLELY income tax then yes, the wealthy pay more in taxes, BECAUSE THEY MAKE MORE INCOME TO TAX.
 
The wealthy do NOT pay their "fair" share, in fact or in my opinion, that's why they pay incredibly high-priced tax attorneys to figure out innovative ways to conceal their income and ensure that their taxes are either deferred for as long as possible (inflation gradually devalues the taxes that are deferred to decrease their value) or to avoid paying the taxes at all through various loopholes in the legal code.
 
To me it appears that your argument is this...  "Although I have a higher income I should not have to pay more income taxes than anyone else.  I find that patently absurd."  And of course my opinion is different than yours, and this is exactly where we disagree.  I think that people who work hard regardless of their position in life should be able to live comfortably.  Therefore, I want to see people who are compensated preposterously well (such as professional athletes, executives, etc) who really do nothing to "earn" their outrageous incomes should be taxed at a significant level to increase the net take-home of individuals who are not compensated well, yet work just as hard.  It is a difference of opinion that is not likely to be changed by exchanges on an internet website.  You are benefitting from a huge salary and want to increase the benefits at other's expense, and I simply think that makes you greedy and self-important.  I prefer to think that everyone is worthy of a comfortable life, and therefore I do not have an issue with taking from the rich to benefit the poor.  But I'm still prone to being an idealist, must be my youth...  I haven't turned into a jaded old cow who feels she must grab all she can for herself yet.
 
I think you argue with the young, so that you can suck the life out of them with your sob story of how difficult it is to make it in America on a six figure salary.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 8/4/2005 5:55:07 PM
Author: ame

Date: 8/4/2005 5:28:21 PM
You are benefitting from a huge salary and want to increase the benefits at other''s expense, and I simply think that makes you greedy and self-important. But I''m still prone to being an idealist, must be my youth... I haven''t turned into a jaded old cow who feels she must grab all she can for herself yet.

I think you argue with the young, so that you can suck the life out of them with your sob story of how difficult it is to make it in America on a six figure salary.

Again, so much anger. It is you who should be ashamed. I''m embarrassed to even quote just a few of your venomous words.

Idealist? You think your an idealist? Yes, an idealist would make personal insults and draw that I must be a greedy, self important jaded cow. Your no idealist. Just a bully. Curious, how much did you contribute to charities last year (please include any made in honor or anonymos)? How much volunteer work did you do in real hours?

Oh, and BTW - It''s not my sob story. It''s actually quite easy to make a six figure salary with smarts, hardwork & a good attitude.

Now, let me get back to my tax attorney whose sole job it is to figure out how to get around a tax system WHICH YOU CLEARLY NO NOTHING ABOUT. Please explain and list some loopholes. I''d love to be enlightened by your wisdom on loopholes, since I can''t seem to find them.

BTW, I wasn''t debating the morality of our tax code. Simply debuffing your unfounded blanket statements with real life facts. Interesting you should choose to make it personal.

 

[ame]

Date: 8/4/2005 6:18:53 PM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 8/4/2005 5:55:07 PM

Author: ame

Date: 8/4/2005 5:28:21 PM

You are benefitting from a huge salary and want to increase the benefits at other''s expense, and I simply think that makes you greedy and self-important. But I''m still prone to being an idealist, must be my youth... I haven''t turned into a jaded old cow who feels she must grab all she can for herself yet.



I think you argue with the young, so that you can suck the life out of them with your sob story of how difficult it is to make it in America on a six figure salary.

Again, so much anger. It is you who should be ashamed. I''m embarrassed to even quote just a few of your venomous words.


Idealist? You think your an idealist? Yes, an idealist would make personal insults and draw that I must be a greedy, self important jaded cow. Your no idealist. Just a bully. Curious, how much did you contribute to charities last year (please include any made in honor or anonymos)? How much volunteer work did you do in real hours?


Oh, and BTW - It''s not my sob story. It''s actually quite easy to make a six figure salary with smarts, hardwork & a good attitude.


Now, let me get back to my tax attorney whose sole job it is to figure out how to get around a tax system WHICH YOU CLEARLY NO NOTHING ABOUT. Please explain and list some loopholes. I''d love to be enlightened by your wisdom on loopholes, since I can''t seem to find them.


BTW, I wasn''t debating the morality of our tax code. Simply debuffing your unfounded blanket statements with real life facts. Interesting you should choose to make it personal.

You are damn right, I''m angry. When I look at the insane opulence, and fraud caused by ridiculously wealthy individuals and the overwhelming poverty that pervades over the majority of humans on this planet. It incenses me to see someone complain about their situation when they make six figures, have a home, are able to put their children through college, and STILL WANT MORE at the expense of others...

I allowed you to make it personal for me when you denigrated my age, when you said that I "no (sic) nothing" impugning my wisdom and knoweldge, and so I retaliated in a way that amused me, and more than likely will amuse a few others.

I''ve already listed a few loopholes in the tax code that allows the wealthy to avoid paying taxes, and pushes the load off onto others, you simply haven''t absorbed them apparently, but I''ll tell you what. I''ll make you a deal. You''re a "capitalist" you should be all about deals. I''ll give you some more tax loophole information if you''ll provide me with the information on how "easy" it is to make a 6 figure salary with smarts, hardwork, and a good attitude. If you could explain why more people don''t do it I''d like that information as well. I mean if it''s so easy, you''d think more folks would do it!

I find it entertaining that you lump yourself in with the ultra rich. Clearly you have a need to feel special. Let me assure you, were I the driver of a short bus I would pick you up based solely upon impulse should our paths cross. You are that special.

My statements are clearly well founded, and illustrated, don''t mistake your lack of comprehension skills with a clear argument as hard as they are to find these days I can understand your lack of experience in dealing with one.

How could you debate the morality of our tax code? You clearly have no frame of reference!

I presume you mean to "debunk" rather than "debuff"... I don''t know that my words are all that well buffed, but hey, whatever, smartypants.

I respond in kind with what I am presented. It is a tiny little vice I allow myself!

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 8/4/2005 6:55:09 PM
Author: ame

Date: 8/4/2005 6:18:53 PM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 8/4/2005 5:55:07 PM

Author: ame

Date: 8/4/2005 5:28:21 PM

You are benefitting from a huge salary and want to increase the benefits at other's expense, and I simply think that makes you greedy and self-important. But I'm still prone to being an idealist, must be my youth... I haven't turned into a jaded old cow who feels she must grab all she can for herself yet.



I think you argue with the young, so that you can suck the life out of them with your sob story of how difficult it is to make it in America on a six figure salary.

Again, so much anger. It is you who should be ashamed. I'm embarrassed to even quote just a few of your venomous words.


Idealist? You think your an idealist? Yes, an idealist would make personal insults and draw that I must be a greedy, self important jaded cow. Your no idealist. Just a bully. Curious, how much did you contribute to charities last year (please include any made in honor or anonymos)? How much volunteer work did you do in real hours?


Oh, and BTW - It's not my sob story. It's actually quite easy to make a six figure salary with smarts, hardwork & a good attitude.


Now, let me get back to my tax attorney whose sole job it is to figure out how to get around a tax system WHICH YOU CLEARLY NO NOTHING ABOUT. Please explain and list some loopholes. I'd love to be enlightened by your wisdom on loopholes, since I can't seem to find them.


BTW, I wasn't debating the morality of our tax code. Simply debuffing your unfounded blanket statements with real life facts. Interesting you should choose to make it personal.

You are damn right, I'm angry. When I look at the insane opulence, and fraud caused by ridiculously wealthy individuals and the overwhelming poverty that pervades over the majority of humans on this planet. It incenses me to see someone complain about their situation when they make six figures, have a home, are able to put their children through college, and STILL WANT MORE at the expense of others...

I allowed you to make it personal for me when you denigrated my age, when you said that I 'no (sic) nothing' impugning my wisdom and knoweldge, and so I retaliated in a way that amused me, and more than likely will amuse a few others.

I've already listed a few loopholes in the tax code that allows the wealthy to avoid paying taxes, and pushes the load off onto others, you simply haven't absorbed them apparently, but I'll tell you what. I'll make you a deal. You're a 'capitalist' you should be all about deals. I'll give you some more tax loophole information if you'll provide me with the information on how 'easy' it is to make a 6 figure salary with smarts, hardwork, and a good attitude. If you could explain why more people don't do it I'd like that information as well. I mean if it's so easy, you'd think more folks would do it!

I find it entertaining that you lump yourself in with the ultra rich. Clearly you have a need to feel special. Let me assure you, were I the driver of a short bus I would pick you up based solely upon impulse should our paths cross. You are that special.

My statements are clearly well founded, and illustrated, don't mistake your lack of comprehension skills with a clear argument as hard as they are to find these days I can understand your lack of experience in dealing with one.

How could you debate the morality of our tax code? You clearly have no frame of reference!

I presume you mean to 'debunk' rather than 'debuff'... I don't know that my words are all that well buffed, but hey, whatever, smartypants.

I respond in kind with what I am presented. It is a tiny little vice I allow myself!

I'll just let your post speak for what it is on it's own.

You clearly don't understand the "loophole" that you seem to clearly understand.

Ultra rich? ummm. interesting. Special? interesting ASsumption.

By young - I should have said inexperienced as I do know several young people (again hardwork, smarts & a good attitude (no chip on their shoulder) in the higher tax bracket who understand the very principles of our tax system. Sorry for that.

Debuff - nope purposeful word. It's a cross between voiding fluff & bunk.

ETA: BTW, from your posts you are inserting words into *my* mouth that was clearly said by others. I suggest you get the posters straight. Your message, however, is loud and clear.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/3/2005 7:37:09 PM
Author: fire&ice

Of course, it''s an exercise in futility as we don''t plan on selling (as I don''t think you are - ?????)

Oh, most assuredly not. Are you kidding? We''ve so completely fallen in love with this house that I don''t even know if we''ll sell it 30 years from now as we originally thought! I think I''d have to dynamite Rich out of here! LOL

I only came by this information because someone mistakenly told me that we could deduct home improvements on our taxes.....and thought that meant every year. I asked the tax guy about it, and he set us straight. As such, my plan is to have an envelope for each year we live here with all the receipts and itemization of what we spent so I''ll have it readily should we ever change our minds.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 8/4/2005 7:57:17 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 8/3/2005 7:37:09 PM
Author: fire&ice

Of course, it''s an exercise in futility as we don''t plan on selling (as I don''t think you are - ?????)

Oh, most assuredly not. Are you kidding? We''ve so completely fallen in love with this house that I don''t even know if we''ll sell it 30 years from now as we originally thought! I think I''d have to dynamite Rich out of here! LOL

I only came by this information because someone mistakenly told me that we could deduct home improvements on our taxes.....and thought that meant every year. I asked the tax guy about it, and he set us straight. As such, my plan is to have an envelope for each year we live here with all the receipts and itemization of what we spent so I''ll have it readily should we ever change our minds.

Ah, this made me laugh. We built our house in the country (um...the one we have lived in since 198 to flip in two years. We purchased the one in the city because it made sense at the time. They are going to have to carry us out as corpses. Except for our very first house which involved a long story about a serial killer, we are resigned to the fact that we can''t sell a house we live in. I don''t even think I could stand the thought of someone renting the house (they may not treat it as well.

)

Though funny you should mention it, I forgot about the capital improvements. I do have a folder with all the receipts in it. I really had forgotten about that "loophole"

Ah - the joy of homeownership

 

[youngster]

Well, I don''t know if I should jump into the middle of this but here goes.... I am a CPA so I have quite a bit of experience with the tax code, in a professional capacity as well as personally since I have to fill out those forms too.

My personal opinion is that the present tax code is a ridiculous bloated piece of garbage. Americans spend 6 billion hours each year just preparing their annual income tax returns. I would be in favor of a far simpler, much more streamlined system that would allow the vast majority of people to fill out their tax returns quicky and easily with a minimum of hassle. There should not be so many brackets. There should not be so many ridiculous rules wherby Congress tries to manipulate the behavior of the general citizenry and businesses, both large and small, through its constant tinkering with said system. Of course, a change to a simpler, less convoluted system would then deprive Congress of a great deal of its present power and influence over ordinary Americans. Finally, I really dislike the trend of judging an individual''s moral value based solely on the level of taxation that they support, rather than how that person actually behaves in their personal and professional life.

One analysis that I found quite interesting was a table of the various income levels and net worths in relation to age. (I''ll try and dig up the analysis). What you find is that the wealthy are older, much older. They are married, usually to their first spouse. Their wealth comes from a lifetime of asset accumulation and smart personal and financial decisions and habits. Lower income earners are young. Almost everyone (unless you''re Paris Hilton) starts out "poor" and passes through those lower earner categories at the start of their working lives, on their way up to the middle and upper class. The key is not to stay there. The key is upward mobility.

 

[Logan Sapphire]

Date: 8/4/2005 8:38:15 PM
Author: youngster


One analysis that I found quite interesting was a table of the various income levels and net worths in relation to age. (I''ll try and dig up the analysis). What you find is that the wealthy are older, much older. They are married, usually to their first spouse. Their wealth comes from a lifetime of asset accumulation and smart personal and financial decisions and habits. Lower income earners are young. Almost everyone (unless you''re Paris Hilton) starts out ''poor'' and passes through those lower earner categories at the start of their working lives, on their way up to the middle and upper class. The key is not to stay there. The key is upward mobility.

Youngster, I would find this study interesting too. If you get a link to the report, would you let me know? My parents fit the profile you described. They are very comfortable, having retired at 49. But they had a tough time getting to where they are; my dad worked 4 (yes, FOUR) jobs to put himself through high school and college. When they first got married, they had to eat at their parents weekly b/c they otherwise couldn''t afford meat. But they did exactly what you listed- smart personal and financial decisions and habits. Driving their cars into the ground. Modest houses. All that good stuff

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/4/2005 6:55:09 PM
Author: ame

I find it entertaining that you lump yourself in with the ultra rich. Clearly you have a need to feel special. Let me assure you, were I the driver of a short bus I would pick you up based solely upon impulse should our paths cross. You are that special.

..............

How could you debate the morality of our tax code? You clearly have no frame of reference!

There is just no need to make such personal attacks as above, and I'd remind that Leonid has tightened forum policies to disallow such behavior.

Debate civilly all day long, sure, but intelligent folks really shouldn't need to denigrate into personal attacks. Truly intelligent people shouldn't have to resort to calling one a cow in order to assert a point.

Contrary to your expectation, I don't particularly find your comments amusing. In fact, I find it more than a bit ironic that you can question F&I's *morality* while calling her names like this. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

 

[youngster]

Date: 8/4/2005 9:11:48 PM
Author: Logan Sapphire

Date: 8/4/2005 8:38:15 PM
Author: youngster


One analysis that I found quite interesting was a table of the various income levels and net worths in relation to age. (I''ll try and dig up the analysis). What you find is that the wealthy are older, much older. They are married, usually to their first spouse. Their wealth comes from a lifetime of asset accumulation and smart personal and financial decisions and habits. Lower income earners are young. Almost everyone (unless you''re Paris Hilton) starts out ''poor'' and passes through those lower earner categories at the start of their working lives, on their way up to the middle and upper class. The key is not to stay there. The key is upward mobility.

Youngster, I would find this study interesting too. If you get a link to the report, would you let me know? My parents fit the profile you described. They are very comfortable, having retired at 49. But they had a tough time getting to where they are; my dad worked 4 (yes, FOUR) jobs to put himself through high school and college. When they first got married, they had to eat at their parents weekly b/c they otherwise couldn''t afford meat. But they did exactly what you listed- smart personal and financial decisions and habits. Driving their cars into the ground. Modest houses. All that good stuff

Yes, I''m going to search for it. You might also check out the book "The Millionaire Next Door". My parents also fit the bill. They both came from very very modest backgrounds. None of their parents (my grandparents) went farther than the 9th grade. My Dad grew up impoverished in depression-era, war-torn Europe. They never had super-duper special, high earning jobs. But, they always lived well below their means. Modest house, modest car, modest clothing, etc. Mom loved saving and investing. She loved the sense of security it gave her, especially after growing up during the depression. Because of all that, they retired very very very comfortably.

 

[ame]

Date: 8/4/2005 9:16:44 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 8/4/2005 6:55:09 PM

Author: ame


I find it entertaining that you lump yourself in with the ultra rich. Clearly you have a need to feel special. Let me assure you, were I the driver of a short bus I would pick you up based solely upon impulse should our paths cross. You are that special.


..............


How could you debate the morality of our tax code? You clearly have no frame of reference!

There is just no need to make such personal attacks as above, and I''d remind that Leonid has tightened forum policies to disallow such behavior.


Debate civilly all day long, sure, but intelligent folks really shouldn''t need to denigrate into personal attacks. Truly intelligent people shouldn''t have to resort to calling one a cow in order to assert a point.


Contrary to your expectation, I don''t particularly find your comments amusing. In fact, I find it more than a bit ironic that you can question F&I''s *morality* while calling her names like this. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

If you want to take issue with personal attacks, at least acknowledge both sides of this. You seem to only be focusing on one side of the issue. Sure, I shouldn''t have stooped to her level, but I did.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/4/2005 9:31:19 PM
Author: ame

If you want to take issue with personal attacks, at least acknowledge both sides of this. You seem to only be focusing on one side of the issue. Sure, I shouldn't have stooped to her level, but I did.

I've reread every post by both you and F&I in this thread just now, AME, and the personal attack began with you. You began the name calling with the fruit-loop comment, and the nasty "you probably claim to be a Christian" swipe. These were followed by calling her greedy, self-important, and a jaded old cow. All within the same thread.

Prior to that, the only comment F&I made was that you don't have as much real-life experience. That's likely a fact; being younger typically means less lived-through-it experience. No surprise there. Academic knowledge isn't the same as having lived something, and that's all "real-life" experience means. I'm sure F&I would concede she doesn't have as much real-life experience as my father, considering he's 15 years older than she. Saying so wouldn't be a suggestion that she has *no* knowledge, or that the knowledge she has isn't valid.....it just means that she hasn't experienced as much first-hand. Age doesn't necessarily equal wisdom, to be sure. That isn't a personal attack. Vicious name calling is.

I'm sorry, but there isn't "another side" to acknowledge. I'm not focusing on one side of the issue; I'm telling it like I see it. In my opinion, you WAY crossed the line. It's one thing to disagree with another person's point of view or ideology, and that's fair game. It's quite another to denigrate into name-calling and making it personal, and that was all you.

 

[websailor]

This topic reminds me of this:

 

[Kaleigh]

That looks just like my hubby, thanks for the laugh!!!!!! That''s the best thing I''ve seen all night!!!!

 

[pricescope]

I hate locking threads, especially ones that are obviously discussing important subjects for many. Please stay civil and polite so that everybody can benefit from your knowledge or point of view.

 

[coconut]

Wow this topic has climbed the thermometer!!!

In no way am I experienced enough as you guys are considering how I''m still in school.....
I agree with what David Atlas mentioned...

but David mentioned some key points, very consicely, that we learned in Econ classes..
Yes, only in theory, nevertheless, coming from great minded economists/professors of our time...


"One must consider a flat tax with an untaxed basic income threshold and graduated rates in the low range above the zero level. This encourages people to earn their living and get off the dole. At the upper end, we need to realize that the rich are the ones who create most jobs and own businesses. They re-invest their money and don''t keep it under their beds. Rich folks stimulate the economy, so killing them with high rates only stagnates our economy."

 

[icekid]

Agreed- as usual, Dave Atlas has provided us many wise words!

The thing that bothers be about the current taxation system is that it penalizes me for working hard.

I have worked my ass off to get into a good college, to get into medical school, to start a career. What do I have to show for it? I will graduate medical school ***$250,000*** in debt. Then I will "volunteer" my services during residency, while making a solid $3 per hour. You try paying back a quater of a million dollars making less than minimum wage.

By the time I am 35, I might have my first job making more than 35 grand/ year. And yes, I should donate 40% of my HARD earned cash to others. That''s why I worked so hard- so I could provide for the whole country, in addition to my own family.

 

[youngster]

Hey Icekid, you would have loved the ''70''s then.

Up until 1981, the top federal marginal tax rate was almost 70% on taxable incomes over $212,000. And, people wondered why the econmy stagnated during the 1970''s. Who in their right minds would work to create income with that as the top marginal rate?

Since 1911, the year the federal income tax was instituted, (it was supposed to be TEMPORARY by the way) the top marginal rate has fluctuated, usually between somewhat high, higher and nose-bleed range. The top marginal tax rate has been as high as 92%. And, Congress was amazed at how little tax revenue they collected from that tax bracket.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 8/4/2005 11:17:36 PM
Author: kaleigh
That looks just like my hubby, thanks for the laugh!!!!!! That''s the best thing I''ve seen all night!!!!

Kaleigh
yep,that''s him!!!....i see the bill from GOG for your beautiful asscher.

Kaleigh...that''s cruel,you actually enjoy it.

 

[Kaleigh]

Haha, I bought that stone for myself. A present from me to me. Hubby is so done buying me any more jewelry!!!! But he works so hard at tax time. That picture is so him at tax season.

 

[Big_G]

Date: 8/5/2005 10:01:28 AM
Author: icekid
Agreed- as usual, Dave Atlas has provided us many wise words!

The thing that bothers be about the current taxation system is that it penalizes me for working hard.

I have worked my ass off to get into a good college, to get into medical school, to start a career. What do I have to show for it? I will graduate medical school ***$250,000*** in debt. Then I will ''volunteer'' my services during residency, while making a solid $3 per hour. You try paying back a quater of a million dollars making less than minimum wage.

By the time I am 35, I might have my first job making more than 35 grand/ year. And yes, I should donate 40% of my HARD earned cash to others. That''s why I worked so hard- so I could provide for the whole country, in addition to my own family.

I''m with you. What is the point of working hard if the government is just going to penalize the person in increased taxes. While in college I would stay home doing (engineering) homework and studying while my buddies were out drinking 4 nights a week. Not to mention that I worked 30+ hours a week while taking a full load. All for what...so I could get a jump on my career. It gets depressing when you see a large portion of your paycheck going to pay taxes.

I am actually for a national sales tax. With any luck paying back student loans would not be taxed under a national sales tax system. Same with credit card debt etc, car loans etc. because those debts were figured with after tax dollars. Therefore, maybe we would all get our student loans (and other post-tax debt) reduced by our effective tax rates. I''ll keep my fingers crossed.