America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Ok I'll rant know. What the heck is this child credit anyone. Why should I have to pay more tax because I decided not to have children? Does having children mean you use up less government resources? I think you use more(i.e. school). So not only am I paying for people's kids to go to school I'm paying more than they are. That doesn't seem right does it?

penzt8,
Don't forget the unemployment tax. State rate is 2.7% (depending on your state) of the first $8,000 of worker earnings per year. Then there's the federal unemployment tax, another 2.7% of the first $8,000 of earnings per year. This isn't a payroll deduction, but a direct tax on employers.

Then there's the employer's Social Security match. 7.65% of employee pay...

The first quarter of 2004 is almost over. As the company Treasurer I get to file the forms to prove that we paid paid our taxes during January, February and March. Lucky me.

so why should those without children subsidize those with children?

John Stocil (spelling?) of ABC news recently did a segment on this very subject. He asked Al Sharpton what % of taxes the top 1% of earners should pay. He replied that they should pay 15%. That was before John informed him that the top 1% of earners in this country pay 34% of taxes and the top 5% of earners pay 53% of the taxes. The top 5% income was around 135k as I recall. That's a nice income, but by no means rich.

This is on top of other taxes such as real estate, state, and local. One step forward and 2 steps back.

The only thing that helps me with my federal tax is my mortgage but it's really just a trade off. I end up paying more in property tax than my income tax would have been on that same money.

Yeah Pentz Im with ya there.

And this thread is pissing me off cuz I still have to do mine!!

UGH!

This has been around a while, but I just happened to get it in an email this morning:

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler - a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinborough - had this to say about "The Fall of the Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St.Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent Presidential election:

Population of counties won by: Gore 127 million; Bush 143 million;
Square miles of land won by: Gore 580,000; Bush 2,427,000;
States won by: Gore 19; Bush 29;
Murders per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore 13.2;Bush 2.1.

Professor Olson adds, "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly land owned by the tax-paying citizens... Gore's territory encompassed [most of] those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare.."

Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "apathy" and the "complacency" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

LOL@X!!!


Maybe you can adopt the gay lifestyle, find a same sex partner, move to San Fransico and get married...

I'm sure there has to be SOME sort of tax benefits there....

penzt8 did a good job of explaining my rant.

Kids are a personal decision. I've decided to not have kids for economic (as well as other) reasons. If I'm not paying for my own kids why do I have to help pay for everyone elses?

$1,000 a kid? And how many kids to you have BeatDragon. Thats a heck of a lot more then I got as a credit. You know what I got? $0.00

If I bought a hummer I could say that more of my money gets in the system through gas, repairs, etc. Does that mean I should get a credit that you don't because I made an expensive life choice?

In your eyes its a tax credit to have kids. In my eyes its a tax penalty for not having them.

Just to give you some idea of how the federal gov't has grown over the past 200+ years. Biggest growth is during the past 50 years.

Washington 1789-1797 3 departments
Lincoln 1861-1865 5 departments (war and navy were separate departments)
T Roosevelt 1901-1909 7 departments (war and navy were separate departments)
Truman 1945-1953 9 departments (war, defense and navy were 3 separate departments)
Eisenhower 1953-1961 8 departments (combined defense, navy and war departments)
LB Johnson 1963-1969 10 departments
Carter 1977-1981 13 departments
Reagan 1981-1989 12 departments
G Bush 1989-1993 13 departments
GW Bush 2001-presnt 14 departments

I have 3 kids, I get no write-off, got no re-imbursement check last year, I pay the marriage penalty, and I look forward to every tax break that comes along.

Y'all are a bunch of whiney assed babies!

1) Everyone seems to be all about MeMeMe. My money, my house, not you or him or her. Folks you live in a country that has a lot of people that you want and need to get a long with. Just because you are spending money on things that you personally don't use does not mean that you get no benefit from them. Additionally there are a number of things that you do get plenty of benefit from that you could not afford if others were not paying for them too (not many of us could afford our own police precinct).

2)You talk about % of wage earners vs % of taxes, a more accurate assessment would be % of disposable income vs % of taxes. I don't know what that comes out to, but most folks making less than 28K/year have little to no disposable income.

From a guy who is in the top 10% of wage earners.


Not that I expect any of that to make sense to you:
"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." -- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

Ever notice how your spelling goes into the toilet when you go on a rant? :-)

btw - I didn't do that becuase of your views, I am on your side.. just found this cool tool, and saw you lamenting your spelling.

MonkeyK,
I agree that we pay taxes to have collectively the things we can't have individually, and I think most of the other people ranting on this thread about taxes would also agree. If our governments (federal, state and local) just kept to the basics we would all be happier and we would all have more money in our pockets.

Socialism (sharing of wealth) in theory isn't a bad idea. The concept of each contributing to society and each benefitting is wonderful. We need all of those minimum wage earners because they do contribute to society. If a guy works for minimum wage but still can't afford to feed and clothe his family, help him out.

But what about the slackers that simply do not contribute to society? High school drop outs that have 2 kids by the time they're 18 and won't work. Deadbeats that simply don't want to work. California has an illegal immigrant problem. Apparently there is enough work to lure thousands of people across the border. Take all those people living on welfare and teach them to pick lettuce, clean hotel rooms, and do lawn work. If they still don't earn enough to survive, then the government can help them out.

Socialism just doesn't work. One one side people take advantage of the system and do little if any work. On the other side, there is little incentive to be more productive, to work harder and longer, or to be an entrepeneur and risk your own money because the reward is: you get to give more of your money to someone else who works less and contributes less to society.

The choice is not between the Bush administrations economic policies and Socialism. That is a radical, untruthful purely political portrayal of this situation.

The statistic of what income sector pays what percentage of federal tax is also misleading in that it avoids consideration of tax paid as a ratio of disposable income. Also it doesn't measure the dollar amounts lost in efforts by the very wealthy to hide income from the federal government in tax shelters and corporate accounting practices unavailable to most of us. Rant all you wan't about your tax bill. Mine is significant too, but what we all want is a system that is fair. I take major issue with any contention that the current administration's directions in implementation of tax policy is fair. To disagree is not socialism. In fact, I think there are positions the Dems are taking that are much more sound in a capitalistic sense than the Republicans with this administrations recklessness in deficit spending and favors to certain sectors on the economy.

Hey.. I'm ok with the concept of a fiscally responsible smaller government that bases taxes on disposible income to be fair to those that don't have much of it. This was always the intended way federal income tax was supposed to be implemented.

If the Republicans as a party would truly adopt this Conservative, Traditional economic stance instead of the reckless radical one they currently have, we'd all be better off. (maybe I'd vote for a Repulican Senator as I did in the last election)


DB

Hey guys, not that it matters to either of you, but I want to compliment both of you for having a nice intelligent debate. It’s very refreshing to see. I’ve even agreed with some of dbguru’s comments….although not enough so sway my opinion on government enablement.

Pen.. your opinion on basing Income tax is your opinion, but the reality is that basing it on disposable income is how we as a country were sold the concept of income tax early in the 20th century. It was always the original intention.

I see your point Hensed...
but not so sure flat taxes are the answer.

Hey listen.... tough problem and I have enough humility to admit I don't have all the answers.
I just want to see a tax policy that is more fair to all of us, as a whole.

Essentially, income tax was unconstitutional so they ammended the constitution. They tried to make the riched 2% of the population pay all the taxes but eventually the government grew larger and social programs expanded so more and more money was needed. The top 2% could no longer pay the whole bill so the government just keeps working it's way down the pay scale. Now the top 25% carries most of the burden.

Income tax has never been "fair" and is only legal because they ammended the constitution to make it law.

Hey Penzt..you started this thread. Anyway a little research is good you and, seriously, I really appreciate you efforts here.
DB

quote "How would you like it if you went to Burger King to order a Whopper and you had to pay $10.00 for it and some lazy schmuck only paid .25 for his because he has less disposable income?"

Please don't assume that those who make less than 28K are lazy schmucks. It is not easy living on very little (I used to do that, didn't like it)
Everyone has to start somewhere, by reducing the burden on the lowest paid, we make it more possible for them to climb.

wow.

well, first off, let me apologize, because i personally hope to be one of the lucky folks who collect social security disability benefits -- ya know, the ones the i was paying into since i was 16 years old.

i guess i must have missed out on all the bennies given to the poor, though. i now make $0.00 annually after losing my job in 2002 after i was unable to continue working due to a decline in health.

one day i was taking a fedex package out for my employer. sprained my ankle when i slipped on the ice mound in front of the drop box. now i've got crippling nerve damage (wasn't "just a sprain" after all) and will most likely end up in a wheelchair in a couple of years and am trying hard right now not to lose my left leg to amputation.

i have no health insurance. i have no prescription insurance. if we had a child, we could afford to get our FAMILY onto my wife's insurance. for just us a couple, though, it's too expensive. it costs less to pay out of pocket than it does to pay the ridiculous premiums for a couple; a family is scarcely more than a single person, but a couple is over $500 per month with HIGH copays and few benefits.

i am not eligible for a single, solitary "welfare" benefit.

i receive no food stamps (when i married my wife in october, we became ineligible -- she makes $25k annually as a school teacher)

i receive no subsidy for any utilities; every month in the winter we wonder if we'll have our electricity (and thus our heat) shut off before we can make it to the next pay day (she's paid once a month).

my health continues to decline, at least in part because i cannot afford the tests that my doctors want me to have -- MRI? can't afford it out of pocket. Nerve Conduction Test? not at $1,000 a pop. Bloodwork? once a year maybe. Various heart-related tests? oh, you gotta be kidding.

my heart's still beating; let's just save a few hundred dollars and call that a positive sign.

it'll be like this for another year, minimum. yes, i AM looking forward to finally being approved for social security and the medicare health insurance that comes with it. makes me sad that folks think of me as being a "leech off the government" -- or off of them personally -- though. i wasn't bitching when i was working my butt off and paying for your parents' or grandparents' social security and medicare.

i'm sure it would be a lot more convenient if i'd just hurry up and die, but see my wife has a bit of a problem with that, and i really do have to respect her wishes in this case.

let me add to this a bit of what i DO have.

i have a 20 year old t.v. and a 15 year old vcr. i have a dinosaur microwave and a toaster oven we got as a wedding present. the other stuff i own because i WORKED for it. when i was able to work, i've most often held 2 jobs -- the only exception was the five years when i moved back into my parents' house in my 20's to care for them until their deaths (and i was in college then and also worked my way through that) -- that way they didn't have to suck any more of the public funds and go into a subsidized nursing home, although after all the years they worked hard, too, i say they would have earned it.

by the way, when i moved back in to care for my parents? though i was doing them a favor, i still insisted upon paying them rent. they were living on my dad's pension and social security; i didn't need much, and their health care expenses were outrageous.

i no longer have a car of my own. the engine blew, and i can't afford to fis it. my wife and i scraped up enough to by a (very) used pathfinder for $800 and with over 200K miles on it. she needs transportation to get to work and back. i need it for doctor's appointments. we don't exactly go joyriding to show off our bling bling car.

i cut my own hair. i have an oster buzzer that i bought, again, while i was working.

i can't remember the last time i bought new clothes, but i do know that it was when i was working and had a decent ($35k) salary. but i'm grateful for what i do have -- i sold most of my corporate clothes and now have mostly old sweat pants/shorts and t-shirts. i have a couple of old flannel shirts and 3 sweatshirts -- 2 of which i bought (again while working); the third i admit was NOT paid for by me -- it was given to me as a gift when i left the police force.

speaking of, i have no idea how much money i saved people when i was a cop. between being a first responder and saving folks in cardiac arrest (those burial expenses do add up!) to stopping home invasions, though, those two things alone saved a few folks a chunk of change i'm sure!

let's see... what other "luxury" items does my undeserving-because-i'm-poor self have? i have my computer. i tried to pawn it, but no one wanted it. it's not worth $30. my wife uses it for her work, too, so even selling it privately for $30 isn't worth it to us. and i can occasionally pick up $2-5 here and there doing surveys online. i made $7 last month! that's chump change to many of you; to me it was a big deal, though.

i don't drink alcohol. i'd like to have a glass of scotch now and then, but since being diagnosed as diabetic, even when i could afford to drink, i only had one maybe 1-2 times a year.

i do smoke. thanks primarily to the kindness of BOTLs, i'm able to continue to smoke cigars. WHEN our budget allows for it, i have $30/month for "personal expenses" -- that encompasses cigars, postage for trading/bombs/pifs, etc. as well as any additional personal needs -- extra bandages, for instance.

i was hoping to send out a couple of bombs this month, but i just had to spend the rest of my $ for the month on these special bandages that cost $2.50 each. sorry, guys, but i'd kind of like to not lose my leg if i can help it. i'm hoping to do a bombing run in april, and i hope the wounds on my leg are healed up by then, coz i'd much rather use that $2.50 to mail out a few cigars to a B/SOTL than to buy a stupid overpriced bandage.

i don't know of any more "luxuries" i have. i can assure you, though, that every thing i DO have was purchased with my/our own money and when i had a decent job.

from my ancient color t.v. to the cigar i'm going to smoke after i post this, though, i assure you that your tax dollars paid for NONE of it -- nor does it pay for the 30+ year-old place that we rent or any of the food that's prepared within it or a stitch of clothing on my back or the doctors who try to keep that back somewhat functional at least.

just a few words from one of those lazy-ass undesireable poor folks out there perceived as living so high off the hog while simultaneously sucking all the money you have left over after you pay for your nice wheels, nice house, nice clothes, nice food, and nice toys!

if you can find anything of mine that was paid for by your tax dollars, though, you're welcome to come and take it back!