ITT we talk TAXES!

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Wth a flat tax the less you make, the less you pay. A 12% rate on someone who makes $23,000 would only come to around $200 a month as opposed to someone making $230,000 would be paying over $2,000 a month. The rich will still be paying significantly higher taxes. There are people making 6 figures that are living paycheck to paycheck so I don't think you can say that only lower income earners are the only owns spending all of their income on living expenses. I think if all working Americans were contributing to the income tax burden politicians and government officials would become better stewards of tax revenues, as well as ending the class warfare involving taxation that I've seen all my life.

The point is, for someone making only $23000 a year, that $200 is probably the difference between eating or not, or buying their medication or not. You can only get living expenses down so low. The belt will only tighten so far. Additionally, you said "per person". So does a single mom with two kids making $23K pay 12% for each person?

[PiKA2001]

No, I'm talking income tax and unless the kid has a job and payroll taxes are being deducted from his check, he wouldn't be liable.

AFAIK The progressive tax rates currently in use has nothing to do with lower wage earners having zero to little tax liability, it's the tax credits in place that are saving some from the 10% bracket ( was 15% before GWB). If you believe that an across the board tax will hinder lower wage earner than what is the income to start taxing people at? 25k, 30k, 40k?

The government WILL tax the poor, trust me. It may not always be out in the open like income taxes but lottery, sin taxes, proposed "fat" taxes, sales taxes, and VAT taxes are all designed to get money from the people who are able to slink past paying income taxes.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

No, I'm talking income tax and unless the kid has a job and payroll taxes are being deducted from his check, he wouldn't be liable.

AFAIK The progressive tax rates currently in use has nothing to do with lower wage earners having zero to little tax liability, it's the tax credits in place that are saving some from the 10% bracket ( was 15% before GWB). If you believe that an across the board tax will hinder lower wage earner than what is the income to start taxing people at? 25k, 30k, 40k?

The government WILL tax the poor, trust me. It may not always be out in the open like income taxes but lottery, sin taxes, proposed "fat" taxes, sales taxes, and VAT taxes are all designed to get money from the people who are able to slink past paying income taxes.

They're not designed to get money from people who slink by, they're designed to get money from everyone. Adding another flat % tax only hurts the poor more and makes life easier on the rich. I trust Warren Buffett when he says that people like him need to be taxed more, not less.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

They're not designed to get money from people who slink by, they're designed to get money from everyone. Adding another flat % tax only hurts the poor more and makes life easier on the rich. I trust Warren Buffett when he says that people like him need to be taxed more, not less.

Yes but they ( VAT, fat tax, sin tax) unfairly target the poor more so than the middle class or rich. Why would you be opposed to getting rid of all the secret back door nickel and dime taxes and only having one type of federal tax that is a flat percentage that you can actually budget for? A flat tax on the rich may actually end up making them pay more in taxes since all deductions would pretty much axed.

Also, I sincerely hope that you are opposed to the idea of fat taxes or value added taxes being implemented.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Yes but they ( VAT, fat tax, sin tax) unfairly target the poor more so than the middle class or rich. Why would you be opposed to getting rid of all the secret back door nickel and dime taxes and only having one type of federal tax that is a flat percentage that you can actually budget for? A flat tax on the rich may actually end up making them pay more in taxes since all deductions would pretty much axed.

Also, I sincerely hope that you are opposed to the idea of fat taxes or value added taxes being implemented.

The only place I know with VAT - UK - provides way more in services not just to the poor but to the average person. So yes, I'm anti-VAT just the same way I'm anti flat tax in the US. Change up our entire system and I might feel differently. Arguing that other things are ALSO BAD doesn't change the fact that the flat tax is BAD.

And again I'll trust Warren on the rich people's taxes.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

No, I'm talking income tax and unless the kid has a job and payroll taxes are being deducted from his check, he wouldn't be liable.

AFAIK The progressive tax rates currently in use has nothing to do with lower wage earners having zero to little tax liability, it's the tax credits in place that are saving some from the 10% bracket ( was 15% before GWB). If you believe that an across the board tax will hinder lower wage earner than what is the income to start taxing people at? 25k, 30k, 40k?

The government WILL tax the poor, trust me. It may not always be out in the open like income taxes but lottery, sin taxes, proposed "fat" taxes, sales taxes, and VAT taxes are all designed to get money from the people who are able to slink past paying income taxes.

Your flat tax idea would double my income tax liability.. so, no thanks Now once my kids are grown and out of the house and I can go rent an apartment, sure! I believe that if mortgage interest was not deductible, it would further hurt the housing industry. There would be no incentive whatsoever to own a house. I would also have no incentive, nor would I be financially able to, donate as much to charity as I do. I would also be less inclined to invest for retirement with pre-tax dollars into the stock market. I believe the flat tax would hurt the middle class the most.

The difference with sin taxes is that I have a choice in those. However, most of those are state taxes anyway and wouldn't be affected by your flat rate tax.

Keep in mind that you won't always be single with no kids and no house and whether it would really be to your advantage then.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Your flat tax idea would double my income tax liability.. so, no thanks Now once my kids are grown and out of the house and I can go rent an apartment, sure! I believe that if mortgage interest was not deductible, it would further hurt the housing industry. There would be no incentive whatsoever to own a house. I would also have no incentive, nor would I be financially able to, donate as much to charity as I do. I would also be less inclined to invest for retirement with pre-tax dollars into the stock market. I believe the flat tax would hurt the middle class the most.

The difference with sin taxes is that I have a choice in those. However, most of those are state taxes anyway and wouldn't be affected by your flat rate tax.

Keep in mind that you won't always be single with no kids and no house and whether it would really be to your advantage then.

No financial incentive to own a house? Umm, I can think of a few reasons why owning is more attractive than renting, especially if you go with a short term (15 yr or less) mortgage. Do people really buy a house just to write off the mortgage interest? I don't think they do. The sin tax was mentioned as an example of a regressive tax that targets the poor. I still believe that a flat tax ISN'T regressive. The fact is, we need major tax reform and just getting money from the Daddy Warbucks of America isn't going to cut it. Ive read that only half of the people who file with the IRS actually have a tax liability, the other half get a full refund +. We can't sustain that. We need to collect more revenue from more Americans.

[summer_gphib]

I manage a tax office, and while a flat tax would end my industry, I'm a big fan of it. Someone can come into my office, make $17000, pay no income tax in during the year, and leave with a check for over $10K. That is not a fair tax system. Granted they have 3 children, but I, nor any other taxpayer made them have those kids.

Earned income credit + the refundable additional child tax credit are the bane of my existence. My hubby and I both work, and have paid a small fortune in taxes this year, and will be fortunate to not owe. And yes we own a home, and itemize. But because we choose not to have children, we pay more in taxes.

[AlphaFrog]

While I've filed taxes since I was 16, and filed with dependents, etc for the last 6 years, I feel like this will be my first year filing "Big Girl Taxes" with dependents, mortgage writeoffs, business writeoffs, and charitable contributions.

Although, it's bittersweet, since I found out recently that I owe a chunk from a mistake I made in 2008... last time I will ever use Quickbooks reports instead of waiting for my W-2. My refund is pretty much all going to that.

[sanjiyan69]

I just go to HR Block. A friend works there so no mistakes.....plus I'm lazy.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

No financial incentive to own a house? Umm, I can think of a few reasons why owning is more attractive than renting, especially if you go with a short term (15 yr or less) mortgage. Do people really buy a house just to write off the mortgage interest? I don't think they do. The sin tax was mentioned as an example of a regressive tax that targets the poor. I still believe that a flat tax ISN'T regressive. The fact is, we need major tax reform and just getting money from the Daddy Warbucks of America isn't going to cut it. Ive read that only half of the people who file with the IRS actually have a tax liability, the other half get a full refund +. We can't sustain that. We need to collect more revenue from more Americans.

I did. I would never buy another house again if it weren't for the tax write-off. Too much trouble to get rid of when I want to move, and too much trouble to take care of. I much prefer to rent. If there is something wrong, I just call my landlord, and he takes care of it. Home ownership is not the end all be all of life.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

No financial incentive to own a house? Umm, I can think of a few reasons why owning is more attractive than renting, especially if you go with a short term (15 yr or less) mortgage. Do people really buy a house just to write off the mortgage interest? I don't think they do. The sin tax was mentioned as an example of a regressive tax that targets the poor. I still believe that a flat tax ISN'T regressive. The fact is, we need major tax reform and just getting money from the Daddy Warbucks of America isn't going to cut it. Ive read that only half of the people who file with the IRS actually have a tax liability, the other half get a full refund +. We can't sustain that. We need to collect more revenue from more Americans.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I did. I would never buy another house again if it weren't for the tax write-off. Too much trouble to get rid of when I want to move, and too much trouble to take care of. I much prefer to rent. If there is something wrong, I just call my landlord, and he takes care of it. Home ownership is not the end all be all of life.

Precisely. I have poured so much money into my house and it needs so much more poured into it. I've had a very reasonable mortgage interest rate (no crazy rates, etc.) and have been paying on it consistently for almost 11 years and still have an upside mortgage. I'm stuck in this house for God knows how long and I would have happily rented if I didn't want the mortgage interest tax break. Someone else would be shoveling my snow and mowing my lawn too. I can't wait to get rid of the house.

[DiamondAthena]

After requesting an extension, I made a mistake on my '09 tax return and I am just now hearing back on what forms I need to submit. Praying I get two refund checks at once this year

[PiKA2001]

In all, the tax code is filled with a total of $1.1 trillion in credits, deductions and exemptions, an average of about $8,000 per taxpayer, according to an analysis by the National Taxpayer Advocate, an independent watchdog within the IRS.
More than half of the nation's tax revenue came from the top 10 percent of earners in 2007. More than 44 percent came from the top 5 percent. Still, the wealthy have access to much more lucrative tax breaks than people with lower incomes.
Obama wants the wealthy to pay so "the amount of taxes you pay isn't determined by what kind of accountant you can afford."
Eric Schoenberg says to sign him up for paying higher taxes. Schoenberg, who inherited money and has a healthy portfolio from his days as an investment banker, has joined a group of other wealthy Americans called United for a Fair Economy. Their goal: Raise taxes on rich people like themselves.
Shoenberg, who now teaches a business class at Columbia University, said his income is usually "north of half a million a year." But 2009 was a bad year for investments, so his income dropped to a little over $200,000. His federal income tax bill was a little more than $2,000.
"I simply point out to people, 'Do you think this is reasonable, that somebody in my circumstances should only be paying 1 percent of their income in tax?'" Schoenberg said.

The share of people paying no federal income tax has dropped slightly the past two years. It was 47 percent for 2009. The main difference for 2010 was the expiration of a tax break that exempted the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits from taxation, Williams said.
In 2009, nearly 35 million taxpayers got a tax break for paying interest on their home mortgages, and nearly 36 million taxpayers took the $1,000-per-child tax credit. About 41 million households reduced their federal income taxes by deducting state and local income and sales taxes from their taxable income.
About 36 million families cut their taxes by nearly $35 billion by deducting charitable donations, and 28 million taxpayers saved a total of $24 billion because their income from Social Security and railroad pensions was untaxed.

I get so mad when I read bullshit like this, we need tax REFORM! No wonder we are in the financial shit-storm that we are currently in. Half the country doesn't pay taxes and the other half that does can write off everything from breast pumps (health spending) to handjobs (business entertainment). I'd like to see an end to credits and deductions save for people who make under $20,000 and medical and education costs.








http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_17867272?source=rss

[aephi alum]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

I get so mad when I read bullshit like this, we need tax REFORM! No wonder we are in the financial shit-storm that we are currently in. Half the country doesn't pay taxes and the other half that does can write off everything from breast pumps (health spending) to handjobs (business entertainment). I'd like to see an end to credits and deductions save for people who make under $20,000 and medical and education costs.

Nope, we need to keep the mortgage interest deduction. It's saving my butt.

The thing is, the wealthiest of the wealthy know all the tricks (or their CPAs do) and end up paying far less than their share in income taxes. The lowest-income people are entitled to certain deductions and credits, so they pay little to nothing in taxes (and may even get money back from the IRS) - and this is appropriate, as they're already having enough trouble making ends meet. But the middle and upper-middle classes get screwed.

And while we're on the subject of tax reform, can we get rid of the damn marriage tax penalty? Seriously, my husband and I would be paying a lot less in taxes if we'd just continued living in sin.