goemaw.com

General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: steve dave on May 29, 2013, 11:40:27 AM

Title: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on May 29, 2013, 11:40:27 AM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.boingboing.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F05%2F1140cbCOMIC-ld-gimme-shelter.jpg&hash=bc2c307135d08488e8b7579a85d9e1a6fe19dc94)
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 29, 2013, 08:59:51 PM
This is an awfully cynical and perverse view of our political system for a socialist to have.  I feel that ruben is about to break right.

Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: yoman on May 29, 2013, 09:46:09 PM
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

I'm just gonna leave this here and let you guys go to work.

EDIT: Before you guys look at this and say it is a flat tax, let me explain that isn't technically correct. It does provide the prebate changing the effective tax rates of all people. I know this isn't necessarily a perfect system one way or another but I figured I would let gE take a look at it and critique it.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on May 29, 2013, 09:53:40 PM
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

I'm just gonna leave this here and let you guys go to work.

EDIT: Before you guys look at this and say it is a flat tax, let me explain that isn't technically correct. It does provide the prebate changing the effective tax rates of all people. I know this isn't necessarily a perfect system one way or another but I figured I would let gE take a look at it and critique it.

Gary Johnson supports a fair tax and I support Gary Johnson
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: p1k3 on May 29, 2013, 10:08:20 PM
i don't think i should have to pay taxes
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: yoman on May 29, 2013, 10:31:58 PM
i don't think i should have to pay taxes

I had a really funny but mean one-liner typed out and ready to go. But instead of using it, I'll just ask two questions: 1. Why? 2. What would you propose we do about public goods that people do not have incentive to purchase themselves but are necessary for the country to work? 
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: star seed 7 on May 29, 2013, 10:40:37 PM
i don't think i should have to pay taxes

Neither do corporations.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on May 29, 2013, 10:41:50 PM
i don't think i should have to pay taxes

Neither do corporations.

Hey they're people too  :shakesfist:
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: sys on May 29, 2013, 11:36:23 PM
I figured I would let gE take a look at it and critique it.

incorporate a carbon tax and you have a winner.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on May 30, 2013, 07:10:15 AM
I feel that ruben is about to break right.

he's a pretty entrenched moderate
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 30, 2013, 08:09:45 AM
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

I'm just gonna leave this here and let you guys go to work.

EDIT: Before you guys look at this and say it is a flat tax, let me explain that isn't technically correct. It does provide the prebate changing the effective tax rates of all people. I know this isn't necessarily a perfect system one way or another but I figured I would let gE take a look at it and critique it.

A 23% federal sales tax is just way too much.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on May 30, 2013, 08:12:36 AM
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

I'm just gonna leave this here and let you guys go to work.

EDIT: Before you guys look at this and say it is a flat tax, let me explain that isn't technically correct. It does provide the prebate changing the effective tax rates of all people. I know this isn't necessarily a perfect system one way or another but I figured I would let gE take a look at it and critique it.

A 23% federal sales tax is just way too much.

People wouldn't buy crap they don't need  :dunno:
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 30, 2013, 08:16:56 AM
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

I'm just gonna leave this here and let you guys go to work.

EDIT: Before you guys look at this and say it is a flat tax, let me explain that isn't technically correct. It does provide the prebate changing the effective tax rates of all people. I know this isn't necessarily a perfect system one way or another but I figured I would let gE take a look at it and critique it.

A 23% federal sales tax is just way too much.

People wouldn't buy crap they don't need  :dunno:

Yeah, it would be awful for the economy.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on May 30, 2013, 08:20:06 AM
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

I'm just gonna leave this here and let you guys go to work.

EDIT: Before you guys look at this and say it is a flat tax, let me explain that isn't technically correct. It does provide the prebate changing the effective tax rates of all people. I know this isn't necessarily a perfect system one way or another but I figured I would let gE take a look at it and critique it.

A 23% federal sales tax is just way too much.

People wouldn't buy crap they don't need  :dunno:

Yeah, it would be awful for the economy.

It would definitely kick everyone's Roth IRA in the balls
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: sys on May 30, 2013, 10:04:45 AM
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

I'm just gonna leave this here and let you guys go to work.

EDIT: Before you guys look at this and say it is a flat tax, let me explain that isn't technically correct. It does provide the prebate changing the effective tax rates of all people. I know this isn't necessarily a perfect system one way or another but I figured I would let gE take a look at it and critique it.

A 23% federal sales tax is just way too much.

it's revenue neutral.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: sys on May 30, 2013, 10:05:36 AM
It would definitely kick everyone's Roth IRA in the balls

heh.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Emo EMAW on May 30, 2013, 10:05:56 AM
Denmark has like a 180% sales tax on new vehicles.  :sdeek:
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 30, 2013, 10:27:54 AM
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

I'm just gonna leave this here and let you guys go to work.

EDIT: Before you guys look at this and say it is a flat tax, let me explain that isn't technically correct. It does provide the prebate changing the effective tax rates of all people. I know this isn't necessarily a perfect system one way or another but I figured I would let gE take a look at it and critique it.

A 23% federal sales tax is just way too much.

it's revenue neutral.

Well, that's nice if you care about that I guess.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 30, 2013, 10:44:53 AM
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

I'm just gonna leave this here and let you guys go to work.

EDIT: Before you guys look at this and say it is a flat tax, let me explain that isn't technically correct. It does provide the prebate changing the effective tax rates of all people. I know this isn't necessarily a perfect system one way or another but I figured I would let gE take a look at it and critique it.

A 23% federal sales tax is just way too much.

In exchange for zero income taxes? I'll take it.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: yoman on May 30, 2013, 10:54:34 AM
The sales tax, while agreeably high, ends up being a wash for the current system. It just frees up many more resources to be used more productively.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 30, 2013, 11:02:51 AM
By the time you include your state and local taxes on top of that sales tax, it would be more than 30%.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 30, 2013, 11:26:07 AM
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

I'm just gonna leave this here and let you guys go to work.

EDIT: Before you guys look at this and say it is a flat tax, let me explain that isn't technically correct. It does provide the prebate changing the effective tax rates of all people. I know this isn't necessarily a perfect system one way or another but I figured I would let gE take a look at it and critique it.

A 23% federal sales tax is just way too much.

In exchange for zero income taxes? I'll take it.

What tax rate are you paying on federal income taxes?
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: yoman on May 30, 2013, 12:34:20 PM
By the time you include your state and local taxes on top of that sales tax, it would be more than 30%.

I would honestly anticipate the final sales tax to be around 35% possibly as high as 40%. This is because i see the states following suit (eventually) to the sales tax only system. However, no state income tax, no social security, no anything. You get your entire pay check. The federal and state government collect the same funding as they currently do and can adjust the percentages at their discretion. Bottom line: you pay the same while freeing up man hours of reasonably intelligent people to do more productive things that benefit society.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on May 30, 2013, 12:40:20 PM
By the time you include your state and local taxes on top of that sales tax, it would be more than 30%.

I would honestly anticipate the final sales tax to be around 35% possibly as high as 40%. This is because i see the states following suit (eventually) to the sales tax only system. However, no state income tax, no social security, no anything. You get your entire pay check. The federal and state government collect the same funding as they currently do and can adjust the percentages at their discretion. Bottom line: you pay the same while freeing up man hours of reasonably intelligent people to do more productive things that benefit society.

eff that, I'm just buying everything in countries with non-ridiculous sales tax. anything to declare? nope, already had all this awesome crap when I left.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on May 30, 2013, 12:43:34 PM
also, how do you deal with the tourism industry? nobody's coming to the ole' usa if they have to pay inflated amounts for stuff. let crotch grabbing bird flipping foreignors get everything at a 30% discount? somehow force US citizens to pony up 30% of whatever they spent overseas now that they do 100% of their leisure travel outside the US?
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on May 30, 2013, 12:45:24 PM
also what about my Roth investment mention earlier? everyone just get a gigantic one time tax refund from uncle sam?
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: puniraptor on May 30, 2013, 12:49:49 PM
massive universal sales tax like that would absolutely bone the low income people to death and totally let the rich off the hook.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: wetwillie on May 30, 2013, 12:51:36 PM
massive universal sales tax like that would absolutely bone the low income people to death and totally let the rich off the hook.

Yep, pretty great. 
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on May 30, 2013, 12:55:28 PM
massive universal sales tax like that would absolutely bone the low income people to death and totally let the rich off the hook.

it would eff most rich people equally as hard when whatever they sell is now being purchased somewhere else. it's just a stupid idea. people who clamor for it can usually only think far enough ahead to get to the part where you only pay for whatever you buy.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: yoman on May 30, 2013, 01:38:10 PM
also, how do you deal with the tourism industry? nobody's coming to the ole' usa if they have to pay inflated amounts for stuff. let crotch grabbing bird flipping foreignors get everything at a 30% discount? somehow force US citizens to pony up 30% of whatever they spent overseas now that they do 100% of their leisure travel outside the US?

Under this they'd pay the tax. Also, all imports would at least be hit by the 23%. Exports are tax free.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 30, 2013, 01:40:15 PM
the black market would flourish in yoman's world.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on May 30, 2013, 01:41:37 PM
the black market would flourish in yoman's world.

well that's one plus. one negative is the economy would go in the shitter and everyone that could afford to do so would move to another country.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 30, 2013, 01:43:49 PM
I guess I just don't see what is so bad about the current tax code. :dunno:
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: yoman on May 30, 2013, 02:20:32 PM
the black market would flourish in yoman's world.

To be fair, I brought it here for critique. SD pointed out a major flaw.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 30, 2013, 03:37:03 PM
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

I'm just gonna leave this here and let you guys go to work.

EDIT: Before you guys look at this and say it is a flat tax, let me explain that isn't technically correct. It does provide the prebate changing the effective tax rates of all people. I know this isn't necessarily a perfect system one way or another but I figured I would let gE take a look at it and critique it.

A 23% federal sales tax is just way too much.

In exchange for zero income taxes? I'll take it.

What tax rate are you paying on federal income taxes?

For 2012, I paid an effective federal income tax rate of 15.6%. Add in FICA, and that takes me up to right around 23%. I pay a higher effective income tax rate than 95% of the country so, yeah, I'm in favor of tax reform. I work my ass off, make a nice income that's almost all wages, and for that, I get mumped over.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on May 30, 2013, 03:40:45 PM
I pay shitloads of taxes. would love to not do so.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 30, 2013, 03:46:09 PM
massive universal sales tax like that would absolutely bone the low income people to death and totally let the rich off the hook.

It might actually collect more from "the rich," depending upon how much they consume and how much they currently pay in income tax. Some of "the rich" don't have significant income taxed at normal rates. I believe Obama has bitched about this, about a million times or so.

And as for screwing the poor, the fairtax incorporates a rebate system that refunds sales tax paid up to a certain "poverty level" line.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 30, 2013, 03:49:41 PM
I pay shitloads of taxes. would love to not do so.

I'd be happy with just paying a percentage that's more in line with the rest of the country. This isn't about abolishing taxation.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 30, 2013, 03:50:33 PM
eff that, I'm just buying everything in countries with non-ridiculous sales tax. anything to declare? nope, already had all this awesome crap when I left.

So you're saying we'd also have to beef of border security? Sounds like a win-win.
Title: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on May 30, 2013, 04:15:35 PM
yes, confirmed that customs and tsa can both go eff themselves. quit being nazis.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 30, 2013, 04:22:28 PM
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

I'm just gonna leave this here and let you guys go to work.

EDIT: Before you guys look at this and say it is a flat tax, let me explain that isn't technically correct. It does provide the prebate changing the effective tax rates of all people. I know this isn't necessarily a perfect system one way or another but I figured I would let gE take a look at it and critique it.

A 23% federal sales tax is just way too much.

In exchange for zero income taxes? I'll take it.

What tax rate are you paying on federal income taxes?

For 2012, I paid an effective federal income tax rate of 15.6%. Add in FICA, and that takes me up to right around 23%. I pay a higher effective income tax rate than 95% of the country so, yeah, I'm in favor of tax reform. I work my ass off, make a nice income that's almost all wages, and for that, I get mumped over.

When you add FICA to what I pay, it's right around 20%. This would just create a huge hit to the economy, though. I'd rather earn more and pay more than earn less and pay less. The way I look at it is that everything I make will eventually get spent, whether it is by me or the people who inherit my money. This fair tax would ensure that everything I make is eventually taxed at 23%. Capital gains? 23%. Ordinary income? 23%. Money in the Roth IRA tax shelter? 23%. I just don't see how that is better than the current system, where I get taxed every year in a way that ensures that I'm not going to struggle due to government taxation, and I get to pay little to no taxes when I retire.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: michigancat on May 30, 2013, 04:35:47 PM
I guess I just don't see what is so bad about the current tax code. :dunno:

I don't really care for the mortgage interest deduction. I'm sure there's other things I wouldn't like if I thought about it more. Overall, it's not bad, though.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 30, 2013, 04:37:49 PM
I guess I just don't see what is so bad about the current tax code. :dunno:

I don't really care for the mortgage interest deduction. I'm sure there's other things I wouldn't like if I thought about it more. Overall, it's not bad, though.

Yeah, to me you should either be able to deduct all interest paid or none at all. There are plenty of problems with it, but not nearly as many problems as there are with some enormous sales tax.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: michigancat on May 30, 2013, 04:44:47 PM
I guess I just don't see what is so bad about the current tax code. :dunno:

I don't really care for the mortgage interest deduction. I'm sure there's other things I wouldn't like if I thought about it more. Overall, it's not bad, though.

Yeah, to me you should either be able to deduct all interest paid or none at all. There are plenty of problems with it, but not nearly as many problems as there are with some enormous sales tax.

agreed
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: 06wildcat on May 30, 2013, 04:50:18 PM
I guess I just don't see what is so bad about the current tax code. :dunno:

I don't really care for the mortgage interest deduction. I'm sure there's other things I wouldn't like if I thought about it more. Overall, it's not bad, though.

For regular income/interest/dividends it's relatively straight forward, just tedious. It's when you get into income from partnerships/rents/oil and gas leases that things get complicated. Still it's not like the average CPA can't handle it for under a grand.

Though I'm interested to hear why KSU believes he's in the top 5 percent of tax payers with an effective rate of 15 percent, because that's actually pretty damn low for someone still working and being at 5 percent earner.
Title: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on May 30, 2013, 05:21:01 PM
I have the most stud accountant in the world fwiw. This crap is handled.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: EMAWmeister on May 30, 2013, 05:34:54 PM
Remember when income taxes were like 60% and crap?

THAT DAMN OBAMA AND HIS TAXES
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 30, 2013, 06:16:24 PM
I guess I just don't see what is so bad about the current tax code. :dunno:

I don't really care for the mortgage interest deduction. I'm sure there's other things I wouldn't like if I thought about it more. Overall, it's not bad, though.

What don't you like about the mortgage interest deduction? I suppose you could argue that it may inflate home prices some, but I don't think it has that big an effect.
Title: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on May 30, 2013, 06:39:10 PM
Rus rents
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: michigancat on May 30, 2013, 06:43:22 PM
Rus rents

Well, the mortgage interest deduction also encouraged the subprime/interest-only loans that were a major catalyst for the recession. And higher home ownership rates made the workforce less mobile, thereby making the recession worse. Also it is primarily a benefit for the very rich, especially where I live.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: sys on May 30, 2013, 06:56:12 PM
it's revenue neutral, dumbasses, it isn't going to tank the economy or raise prices.  you'd handle foreigner purchases just like vat countries do, with a rebate offer than only a small % of tourists take advantage of.  poor don't get soaked any more than now, look at the rebate tables - they correspond very well to current tax obligations.

jfc, you'd think the level of debate would be more sophisticated than this crap.
Title: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on May 30, 2013, 07:35:44 PM
lol no. Would never work unless every country implemented. Your largest earners aren't going to purchase a single domestic product or service. Even medium earners who are smart won't. Comparing a tiny VAT to a 25% country wide sales tax is extremely Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Title: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on May 30, 2013, 07:36:52 PM
I'm telecommuting from London personally. I can now afford it and can't afford not to at the same time.
Title: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on May 30, 2013, 07:40:56 PM
And this should be much cheaper and easier for the gov. to enforce.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: 06wildcat on May 30, 2013, 09:29:38 PM
Rus rents

Well, the mortgage interest deduction also encouraged the subprime/interest-only loans that were a major catalyst for the recession. And higher home ownership rates made the workforce less mobile, thereby making the recession worse. Also it is primarily a benefit for the very rich, especially where I live.

Yeah, now that I'm married our mortgage interest/property taxes aren't enough alone to itemize deductions. I could maybe see a need for it in the early 80s when a mortgage was 18 percent or something, but houses are also going to cost a shitload less if it gets back to that too.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 30, 2013, 09:49:05 PM
I have the most stud accountant in the world fwiw. This crap is handled.

 :gocho:
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: catzacker on May 30, 2013, 09:58:20 PM
VAT system is just the stupidest rough ridin' system ever created.  It's not something to move towards.  It is a burden on every individual in the supply chain.  You just add more government because now some organization has to track all that crap.

You should just get taxed without any of the bullshit.  Lower rates, remove most if not all deductions, eff poor people.  And then don't mess with it for like 30 years.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: 06wildcat on May 30, 2013, 10:10:59 PM
Also tons of crap get left out of sales/VAT taxes. If every good/service in Kansas was subject to sales tax, the rate would be about 2 percent. Instead you get all these exclusions and it's currently 6.3 and probably staying they to pay for income taxes, which as zacker points out is a test case for rough ridin' the poor
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 30, 2013, 11:07:18 PM
I'm interested to hear why KSU believes he's in the top 5 percent of tax payers with an effective rate of 15 percent, because that's actually pretty damn low for someone still working and being at 5 percent earner.

Effective tax rate is lower than marginal rate. You simply divide total FIT paid by gross income. As you can see below, a 15.6% effective rate is pretty damned high. It's higher than approximately 95% of all Americans.

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pgpf.org%2FIssues%2FTaxes%2F2012%2F04%2F%7E%2F%7E%2Fmedia%2FBE9AE89EE9DB41F2879D9EF735E4F1D9.gif&hash=e2d46111c54f4fc725584d13ea1c7aff63e69a0a)

Because I'm a relateivly high wage earner, I'm in prime fleecing position. Obama would say I'm "rich," but I'm not rich enough to derive most of my income from capital gains or otherwise shelter my income from ordinary income tax rates.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 31, 2013, 12:15:18 AM
Rus rents

Well, the mortgage interest deduction also encouraged the subprime/interest-only loans that were a major catalyst for the recession. And higher home ownership rates made the workforce less mobile, thereby making the recession worse. Also it is primarily a benefit for the very rich, especially where I live.

I don't think any of that is true. I'm pretty sure stated income loans and reckless bank investments were the main catalyst for the recession.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: sys on May 31, 2013, 01:19:37 AM
lol no. Would never work unless every country implemented. Your largest earners aren't going to purchase a single domestic product or service. Even medium earners who are smart won't. Comparing a tiny VAT to a 25% country wide sales tax is extremely Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

you should be smarter than this.  you claim to be.  i'm very disappointed.
Title: Re: Re: Taxes
Post by: michigancat on May 31, 2013, 07:26:11 AM
Rus rents

Well, the mortgage interest deduction also encouraged the subprime/interest-only loans that were a major catalyst for the recession. And higher home ownership rates made the workforce less mobile, thereby making the recession worse. Also it is primarily a benefit for the very rich, especially where I live.

I don't think any of that is true. I'm pretty sure stated income loans and reckless bank investments were the main catalyst for the recession.

Yeah, I guess those two things are completely unrelated to home ownership rates.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: GCJayhawker on May 31, 2013, 08:24:48 AM
Interesting caveat to the sales tax discussion. I was privy to some information from the Department of Revenue that ran a legislative request to see what the sales tax would need to be to maintain current revenue levels if all sales tax exemptions were done away with. The number was 4.7%. Take that FWIW
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on May 31, 2013, 08:41:38 AM
Interesting caveat to the sales tax discussion. I was privy to some information from the Department of Revenue that ran a legislative request to see what the sales tax would need to be to maintain current revenue levels if all sales tax exemptions were done away with. The number was 4.7%. Take that FWIW

that is a much better idea than the Fair Tax 23% (which is an awful idea)
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 31, 2013, 09:00:38 AM
lol no. Would never work unless every country implemented. Your largest earners aren't going to purchase a single domestic product or service. Even medium earners who are smart won't. Comparing a tiny VAT to a 25% country wide sales tax is extremely Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

It wouldn't just be an issue of inter-country competition. A 23% sales tax would instantly make everything 15% more expensive. That 15% would create a black market for just about every good and service imaginable. You wouldn't have to be rich to take advantage of that market. Anyone who says such a system would be revenue neutral is a huge and complete dumbass.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 31, 2013, 09:05:32 AM
it's revenue neutral, dumbasses, it isn't going to tank the economy or raise prices.  you'd handle foreigner purchases just like vat countries do, with a rebate offer than only a small % of tourists take advantage of.  poor don't get soaked any more than now, look at the rebate tables - they correspond very well to current tax obligations.

jfc, you'd think the level of debate would be more sophisticated than this crap.

I think staying revenue-neutral by taxing the 40-some percent of the country who is currently paying 0% income taxes and then taxing them at 23% would drastically reduce the purchasing power of a large number of Americans and tank the economy.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 31, 2013, 09:11:05 AM
it's revenue neutral, dumbasses, it isn't going to tank the economy or raise prices.  you'd handle foreigner purchases just like vat countries do, with a rebate offer than only a small % of tourists take advantage of.  poor don't get soaked any more than now, look at the rebate tables - they correspond very well to current tax obligations.

jfc, you'd think the level of debate would be more sophisticated than this crap.

I think staying revenue-neutral by taxing the 40-some percent of the country who is currently paying 0% income taxes and then taxing them at 23% would drastically reduce the purchasing power of a large number of Americans and tank the economy.

economy would be great. would not be revenue neutral.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 31, 2013, 09:19:28 AM
lol no. Would never work unless every country implemented. Your largest earners aren't going to purchase a single domestic product or service. Even medium earners who are smart won't. Comparing a tiny VAT to a 25% country wide sales tax is extremely Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

It wouldn't just be an issue of inter-country competition. A 23% sales tax would instantly make everything 15% more expensive. That 15% would create a black market for just about every good and service imaginable. You wouldn't have to be rich to take advantage of that market. Anyone who says such a system would be revenue neutral is a huge and complete dumbass.

The goods and services we buy now already have tons of taxes included in the price. Corporate taxes, sales taxes at various stages of production, etc. are all rolled into the final price we pay. The fairtax eliminates all such taxes and imposes one sales tax that applies only to final retail sales (so, it's not like a VAT, that applies to all levels of production). So, in theory, the fairtax would reduce the price of goods and services, at least somewhat offsetting the new sales tax.

The black market issue is a valid concern, and that's one reason why the IRS couldn't be disbanded completely. Somebody has to make sure people aren't setting up sham businesses to purchase goods wholesale (not subject to tax) and then sell them on black market. And I suppose it's possible people will try carting crap over from Mexico, which is another reason for tighter border enforcement. I believe Canada already has a VAT, so I doubt any money would be saved by buying stuff there.

Yes, the people who put money in Roths will probably lose most of the benefit of that savings vehicle, but there's going to be winners and losers in any type of reform.

The poor do not get screwed, because of the rebate system. This rebate system would actually ensure that they pay zero federal taxes up to the poverty line. (Well, I guess if you're poor and the federal government is actually paying you in the form of tax credits, etc., then you're getting screwed a little, but you deserve it).

One concern I have is how the fairtax would actually be implemented. The transition seems like it would be a nightmare. First, you've got to repeal the 16th Amendment. Then, you're going to have massive runs on goods and services right before the fairtax goes into effect. Has that been addressed?
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on May 31, 2013, 09:26:57 AM
The black market issue is a valid concern, and that's one reason why the IRS couldn't be disbanded completely.

that's actually why it (or whatever new gov. enforcement agency is put in charge) would have to be expanded significantly
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on May 31, 2013, 09:27:48 AM
In theory, the fair tax system is the best system but yes, it would be too difficult to implement
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 31, 2013, 09:29:53 AM
I would like to know how the 23% tax required to remain revenue-neutral is calculated. Is it just assumed that spending would stay at current levels with a 23% sales tax tacked on?
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Institutional Control on May 31, 2013, 09:33:15 AM
In theory, the fair tax system is the best system but yes, it would be too difficult to implement

To easy to cheat.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on May 31, 2013, 09:35:24 AM
I would like to know how the 23% tax required to remain revenue-neutral is calculated. Is it just assumed that spending would stay at current levels with a 23% sales tax tacked on?

see the link earlier. everyone gets a gov. check at the beginning of each month based on their family situation to get to the poverty line or whatever. essentially making up for the tax for the first whatever figure you are going to spend. it goes up with every child you have. One person gets $2,643 annually. A couple with 7 kids gets $11,758 annually (lol at sys being pro this).
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 31, 2013, 09:39:59 AM
I would like to know how the 23% tax required to remain revenue-neutral is calculated. Is it just assumed that spending would stay at current levels with a 23% sales tax tacked on?

see the link earlier. everyone gets a gov. check at the beginning of each month based on their family situation to get to the poverty line or whatever. essentially making up for the tax for the first whatever figure you are going to spend. it goes up with every child you have (lol at sys being pro this).

he's sophisticated and a pro in this area because he knows something about the tax systems of italy and spain and mexico.  :lol:
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 31, 2013, 09:41:16 AM
I would like to know how the 23% tax required to remain revenue-neutral is calculated. Is it just assumed that spending would stay at current levels with a 23% sales tax tacked on?

see the link earlier. everyone gets a gov. check at the beginning of each month based on their family situation to get to the poverty line or whatever. essentially making up for the tax for the first whatever figure you are going to spend. it goes up with every child you have (lol at sys being pro this).

Yeah, I saw that. I was just curious if they assumed spending levels would remain the same. I mean, I don't think I would buy as much stuff if there were a 23% tax added on.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 31, 2013, 09:42:46 AM
The black market issue is a valid concern, and that's one reason why the IRS couldn't be disbanded completely.

that's actually why it would have to be expanded significantly

There's no way to know that with any certainty, but I highly doubt it. In any event, I don't see the black market as a major drawback to the fairtax. Under the current income tax system, there's a huge "black market" in people hiding / not reporting income. We still have plenty of revenue. It would seem that the fairtax is probably easier to enforce, since you can derive income and hide it in any number of ways.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Emo EMAW on May 31, 2013, 09:46:59 AM
It's your duty as an American to avoid as many taxes as possible, even if you have to do it unscrupulously. 
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on May 31, 2013, 09:53:09 AM
The black market issue is a valid concern, and that's one reason why the IRS couldn't be disbanded completely.

that's actually why it would have to be expanded significantly

There's no way to know that with any certainty, but I highly doubt it. In any event, I don't see the black market as a major drawback to the fairtax. Under the current income tax system, there's a huge "black market" in people hiding / not reporting income. We still have plenty of revenue. It would seem that the fairtax is probably easier to enforce, since you can derive income and hide it in any number of ways.

it's much more difficult/expensive to enforce. the gov. is going from monitoring what is usually 1 or 2 payments a month for most of the salaried US citizenry to having to monitor hundreds of transactions every month for everyone who makes domestic purchases.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on May 31, 2013, 09:53:51 AM
and this REALLY would eff the credit card user wanting to make domestic purchases on the DL  :dubious:

but you really have to feel good about getting all that additional spend  :D
Title: Re: Re: Taxes
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 31, 2013, 11:02:27 AM
Rus rents

Well, the mortgage interest deduction also encouraged the subprime/interest-only loans that were a major catalyst for the recession. And higher home ownership rates made the workforce less mobile, thereby making the recession worse. Also it is primarily a benefit for the very rich, especially where I live.

I don't think any of that is true. I'm pretty sure stated income loans and reckless bank investments were the main catalyst for the recession.

Yeah, I guess those two things are completely unrelated to home ownership rates.

LOL. Those two things completely unrelated to the mortgage interest deduction.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 31, 2013, 11:16:06 AM
The mortgage interest deduction arguably provides some incentive for people to purchase homes, so this could be a very remote contributing factor to all the shitty subprime loans that we originated in the early 2000s, but there were far bigger reasons for the subprime bubble and subsequent collapse. My work touches on this industry.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: michigancat on May 31, 2013, 11:27:34 AM
Rus rents

Well, the mortgage interest deduction also encouraged the subprime/interest-only loans that were a major catalyst for the recession. And higher home ownership rates made the workforce less mobile, thereby making the recession worse. Also it is primarily a benefit for the very rich, especially where I live.

I don't think any of that is true. I'm pretty sure stated income loans and reckless bank investments were the main catalyst for the recession.

Yeah, I guess those two things are completely unrelated to home ownership rates.

LOL. Those two things completely unrelated to the mortgage interest deduction.
Rus rents

Well, the mortgage interest deduction also encouraged the subprime/interest-only loans that were a major catalyst for the recession. And higher home ownership rates made the workforce less mobile, thereby making the recession worse. Also it is primarily a benefit for the very rich, especially where I live.

I don't think any of that is true. I'm pretty sure stated income loans and reckless bank investments were the main catalyst for the recession.

Yeah, I guess those two things are completely unrelated to home ownership rates.

LOL. Those two things completely unrelated to the mortgage interest deduction.

what were those stated income loans for? What were the risky investments?

The mortgage interest deduction arguably provides some incentive for people to purchase homes,

It arguably provides some incentive to purchase homes? If it doesn't do that, what's the point?
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 31, 2013, 11:54:15 AM
Rus rents

Well, the mortgage interest deduction also encouraged the subprime/interest-only loans that were a major catalyst for the recession. And higher home ownership rates made the workforce less mobile, thereby making the recession worse. Also it is primarily a benefit for the very rich, especially where I live.

I don't think any of that is true. I'm pretty sure stated income loans and reckless bank investments were the main catalyst for the recession.

Yeah, I guess those two things are completely unrelated to home ownership rates.

LOL. Those two things completely unrelated to the mortgage interest deduction.
Rus rents

Well, the mortgage interest deduction also encouraged the subprime/interest-only loans that were a major catalyst for the recession. And higher home ownership rates made the workforce less mobile, thereby making the recession worse. Also it is primarily a benefit for the very rich, especially where I live.

I don't think any of that is true. I'm pretty sure stated income loans and reckless bank investments were the main catalyst for the recession.

Yeah, I guess those two things are completely unrelated to home ownership rates.

LOL. Those two things completely unrelated to the mortgage interest deduction.

what were those stated income loans for? What were the risky investments?


Just stop.  Whether or not the mortgage interest deduction was available or not had nothing to do with stated income loans or bad bank investments in those loans.


Quote
The mortgage interest deduction arguably provides some incentive for people to purchase homes,

It arguably provides some incentive to purchase homes? If it doesn't do that, what's the point?

You're not increasing your wealth with money spent on mortgage interest, so that money shouldn't be taxed as income. The gov wants more people to own homes, not fewer.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 31, 2013, 11:57:31 AM
You're not increasing your wealth with money spent on mortgage interest, so that money shouldn't be taxed as income. The gov wants more people to own homes, not fewer.

I agree, but I also believe you should be able to apply that same logic to all loans you are paying, even for those who pay credit card interest. Why give special treatment to homeowners?
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: michigancat on May 31, 2013, 12:11:00 PM
You're not increasing your wealth with money spent on mortgage interest, so that money shouldn't be taxed as income. The gov wants more people to own homes, not fewer.

I agree, but I also believe you should be able to apply that same logic to all loans you are paying, even for those who pay credit card interest. Why give special treatment to homeowners?

CC interest actually used to be tax deductible. It got taken away when Reagan was in office because it encouraged over-spending and over-borrowing. Apparently it does not encourage over-spending and over-borrowing on homes.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: GCJayhawker on May 31, 2013, 12:12:42 PM
Off the subject of home mortgage loans, I heard Mike Huckabee say today we need to do away with the IRS. Solid plan Mike, solid plan.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: 06wildcat on May 31, 2013, 12:26:55 PM
I'm interested to hear why KSU believes he's in the top 5 percent of tax payers with an effective rate of 15 percent, because that's actually pretty damn low for someone still working and being at 5 percent earner.

Effective tax rate is lower than marginal rate. You simply divide total FIT paid by gross income. As you can see below, a 15.6% effective rate is pretty damned high. It's higher than approximately 95% of all Americans.

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pgpf.org%2FIssues%2FTaxes%2F2012%2F04%2F%7E%2F%7E%2Fmedia%2FBE9AE89EE9DB41F2879D9EF735E4F1D9.gif&hash=e2d46111c54f4fc725584d13ea1c7aff63e69a0a)

Because I'm a relateivly high wage earner, I'm in prime fleecing position. Obama would say I'm "rich," but I'm not rich enough to derive most of my income from capital gains or otherwise shelter my income from ordinary income tax rates.

Umm, your chart simply means the average effective tax rate for someone in the 95th income percentile is about 12 percent. Just because you have a higher effective tax rate doesn't automatically put you into the 95 percentile. It's possible to have a higher effective rate and be lower in income.

If you're earning more than $210K/year (according to the chart) then you indeed are in the 95th percentile and are also paying about 3 percentage point higher then your peers on your effective tax rate.

Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Rams on May 31, 2013, 12:40:07 PM
so who would have to pay this sales tax (fair tax)?  I'm assuming it's the end consumer, but how do you determine who the end consumer is?  if that's the case, couldn't you just claim to be a wholesaler and avoid the tax altogether?  How do you make sure each item (and everything used to make it) are only taxed once?

ftr, instituting a national sales tax is the absolute worst idea in history for a consumer based economy like ours.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 31, 2013, 01:14:53 PM
Umm, your chart simply means the average effective tax rate for someone in the 95th income percentile is about 12 percent. Just because you have a higher effective tax rate doesn't automatically put you into the 95 percentile. It's possible to have a higher effective rate and be lower in income.

If you're earning more than $210K/year (according to the chart) then you indeed are in the 95th percentile and are also paying about 3 percentage point higher then your peers on your effective tax rate.

You are correct, but these are the closest numbers I can find. Those who are in the 95th percentile of income pay, on average, an effective FIT rate of approximately 15%, which is significantly more than most Americans. As you point out, that doesn't necessarily mean that I pay a higher effective tax rate than 95% of the country, but I'd bet that's a pretty close approximation. If you can find the actual numbers, I'd love to see them.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 31, 2013, 01:19:39 PM
Umm, your chart simply means the average effective tax rate for someone in the 95th income percentile is about 12 percent. Just because you have a higher effective tax rate doesn't automatically put you into the 95 percentile. It's possible to have a higher effective rate and be lower in income.

If you're earning more than $210K/year (according to the chart) then you indeed are in the 95th percentile and are also paying about 3 percentage point higher then your peers on your effective tax rate.

You are correct, but these are the closest numbers I can find. Those who are in the 95th percentile of income pay, on average, an effective FIT rate of approximately 15%, which is significantly more than most Americans. As you point out, that doesn't necessarily mean that I pay a higher effective tax rate than 95% of the country, but I'd bet that's a pretty close approximation. If you can find the actual numbers, I'd love to see them.

It most likely balances out at the state and local level, where you pay a significantly lower percentage of your income on sales tax and property tax than those less fortunate.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 31, 2013, 01:28:14 PM
Umm, your chart simply means the average effective tax rate for someone in the 95th income percentile is about 12 percent. Just because you have a higher effective tax rate doesn't automatically put you into the 95 percentile. It's possible to have a higher effective rate and be lower in income.

If you're earning more than $210K/year (according to the chart) then you indeed are in the 95th percentile and are also paying about 3 percentage point higher then your peers on your effective tax rate.

You are correct, but these are the closest numbers I can find. Those who are in the 95th percentile of income pay, on average, an effective FIT rate of approximately 15%, which is significantly more than most Americans. As you point out, that doesn't necessarily mean that I pay a higher effective tax rate than 95% of the country, but I'd bet that's a pretty close approximation. If you can find the actual numbers, I'd love to see them.

Never mind. I found them.

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxfoundation.org%2Fsites%2Ftaxfoundation.org%2Ffiles%2Fdocs%2Fromney%2520ETR%2520pie%2520chart.jpg&hash=994dfa4fae37cfbf250a44888140841ca2b91835)

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/least-90-percent-americans-have-lower-income-tax-rate-romney (http://taxfoundation.org/blog/least-90-percent-americans-have-lower-income-tax-rate-romney)

Quote
In 2011, somewhere between 95 and 97 percent of Americans had a lower effective income tax rate than Romney’s 15.4 percent, at least according to the latest IRS data from 2010.

So yeah, I was right.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 31, 2013, 01:37:59 PM
Umm, your chart simply means the average effective tax rate for someone in the 95th income percentile is about 12 percent. Just because you have a higher effective tax rate doesn't automatically put you into the 95 percentile. It's possible to have a higher effective rate and be lower in income.

If you're earning more than $210K/year (according to the chart) then you indeed are in the 95th percentile and are also paying about 3 percentage point higher then your peers on your effective tax rate.

You are correct, but these are the closest numbers I can find. Those who are in the 95th percentile of income pay, on average, an effective FIT rate of approximately 15%, which is significantly more than most Americans. As you point out, that doesn't necessarily mean that I pay a higher effective tax rate than 95% of the country, but I'd bet that's a pretty close approximation. If you can find the actual numbers, I'd love to see them.

It most likely balances out at the state and local level, where you pay a significantly lower percentage of your income on sales tax and property tax than those less fortunate.

I highly doubt that, especially when it comes to property tax. I did the math this year, and adding FIT, FICA, KS income tax, real and personal property taxes, and (approximate) sales tax, I paid about 35% of my income in taxes.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: sys on May 31, 2013, 02:32:03 PM
there is tax avoidance and tax cheating in any taxation system.  that wouldn't change, but there's also no reason to assume that the % of the gdp that passes untaxed currently would go up.  if anything, the opposite is probable.  countries with cultures that are largely accepting of tax fraud (the us is nothing close to this), rely a great deal on point of sale taxes because they're a generally easier to collect than are income taxes.

there's no reason to assume that people that don't cheat on their income taxes would suddenly start cheating.  and while, steve dave may think he'd going to be smuggling in his new roof from canada, i think once he evaluates his travel costs, risk of significant fines and jail time, etc he'll probably settle for a new pair of shoes every couple of years.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: sys on May 31, 2013, 02:34:31 PM
ftr, instituting a national sales tax is the absolute worst idea in history for a consumer based economy like ours.

more developed countries have a vat than don't.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Rams on May 31, 2013, 03:16:17 PM
ftr, instituting a national sales tax is the absolute worst idea in history for a consumer based economy like ours.

more developed countries have a vat than don't.
I know.  that doesn't mean it's not a horrible idea.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: michigancat on May 31, 2013, 03:20:36 PM
A VAT is completely different from the national sales tax proposed in this thread.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Rams on May 31, 2013, 03:39:30 PM
A VAT is completely different from the national sales tax proposed in this thread.
well I wouldn't say it's completely different.  they're both taxes that are attached to goods rather than income.  the negative effect on a consumption based economy would be the same.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: michigancat on May 31, 2013, 03:41:55 PM
A VAT is completely different from the national sales tax proposed in this thread.
well I wouldn't say it's completely different.  they're both taxes that are attached to goods rather than income.  the negative effect on a consumption based economy would be the same.

yeah
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: sys on May 31, 2013, 05:55:18 PM
A VAT is completely different from the national sales tax proposed in this thread.

it's extremely similar.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: sys on May 31, 2013, 06:11:58 PM
the negative effect on a consumption based economy would be the same.

more likely to be neutral or positive.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12307.pdf?new_window=1
Title: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on May 31, 2013, 07:17:19 PM
What is this things plan to deal with retirees and those living on SS? Also the instant inflation of the dollar (possibly a positive if you are doing this)?
Title: Re: Re: Taxes
Post by: ben ji on May 31, 2013, 08:17:53 PM
What is this things plan to deal with retirees and those living on SS? Also the instant inflation of the dollar (possibly a positive if you are doing this)?

LSSIQ here since I will never see it but don't they pay tax on SS?

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

Title: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on May 31, 2013, 08:47:34 PM
What is this things plan to deal with retirees and those living on SS? Also the instant inflation of the dollar (possibly a positive if you are doing this)?

LSSIQ here since I will never see it but don't they pay tax on SS?

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

not at 23%
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: sys on May 31, 2013, 09:16:01 PM
not at 23%

here's the problem with this thread.  like 0.001% have bothered to read anything on the link yoman shared, yet you all still post ad nauseum.
Title: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on May 31, 2013, 09:18:29 PM
yeah, meanwhile you've made some strong arguments sys
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: sys on May 31, 2013, 09:31:02 PM
yeah, meanwhile you've made some strong arguments sys

i know, but no one read them.
Title: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on May 31, 2013, 09:43:06 PM
yeah, meanwhile you've made some strong arguments sys

i know, but no one read them.

I did
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: sys on May 31, 2013, 09:46:00 PM
I did

i'm glad.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: yoman on June 02, 2013, 01:14:21 PM
What is this things plan to deal with retirees and those living on SS? Also the instant inflation of the dollar (possibly a positive if you are doing this)?

Their prebate knocks their taxes down significantly. Those who are retired that buy more pay more in taxes, just like they do now.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: michigancat on June 04, 2013, 10:53:40 AM
http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/06/03/does-high-home-ownership-lead-to-higher-unemployment/
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: bubbles4ksu on June 04, 2013, 11:00:12 AM
http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/06/03/does-high-home-ownership-lead-to-higher-unemployment/

this offends my white, mid-western principals so i'm going to forget ever reading it.  :sdeek:
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 04, 2013, 11:44:27 AM
http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/06/03/does-high-home-ownership-lead-to-higher-unemployment/

So the libs have been wrong all these years. Surprise.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 04, 2013, 12:10:20 PM
http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/06/03/does-high-home-ownership-lead-to-higher-unemployment/

Come on rusty, admit it, you secretly wish all Americans had to live in identical communal tenements. Talk about equality!

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2012%2F04%2F13%2Farticle-2128948-128F1B17000005DC-505_634x545.jpg&hash=6de70065b600008d3282e481e45c6740de288a22)
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on January 14, 2016, 01:36:31 PM
How much do they tax bonuses? Asking for a friend.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: star seed 7 on January 14, 2016, 01:37:46 PM
More than you want
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on January 14, 2016, 01:39:05 PM
 :curse: I figured
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Emo EMAW on January 14, 2016, 01:42:03 PM
How much do they tax bonuses? Asking for a friend.

They probably withhold more than your usual paycheck, but the income tax rate is the same.  It's still just income.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: star seed 7 on January 14, 2016, 01:44:46 PM
Bonuses automatically get 25% taken for supplemental income tax
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: sys on January 14, 2016, 02:35:16 PM
Bonuses automatically get 25% taken for supplemental income tax

withheld.  but you don't pay any more.


i know emo already said this, and you aren't disputing it.  just trying to be clear.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Cire on January 14, 2016, 02:54:20 PM
had a kid and bought a house in January but wife got a big raise.

Can't wait to do taxes though!!!
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: yoga-like_abana on January 14, 2016, 03:40:16 PM
I have no clue what to expect.. I bought a house and got married  :horrorsurprise:
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on January 14, 2016, 03:45:19 PM
had a kid and bought a house in January but wife got a big raise.

Can't wait to do taxes though!!!
This is also interesting to me. I'm in a different bracket now. Does that mean I'll get more back, after being taxed more on my paychecks? :dunno:
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Tobias on January 14, 2016, 03:49:49 PM

I'm in a different bracket now.

:horrorsurprise:
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on January 14, 2016, 03:50:54 PM
had a kid and bought a house in January but wife got a big raise.

Can't wait to do taxes though!!!
This is also interesting to me. I'm in a different bracket now. Does that mean I'll get more back, after being taxed more on my paychecks? :dunno:

Depends on how much of the year you were at the lower pay and whether the higher pay for part of the year moves you into the higher bracket for the total yearly income.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on January 14, 2016, 03:52:41 PM

I'm in a different bracket now.

:horrorsurprise:
Never mind. I thought the bracket was a different number. I did some research. I'm dumb.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on January 14, 2016, 03:53:17 PM
had a kid and bought a house in January but wife got a big raise.

Can't wait to do taxes though!!!
This is also interesting to me. I'm in a different bracket now. Does that mean I'll get more back, after being taxed more on my paychecks? :dunno:

Depends on how much of the year you were at the lower pay and whether the higher pay for part of the year moves you into the higher bracket for the total yearly income.
That makes sense
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on January 14, 2016, 03:54:32 PM
Someone told me a few years ago, that once you started making over 55K, you were in a different tax bracket. I guess it could be that way, if you were married or something.

https://www.taxact.com/tools/tax-bracket-calculator.asp
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Tobias on January 14, 2016, 03:54:35 PM
i was about to internet high five ya (and rusty) real good, wacks
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 14, 2016, 03:55:27 PM
Bonuses automatically get 25% taken for supplemental income tax

Don't forget the 12% Obamacare surcharge on all bonuses.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: slobber on January 14, 2016, 03:58:10 PM
Yla, you need to get the Mrs to start pumpin' out some kids.


Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on January 14, 2016, 03:58:42 PM
i was about to internet high five ya (and rusty) real good, wacks
:thumbs: I know, I shouldn't have told the truth.  :D
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: star seed 7 on January 14, 2016, 04:57:11 PM
No reason married people should have lower taxes, what a scam
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Canary on January 14, 2016, 08:28:15 PM
No reason married people should have lower taxes, what a scam
One of my ultra conservative brothers told me it was my societal responsibility to pay more taxes as a single person. I won't get into the specifics but he and I argued about that at length several years ago.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: slackcat on January 15, 2016, 05:49:18 AM
No reason successful married people should have lower higher taxes, what a scam
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 15, 2016, 08:36:42 AM
So if we went to a simplified "flat" or "fair" tax system, we could get rid of all these stupid deductions and stop arguing over who gets more favorable treatment. Right?
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on January 15, 2016, 08:38:26 AM
I enjoy talking taxes. They're like sports. I'm excellent at talking about both!
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on January 15, 2016, 08:46:26 AM
No reason successful married people should have lower higher taxes, what a scam
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Tobias on January 15, 2016, 08:50:15 AM

I enjoy talking taxes. They're like sports. I'm excellent at talking about both!

i love when people unknowingly reveal major aspects of their life based on tax talk
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on January 15, 2016, 08:53:06 AM

I enjoy talking taxes. They're like sports. I'm excellent at talking about both!

i love when people unknowingly reveal major aspects of their life based on tax talk

yeah, like dobbers canadian friends entire family has expensive exotic diseases maybe
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 15, 2016, 08:56:35 AM
I enjoy talking taxes. They're like sports. I'm excellent at talking about both!

Speaking of which, you know what the "flat" and "fair" tax proposals are like? College Football Playoffs. People been clamoring for them for years, other people been saying for years how they wouldn't work. Now we've got them and they work great. They'll work even better when we expand to 8.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: star seed 7 on January 15, 2016, 09:05:51 AM
Flat tax is stupid
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Emo EMAW on January 15, 2016, 09:09:04 AM
Go to school they said.  Get a good job they said.  Deduct the student loan interest they said.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Tobias on January 15, 2016, 09:16:32 AM

Go to school they said.  Get a good job they said.  Deduct the student loan interest they said.

this is a good example of revealing info
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on January 15, 2016, 09:27:44 AM

I enjoy talking taxes. They're like sports. I'm excellent at talking about both!

i love when people unknowingly reveal major aspects of their life based on tax talk
:blush:
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: yoga-like_abana on January 15, 2016, 09:35:46 AM
So I'm assuming I will probably have a decent amount coming back to me because I never switched from single to married with my employer.. With a refund I have differing opinions and pending how much I get back: Do I pay another month on my house(have a 15 year on it but would like to get it paid off as quickly as possible to have it as a rental then rinse and repeat), invest it, put it away as another safety savings account or a combo?
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: star seed 7 on January 15, 2016, 09:37:42 AM
Spend that [redacted]
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Tobias on January 15, 2016, 09:40:15 AM
you're a special kind of stupid if you don't buy the biggest flat screen you can
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on January 15, 2016, 10:00:35 AM
House payment.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: yoga-like_abana on January 15, 2016, 10:14:51 AM
I've also thought of option 4: Going to Disneyland paying the guy dressed as mickey mouse to let me wear the outfit and then when sd comes to get a treasured family pic I'll give him the ron prince bunny ears.. classic burn
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: steve dave on January 15, 2016, 10:17:27 AM
I've also thought of option 4: Going to Disneyland paying the guy dressed as mickey mouse to let me wear the outfit and then when sd comes to get a treasured family pic I'll give him the ron prince bunny ears.. classic burn

HA! jokes on you, we'll be at disneyWORLD
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 15, 2016, 11:06:11 AM
So I'm assuming I will probably have a decent amount coming back to me because I never switched from single to married with my employer.. With a refund I have differing opinions and pending how much I get back: Do I pay another month on my house(have a 15 year on it but would like to get it paid off as quickly as possible to have it as a rental then rinse and repeat), invest it, put it away as another safety savings account or a combo?

Here's how we decide between investing and paying down the mortgage: First, we invest a set amount every month (retirement, college, and dream fund). We also set a threshold of X dollars to keep in cash for our bills and emergency fund. Anytime our bank account balance exceeds that amount after bills and investments, we scoop off the excess and put it towards paying down the mortgage. It works really well.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: star seed 7 on January 15, 2016, 11:09:26 AM
That's a lot of excess money for someone so burdened by the unfair tyranny of taxes
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Emo EMAW on January 15, 2016, 12:21:46 PM

Go to school they said.  Get a good job they said.  Deduct the student loan interest they said.

this is a good example of revealing info

Not unknowingly, tho.  :nono:
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: sys on January 15, 2016, 12:43:22 PM
So I'm assuming I will probably have a decent amount coming back to me because I never switched from single to married with my employer.. With a refund I have differing opinions and pending how much I get back: Do I pay another month on my house(have a 15 year on it but would like to get it paid off as quickly as possible to have it as a rental then rinse and repeat), invest it, put it away as another safety savings account or a combo?

invest, unless your mortgage is rough ridin' you, in which case, refinance.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 15, 2016, 12:48:50 PM
That's a lot of excess money for someone so burdened by the unfair tyranny of taxes

I wouldn't be happy about the government taking 40-50% of my money whether I made a million or 50k.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: Dugout DickStone on January 15, 2016, 01:57:19 PM
So I'm assuming I will probably have a decent amount coming back to me because I never switched from single to married with my employer.. With a refund I have differing opinions and pending how much I get back: Do I pay another month on my house(have a 15 year on it but would like to get it paid off as quickly as possible to have it as a rental then rinse and repeat), invest it, put it away as another safety savings account or a combo?

I would party down with it.

OR use it on a down payment on a rental property.
Title: Re: Taxes
Post by: sys on July 26, 2017, 08:22:50 PM
Quote
The Congressional Budget Office projects a federal deficit of $693 billion for the current fiscal year. Take away the tax expenditures in the above table (which add up to $971.8 billion) and in theory you get a budget surplus of $278.8 billion.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-26/those-pointless-upper-middle-class-entitlements