Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Taxes (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Taxes
Lobo
Member
Member # 89

 - posted      Profile for Lobo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
With the recent tax column and the April deadline around the corner, I pose this questions:

Do you have a problem with the current tax structure? What would you change.

I am OK with how I am taxed, I usually overpay, so I get $ back in February. I use TurboTax and am typically done in a couple of painless hours.

lobo

Posts: 1094 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you are educated, take the time to understand how deductions work and make records, tax time is pretty painless.

That said, I have a problem with forcing the employer to withdraw the money. It's not his job, it hides the cost of taxes and causes people to lose interest on their money by overwithdrawal.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NSCutler
Member
Member # 1403

 - posted      Profile for NSCutler   Email NSCutler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First thing I want to change is that I want an itemized bill. I think if we all got one of those, preferably in October, democracy would get a lot more participatory.

We owe the fed just under $1000, just below the cut off where they can fine you, and they aren't getting it until April 15th. No way am I giving them an interest free loan.

Posts: 789 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you give enough money away, you don't actually have to pay Federal Income Tax.

So, I guess I'm cool with it [Smile]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pickled shuttlecock
Member
Member # 1093

 - posted      Profile for pickled shuttlecock   Email pickled shuttlecock   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by flydye45:
That said, I have a problem with forcing the employer to withdraw the money. It's not his job, it hides the cost of taxes and causes people to lose interest on their money by overwithdrawal.

I suppose the alternative is to charge everyone at tax day. I expect the IRS would have to transform into a mafia to get all their money.

Or do you have another strategy in mind?

Posts: 1392 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
pickled shuttlecock -

I agree. To show people exactly how much they're paying in taxes is the perfect way to force the tax decrease that should be required of government.

quote:
I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.
Barry Goldwater
Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The United States Department of the Treasury provides a Fact Sheet called History of the U.S. Tax System. In referring to the changes made during World War II, it notes,
quote:
Another important feature of the income tax that changed was the return to income tax withholding as had been done during the Civil War. This greatly eased the collection of the tax for both the taxpayer and the Bureau of Internal Revenue. However, it also greatly reduced the taxpayer's awareness of the amount of tax being collected, i.e. it reduced the transparency of the tax, which made it easier to raise taxes in the future.
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

Let us give the Department of the Treasury credit for pointing out the potential problem there.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cracking the Code

20 min video explanation

I posted some info on this a month or so ago. This year isn't going to work out, but I will be the guinea pig and do it next year.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For reference (from IRS).

FY 2005 Individual Income tax net revenue: ~$880 billion.

FY 2005 Employment taxes (net): ~$766 billion.

FY 2005 Estate/Gift taxes (net): ~$25 billion.

Total: ~$1670 billion. Divide by 300 million. ~$5570 per man, woman, and child in US.

Note: corporate revenue not included. And yes, the employment taxes include the "employer" portion, but really, the employee is roughly paying for that as well. And even if you want to take out 50% of employment taxes (overestimate since self-employed pay both shares), then you still get to ~$4300 for every man, woman, and child.

Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lobo
Member
Member # 89

 - posted      Profile for Lobo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Woa! I am way underpaying then. Thank goodness for Bill Gates!
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think a lot of us can thank Bill Gates.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is my opening to plug the FairTax once again. A broad based consumption tax, progressive, no special favors because with no filing, there can be no incentive tax breaks. Did I mention no filing? You pay as you go throughout the year at the cash register, filling station, BMW dealership, etc.

Every person is guaranteed not to pay tax on the goods necessary for the basic standard of living. It gets rid of payroll/FICA taxes, which are highly regressive.

Additionally, it gives a huge boost to the ability of US manufacturing to compete overseas, because embedded payroll and other taxes are removed from the cost of goods sold.

Sadly, I think it will never happen, because the politicians will have no handouts to give to their favorite corporations and special interest groups.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa M.
Member
Member # 2398

 - posted      Profile for Lisa M.   Email Lisa M.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Psh, I'm still in college, and my mom fills out my taxes. And I get money back (looks like about $500 this year).

... I win!

Posts: 845 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*High Five* Lisa! Pops did mine. $550 [Big Grin]
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's 500 and 550 less than what you paid. Look at your year-end totals. You two are probably in the get it all back category, but you might not be.

1500 paid and 500 back means you still paid 1000 in taxes.

Not that anyone here as said this, but I always want to smack people upside the head about this time of year when ever I hear the "I got a return, I didn't have to pay taxes this year!" line.

However, to make you all feel better with your good fortunes, I'm looking at owing about $5000 this year - don't ever roll a rental property sale into an investment in your personal house - ouch! Well, it's not really an ouch since I did make a decent profit off the sale and knew it was going to bite me in the ass come tax time... still, just on principal, a $5000 check to the IRS really sucks! [Mad]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok, now this does really piss me off.

There was this bill proposed last year, but it died: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-6057

To summarize, this bill, if passed, was going to revise the capital gains tax to allow for indexing of inflation against the original cost/price invested.

Capital gains work like this right now: If you bought a stock for $100 20 years ago, then sold it for $125 today, you have to pay tax on that $25. Yet, in real dollar terms, you actually lost money. $100 from 1987 is probably more like $200 today, so you’d have to sell the stock for $200 or more to realize any true capital gain. So you take a loss, and then suffer the further indignity of being forced to pay a tax on money you never gained.

I was thinking about this because I was pissed when I looked at the calculations on my old house I sold last year. I bought it in 1997, lived in it until 2002, and then rented it out and sold it in May 06 because we needed the money to fix up our current house and maintaining an out of state rental is a pain in the ass. I was peeved when the taxes calculate off the original price I paid, not the adjusted real value, or even the appraised value when I converted it to a rental.

With improvements done before it was a rental (so not tracked as capital improvements) and inflation, I really didn’t make much money at all on the sale, yet now I owe $5000? WTF!! If that bill had passed, I probably wouldn’t owe any! We usually get a return of several $1000 so I’m out more than the $5000 owed!

I’m sure the bill died because it was a “just another tax cut for the rich”. Rich, poor, or just plain old middle class and smart enough to keep an old house as a rental for a while, what difference does it make? How fair is it to be taxed on a gain that isn’t really a gain, and is even sometimes a loss?

[Mad] [Mad] [Mad]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Getting a refund just means you gave Uncle Sam an interest free loan (as flydye hinted at above).
Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
jm:

quote:
To summarize, this bill, if passed, was going to revise the capital gains tax to allow for indexing of inflation against the original cost/price invested.
Interesting. Never thought about this.
Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IrishTD:
Getting a refund just means you gave Uncle Sam an interest free loan (as flydye hinted at above).

Not necessarily. With Earned Income Credit it can be more like giving Uncle Sam a loan with a very high interest rate.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Irish - same for me until it hit home.
Probably why there's next to no support or complaints about the bill being killed. Those who know, know how to insulate against it.
The rest of us get hit once and then, at least for me, I won't make that same mistake again.

There were also several other things I could have done but didn't know any better since this was my first foray into being a landlord.

I suppose it is kind of breaking even... I sunk a bunch of cash into the house in 2005 to sell it and took those as write offs, which helped get about a $5000 return last year, so if I look across 05 and 06 tax years, I'm breaking even.

Still, it's not the capital gains tax itself I'm peeved about, it's the not allowed to compensate for inflation thing...

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you don't choose an investment that outpaces inflation plus tax treatment, you're not a very good investor. Don't let this happen to you! Spend all your money like me!

It would be a wash if it happened anyway, they'd just raise the rates to compensate.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I disagree with a consumption tax because the wealthy don't generally buy multibillion dollar yachts, instead investing their money.

I read in US News and World Report about something done in Sweden (or maybe Finland). They prorate traffic fines according to income. Let's face it, a $500 parking fine means nothing to a Paris Hilton. A $50,000 parking fine does. The only worm in this apple is politicians and police who "fix" tickets. If we could address that, I would be in favor of it.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
jm0397,

I am in the same boat, except I am selling this spring. Luckily, I'm putting improvements on it after it served as a rental.

What happens when you've refinanced? Does that reset the value to more reasonable levels?

Edited to add: Check to see if the house was reassessed by the county for property tax value. You might be able to claim that as the current value, saving you some taxes.

[ March 29, 2007, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: flydye45 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lobo
Member
Member # 89

 - posted      Profile for Lobo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What happened to "everyone is equal under the law"? I am totally against this Swedish or Finish idea.

Should we then make prison time dependant on age? 5 years is nothing to a 20 year old, but may be something more to a 70 year old.

Living in prison may not be so bad to a homeless man. It would be terrible to a millionaire. Do we need to put the homeless criminal in something far worse than his current state to make it equal, or just put the millionaire in a 2000 square foot house instead of his mansion.

Posts: 1094 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was going to send this as a private message, but it's good info if anyone ever runs into the situation.

Fly - HA, my house was in Columbus... Billingsley Rd just off Sawmill. Right across from the new Hyundai dealer that went in a few years ago. I lived in Dublin (class of 1990 when it was still just one high school) for many years before coming out to NJ.

Anyway, there's a lot of good info online – just search for “rental sale reinvestment” or “rental sale taxes” or “income property capital gains”…

The main points are:

- If you have lived in a house as your personal residence for 2 years out of the last 5, you can sell it as a private residence and don’t have to pay capital gains if you don’t go over the 250k for an individual, 500k for a married couple rule. This is a good one if you want to just make a little bit up as a rental and then sell it. Just make sure it sells before you've been out for 3 years. (UGH! If mine would have sold when I first put it on the market I would have just made it in under this rule!!!)

- As best I can tell, no deal with reassessing the price (but there’s some technical finagling you can do with the structure value vs. the land value that can help). What you can do is take those improvements as capital improvements and not as one-time write-offs. Those will increase the original price... As in 5k for a new roof adds 5k to your original purchase, and then you can start depreciating it like the rest of the house if you want to.

- When you sell an investment property you have, IIRC, 180 days (but it might be 6 months) to reinvest that money in another investment property and avoid the taxes. There's a technical term for this but I don't recall.
You cannot, however, do as I did and just reinvest the money anywhere (ie not back into your personal residence). It has to be another rental or "income" property. If you're just tired of messing with being a landlord, there are other sheltered ways you can invest that money - such as real estate based mutual fund type things.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No WAY!

I lived in New Jersey and moved to...Shawnee Hills Ohio, about a mile from the dam next to the Columbus Zoo. My rental remained in New Jersey.

Sorry, the coincidence...

[ March 29, 2007, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: flydye45 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lobo,

I am no socialist, however...

It depends on what you mean by "equality" under the law. If the point of the law is to discourage speeding, for example, both philosophies of the law will accomplish this.

The vast majority of the poor and middle class will not speed (at least not too much) due to the rather large fiscal inconvienience of the fine in relation to their salary. The numerically small wealthy, who can afford the fines, a driver, a lawyer etc are not discouraged much at all. This is based on a single fee fine.

However, if the point of the law is to punish equally, Paris Hilton won't laugh off a double parking ticket if it costs her $150,000 where she would one which cost $500. One reason why politicians might be less likely to dismiss such a law would be the revenue stream and pandering to Social Envy.

And if Robert Downey Jr. doesn't want to pay the fine, he shouldn't speed. This is akin to yacht taxes.

I offer it as an interesting aside, not a full formed and tested idea. Prod away!

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lobo
Member
Member # 89

 - posted      Profile for Lobo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We do have some things in this country that are not "equal" under the law. Taxes are one. The more money you make, not only the more you pay, put the higher percentage you pay.

To touch on something brought up in a different thread. It was mentioned that someone making minimum wage ($10,000/year) would have less to lose from being put in jail than someone making $60k/year. The thought being that the guy making minimum wage could get another job paying minimum wage quite easily once he got out while it would be considerably harder for the $60k guy to get back to his old salary level.

So, if we wanted to punish equally, we would need to have some sort of sliding scale of punishment, dependant on salary/standing in society/etc.

Posts: 1094 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Considering sentencing and bail guidelines, we already have something like that. Compare an inner city kid on a drug charge compared to a Upper East Side scion.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fly - funny. I worked at the Bogey Inn most the time I was in high school, then on and off a few times through the 90's. About time for the Damn Jam, isn't it? My parents still live about 6 miles dues south of you - just past Old Dublin.
Small world

On the NJ front, do you have a way to claim an address in NJ when you sell that house? NJ was kind enough to enact a law a few years ago that taxes you a fixed % of the sale if you sell NJ property but don't live in NJ. Of course, It's gotta be unconstitutional, but what state rep are you going to complain to? The nice lady we bought from had already retired to AZ and got kicked in the you-know-where for around an extra $8000, IIRC. I knew from that point if I ever move before selling in NJ to maintain a NJ address until after the sale.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 869

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would do away with witholding and make everyone cut a big fat check in April 15th so they know just how much they're paying with none of this "Ha ha! I get money back!" nonsense.

I want to people to sweat cutting at $15k check to the IRS and think "holy CRAP what are they doing with all this money??" rather than pay it out each money, get $500 back and think "cool!"

Then we should move election day to April 16th.

Posts: 385 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good luck financing all the prisons that's going to require, Pixiest.
Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jesse -

Why? All that's required is that you have the 'expected withholding amount' displayed on each paycheck. I know that I'd rather make interest off the money I owe the government than allow the government to make that interest.

Just going with a high-yield savings account will net you a decent return. As for those who are too poor to save - they won't owe taxes anyway.

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoneSnark
Member
Member # 2005

 - posted      Profile for LoneSnark   Email LoneSnark   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ultimately this is a bad idea unless we somehow get taxes down to 15% of income; an unlikely turn of events.
Posts: 592 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
With a consumption tax, what is to stop the wealthy from buying big-ticket items in another country? All the revenue currently collected from income tax will transfer to consumption tax, so the tax on yachts in the US will go way up. Ditto for new houses. The website claims it is revenue neutral and therefor price neutral, but it isn't price neutral.

Also, I thought that any major improvements you make to a house (not maintenance) goes into the basis for your sale and cuts down the capital gains tax. You have to keep records, though.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
FDR-

It's not about folks being "too poor to save". It's that many simply won't. We had the problem before we started witholding, and a lot of people lost homes to the Federal taxman, not just their respective states.

I don't even know if it's worth it to adress the much repeated Big Lie that "the poor don't pay taxes", but what the heck.

Is a single person without children earning 14,000 a year "Poor"?

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jesse -

If you're making less than 20K a year, and paying taxes, you're doing something wrong. Hence 'the poor do not pay taxes'.

As for losing houses to the Federal government - if they can't pay taxes why wouldn't they be forced to sell their house?

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoneSnark
Member
Member # 2005

 - posted      Profile for LoneSnark   Email LoneSnark   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
People miss-allocate their available resources all the time. I fully accept that withholding drives down the frequency of such miss-allocations.

BTW: I am single and earn $18k a year and I paid about $1k in taxes last year. What did I do wrong?

Posts: 592 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug J
Member
Member # 416

 - posted      Profile for Doug J   Email Doug J   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would like to see a combination of a VAT tax for corperations and a varable sales tax for individuals. Basic amenities would be taxed little or none while the more luxuries the item, the more it gets taxed. This would help the poor, the rich pay thier fair share, no more or less, and it would also encourage people to spend less and save more.
Posts: 229 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The "poor" don't have an income tax liability, but do not mistake that to mean they "don't pay taxes". They simply get a waiver on one of the many forms of taxation.

For the taxes paid to income made ratio, without even adding it up, I'll wager that single young person at 15k a year pays more percentage-wise than, say, a family in the 50k a year bracket.

FICA and Medicare, sales tax, property tax (yes, you still pay it even if you rent) utilities and direct taxes like gas and sin taxes...

The one fallacy to avoid is the assumption many folks seem to get of the "always poor" poor person. "Poor" is very predominantly a transient economic status that most folks don't remain in beyond their first few years working. I'm talking averages, of course there are exceptions.

So, in essence, the vast majority of today's "poor" have no federal tax liability but they will in a few years, making the "poor don't pay taxes" angle moot any way you slice it.

That's where we get the saying "you don't have a heart if you're not liberal by your 20's, and you don't have a brain if you're not conservative by your 40's" or something like that...

[ April 02, 2007, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: jm0397 ]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1