taxes

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.

markpierce

Master and Commander
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
12,557
Location
USA
Vessel Name
Carquinez Coot
Vessel Make
penultimate Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
I've always paid income tax, even since the 1960s with only part-time income with unskilled-level income. Currently, most people now don't pay federal income tax. With the changing tax laws, I wasn't eligible for itemized tax deduction in California in recent years. This year I'm also limited to standard federal deduction since that exceeds the maximum state/local tax deduction. Unfortunately, the marginal tax rates haven't decreased much to help compensate.

It gets me when people accuse others when "they don't pay their fair share" when the accusers don't pay.
 
Currently, most people now don't pay federal income tax.

Put down the bong. Or turn off the right wing talking heads. Or, better still, do both. Most, meaning a majority of people, pay federal taxes.

And then consider two things.

The gap between rich and poor, where the poor never reach a level where they owe taxes.

And... did we really need to reduce taxes?
 
Last edited:
Maybe merge the thread with Humor?
 
Sadly, this country doesn't use a flat one rate tax or a consumption (federal retail tax). While you can argue who is or isn't paying enough, if everyone plays by the same rules and 99% of the deductions and special rules go away (nobody needs an accountant), there would at least be the appearance of fairness.

While were at, let's make election day April 15th (tax day). Your tax return is your ballot. Maybe the politicians would fear voter retaliation a little more. I'm also probably a little cynical. People who don't contribute probably shouldn't be able to elect themselves a benefits increase.

Ted
 
"I'm also probably a little cynical."

Hard not to be, here in FL when property taxes are held down , the county simply raises the mill rate , so they collect even more.

A national sales tax (not a vat tax) would not only be fair , it would free millions of man hours for productive use.

There would be NO PAPERWORK for individuals , and no way to escape taxes for the underground economy.

But congress would have less to sell , so it will remain a dream ,perhaps till after a Civil War.
 
It gets me when people accuse others when "they don't pay their fair share" when the accusers don't pay.


Yeah. When folks like Mitt Romney (just for example) pay a bazillion dollars a year in taxes, and donate another bazillion... yet are accused of not paying their "fair" share because it worked out to only 2% or income or whatever.

I don't particularly object to paying taxes to fund government services (although the usual level of fraud, waste, and abuse for some programs gets old).

That said... it's use of the word "fair" that eats my shorts. "Pragmatic" can work. "Unfair, but what else can we do?" can work. Even "Sucks, but get over it!" could be OK with me. Just not "fair."

Even flat tax rates -- or any other style of income tax -- that aren't tied directly to a taxpayers individual share of the cost of government services... just ain't gonna ever be "fair."

Why bring it up now? Here in the U.S., it's usually an April discussion...

-Chris
 
Currently, most people now don't pay federal income tax.


Are there any references on this statement? I hear this thrown around from time to time, and would be interested to know what reality is, as opposed to what one group or another "wants" to believe.
 
Are there any references on this statement? I hear this thrown around from time to time, and would be interested to know what reality is, as opposed to what one group or another "wants" to believe.

Yup.
 
I've always paid income tax, even since the 1960s with only part-time income with unskilled-level income. Currently, most people now don't pay federal income tax. With the changing tax laws, I wasn't eligible for itemized tax deduction in California in recent years. This year I'm also limited to standard federal deduction since that exceeds the maximum state/local tax deduction. Unfortunately, the marginal tax rates haven't decreased much to help compensate.

It gets me when people accuse others when "they don't pay their fair share" when the accusers don't pay.

Do you really think that federal income taxes are the only taxes taken from paychecks? Have you forgotten what a paystub looks like?
 
Last edited:
It shows roughly half of the people have earnings

Throw in children, elderly, disabled, miscellaneous unemployed, and you get the other half.

Virtually every wage earner and their employer pays the regressive FICA (social security tax) and the flat Medicare tax. And at the local level, everyone pays sales taxes and either directly through property ownership or indirectly through rents, property taxes. Plus whatever other mishmash of taxes and "fees" and tariffs the various pols come up with at all levels of government.
 
I gotta take my beret off to those French guys. Their attitude toward gas taxes are a whole lot different from the sheeple in Kalifornia.
 
Do you really think that federal income taxes are the only taxes taken from paychecks? Have you forgotten what a paystub looks like?

Yes, but they expect a pay-back in the form of SS payments upon reaching old age. My father paid "both sides" of social security tax on his high-middle-class income as he was self-employed, but only received something like slightly over $1000 a month in benefits when retired. Presumably, his SS benefits were reduced substantially because he had other sources of "unearned" income. He paid more than his share.
 
Last edited:
Do you really think that federal income taxes are the only taxes taken from paychecks? Have you forgotten what a paystub looks like?

Yeah, as in the very high state income tax of California. Here, marginal income-tax rates can approach 50 percent (federal and state income taxes).
 
Yes, but they expect a pay-back in the form of SS payments upon reaching old age. My father paid "both sides" of social security tax on his high-middle-class income as he was self-employed, but only received something like slightly over $1000 a month in benefits when retired. Presumably, his SS benefits were reduced substantially because he had other sources of "unearned" income. He paid more than his share.


Isn't that something we all expect?


And isn't the payment amount directly related to what you paid in?


I don't think other sources of income have anything to do with it.
 
Neither Medicare or Social Security are considered taxes in the technical sense. They are contributions/premiums for social programs. As one successful movie pointed out there are federal taxes on booze.

The number 47% don't pay federal income taxes was a critical issue in the 2012 presidential election. This percentage has probably increased slightly in 2018 after the last tax law.
 
"He paid more than his share. __________________"

This is a requirement for every social welfare scheme .

Someone has to pay extra if 50% of the population gets gov checks .
 
"He paid more than his share. __________________"

This is a requirement for every social welfare scheme .

Someone has to pay extra if 50% of the population gets gov checks .

Interesting translation.

Are you suggesting that 47% don't pay Federal Taxes means that 47% are getting a check?
 
"I'm also probably a little cynical."

Hard not to be, here in FL when property taxes are held down , the county simply raises the mill rate , so they collect even more.

A national sales tax (not a vat tax) would not only be fair , it would free millions of man hours for productive use.

There would be NO PAPERWORK for individuals , and no way to escape taxes for the underground economy.

But congress would have less to sell , so it will remain a dream ,perhaps till after a Civil War.
No way for the underground economy to escape taxation? Surely you jest. I worked 33 years in income tax enforecment, yes, the reviled IRS, and I can assure you that underreporting or non-reporting of income will continue under ANY system. "Under the table", "Cash is king", why would you think that this will go away?
 
BTW, the 47% who don't have a federal tax bill is 47% of HOUSEHOLDS, not people. That said, I'm not sure how much different the percentages would be if you looked at it some other way. And approximately half of those are retired people. The rest aren't earning enough to have a tax liability, which doesn't strike me as grounds for punishment.
 
While some don't pay who should, the vast majority don't pay because they lack the necessary income. Look at all those living on social security alone. They don't pay. Would you suggest they should then pay income taxes on their social security. Look at the 15% living below the poverty line, the 30% in near poverty and the 40+% that are below 2 x the poverty line, still below a subsistence level. As someone else pointed out, even those not paying Federal Income Tax are paying 7.65% in federal taxes plus several percent in state taxes through sales tax so their tax rate is in excess of 10%.

If you pay taxes as a retiree, be grateful that you have income other than just social security because many don't. In fact, for 43% of single retirees, social security is 90% or more of their income. The average social security is under $1400 per month and that's before deducting for medicare payment and before any medical costs. If you're not facing these issues be thankful. If you can afford a boat, be thankful. If you have income over $1400 per month be thankful.

Personally, I got a huge tax cut for 2018 and I think that is the most insane thing in the world. Even after charitable donations I paid at a rate of 35% in 2017 and I have no issue with that. I'd pay more if it meant we'd take better care of our poor, our elderly, and our children. I'll pay about 28% in 2018. Did I merit a tax cut? No. However, we will not keep that 7% for ourselves but try to use it to help others. To us, it's dirty money, like that received from some illegal enterprise. Far more tainted than our winnings playing poker a week ago (yes we do pay taxes on those too).

There is a great divide in this country between wealthy and poor with an ever increasing number of both and a shrinking middle class. I see references to the 1% often on this site, but really let's reference the 50%. 99% of the people on this site are among the lucky 50%. Those who have income, who own property or boats or both. Those who can get medical care, can afford food, housing, medication. If you're not aware how many people struggle on a daily basis just to survive, you really need to get out and meet some of them. If you measure the condition of the country by the stock market, then you're excluding the nearly 50% of all Americans who own no stock, no 401-K, no retirement fund, no IRA, no mutual fund, no pension, no ETF. And if for one moment, you think it's because you're better than them or more deserving than them, then there's nothing that I can say that will ever make you more compassionate.

I see the reports of the movie stars who have lost homes in California. I don't worry about them. It's all those we'll never hear of who have lost everything in the Wildfires and in the hurricanes. I recently went to the area of SC and NC ravaged by Florence and took some young executives with me. We went to some of the poorest areas where we've recently purchased manufacturing facilities and the one comment that rang so loud at night was "I can't believe the conditions they live in." We've made sure all those in our extended family actually know personally some others far less fortunate than them.

None of us like how all our tax dollars are used although we'd argue which uses are bad. However, with those suffering in our country, I find it repulsive that I and other wealthy received a tax cut. I do believe a society should be judged not on how those best off in it live but on how it treats the least fortunate among themselves. Based on that, I still believe our society gets a very poor grade.
 
Interesting translation.

Are you suggesting that 47% don't pay Federal Taxes means that 47% are getting a check?

Google ‘earned income credit” and prepare to be shocked.
 
Neither Medicare or Social Security are considered taxes in the technical sense.

Yes they absolutely are, and very specifically identified as such. Your income history may determine what level of SS you are eligible for, but there are no guarantees; which is also very specifically called out by the gov. Everyone gets the same Medicare program regardless of what they paid in. An otherwise empty-suit, Rick Perry was right about this (and one other off-subject political hot potato).
 
Well said BandB.

I live off savings and investments now and pay very little in taxes. I have a little interest income and some capital gains that are taxed at a low rate, so doubt I will get a tax cut from the recent Tax Cut for the Rich. However, the companies I invest in have reaped billions from this tax cut. Meanwhile, most people in this country continue to struggle.

IMG_4419.jpg
IMG_4424.JPG
 
Last edited:
The government is not smart enough to earn money but you are. The government is not smart enough to benefit others by spending money, but you are. Tax cuts acknowledge that you are smarter than government. Some points in this thread call that into question.

More taxes mean more national debt. How? Same way a bank can borrow more and loan more if they are owed more.

The presumption that proceeds from paying more taxes will be used to benefit less fortunate people is idealistic, meaning unrealistic.

I'm not saying that addiction to money is a good thing. Quite the opposite, I believe that addiction to money is the root of all evil. Hoarding money is evil.
 
Last edited:
The government is not smart enough to earn money but you are. The government is not smart enough to benefit others by spending money, but you are. Tax cuts acknowledge that you are smarter than government. Some points in this thread call that into question.

More taxes mean more national debt. How? Same way a bank can borrow more and loan more if they are owed more.

The presumption that proceeds from paying more taxes will be used to benefit less fortunate people is idealistic, meaning unrealistic.

I'm not saying that addiction to money is a good thing. Quite the opposite, I believe that addiction to money is the root of all evil. Hoarding money is evil.

Maybe.

But without spending efficiencies this conversation is a waste of on-line ink.
 
While I have sympathy for the very poor and bottom 50% who loose everything in natural disasters, there is a significant percentage of the bottom 50% who owe their situation to their own bad choices and the government promoting welfare as a way of life. There is almost nothing the government does to get people off of welfare. Until the government changes it approach to preventing poverty from growing as opposed to blindly handing out checks, welfare will continue to increase as apercentage of our federal and state budgets.

BandB, while you may feel that a 35% rate is reasonable, many people pay a great deal more. When you factor in taxes such as state income, city income, personal property, real estate, sales, fuel, and the hundreds of embedded ones, many could find themselves paying over 50%. Imo, nobody should have to pay more that 20% in federal income tax. There should be a 5% federal sales tax on everything, for everyone. No state exempts the poor from sales tax. Then Congress should loose all pay and benefits if they fail to balance the budget. The sad reality is that if you federally taxed income over $300,000 at 50% the federal government would still run deficits every year.

Ted
 
I find it repulsive that I and other wealthy received a tax cut. I do believe a society should be judged not on how those best off in it live but on how it treats the least fortunate among themselves. Based on that, I still believe our society gets a very poor grade.

I am a broken record on this subject.

Of course I net out more with a tax cut. But the message I continue to hammer across to people is; I couldn't tell from one tax cut from another, from one tax increase to another since the Reagan days, how much more or less I had in my pocket.

And I often challenge those who debate the point to tell me how their income has been affected, up or down, in the last 30 years. Not one can.

Tax cuts and increases to me are political postures, a nod to the stance of one side versus the other.

They do nothing to alleviate the issues we have regarding the disparity of the very rich, the rich, and the well off, from the poor and struggling in our country.

Nor do they ever result in a conversation around spending reductions.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom