Better get a raise before April 15th

[billvon 3,120]

Better get that raise before tax time if you want to avoid some additional taxes.

From the Washington Post:

--------------------------------------------------------------

As the Bush administration draws up plans to simplify the tax system, it is also refining arguments for why it may be necessary to shift more of the tax load onto lower-income workers.
. . . .
The efforts would thrust the administration into a debate that until now has lingered on the fringes of economic policy: Are too few wealthy Americans paying too much in taxes for too many, and should the working poor and middle class be shouldering more of the tax burden?

------------------------------------------------------

[Vallerina 2]

Didn't this method already fail in the 80s or something?

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[cgross 1]

I am not wealthy, but i do believe some of the rich do pay a shit load in taxes. However, i don't think the lower income should pick up the extra load. I am all for a flat tax. That way everyone pays the same %.

If you are rich you pay more $$, but the same percentage of your income is taken as the guy making 20K.

[jessd 0]

I agree with you on this 100% - it feels like that much is taken out of my small paycheck.

"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away..."

[billvon 3,120]

> I am all for a flat tax. That way everyone pays the same %.

I think I would be all for a flat sales tax, not a flat income tax. Some items (i.e. basic food for low income people) would be exempt from the sales tax.

[jfields 0]

The budget must be perfectly balanced and the tax rates must make sense. We got a rebate from Dubya, right? They wouldn't do something like that unless our national finances were in outstanding shape.

Please tell me everyone sees the sarcasm.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

Some items (i.e. basic food for low income people) would be exempt from the sales tax.

Could you clarify? B/c food items at ANY grocery store, at least in Florida, are exempt from sales tax whether you're rich or poor, not just for "low income" people.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[billvon 3,120]

>Could you clarify? B/c food items at ANY grocery store, at least in
> Florida, are exempt from sales tax whether you're rich or poor, not
> just for "low income" people.

Right now this varies from state to state. Some do not tax food; some do not tax certain types of food. If it were to replace the federal income tax, a federal sales tax would probably have to have some uniformity. I would be in favor of keeping it as simple as possible, so a flat, say, 30% sales tax on _everything_ makes the most sense.

To be humane, I think that it would be appropriate to not tax the poor for basic food. You could do this either by having a way to 'prove' that someone was poor or by simply not taxing any basic food (i.e. flour, eggs, bread) but retaining the tax on non-basics (beer, chips, prime rib.) Of course that would start a huge stink since each food supplier out there would want to get their type of food classified as a basic.

[AggieDave 6]

That's similar to what Texas has called the LoneStar program. Basically, some food stuffs are non-taxable due to the program, some are taxable. It all boils down to what is a "basic" food.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[PLFXpert 0]

I see what you're saying now....thank you for the clarification

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

It all boils down to what is a "basic" food

So...Beer is on that list right?

[jfields 0]

Quote

It all boils down to what is a "basic" food
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So...Beer is on that list right?

And Twinkies. Please tell me they have seen the wisdom and declared Twinkies as essential to the health and well being of all Americans.

[mattb 0]

Quote

Quote

It all boils down to what is a "basic" food

I suppose TV dinners, frozen pizzas, etc. are on this list.

A related story - should the poor get organic food?
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/4736738.htm

[billvon 3,120]

>I suppose TV dinners, frozen pizzas, etc. are on this list.

I hope not. Apples yes, frozen pepperoni pizzas no. I can see the value in the government essentially subsidizing food to keep you alive, but frozen pepperoni pizzas? No subsidies.

>A related story - should the poor get organic food?

Interesting argument. I don't have much sympathy for people who desire food that's both free and 'gourmet.' As said in the article:

"For every person getting organic food, we can serve two people getting nonorganic food."

That seems to be the important part.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I can see the value in the government essentially subsidizing food to keep you alive, but frozen pepperoni pizzas?

So you're standing by the packets of peanut butter they dropped in Afghanistan?

[mattb 0]

It is very difficult to decide what is "too luxurious". Should sliced bread be in this catagory or should government aid go towards yeast and flour?

Simply tax everything all sales at a set %. If you want to exclude a catagory (medicine, food, clothing) than don't try and decide what within the catagory should be taxed. Abolish the IRS as it is known and don't have the costs associated with processing income taxes. Those with less money would not pay nearly as much tax on food and clothing unless they are eating at Spago and wearing Versace. A 30% tax on basic ingredients is still much cheaper than buying pre-made meals.

What this this have to with skydiving ? ? ? ? ? Oh wait, I'm in the random crap forum.

-matt

[livendive 8]

Quote

> I am all for a flat tax. That way everyone pays the same %.

I think I would be all for a flat sales tax, not a flat income tax. Some items (i.e. basic food for low income people) would be exempt from the sales tax.

This translates into an income tax for those who only make enough money to live month to month, while exempting the savings of those who happen to make more than they spend.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[quade 4]

Quote

White House economic adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey told the AEI tax forum that the 12.4 percent Social Security levy should not be considered when tax burdens are calculated. Lindsey said the Social Security tax is ultimately returned to the taxpayer as a benefit.

F him.

I don't know about anybody else here, but Social Security sounds an awful lot like a pyramid scheme to me and if I'd be put in jail if I tried to do anything even vaguely like it.

I will probably never see a dime of anything I ever put into SS and Mr. Lindsay is just flat out lying.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jfields 0]

The only difference between a monopoly and government is legality.

[Deuce 1]

The WIC program is the best one of it's kind. Poor mothers get coupons for "free" food, but it's all nutritious stuff pregnant ladies and new babies need to eat to be healthy.

Long ago I worked a cash register at a grocery store, and I got steamed when people would buy a hundred dollars worth of steaks on food stamps.

I think a federal flat tax on every dollar over $24,000 per person would be fair. It's more fair if you live outside the Bay Area, but that's a California problem.

[howardwhite 6]

Quote

Mr. Lindsay is just flat out lying

He's also flat out unemployed.

HW

[billvon 3,120]

>This translates into an income tax for those who only make enough
> money to live month to month, while exempting the savings of
> those who happen to make more than they spend.

Well, no. The only ones exempted are the ones who spend _no_ money. Someone who lives month to month will pay the same as someone who buys the same stuff (i.e. the essentials) and saves the rest. If the higher income person spends more than that (which is likely) they will pay _more_ than the person who lives month to month.

Right now the only way to avoid taxes is to not work. This new scheme allows you to avoid taxes by spending less. Which scheme gives you more options with what to do with _your_ money? Which scheme encourages employment and discourages tax-shelter schemes?

[billvon 3,120]

>I think a federal flat tax on every dollar over $24,000 per person
>would be fair.

That's close to what we have now, although tax is expressed in percentages of total instead of dollars-over-X amount. If such a scheme was implemented, you can bet there'd be exemptions for single parents supporting large families, IRA's (to encourage self-reliance on retirement) and certain types of investing (i.e. tax free municipal bonds, which the government uses to finance certain projects.) Since there would be loopholes, there would be tax shelters and long forms to fill out to justify those loopholes after the IRS 'cracked down' on them. In other words, not much would change.

[DZBone 0]

Quote

I am not wealthy, but i do believe some of the rich do pay a shit load in taxes. However, i don't think the lower income should pick up the extra load. I am all for a flat tax. That way everyone pays the same %.

If you are rich you pay more $$, but the same percentage of your income is taken as the guy making 20K.

And all the weathly people rub their hands together, saying "Please, God, let there be a flat tax, yes, yes, yes!"

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. You know why? Because the rich have excess capital to invest, creating more capital (for themselves), and they have influence in government, so they can get tax advantages, corporate welfare, and yes, even convince President Chaney to shift the tax burden directly to the lower classes.

Meanwhile, the poor focus on the "expense" and "complexity" of the IRS, missing the real point. They buy the bullshit that a wealthier upper class is better for all (rising tide rises all boats, remember that classic BS? Yea, plenty of jobs created overseas, very globally-thinking of them)

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and for some reason everybody thinks this is progress.

BTW, I'm no socialist. I love capitalism. I intend to work my ass off so my kid can get a leg up and screw middle class and poor people too. Maybe in a few generations...

_________________________________________________
If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

[Deuce 1]

I would only be in favor of the flat tax if there were no exemptions.

Look, I would probably pay slightly more, cause I work the exemptions route to the hilt, and have a great ex-IRS accountant do my taxes.

But with a flat tax, I'd do them myself, or have the money escrowed or whatever from my paycheck. There's so much inertia in the damn tax system that I doubt it will ever change.

Oh, and you are a god, by the way (small "g"). Very spectacular and cool accomplishment, the 300 way!