Should the government get your paycheck first?

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How would this "make a revolt?"

http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/.a/6a00d83451b8f869e20120a7f2b601970b-800wi

If the king were black with big ears you would really have something

He already is.

But I thnk you meant if he was DRAWN that way.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

One of the largest changes I could see coming from a program like this is that tax rates could be changed mid year and apply to withdrawls instantly. Come October you see there is a larger debit then expect? Pass a "temporary" act to increase the tax revenues for the remainder of the year until you get to a new budget.

Could that not already be done, for example, in the US with W-2 workers? That is, pass (and have the president sign) a mid-year tax increase, effective immediately, with employers being required to adjust withholdings accordingly after the effective date?

Congress did that a couple years ago with a tax law affecting foreign earned income.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

In terms of net effect - logistics aside - is this not virtually what is already done in the US with all W-2 employees - get a paycheck with the taxes, etc. deducted and pre-paid over to the taxing authorities?

Sweet! Great idea . . . maybe they can pay our bills for us too.

They could even manage our entertainment and our eating habits.

Edited to add: I would consider this a good source, unless you think the ACLU is a biased unreliable source.

No comments?

Figures.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

One of the largest changes I could see coming from a program like this is that tax rates could be changed mid year and apply to withdrawls instantly. Come October you see there is a larger debit then expect? Pass a "temporary" act to increase the tax revenues for the remainder of the year until you get to a new budget. Stupid idea if I've seen one.

That's the next step for California.

The government was spending too much money and a tax increase from 9.3 to 9.55% wasn't enough so they decided to take out an interest free loan by increasing the withholding farther to 10.505%

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

One of the largest changes I could see coming from a program like this is that tax rates could be changed mid year and apply to withdrawls instantly. Come October you see there is a larger debit then expect? Pass a "temporary" act to increase the tax revenues for the remainder of the year until you get to a new budget. Stupid idea if I've seen one.

That's the next step for California.

The government was spending too much money and a tax increase from 9.3 to 9.55% wasn't enough so they decided to take out an interest free loan by increasing the withholding farther to 10.505%

So it's an arms race: wage-earners will fight back by amending their W-4s to claim more exemptions/allowances.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

That's the next step for California.

The government was spending too much money and a tax increase from 9.3 to 9.55% wasn't enough so they decided to take out an interest free loan by increasing the withholding farther to 10.505%

So it's an arms race: wage-earners will fight back by amending their W-4s to claim more exemptions/allowances.

That's a current option, but if the model were switched to letting the government take its cut and then send us the rest, the ability to do this is likely to be greatly curtailed.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's the next step for California.

The government was spending too much money and a tax increase from 9.3 to 9.55% wasn't enough so they decided to take out an interest free loan by increasing the withholding farther to 10.505%

So it's an arms race: wage-earners will fight back by amending their W-4s to claim more exemptions/allowances.

That's a current option, but if the model were switched to letting the government take its cut and then send us the rest, the ability to do this is likely to be greatly curtailed.

No doubt. I imagine that's why the Brit govt is proposing this: to increase its cash-on-hand by curtailing taxpayers' opportunities to under-withhold.

In any jurisdiction, it's all about whose ox is getting gored; and with good reason, neither side trusts the other. On the main, taxing authorities would rather collect as much money up-front, and then fight over the refund; while taxpayers would rather hold on to as much gross income/gains as possible, and then fight over the final amount due.

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

>I think everyone should get their gross check and then have to write
>a check to the gov for the taxes and fees due.

A great many people do. There are a lot of self-employed people and contractors who get money directly from customers, employers etc and then have to write a check to the government. That's how I handle the money I make teaching. How would this "make a revolt?"

You are in the minority as it is required that employers (for the most part) withhold taxes and send them in. This creates a situtation where many just look at the net and take little note of what the gov confiscates.

Attitudes would change greately if many truly understood the level of "with holding" they really function under

If you paid everyone their gross and just shifted everyone to quarterly or even monthly payments the vast majority of people who currently don't understand withholdings and exemptions would simply shift their ignorance to not understanding quarterly payments and penalties when they got to the end of the year having spent every dollar and having ignored the estimated payment mailings the IRS sent them.

The reason I think the direct government control of withholdings is a bad idea is because the government doesn't know what I may or may not do later in the year that could drastically affect my tax liability. Am I thinking of buying or selling a house? Am I getting married? Am I going to be buying or selling stocks? Am I going to take part in adopt-a-family during the holiday season? Am I going to change 401(k) contributions? Do I have contract work coming up?

I don't want any of these events resulting in thousands of dollars in tax refunds or payments due at the end of the year. And I certainly don't want to have to furnish said plans to the government so that they can attempt to get it right.

[skipbelt 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's the next step for California.
The government was spending too much money and a tax increase from 9.3 to 9.55% wasn't enough so they decided to take out an interest free loan by increasing the withholding farther to 10.505%

So it's an arms race: wage-earners will fight back by amending their W-4s to claim more exemptions/allowances.

That's a current option, but if the model were switched to letting the government take its cut and then send us the rest, the ability to do this is likely to be greatly curtailed.

No doubt. I imagine that's why the Brit govt is proposing this: to increase its cash-on-hand by curtailing taxpayers' opportunities to under-withhold.
In any jurisdiction, it's all about whose ox is getting gored; and with good reason, neither side trusts the other. On the main, taxing authorities would rather collect as much money up-front, and then fight over the refund; while taxpayers would rather hold on to as much gross income/gains as possible, and then fight over the final amount due.

it depends on whose money it is !

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's the next step for California.

The government was spending too much money and a tax increase from 9.3 to 9.55% wasn't enough so they decided to take out an interest free loan by increasing the withholding farther to 10.505%

So it's an arms race: wage-earners will fight back by amending their W-4s to claim more exemptions/allowances.

That's a current option, but if the model were switched to letting the government take its cut and then send us the rest, the ability to do this is likely to be greatly curtailed.

No doubt. I imagine that's why the Brit govt is proposing this: to increase its cash-on-hand by curtailing taxpayers' opportunities to under-withhold.

In any jurisdiction, it's all about whose ox is getting gored; and with good reason, neither side trusts the other. On the main, taxing authorities would rather collect as much money up-front, and then fight over the refund; while taxpayers would rather hold on to as much gross income/gains as possible, and then fight over the final amount due.

it depends on whose money it is !

One step closer to communist.

Communist 1: Comrade, if you had 2 cars would you give me one?
Communist 2: Yes - Of course - we are communists!

Communist 1: Comrade, if you had 2 Horses would you give me one?
Communist 2: Yes - Of course - we are communists!

Communist 1: Comrade, if you had 2 Pigs would you give me one?
Communist 2: Yes - Of course - we are communists! Why are you asking me these things?

Communist 1: Comrade, if you had 2 Thousand Dollars would you give me One Thousand?
Communist 2: No.

Communist 1:NO? Why Not - You are my fellow communist!

Communist 2:Because I have 2 thoousand dollars.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[skipbelt 0]

and don't forget , they're socialists too !

[SkyPiggie 0]

My oh my, little Skypiggie is surprised that one-third of the poll respondents are okay with giving their paycheck first to the government.

It occurs to me this would make it really easy for some future redistribution of wealth scheme which could come to be passed in the legislature.

They'll have all that money in one big giant pot, and then they can turn around and dole it back out in whatever proportions they deem fit, to whomever they deem deserving.

Guaranteed paychecks for all citizens, working or not? Done! New U.N. taxes to combat "global warming"? Done! What power will you have to say anything to the contrary? Nyet!

Good luck with that! Skypiggie out.

[kelpdiver 2]

never mind the IOUs, like the ones California gave out while debating its budget.

"It's just as valid as real currency!"

[skipbelt 0]

real currency is wholly valid , at least till now !

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

In an ideal world, the net result shouldn't be all that different. I suppose the big difference is one of process: the government becomes a short-term escrow holder of your entire paycheck. And, I suppose if someone fucks up, you could be SOL until you get it straightened out.

This is far from an ideal world. I wouldn't want to fight the Gov for losing my check. The fewer people touching my check the better.

+1. File a claim and some one will get back to you in 4 to 6 weeks to assist you with your problem. You don't have money to live? Sorry, no unemployment or other help, you have a job. Hope your credit cards aren't maxed out.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In an ideal world, the net result shouldn't be all that different. I suppose the big difference is one of process: the government becomes a short-term escrow holder of your entire paycheck. And, I suppose if someone fucks up, you could be SOL until you get it straightened out.

This is far from an ideal world. I wouldn't want to fight the Gov for losing my check. The fewer people touching my check the better.

+1. File a claim and some one will get back to you in 4 to 6 weeks to assist you with your problem. You don't have money to live? Sorry, no unemployment or other help, you have a job. Hope your credit cards aren't maxed out.

+2 I've had my company screw up a check and try to give me the 2-4 week turnaround BS. I raised so much hell though I got it in less than week.

A gov't agency that doesn't have any competition that wouldn't work for.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[popsjumper 2]

...and here I thought it was just the U.S.A. that was going to hell in a hand basket. Good to know we won't be alone on the journey.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[nigel99 619]

Quote

>I think everyone should get their gross check and then have to write
>a check to the gov for the taxes and fees due.

A great many people do. There are a lot of self-employed people and contractors who get money directly from customers, employers etc and then have to write a check to the government. That's how I handle the money I make teaching. How would this "make a revolt?"

This was a proposal that was mean't for internal discussion only and is clearly not workable. The biggest problem the government has is that taxes are the first thing that companies stop paying in hard times and when cash flow is a problem (I run a business and have been there!). The UK revenue loses lots of money when companies go bust and this proposal would prevent that happening.

The idea of paying gross is ideal as the government could then chase individuals directly - and in the UK it saves about 12% of your wage bill if you can engineer things in this way and stay legal as our national insurance requires the employer to provide for the 11 or 12% that is deducted from the employee and then to effectively match that amount again.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.