taxation

[henry quirk]

What is equitable ('fair') taxation?

That is: if you had your say, how would you structure American taxation (on the local, state, and/or federal levels)?

[infinite monkey]

I would pay approximately...none.

The rich (I will define rich as anyone with more money than I have) will give 50%. Said 50% goes mostly to me.

I don't care about the roads or the infrastructure or services or community or animals or starving children or the space race or the cold war or the hot war or reduced lunches or shelters or bread or milk or the price of rice.

(Sorry, I was channeling another dwellar.)

Anyway, I don't really understand taxes I just know that I pay the hell out of them and I consider it to SUCK but I consider it integral to being a participant in a community.

I hope you get some interesting answers because I know there are a lot of folks here with some very evolved ideas on the tax system.

One thing I know (well, NOW I know, thanks to monster) is that corporations are NOT people, because Texas never executed one.

[/levity]

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

I would pay approximately...none.

The rich (I will define rich as anyone with more money than I have) will give 50%. Said 50% goes mostly to me.

I don't care about the roads or the infrastructure or services or community or animals or starving children or the space race or the cold war or the hot war or reduced lunches or shelters or bread or milk or the price of rice.

(Sorry, I was channeling another dwellar.)

Anyway, I don't really understand taxes I just know that I pay the hell out of them and I consider it to SUCK but I consider it integral to being a participant in corporate welfare and subsidizing the ultra wealthy.

Myself fixed that for you

[HungLikeJesus]

I'd say an ideal ratio would be 1/3 of income goes to taxes (federal, state, local, etc.), 1/3 goes to savings/investments, and 1/3 goes to expenses.

I haven't really thought it through, but it sounds like a good balance.

[glatt]

And toll roads should be illegal. Highway maintenance should be paid for with federal gasoline taxes.

Virginia is considering putting tolls on 95, so that it can tax out-of-state drivers passing through, just like all the other East Coast states do. Sure, I feel sorry for Delaware, where 50% of their traffic is out-of-state people driving through, but there has to be a better way to pay for things than to stop the flow of traffic to collect money.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus

I'd say an ideal ratio would be 1/3 of income goes to taxes (federal, state, local, etc.), 1/3 goes to savings/investments, and 1/3 goes to expenses.

I haven't really thought it through, but it sounds like a good balance.

So we should all pay 100% tax rates? Do we get to eat

[HungLikeJesus]

That's the third third.

[classicman]

1/3 actually sounds reasonable, but when one considers the lower incomes ...

[infinite monkey]

I'd willingly give a buck fifty to those who suffer so through their own damn fault.

Mostly, it's the ones who don't want to GIVE who realize, when confronted with the harsh reality of the world, that they believe the world should GIVE to them.

They suffer so. More than anyone.

[infinite monkey]

Don't you have to have an actual job to pay income tax?

[classicman]

nope, unemployment benefits are taxable as income.

[Lamplighter]

Social Security is taxed as ordinary income...

and there is no withholding during the year so retirees can get caught
with unexpected taxes (depending on their other incomes)

ETA: also, each monthly SS payment includes a $45.50 deduction for Medicare

I suppose Merc would call all this double and triple taxation.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

nope, unemployment benefits are taxable as income.

I've often seen posts where people say things like "yeah, it must be nice to not work and still suckle from the government tit". I've maintained that living at an income level of welfare or unemployment while not being a wage earner just plain sucks, and people don't choose to put themselves in that position. Considering that you're experiencing that now, what is your opinion?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by BigV

huh.

I'm just now reading the article at your link.

Perhaps it would have been nice to actually read it BEFORE you comment on it. Have you been hanging around with themerc?

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

That applied to ONE year, 2009, due to special circumstances, but boy oh boy, everyone just loves using that as representative of ALL years. Too bad it's so terribly distorted.

Please tell me where the distortion is. The year 2009 was the last year data was available and thats why it was used.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Considering that you're experiencing that now, what is your opinion?

It sucks. I'm getting all the things I never had time to do done ... around the house, but being 7 weeks without an income blows.

[Stormieweather]

Originally Posted by classicman

Please tell me where the distortion is. The year 2009 was the last year data was available and thats why it was used.

I did. Read my whole post, or follow the links I provided.

What I am curious about is, if my deductions would wipe out my tax liability due to the pitiful earnings I made, should I lose those deductions altogether? Even if Joe Blow earning 5 million gets them? Why is it something that so many people are up in arms about? That someone earned so little that they ended up not owing anything? We all get deductions and credits and exemptions. Every single one of us has them. Are we really that ignorant and greedy? But man, if someone gets to owe nothing, then by golly, that's not fair! Even if I earned 10x his salary and he's eating at soup kitchens, fuck him. Pay the hell up!

I mean, J. H. C.

I don't know why I bother.