| Author |
Message |
    
jet
Citizen
Username: Jet
Post Number: 385
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - 11:35 am: |     |
I'm sorry sportsnut , just some good natured ribbing. The only thing about taxes that I'm intrested in , is to take our tax bill for schools & divide it evenly over each tax payer. I don't understand why the # of bathrooms in my house makes my portion of the school bill higher than anyone elses. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 965
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - 12:12 pm: | |
Amandacat you're right. However, a person earning less would rightfully get less in dollar terms. Percentage wise I would be interested in knowing how much people "saved" as a result of the tax change. I should have worded that post differently.
Also, I've argued in the past that a progressive taxing system is the only way to go. The real question is to what point? I'm not arguing that I should be paying tax at a 15% rate, I expect to pay based on what I earn up to a point. Now with all the talk about moving to a income based methodology for funding school taxes and the battle cry that the wealthy should bear the full brunt of that as well, it makes me nervous.
Every Wednesday morning we get together and discuss proposed tax changes during the last week and many times the discussions center around editorials that are writted about the current taxing scheme. Today's highlight was an article written by a professor and his take was that the whole federal system was a joke. No one takes it seriously and people cheat all the time. One of his arguments to alleviate the problems with the SS tax is to put a question on the 1040 to be answered under penalty of perjury that asks whether or not you've hired any help during the year. The implication was that if you paid a cleaner, nanny or whomever you owed SS tax on them. There is also a proposal to lower the corporate income tax by 2% (and no this isn't a Bush proposal). |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2292
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - 12:26 pm: | |
sportsnut, you're quite right that it's a hard question to answer.
And I mentioned tax hikes for the most wealthy, but I realize now that it was because of this year's context, what with giving the most wealthy the biggest tax breaks. In general, there are often reasons for across-the-board tax increases. And when you aim for those, there will always be arguments over what is fair.
Why are you nervous about the proposed tax reforms for school funding? Is it because you fear it would tax you heavily. Let's say it does tax people in your income bracket heavily. What would the effect be? It would reduce your net income. What happens when your net income decreases? First, you cut down on discretionary spending, right? After that, you cut down on necessary expenses. Your Porsche is proof that there's a large discretionary portion of your income. It would hurt to have that portion taken away, but consider the fact that many don't have one at all.
I don't favor a tax collection system where tax collectors visit or audit you and decide whether you, as an individual, have enough or too much to live on. I think it should be done at the macroscopic level. Would you have it any other way?
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4842
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - 12:32 pm: | |
Yeah Straw, but I got a huge tax deal on it as a capital investment since I bought it under my corporate name. 
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 1028
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - 12:51 pm: | |
Tom....you don't like it when a govt official visits and audits you over what he thinks is enough or too much to live on. Fine. But how about the phrase "tax cuts to those who don't need it" being tossed about lightly. Isn't that the same thing?
I fear the whole tax hike for school thing, and if the property taxes on my house go up another 80% -- I'm outta here. That would be my behavior modification. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2294
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - 1:10 pm: | |
I was trying to make the distinction between the power to visit individuals and the power to make tax laws that affect the entire population. I feel they are different, though they share some effects.
I can't favor a policy that is totally blind to all people's lifestyles. And no one really can propose one, either. You either make a decision about what is enough and too much actively or passively. Choosing not to decide is a decision.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 966
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - 1:12 pm: | |
Straw????
Jet no need to apologize. I'm kind of used to the ribbing I get from friends and family (most notably my brother an auto mechanic who despises all forms of foreign cars).
Tom, yes I fear that proposed increases in taxes to fund our schools will hurt severly. I can easily envision a doubling of my school taxes and the prospect is not appealing. If that were to happen today I would just move to a different town, but when you base it on income there is no way to combat it but to move out of state. I'm with cjc on this. If the taxes go up significantly I'm out of here as well. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4845
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - 1:44 pm: | |
Sports, sorry 'bout that. I tend to get my "S" posters mixed up. |
debby
Citizen
Username: Debby
Post Number: 115
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - 2:47 pm: | |
So Sportsnut - Does your middle post mean you consider $100k per year "low-income"? |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2300
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - 2:54 pm: | |
And since you bring this topic up so much, I wonder if you want confirmation that you're not wealthy. I'll stop short of saying yes or no, because it's subjective and context-sensitive. But I did post some charts a few weeks ago about income percentiles, which can give you perspective. And for what it's worth, my gross income is what you said you paid in taxes last year, so there is plenty of income disparity right on our Normal Rockwell block. (For everyone else's benefit, sportsnut and I live on the same block, and we're friendly with each other in real life.) My guess is that many on our block make less than I do.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 968
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - 3:25 pm: | |
No, it was just an arbitrary amount to show how, a redistribution of wealth can be flawed. I could have just as easily used a 250K number.
Another example - I was talking to a colleague at work at lunch today. He earns similar to what I earn. His wife doesn't work. He has four kids and lives in morris plains. He pays less than 10K in federal income tax (roughly 8% of his wages give or take) as a result of child credits etc. I was shocked at how low his liability was as compared to mine.
Look at it another way. My wife and I work for the first five months of the year to pay all of our taxes. Five months. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 969
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - 3:32 pm: | |
Tom - I bring it up so often 1) because I work in the field - granted its corporate vs. individual but the concept of "enough" is the same. The battle cry is always the same so and so is not paying enough. So I am curious as to how much is enough.
2) I get tired of people saying that the cure to our ills is to raise taxes.
Make no mistake Tom - I know we (my family) does quite well. Wealth is very subjective and I guess that is part of my point as well. We all know that the tax laws are written in the hope of being "fair" to everyone, however, as we also know those of us who live in the northeast portion of the country are particularly hard hit because of the cost of living and our sky high property taxes. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2303
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - 3:43 pm: | |
If you want to look at percentage of income you pay in tax, then if you or your wife quit, would you have a situation closer to your colleague's? No, I think the percentage isn't entirely relevant. Nor is the amount. I remember in 1992, Ross Perot tried to sympathize with American commoners by pointing out how much he paid in taxes, as if that would show the injustices. So he paid a few million. So?
I think the reason people mention raising taxes in the past few years is that Bush's tax cuts seem to be 1. not an investment in the economy and 2. heavily favoring the very wealthy, and I mean those much wealthier than you.
As I said recently, if the gross domestic product is rising AND AT THE SAME TIME the disparity of incomes is increasing, something is seriously f***ed up around here. To me, it indicates we have forgotten some of our ideals. Bush is a fundamentalist, and I know that Jewish, Christian, and Muslim scriptures have plenty to say about charity. And before you say it, I'll agree that opportunity is more valuable than charity, and we are increasing NEITHER lately. No, taxes are not the final solution, but I do not feel they are out of the question, either.
And given that you've raised this point repeatedly, I'm still unclear on what you're after.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
chocoholic
Citizen
Username: Shrink
Post Number: 127
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - 3:55 pm: | |
In terms of taxes:
I went to the turbo tax and fgured out that I would save 2000 dollars due to the Bush tax cut. On the other hand, hearing Greenspan state that SS will have to be cut because of tax cuts and increased spending (mostly on the war of Iraq) makes me think that perhaps the tax cut, multiplied many times over millions of tax payers is not such a good thing. As tom Reingold states, there is time to cut taxes, but perhaps cutting taxes during a time of big deficits and war is not the best time.
( And I know some smarty will say, well why don't you give your tax cut away...I give away a pretty good portion of my income away to charity ( I actually should give more)
-my accountant is constantly asking why I and my spouse exceed the average amount given to charity...)
In terms of property taxes: I figure the property taxe s should be consistent with the services that you get from the community. It depends on what you think is important. For example, if maplewood-SO raises taxes, and we get a stellar school system, a better downtown ( for SO) a vibrant community mix with many cultural attractions then I will struggle to live here. If I just wanted low taxes, then I could move to the Bronx in NYC, or some place in the Pine Barrens of NJ. Also, Westchester county in NY state has had a 25 percent increase in property taxes over the last 2 years. They are already paying high taxes- taxes of 20, 000 or more is not inconsistant in Pelham, for instance. Yet, I don't see any mass flight from that County, because people think it is desirable to live there and they are getting services for their money.
|
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 970
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - 4:04 pm: | |
To me how much we pay in taxes and the disparity in income are two different arguments. Your attempts at social engineering using the tax systems are unfair at best. If you feel the need for a personal crusade to redistribute wealth then by all means go after the big corporate CEO's who rape and plunder their companies and walk away with a slap on the wrist. Join a crusade to enforce the existing tax laws as they are currently written. No where is it written that this country should be a communist state where everyone is supposed to enjoy the same standard of living.
Even when we had record surpluses people were homeless, people were starving. Where were people then? Why wasn't there a plan to redistribute the surplus that we had then? Why is it only now that you seek to penalize the people who do well?
Tom, as I have said on several occasions already, the point is not to just raise taxes everytime money is tight. Cut wasteful spending first then talk about tax revenues. It's actually quite a simple concept. If you feel like "donating" all your money to the federal government that's your business, just don't expect me to go along willingly. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2304
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - 4:20 pm: | |
As I've said before, we will do social engineering, whether we aim to or not. We might as well consciously decide which form of social engineering we will attempt. For example, making mortgage interest deductible is an incentive to own homes, which we, as a society, think is a good thing. There is always income redistribution, whether you call it that or not.
Maybe there will always be homeless and starving people. I don't think charity alone will help them. But I think making life harder for those who have it worse WHEN we are making life easier than ever for the most wealthy is deplorable.
And yes, the biggest targets ought to be the big CEO's who rape and plunder, because of the magnitude of their plunderage. And aha, isn't that the same as saying "soak the rich" because in this case, you're clearly not one of them?
I'm not advocating communism or a "standardized" standard of living. I don't think we could even accomplish that if we tried. When I mentioned opportunities in my previous post, my point is that I agree about the adage about teaching a man to fish. That is the greatest gift (and obligation) of all. Guess what. The right wing is cutting funding to education.
You asked how much taxes are too much, so I addressed that. Then you said it's not about taxation, it's about spending. We could start a thread about that. We can argue about what programs are wasteful. Forgive me, but I addressed the very question you raised.
And yes, government spending deserves constant scrutiny. Guess what again. The Bush administration doesn't want its actions questioned.
Bush said that it's well known that in time of war, the thing to do is cut taxes. It's not well known. In fact, we raise taxes in war time. Hmm, if people don't want to do that, it would be because they don't support the war strongly enough to pay for it out of their pockets. Talk about wasteful spending!
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 971
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - 4:38 pm: | |
"The right wing is cutting funding to education."
According to this week's edition of Time:
THE CHARGES: "He's making it punitive. He's disrespecting teachers. And he's walked away from his promise to fully fund [the law]."
--JOHN KERRY, on the No Child Left Behind education bill Bush pushed through Congress
THE CONTEXT: Democrats claim that Bush has not provided enough money for the law. He gave the low-income schools that No Child is supposed to improve only $12 billion of the $18 billion the law allows him to spend. Even so, Bush has dramatically increased the money for these schools, boosting their funding from $9 billion in Clinton's last budget. Overall, money for public education under Bush has increased from $17 billion to $24 billion. Kerry also blasts Bush for turning schools into "testing factories," but his aides say Kerry would still require yearly math and reading tests.
"And yes, the biggest targets ought to be the big CEO's who rape and plunder, because of the magnitude of their plunderage. And aha, isn't that the same as saying "soak the rich" because in this case, you're clearly not one of them?"
You're right I don't fraudulently cook the books. I don't spend corporate funds on personal items. Its not about soaking the rich its about holding people accountable for breaking the law.
"But I think making life harder for those who have it worse WHEN we are making life easier than ever for the most wealthy is deplorable."
We wouldn't have to if we could control the spending side of the ledger. Prove to me first that there isn't enough money to go around. Then talk to me about raising taxes.
Your response to how much in taxes are too much was basically to give the government a blank check, because according to you there is no way to know how much is too much. Therefore, keep on spending because as long as there are people like Bill Gates there will be people to tax.
It's disingenuous to blame Bush for the excess in government spending. Its not solely his problem.
I still believe that the tax cuts will spur the economy. That coupled with spending restraints and enforcement of current laws should be sufficient. |
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 451
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - 4:40 pm: | |
...and some would say a lot of the fish are being airlifted to India... |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2306
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - 4:46 pm: | |
sportsnut, you are arguing with points I agree with. I didn't mention them because I didn't think it was necessary, and you have taken me to disagree with them. Wait, I did mention scrutiny, and I should have mentioned control of spending, too. Please understand clearly that I agree that there are two sides, taxing and spending, and we need to control both. I can see how my words look like I am advocating a blank check, but I'm not.
You're right, also, that lots of people are to blame for uncontrolled spending, not just Bush. Bush just happens to be responsible more than any other individual at the moment, but sure, we can blame congress and the state and local governments, too.
Enforcement of current laws sounds great. The Bush administration pays lip service to that but has cut funding to IRS and its investigative department, so while I agree with your plan, I don't think Bush is your man.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 7
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - 8:34 pm: | |
It's obvious most of us on MOL are intelligent enough to understand both sides of the argument. It comes down to your basic philosophy and political slant as to what you believe is correct. I think both sides are attempting to get to the same point(a better country for all) just by different means. I have no doubt the Dems believe what they say and believe it will work. I also have no doubt that the Repubs think their way will work. Tax the wealthy vs. trickle down. I for one would rather let the people keep and invest their money rather than have the government take it and then spend it. There are just to many things that the government does poorly. To be fair they also do alot of things competently. The power is in the vote. Vote for the candidate that espouses your views and then hope he doesn't back off. I voted for Bush and am pleased with the tax cuts. But if Kerry wins, then I fully expect him to push forth his agenda. As for me, I'll do what the law is at the time and wait for an opportunity to vote for my philosophy again. Just my 2 cents. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 1048
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 4, 2004 - 1:24 pm: | |
How much is enough? If I 'need' it, and don't have the money, taxpayers aren't giving me enough. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page