What a unique way to put it. I work for the gov't until May every year!
That is certainly eye opening.
In a democratic republic, we get the tax obligation we vote for. Perhaps we
should move Election Day to April.
Taxes really don't need to go down. That's a false premise. If you
want the tax "burden" to go down, then there needs to be investment in
infrastructure and research, employment programs should be enhanced, and
resources given unquestioned to military and national security need to be
reassigned. Under the current President, government employment has gone down.
Your simplistic argument is nothing but mindless parroting and you offer
absolutely nothing as far as substantive porposals on how to address the issue
of tazation. There should be tax reform, but special interests in Washington
won't let that happen, and Congress serves their masters (not the American
people). Are you willing to take on this windmill?
In 1900 there were hardly any paved roads, no highway system (no automobiles),
no airports, our military ranked 17th in the world, etc, etc, etc. If we want
to go back to Tax Freedom Day in 1900, we will have to give up a lot of things
including world prestige.
Measured as a percentage of GDP, U.S. taxes are just about the lowest in the
developed world. If we want to live in a modern society, we have to pay for it.
I have an easy solution to this problem. Quit creating economic incentives for
business to move off shore. Tax imports heavily like most other countries do.
American companies will find that it is not financially beneficial to continue
to operate sweatshops in third world countries and they will bring manufacturing
jobs back to America. We will increase the number of manufacturing jobs in
America and decrease in the need for entitlement programs and an opportunity to
lower the national debt. Tax revenue will increase at the local, state and
federal level. Win Win for everyone.
Tax obligations on the Middle Class are growing, but since when did
conservatives care about the Middle Class?
Wait what? So you mean we have to pay for a military which outspends
the rest of the world 2-3 times over? We have to pay for those 2 decade long
wars in the Middle East? We have to pay for bank bailouts and other handouts to
Wall Street? Boy, and here I thought all of that was free!!!No
wonder why other countries don't just give blank checks to their
militaries, go to war for bogus reasons, and have strict financing regulation!
LOL! The problem is, even with all of the taxes we are paying. We still
can't cover what we are spending every year. That is why we have
$17,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. That is why we have $90,000,000,000,000.00 in
unfunded liabilities. That is why we are screwed as a country and people
financially.You really believe our taxes paid for the past wars? We
borrowed money for that. Do you think our taxes cover the roads? We borrowed
money for that.What we really need to do, is STOP BORROWING money.
Once we solve that problem, then we can move on to what programs do we cut down,
but, still maintain 10-20% of the budget to pay down our debts.Then
and only then will we be financially solvent as a country.Under our
current president we have been downgraded. Under our current president we
escalated war. Under the current president our debt increased $7 Trillion.Bush has blame but Barack hasn't been the savior either.
This story is only true for the 1/2 that pay taxes, for the other half, they can
celebrate every day of the year.
There are a lot things going into the deficit and debt stew. Most have been
mentioned, except one, that being the decrease in marginal tax rates at the high
end for individuals and corporations over the last 30 years. But many here will
argue it's not right to tax the wealthy at higher rates. I, as a Marxist
theoretician, would answer "it's OK because of the workings of surplus
value in the employer-employee relation."Such insight is
inadmissible here, but the principle is operative fully.
RE: IDC "This story is only true for the 1/2 that pay taxes, for the other
half, they can celebrate every day of the year." Everybody pays some sort
of tax, especially the regressive sales tax.
Just a friendly reminder folks -- No one has paid one red CENT
toward Bush's $3 Trillion Wars in the Middle East.
The date depends on your tax bracket. My father in law is in the
highest federal tax bracket. He's an antrepreneour (likes starting new
businesses, and buying and selling realestate, office buildings, etc). So pays
lots of captial gains taxes... and lives in a high taxed state.He
has several busineses he owns and runs and collects a pay check from.
He's considered retiring. He frequently asks, "Why work? You are
working for the Government more than you are for your family at this point".
He says he only gets to keep ~50% of his paycheck. The Government
takes ~50% of the rewards of his labors... and he gets to keep ~50% to support
his family. The harder he works... the more the government makes. If he
takes a risk and makes a good investment... the government reaps the rewards.
He's working for the Government! Why not just retire....That
though crosses his mind when he gets paid (and realizes he only gets to keep
~50% of his earnings).Kinda makes you want to retire...
Re: 2bits "That though crosses his mind when he gets paid (and realizes he
only gets to keep ~50% of his earnings)."Yes, but 50% of what?
Also, where does he come up with the 50% figure? The highest marginal rate and
the capital gains rate aren't even close to 50%.
I would like to see the "tax freedom day" for all the state and local
taxes, fees, licenses, permits and costs of local and state governments.Then the freedom day for all health care costs. All charity and
religious costs, All transportation costs, All utility costs, etc. etc. etc.Maybe we could find some new candidates for our hate.
Why can't we give the businesses and individuals an option to actually do
the work for the government or directly take care of some need instead of paying
taxes? I personally would be much happier to pay my taxes by taking care of some
actual visible need - e.g work on a software project, teach a child to read,
help some college student pay for school, or take care of a needy family. This
way I would not be looking for deductions and be proud of contributing more than
my legally required share. With the current method I look for every legal
deduction. Why? Because I do not trust that the government will do a good job
spending the money. The charitable donation method does not cut it unless we
make it a tax credit instead of a deduction. Donating to a charity that helps
the government spend less in some way should be a tax credit for each dollar the
@marxist,Re "Yes, but 50% of what"...That's why I
kinda roll my eyes when he complains about it. He pays more in taxes quarterly
than I make in a year. So I don't feel too sorry for him. But I can
understand him. He's not a big Federal Government fan. So it kinda erks
him that the people he's not a fan of make as much off his hard work as he
does. I know... kinda selfish to want to keep more of his pay check
(even if he doesn't need it).Money is the way people like him
keep score. And it bugs them that if they make a basket... they only get 1
point, when others get 2.===About the ~50% tax...I
said "~"50% because it's "approximatly" 50%. It's more like 45% (all taxes combined). But it's close enough.He combines all his taxes in his mind... Federal Taxes + State Taxes,
Capital Gains, Social Security, property taxes, Sales tax, etc, etc.His income usually involves a big sale. Say he sells a $1 Million office
building... he gets to keep $500,000, Government gets $500,000... for doing
@2 bits: The wealthiest Americans pay an average income tax rate of 16%. Those
slightly well off pay a bit more, typically 20-21%. Capital gains taxes top out
at 20% and that income is not subject to income or SS tax. If your father-in-law
is truly wealthy he probably pays very little in SS taxes due to the income cap.
I don't know what state he is in, but there is really no one who pays 50%
of their income to the government.
We have limited the Federal Government to taxing us for 17 duties (they are
enumerated in Article I, Section 8). Those 17 duties cost less than 33% of the
current Federal Budget. The first step in balancing the Federal Budget is for
the Court to do its duty and throw out any legislation that taxes us for
anything that is not on that list. If we really want those services, we must
also follow the Constitution and delegate those duties to the States or to
ourselves.ObamaCare is not on that list.Social Security
is not on the list.ObamaPhones are not on that list.Vacations in Hawaii are not on that list.Golf is not on that
list.Flying around the country campaigning for programs that Obama
wants is not on that list.If we want to be free from the growing
demands from Government, WE must elect ONLY those people who sustain the
Constitution. Check the voting records for OUR Congressmen. If any one of them
has voted to fund anything that is not authorized in Section 8, that Congressman
has violated our trust.
2 Bits,If your Father in Law is paying nearly 50% in taxes he needs
a better accountant. I have known many wealthy folks and entrepreneurs. They
don't pay anything like that. I do understand the state your live in
matters. But that is a huge number. When tax rates were much higher a friend
(who was making about $500K in today's money) remarked that the then being
talked about flat tax of about 17% would be a tax increase for him. Lots of
huge corporations pay in the single digits.
@2bits: Okay he sells a one million dollar office bldg. He pays capital gains
tax on the profits he made, not on the sale price. Federal capital gains taxes
max out at 20% most states max out around 5%. So maybe he pays 25%, not 50%.
And meanwhile barack has added more to the national debt in his time than almost
all past presidents in the history of our country combined.And
barack told us he'd cut the deficit in half in his first term.------He increased the debt------
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahWe have limited the Federal
Government to taxing us for 17 duties (they are enumerated in Article I, Section
8). ======= I work for the DoD.It's one on
the list -- and yet, you taunt and dispise me and my job?How can you
support the Constitution [article I, Section 8] -- and then do that?
A deficit is the amount by which a sum falls short of some reference amount.A debt is the sum total obligation owed by one party (the debtor) to a
second party, the creditor; ======== So, the fact is;Pres. Obama DID cut the deficit in half, just as he promised. [Revenue vs.
Spending]The National debt [something entirely different] was
something thrown out of control by the previous administration, and will take
YEARS to resolve.
Worth noting the history of tax freedom day: (According to a FOX news
article)Tax Freedom Day 1980-2001: 1980 April 19 1991 April 20
1981 April 22 1992 April 18 1982 April 20 1993 April 20 1983
April 17 1994 April 22 1984 April 15 1995 April 23 1985 April 17
1996 April 24 1986 April 18 1997 April 26 1987 April 22 1998 April
28 1988 April 19 1999 April 29 1989 April 21 2000 May 1 1990
April 20 2001 May 3 And in the Tax Foundation's website:2013 April 182012 April 132011 April 112010 April 9Looks like the worst years were the early 2000 years.
"If 100 percent of your wages were used to pay all your annual local, state
and federal taxes before you were allowed to keep anything for yourself, you
would be working for government until April 21 this year."Silly
conservative slant on things. In fact, the government works for me, and it works
365 days a year. I pay a relatively meager portion of my middle-class income for
all these government services. Unfortunately, the government has to borrow a lot
to provide these services. This wouldn't be the case if we were as
far-sighted as our parents and grandparents and put the top tax rate back at a
sustainable level (70 percent or higher).
You can split hairs on whether Obama has been successful on the deficit or the
debt, and you can say that he did what he said he would do (although
factcheckdotorg said he didn't). But regardless of how we
spin it or split the hairs... it's a documented fact that recently our debt
reached an ominous tipping point of our debt being over 100% of our GDP. I
don't know if that's because our GDP went down... or because our debt
went up. But I KNOW it's not a "Good" thing.Even IF
we got serious about paying off our debt now... we would still lose ground each
year, unless something serious happens (like a depression, default, or colapse
of our currency so money means nothing).That's bad.That's like the tipping point when your dad's paycheck won't
even pay the interest on your family's debt. By then you're in a
downward spiral with now way out (without outside help).
In the end, I like a modified flat tax of some sort. The current system is a
Legislatures, federal or state, want ever more money through taxation. They
believe that sending money to Washington or Salt Lake City will create more jobs
than spending the money at home will, an unproven theory. The Fabian
Society's goal was to institute a socialist economy in a gradual fashion
rather than through revolution. This appears to be Mr. Obama and the far
left's plan in the US. It's a Boiling the Frog method. In the end, we
owe the government everything and they provide everything that the congress
thinks we need. We can learn from the socialist, workers' paradises of
Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, the former USSR and the faltering left wing
economy of France.
EsquireSpringville, UTIn the end, I like a modified flat tax of some
sort. The current system is a mess.2:44 p.m. April 8, 2014====== That will nver happen.The filthy 1% of the rich
[you know, who own 80% of everything, and now OWN the Government too] are paying LESS than the rest of us are.They do not want to see
that, and THEY have the money [and the Supreme Court] to get anything they
@2bits"it's a documented fact that recently our debt reached an
ominous tipping point of our debt being over 100% of our GDP. I don't know
if that's because our GDP went down... or because our debt went up."In 2008 it was mostly GDP falling. Since then the economy has recovered
(in a sense, most of the gains have gone to those at the top) so GDP has gone up
I think around 2-2.5% on average the past 4 years, with debt out-pacing that for
growth. Let's see... assuming 2% GDP growth each year we'd
need 2% debt growth to break even, 2% of 17 trillion is... 340 billion. So if we
get our deficit to something like 300 billion or less each year the debt:GDP
ratio will decline despite a rising debt.
To "airnaut" I really wish you would stop with the lies. The top 1% do
NOT own 80% of everything. See "Average America vs the One Percent" in
Forbes. The top 1% control 43% of the wealth in the US, at the same time taht
top 1% also pay 35% of all income taxes. It sure seems like they are paying a
lot more than the rest of us. They average about 23% of their income going for
income taxes. That does not include all of the other taxes that they pay.So that you understand the great efforts that the wealthy have to go to
so that they don't get taxed into the poor house, read "Phil Mickelson
Wins Historic British Open And Incurs 61% Tax Rate" in Forbes. Think about
hte last time you were taxed so much that 61% of what you earned went to the
government before it got into your hands.Tell us how hard would you
work if 50% or more of every dollar you earn went to the government as income
taxes. Then you get to pay sales taxes, property taxes, phone taxes, and so
forth on top of that.
To "RedShirtCalTech", I wish you would stop telling lies too. We are
talking about U.S. taxation here, not UK taxation (45% of Mickelson's taxes
from the British Open were paid to the UK).Your statement, "Tell
us how hard would you work if 50% or more of every dollar you earn went to the
government as income taxes", is ridiculous because no American (not even
Mickelson) pays 50% or more of every dollar they earn in taxes. His marginal
rate is probably above 50%, but he does not pay it on "every dollar" he
earns. See "The truth behind Mickelson's taxes" at CNN Money.
Spoiler alert: according to CNN "millionaires pay roughly 26% of their
income in federal taxes, on average."
Futhermore "RedShirtCalTech", you sort of shoot yourself in the foot
with your own argument when you observe that "the top 1% control 43% of the
wealth in the US, at the same time taht top 1% also pay 35% of all income
taxes." If the top 1% have 43% of the wealth, shouldn't they pay at
least 43%?To make it easy, let's assume you and I are the only
two citizens in a country. If I have 80% of the wealth but only pay 60% of the
taxes, then that means you are paying 40% of the taxes even though you only have
20% of the wealth. What's fair about that?Or assume, in the
same two-taxpayer hypothetical country, that I have all the income and you are
retired (and earn nothing). Then I would be paying all the tax and you would be
paying none. Would it be fair for me to complain that I am paying all the tax
in that circumstance? Of course not. And you rightly would not be shedding
tears for poor rich me.
@Mike Richards. There is no such thing as an Obama phone. I am sure you will not
be partaking of Social Security and Medicare when you retire. I am also sure you
will not be traveling on the interstate since a large portion of that is funded
by the federal government even though that is not in the 17 duties. What about the water you drink or the police or the fire fighters you may
call. A lot of local police and fire departments petition and receive federal
grants for training and equipment.Oh the hypocrisy
To "Redshirt GlenbeckU" I hate to be the one to teach you this, but you
are not taxed on your wealth. You are taxed on your income. The top 1%
accounts for 20% of income in the US, yet they pay 35% of all income taxes.
There is a difference between wealth and income.Think of it this
way. Are you taxed on how much you have in your savings account? What about
401K, is that taxed based on how much you have saved? We are approaching the
day you pay your income taxes. What is your income, and what represents your
wealth?Is is fair that the peopel that earn 20% of all income pay
35% of all income taxes? Is it fair that the lowest income brackets have
negative tax rates? Did you know that it is possible to get more back from the
government on your income taxes than what you paid?
Income taxes aren't the only taxes people pay.You get taxed
when you make itTaxed if you save ittaxed if you spend ittaxed
if you own your hometaxed if you own any propertytaxed if you invest
ittaxed if you sell an investmenttaxed on any interest you earntaxed if you dietaxed on every business deal you make...They
tax every dollar several times..It's not just federal income
taxes. There's State income taxes as well. And State sales tax (as high
10% in some counties in CA). Capitol gains tax, earned income taxes, property
tax, gas tax, etc...I don't mind sharing my income with the
government, I get a lot for it. But there has to be a limit...
To RedShirtCalTechPasedena, CA"There is a difference
between wealth and income."Then you can understand my
embarrassment for you. I was going to point out the difference to you in my
first post (since it was you that originally conflated the two when you said
"The top 1% control 43% of the wealth in the US, at the same time the top 1%
also pay 35% of all income taxes") but decided to be kind and go with it.
But now that you want to reveerse yourself and undermine your original argument,
I am fine with that too.By the way (and sorry for any further
embarrassment), Pasadena is spelled with an "a" rather than an
To "Redshirt GlenbeckU" I do understand your embarrassment. Now that
you have learned the difference between income and wealth and taxation in the
US, what are you going to do?What do I have to be embarrassed about?
I knew what I was talking about, you didn't. Plus, I really don't
care how Pasadena is spelled, so why would I care if you fixed my spelling?
FYI, I am not a spell checker and I know that I often make spelling mistakes.
Open minded mormon.How can you be against all the wars and work for
the DoD? Thats Hypocrisy just like everything else I read from you. The DoD
hires internet trolls. I believe thats your official position with them. Why
else would you have 20 usernames?Anti-Gun but owns them.Boasts
about how great the Brethren are except when talking about defending traditional
marriage and then are considered outdated.Believes in Creationism and
Evolution when each is socially acceptable.A double minded man is
unstable in all his ways. You will have to make a choice eventually. What do you