NationStates Jolt Archive

It's more than interesting to see how much we pay in taxes, here in the capitalist paradise of the United States. An article in IndustryWeek (http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=11678) points out just how bad things really are.

Last year, federal income taxes totaled $932 billion, or about $6,650 per employee. But people paid $1.286 trillion in other federal taxes, mostly Social Security taxes. And -- keep those calculators going -- the state and local tax bill totaled $1.14 trillion.

Let's do some figuring. That's about $24,000 per employee. Or worse, about 40 percent of income goes to taxes. Sure, higher income earners pay a greater percentage than lower income earners. But the average of 40 percent makes me cry, especially when you consider what happens to it.

Most of it, if you're under 65 and working at a regular job, went to the less fortunate. The numbers are stunning. Federal expenditures were $2.55 trillion, with $495 billion going for national defense and another $272 billion going for purchased goods and wages paid. At the same time some $1.69 trillion was transferred to someone else -- well, actually a lot of someone elses. That's some federal case.

$1.69 trillion dollars is just taken from earners and given to non-earners. That's criminal. Or should be. No wonder people cheat on taxes.

Yup. I am totally overjoyed that I no longer have to pay income tax! :D

i filed my income tax yesterday.

my federal income tax was 8% of total family income.

considering that we take in way less in tax than we spend, i dont see that the tax rate is the problem.

Thanks to Bush's tax cuts, I don't pay any income tax. Now, if I could just get out of paying SS and Medicare tax I would be happy.

$1.69 trillion dollars is just taken from earners and given to non-earners. That's criminal. Or should be. No wonder people cheat on taxes.That's bullshit and you know it, unless you're saying that all those people who paid into Social Security and Medicare in years past and who are benefiting from it now are non-earners.

Using the Child Tax Credit and EIC, I got back several thousand dollars more than I paid in.

On DU the other week, there was a guy whining that he had to pay $1000 in taxes when he only made $16K for the year.

He worked as an independant contractor, didn't withhold anything and didn't make any deductions for work related expenses.

Using the Child Tax Credit and EIC, I got back several thousand dollars more than I paid in.

On DU the other week, there was a guy whining that he had to pay $1000 in taxes when he only made $16K for the year.

He worked as an independant contractor, didn't withhold anything and didn't make any deductions for work related expenses.
some people would greatly benefit by taking their taxes to be prepared by a professional.

i like the earned income credit. it rewards people for working even if they dont make alot of money at it.

Using the Child Tax Credit and EIC, I got back several thousand dollars more than I paid in.

On DU the other week, there was a guy whining that he had to pay $1000 in taxes when he only made $16K for the year.

He worked as an independant contractor, didn't withhold anything and didn't make any deductions for work related expenses.
almost all of what he paid in was SE tax (medicare,and SS) you don't really notice how much you pay because they hold it out a little at a time, and your employer pays half, but when you have to pay it all it's like "geez, that's a bunch of money" (even though you do get a break above the line for half of it, that probably didn't help him in the EIC since they take your AGI which is after that deduction and his EIC would have been reduced a bit.)

Thanks to Bush's tax cuts, I don't pay any income tax. Now, if I could just get out of paying SS and Medicare tax I would be happy.
thx to bush's tax cuts you won't be paying either for much longer, because they won't exist.

thx to bush's tax cuts you won't be paying either for much longer, because they won't exist.
if only :p

i filed my income tax yesterday.

my federal income tax was 8% of total family income.

considering that we take in way less in tax than we spend, i dont see that the tax rate is the problem.

Wow, must be nice. I haven't done my taxes for this year yet, but last year I paid 40% on 5500 dollars. Simply because I only worked for a few months out of the year while I was in school. Damned degree's are costing me a fortune. I figure I am probably gonna owe around 3K this time around. All because I was actually working the last 3 months of 05.

Screw SS and Medicare. But, blaming Bush for Social Security is just stupid, SS was going downhill well before he got his hands on the till.

Most of it, if you're under 65 and working at a regular job, went to the less fortunate.

Oh, horror of horrors! What a fucking nightmare!

Yup. I am totally overjoyed that I no longer have to pay income tax! :D

You just get that of other people.

if only :p

Yeah, it'll be so great when kids younger than me in situations similar to mine get forced out on the street, simply because there's no safety net to prevent that sort of thing from happening.

Don't get me wrong, though. Go ahead and fill your pockets with beautiful green while people not unlike myself are jobless and living on the street.

Yeah, it'll be so great when kids younger than me in situations similar to mine get forced out on the street, simply because there's no safety net to prevent that sort of thing from happening.

Don't get me wrong, though. Go ahead and fill your pockets with beautiful green while people not unlike myself are jobless and living on the street.
how is it suddenly my fault if you are jobless and living on the street?

the government is stealing my money, they are taking it under false pretenses and it's hurting my finanicial situation now.

I work hard for my money, it should be mine.

they are taking it under false pretenses

I don't think you understand what "false pretences" means.

how is it suddenly my fault if you are jobless and living on the street?

the government is stealing my money, they are taking it under false pretenses and it's hurting my finanicial situation now.

I work hard for my money, it should be mine.

What she said.

The Supreme Court originally ruled that income taxes were unconstitutional, so Congress amended the Constitution. Even in 1912, Congress-thingies were serious greedheads.

I don't think you understand what "false pretences" means.
okay, I misspelled a word.

They say "we will take your money and put it into an account so that when you retire you will have some income"

but what they do, is take my money, spend it on other things, and when I retire I won't get anything from them. If a civilian did that they would be arrested for fraud, I am not getting what I am paying for, and yet being forced to pay it anyway.

okay, I misspelled a word.

They say "we will take your money and put it into an account so that when you retire you will have some income"

That's not what they seem to be saying at all.

but what they do, is take my money, spend it on other things, and when I retire I won't get anything from them. If a civilian did that they would be arrested for fraud, I am not getting what I am paying for, and yet being forced to pay it anyway.

They spend tax money due the government on, *gasp*, government programmes? Say it ain't so! And it goes to the less fortunate? :eek:

You're breaking my heart, honey.

how is it suddenly my fault if you are jobless and living on the street?

the government is stealing my money, they are taking it under false pretenses and it's hurting my finanicial situation now.

I work hard for my money, it should be mine.
you already dont pay income tax. do you think you should pay NO taxes at all?

okay, I misspelled a word.

They say "we will take your money and put it into an account so that when you retire you will have some income"

but what they do, is take my money, spend it on other things, and when I retire I won't get anything from them. If a civilian did that they would be arrested for fraud, I am not getting what I am paying for, and yet being forced to pay it anyway.
it would be a wonderful thing if we could plan exactly where every dollar was going. but there's a problem, and it's called real life. you can't account for everything, and situations change.
mormon's pay tithe to the church, because they believe that all their money inevitably comes from God, and not necessarily in tangible ways. We pay tithe to the government, but we can't necessarily see how it pays back. On the other hand, the fact that you are here to complain just goes to show that without taxes and government protection, you might be dead from a roadside bomb.
be thankful for the society you live in, and pay your dues in society to keep it alive.

That's not what they seem to be saying at all.
but that is what they are saying, if you ask why you pay into Social Security, they say "so that when you are retired you can get a check".

They spend tax money due the government on, *gasp*, government programmes? Say it ain't so! And it goes to the less fortunate? :eek:

You're breaking my heart, honey.
I don't mind them spending my tax money on government programs, I mind them spending money that they say goes to Social Security, on things that have nothing to do with it. I am getting screwed out of my money, and they are lying to everyone about where it goes. I worry about all the idiots who aren't saving for retirement because they are depending on social security, where are they going to be? on the streets. why? because the government took their money, lied about where it was going, and won't be able to afford to pay them.

you already dont pay income tax. do you think you should pay NO taxes at all?
I wouldn't mind paying general taxes. I have no problem with it, as of now I am not required to.

completely different point ----> I don't like paying social security taxes.

but that is what they are saying, if you ask why you pay into Social Security, they say "so that when you are retired you can get a check".

And the people who are now, they shouldn't get a check?

I don't mind them spending my tax money on government programs, I mind them spending money that they say goes to Social Security, on things that have nothing to do with it. I am getting screwed out of my money, and they are lying to everyone about where it goes. I worry about all the idiots who aren't saving for retirement because they are depending on social security, where are they going to be? on the streets. why? because the government took their money, lied about where it was going, and won't be able to afford to pay them.

Are you under the impression that the taxes you pay today are to be saved for you, and are not used to pay for those who came before you?

If a civilian did that they would be arrested for fraud, I am not getting what I am paying for, and yet being forced to pay it anyway.
hm, no. if a civilian did that it would be called profit. building contracts for instance are allowed an extra 15% of what they bid, for incidental expenses. incidental expenses meaning all kinds of things, up to and including laziness.

I do think that taxes are being spent inefficiently. And it should be examined which programs are actually helping people, and what cuts can be made without reducing the amount people are being helped.

But the original post seems like knee-jerk libertarianism.

Believe it or not, some people think that having a social safety net isn't an inherently bad thing, and that people who try to work to support themselves and despite all their best efforts, can't, should be helped a bit. I am one of those people.

If people didn't want a social safety net, they'd vote for politicians who'd get rid of it.

Are you under the impression that the taxes you pay today are to be saved for you, and are not used to pay for those who came before you?
that's the impression that the government markets to people paying Social Security taxes. I think you are having a problem seperating those from just taxes in general.

hm, no. if a civilian did that it would be called profit. building contracts for instance are allowed an extra 15% of what they bid, for incidental expenses. incidental expenses meaning all kinds of things, up to and including laziness.
hmm, no. I don't think you understand the situation.

here.

"If you give me $20, then in one week I will give you $200"
"okay"

one week later

"where's my $200?"
"oh, I spent it on porn"
"but you said you would give me it"
"oh, things happened and I needed porn"
"well, can I have my $20 back?"
"nope."

On the other hand, the fact that you are here to complain just goes to show that without taxes and government protection, you might be dead from a roadside bomb.
be thankful for the society you live in, and pay your dues in society to keep it alive.

Oh yes, I should be thankful that a bunch of overpaid assholes who haven't held a real job in longer than I've been alive (37), demand that I fork over a substantial portion of my salary then think they have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do based on their narrow viewpoint!

Bullshit.

it would be a wonderful thing if we could plan exactly where every dollar was going. but there's a problem, and it's called real life. you can't account for everything, and situations change.

So, are you saying that the governments general inability and unwillingness to lower spending and keep track of the money spent is okay?

As has been pointed out many, many times, if a company used the same accounting practices as the USGov, that very same government woould be hauling the board of directors off to jail. But that's okay, because it's the government, and the Feds don't have to obey the law.........

I do think that taxes are being spent inefficiently. And it should be examined which programs are actually helping people, and what cuts can be made without reducing the amount people are being helped.

But the original post seems like knee-jerk libertarianism.

Believe it or not, some people think that having a social safety net isn't an inherently bad thing, and that people who try to work to support themselves and despite all their best efforts, can't, should be helped a bit. I am one of those people.

If people didn't want a social safety net, they'd vote for politicians who'd get rid of it.

I am all for helping people who honestly need help. I am not in favor of taking money from people that need it, to spend on things that don't help people and then telling the people that need help that you can't help them because you spent the money on other things.

I wouldn't mind paying general taxes. I have no problem with it, as of now I am not required to.

completely different point ----> I don't like paying social security taxes.
i much more concerned about the tax we dont pay. funding wars and pork with the tax money of the future is a scary bad idea.

that's the impression that the government markets to people paying Social Security taxes. I think you are having a problem seperating those from just taxes in general.

I think you are having a problem understanding how a pension system works.

I think you are having a problem understanding how a pension system works.
explain to me.

Get rid of all federal income and payroll taxes. That's right. All of them. Every single one, toss them into the furnace of oblivion and shoot them out the chimney of history. They raise prices by taxing every single step of the chain of production, make workers and accountants waste their time on stupid tax wrangling when they could be designing or doing something useful, and discourage saving by allowing the government to take the money by withholding and payroll taxes before it gets into your hands, and then taking it from you if you try to save it. Besides, the payroll taxes are regressive (tax the poor more than the rich), because you only have to pay up to a certain part of your income, and a lot of rich people get their money from dividends etc and not from payroll. Did you know that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security taxes don't even go into the respective programs, but are just there to fool people into thinking they are providing for them?

How, then, would you make up for this loss? Easy. Tax a certain percentage of all items purchased for personal and government consumption on the point of final purchase, and give everyone a rebate based on their family size to cover the taxes for those items essential for living (a rebate on taxes that would be incurred on the poverty line, basically). Basically, a progressive national sales tax. But eliminate the sixteenth amendment and ban federal payroll and income taxes by way of constitutional amendment. By not taxing savings or capital investment, you'd therefore increase the MPS (marginal propensity to save) and investment, which would greatly boost the economy. Consumption would not be hurt, because the inflation of costs due to the taxation of every step of production and supply etc. would be eliminated and the tax would only slightly raise prices, at least temporarily. People would have their WHOLE paycheck, and be better able to provide for themselves.

Get rid of income and payroll taxes, they're a drag on the economy due to their inflation, compliance costs and discouragement of investment and saving. The progressive national sales tax will solve all of this and allow for strong economic growth.

Oh yes, I should be thankful that a bunch of overpaid assholes who haven't held a real job in longer than I've been alive (37), demand that I fork over a substantial portion of my salary then think they have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do based on their narrow viewpoint!
faults in the system do not make the entire system faulty. by your logic you are the best person to decide what is good for society. i suspect your definition of a real job leaves something to be desired, but we all do what we do to keep society moving, politicians are no different. the fact that their viewpoints are narrow is *ideally* countered by the multiple-party system. even within a party there are divides.

So, are you saying that the governments general inability and unwillingness to lower spending and keep track of the money spent is okay?
yes. the pentagon loses more money by inefficiency than some departments have in their entire budget. if you were to enact legislation to keep track of all the money, you would increase inefficiency by orders of magnitude, just because of the time wasted pushing paper. inefficiency is a fact of life; i could probably have said all this with fewer words, but i did not. i could be doing work, but i am on NS.

As has been pointed out many, many times, if a company used the same accounting practices as the USGov, that very same government woould be hauling the board of directors off to jail. But that's okay, because it's the government, and the Feds don't have to obey the law.........
i doubt it. in the case of a company, irregular accounting practices are used to line the board of directors' pockets. if governments lose money to paper-pushing it is not the same thing. and if governments are corrupt, they're blatantly so, and award contracts to their own companies for instance.

that's the impression that the government markets to people paying Social Security taxes. I think you are having a problem seperating those from just taxes in general.No it's not, Smunkee, and it's never been marketed that way. It's always been the case that our Social Security taxes pay the current retired group's benefits, and that our kids pay ours, and it's never been presented as anything other than that, not by the goverment anyway. By people who hate the Social Security system, perhaps, but not by the government.

No it's not, Smunkee, and it's never been marketed that way. It's always been the case that our Social Security taxes pay the current retired group's benefits, and that our kids pay ours, and it's never been presented as anything other than that, not by the goverment anyway. By people who hate the Social Security system, perhaps, but not by the government.
even now, they are using the money paid into social security to pay for other things, when did they say they would do that? the whole time they are talking about how much trouble SS is in they are spending the money on other things

that would be like me saying "I can't pay my rent, I am broke, I will get evicted in 2 months, hey, did you see my new plasma TV and DVR? aren't they cool? I am so sad that I don't have money for rent"

Taxes are brilliant, aren't they? me --->:fluffle:<---taxes

even now, they are using the money paid into social security to pay for other things, when did they say they would do that? the whole time they are talking about how much trouble SS is in they are spending the money on other things

that would be like me saying "I can't pay my rent, I am broke, I will get evicted in 2 months, hey, did you see my new plasma TV and DVR? aren't they cool? I am so sad that I don't have money for rent"
money is being taken out of SS to pay for iraq. this is wellknown. but it is also being taken out of a lot of other departments. i agree it shouldn't be touched except for SS but like i said, the circumstances of the world change, and if i were a hawk i would say that taking money out of SS now ensures there will be an america later for your family to grow old in. if i were a hawk that is.

money is being taken out of SS to pay for iraq. this is wellknown. but it is also being taken out of a lot of other departments. i agree it shouldn't be touched except for SS but like i said, the circumstances of the world change, and if i were a hawk i would say that taking money out of SS now ensures there will be an america later for your family to grow old in. if i were a hawk that is.
okay, I can live with that. I quit now.

although I would still like Fass to explain to me.

also, I support the Fair Tax. I would have to pay taxes then, but like I said, I don't have a problem with paying taxes, I mostly have a problem with that money being misused. I don't know that the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/)would really fix the misuse (probably it wouldn't) but, at least then I would have more control over how much I spent in taxes.

No it's not, Smunkee, and it's never been marketed that way. It's always been the case that our Social Security taxes pay the current retired group's benefits, and that our kids pay ours, and it's never been presented as anything other than that, not by the goverment anyway. By people who hate the Social Security system, perhaps, but not by the government.

Possibly. However, what many seniors overlook is that todays employees pay a far higher proportion of their income in social security/medicare, than seniors did. So there is this assumption that they paid in full for what they are receiving, when they are in fact public charges.

Anyway, social security is just a big ponzi scheme. And it's the people under 35 who are going to be fucked. The senior types could at least acknowledge this.

money is being taken out of SS to pay for iraq. this is wellknown. but it is also being taken out of a lot of other departments. i agree it shouldn't be touched except for SS but like i said, the circumstances of the world change, and if i were a hawk i would say that taking money out of SS now ensures there will be an america later for your family to grow old in. if i were a hawk that is.

The government has no choice but to spend the money it recieves in social security taxes. If it just 'locked' it away, the effect on the economy of withdrawing all that money from circulation would be devastating.

In any case, all money taken from social security is done in the form of a loan from the trust, and counts towards the national debt.

faults in the system do not make the entire system faulty. by your logic you are the best person to decide what is good for society. i suspect your definition of a real job leaves something to be desired, but we all do what we do to keep society moving, politicians are no different. the fact that their viewpoints are narrow is *ideally* countered by the multiple-party system. even within a party there are divides.

I am the best person to decide what is best for me and that's as far as I will ever be willing to go. The only person who can decide what is best for you, is you. Call me one of those screwy libertarians so many Demopublicans scoff at.

My definition of a real job? Lemme see, the ladies working at the gas station around the corner have real jobs, the guys building houses nearby have real jobs. Is that REAL enough for you sir/madam? I never claimed that I have a real job, I am an CG artist, I don't work, I play on the computer and get paid for it.:cool:


yes. the pentagon loses more money by inefficiency than some departments have in their entire budget. if you were to enact legislation to keep track of all the money, you would increase inefficiency by orders of magnitude, just because of the time wasted pushing paper. inefficiency is a fact of life; i could probably have said all this with fewer words, but i did not. i could be doing work, but i am on NS.

And that makes it okay?

i doubt it. in the case of a company, irregular accounting practices are used to line the board of directors' pockets. if governments lose money to paper-pushing it is not the same thing. and if governments are corrupt, they're blatantly so, and award contracts to their own companies for instance.

Enron anyone?

also, I support the Fair Tax. I would have to pay taxes then, but like I said, I don't have a problem with paying taxes, I mostly have a problem with that money being misused. I don't know that the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/)would really fix the misuse (probably it wouldn't) but, at least then I would have more control over how much I spent in taxes.

You, sir, are correct. :D

The government has no choice but to spend the money it recieves in social security taxes. If it just 'locked' it away, the effect on the economy of withdrawing all that money from circulation would be devastating.

In any case, all money taken from social security is done in the form of a loan from the trust, and counts towards the national debt.
yes but loans must be repaid, not simply accrued, which is what the current government is doing. more money goes to paying off the interest on the debt than the debt itself. and the money would not be locked away, it would be spent continously on the current generation requiring SS (although i don't actually know how it is spent).

yes but loans must be repaid, not simply accrued, which is what the current government is doing. more money goes to paying off the interest on the debt than the debt itself. and the money would not be locked away, it would be spent continously on the current generation requiring SS (although i don't actually know how it is spent).

The thing is, social security runs a huge surpluss right now, but one day it is going to run into a huge deficit. If we balance payments to expenditures, that's fine for people who are nearing retirement right now - they'd pay a lot less than they currently do - but is absolutely unfair for those who are twenty plus years away, because they would end up paying two or three times as much as they would otherwise have too.

So, to make it fair for younger workers, you pretty much have to set it so it runs a surplus.

although I would still like Fass to explain to me.



The Nazz already has. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10757753&postcount=36)

You, sir, are correct. :D
That's a ma'am at the other end of the ethernet. But you are both correctly embracing the Fair Tax.

The way revenue is raised is only a part of the problem. The biggest problem with our budget is that it revolves around redistribution. Look back at those numbers. Two thirds of our government's expenditures are for the purposes of giving money to those who don't have it. Whether or not you believe that the government is responsible for providing for those who are "unlucky", you should be concerned about the amounts involved. We could reduce the rest of the expenditures to zero and we'd still be unable to keep up with the rest.

The Nazz already has. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10757753&postcount=36)
but I don't like him I like you! :D

(oh, and I missed it, thanks, for pointing it out, see? that's why I like you)

how is it suddenly my fault if you are jobless and living on the street?

the government is stealing my money, they are taking it under false pretenses and it's hurting my finanicial situation now.

I work hard for my money, it should be mine.

Most people get their money through other people's hard work.

Most people get their money through other people's hard work.
hmm.... I have to think about that......

Most people get their money through other people's hard work.

...or their ideas, risk-taking, willingness to expand... which is how they got a job in the first place.

Most people get their money through other people's hard work.
If we think about that 1.6 trillion that the government takes from the rich and pays out to the poor, I guess you are correct. If we consider what earned income really is, then you are incorrect. Income is earned because one person provides a service that is desired by another. There is no third party directly involved.

Usually those born into wealth, do better than those who don't. Fortune of birth tends to be one of the largest factors in deciding success. And that's just middle-class parents bring up middle-class children, WAY before we get into "it's not what you know, it's who you know" territory.

That's with the 'unfair' re-distribution of wealth, scrap it completely and the working class will have a ceiling, imposed on them by their economic superiors, that will be very difficult to overcome.

Of course, I could have been referring to the lazy-yet-wealthy who simply enjoy the fruits of the endevours of their work force. Or is that too commie?

If we think about that 1.6 trillion that the government takes from the rich and pays out to the poor, I guess you are correct. If we consider what earned income really is, then you are incorrect. Income is earned because one person provides a service that is desired by another. There is no third party directly involved.

And -ping- we hear the irrelevant word so cherished by those who follow these arguments. 'Directly', ladies and getleman, is neither here nor there. A talented, hard-working man without education will find it a hell of a lot harder in life than an average man, born into wealth and educated well.

The ability to provide the desired service depends on a number of factors, direct or otherwise.

I don't pay income tax. Or any tax from my wage.

All hail cash in hand.

In any case, all money taken from social security is done in the form of a loan from the trust,
Correct.
and counts towards the national debt.
Incorrect.

The official national debt total does NOT include funds borrowed from Social Security, on the grounds that the government cannot owe itself money.

It's bullshit, yes, but that's what happens nonetheless.

I don't pay income tax. Or any tax from my wage.

All hail cash in hand.

*writes to inland revenue after seeing amusing advert on television telling him that there is "nothing [he] can do about it"

*writes to inland revenue after seeing amusing advert on television telling him that there is "nothing [he] can do about it"
:p

That's a ma'am at the other end of the ethernet. But you are both correctly embracing the Fair Tax.

The way revenue is raised is only a part of the problem. The biggest problem with our budget is that it revolves around redistribution. Look back at those numbers. Two thirds of our government's expenditures are for the purposes of giving money to those who don't have it. Whether or not you believe that the government is responsible for providing for those who are "unlucky", you should be concerned about the amounts involved. We could reduce the rest of the expenditures to zero and we'd still be unable to keep up with the rest.

The disabled and the elderly are more than merely "unlucky."

Social Security is not a redistributive program.

Social Security is not a redistributive program.
Baloney. The recipients of SS are certainly not living on the proceeds of their investments. And the government earns no money of its own? Where could the rest come from?

some people would greatly benefit by taking their taxes to be prepared by a professional.

Some people would benefit from filling out the 1040EZ properly. I was talking to a guy who said he was paying 20% on 18,000 a year. His employer did the witholding, but he thought filing a return would somehow legitimize the taxes. Poor libertarians are funny. My town(Eugene, OR) is widely reputed to be a hive of liberal hippies, so why don't I know any?

Most people get their money through other people's hard work.

No. Most people get a fraction of the money that their own work produces. Most of the money goes to people who make their money through other people's hard work.

Although, I think we're actually making the same point.:cool:

Some people would benefit from filling out the 1040EZ properly. I was talking to a guy who said he was paying 20% on 18,000 a year. His employer did the witholding, but he thought filing a return would somehow legitimize the taxes. Poor libertarians are funny. My town(Eugene, OR) is widely reputed to be a hive of liberal hippies, so why don't I know any?

you mean that in order to "protest" the unfairness (or illegality) of the income tax he let the government keep all the money it owed him as a refund?

wow that seems just a tad shortsighted.

Incorrect.

The official national debt total does NOT include funds borrowed from Social Security, on the grounds that the government cannot owe itself money.

It's bullshit, yes, but that's what happens nonetheless.

Not so much.

Structure of the national debt (http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm)

The money owed to social security is included under the intragovernmental holdings, and accounts for around $1.5 trillion.

Actually, once intragovernmental holdings are excluded, the nations finances aren't all that bad. (Debt < 50% of GDP).

Just cut military spending by 95%. The remaining 5% go to administrators who will have to destroy all of the remaining arms without hurting anyone. And then when that done, cut 100% of the remaining 5% and then everyone in the US just saved (600 billion/ 300 million) like two thousand dollars.

you mean that in order to "protest" the unfairness (or illegality) of the income tax he let the government keep all the money it owed him as a refund?

wow that seems just a tad shortsighted.

Go for the gold. The word is stupid. Strangely, enough the guy seemed pretty bright otherwise. Some people confuse me mightily.

It's more than interesting to see how much we pay in taxes, here in the capitalist paradise of the United States. An article in IndustryWeek (http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=11678) points out just how bad things really are.

Let's do some figuring. That's about $24,000 per employee. Or worse, about 40 percent of income goes to taxes. Sure, higher income earners pay a greater percentage than lower income earners. But the average of 40 percent makes me cry, especially when you consider what happens to it.

$1.69 trillion dollars is just taken from earners and given to non-earners. That's criminal. Or should be. No wonder people cheat on taxes.

I don't get this guys numbers at all. I'm looking at the gdp breakdown on the BEA site for 2005:
Federal expenditures: $877.7 billion
National defense: $587.1 billion
Nondefense: $290.6 billion
State and local expenditures: $1,485.2 billion

Out of a gdp of $12,487.1 billion and Personal consumption
expenditures of $8,745.7 billion. Apparently all the money that doesn't go to National defense goes to "non-earners."

I don't get this guys numbers at all.

Yep, U.S. government spending is about 30% of GDP or maybe a bit more Bush is in power, but we're told 40% of income goes in taxes and we're told higher income earners pay even more. Looks like over ten percent of U.S. income just disapears. Personally I'd look under the cushions of Dick Cherneys old couch at Haliburton.

Ah yes, tax day. We all want the government milk, and as much as we can drink, but we hate to pay for feeding of the cow.

Given that we all rely on that milk in some form or another, you'll forgive me if I don't take your complaints too seriously.

BTW, my income was tax exempt this year per being in Japan, had to spend a number fo hours filling out the forms to prove this though. :p

In Britain taxes are paying for lots of worthwhile things so we love them. :)

In Britain taxes are paying for lots of worthwhile things so we love them. :)
I most certainly do not love them.

Everytime I have come in contact with a public sector organisation, I can't help but think how much more efficient (and friendly) it would be if it were run by a company instead. There are certain areas of the public sector that need to stay public, such as health care, the police, education etc, but apart from that privatise it and let us keep our own money.

I most certainly do not love them.

Everytime I have come in contact with a public sector organisation, I can't help but think how much more efficient (and friendly) it would be if it were run by a company instead. There are certain areas of the public sector that need to stay public, such as health care, the police, education etc, but apart from that privatise it and let us keep our own money.

We, as in...me.

Also we, as in... the people who voted Labour. (which excludes me :O)

Also we, as in... the people who voted Labour. (which excludes me :O)
I see, so the 25% of the population who voted for Labour 'love taxes' without exception, and can be considered to speak for the entire population?

I see, so the 25% of the population who voted for Labour 'love taxes' without exception, and can be considered to speak for the entire population?

Yes. Yes they can.

Yes. Yes they can.
:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
If you think about it though, they really do speak for the whole country. In that there is a Labour government, which can do what it likes...effectively.

If you think about it though, they really do speak for the whole country. In that there is a Labour government, which can do what it likes...effectively.
There is no Labour Government anymore. There is an independent Prime Minister, and a Labour Party. The two are no longer the same.

There is no Labour Government anymore. There is an independent Prime Minister, and a Labour Party. The two are no longer the same.

Which is worse for the immediately forseeable future. Blair could go and declare war on anybody.

Which is worse for the immediately forseeable future. Blair could go and declare war on anybody.
Why would he do that? You might not like the guy, but I don't think he's an evil warmongering fiend.

Plus, because he no longer has Party support, I would guarantee that there would be a motion of no-confidence/a Bill to remove his ability to go to war in Parliament faster than he can say "today, coalition forces began..."

Why would he do that? You might not like the guy, but I don't think he's an evil warmongering fiend.

Plus, because he no longer has Party support, I would guarantee that there would be a motion of no-confidence/a Bill to remove his ability to go to war in Parliament faster than he can say "today, coalition forces began..."

lol