Happy Tax Day!!! TL;DR warning

#126
#126
05_never_again said:
The "that" Obama was referring to was a bridge/road that help transport your products, not the business itself (i.e., he wasn't saying that a business owner didn't build his/her business), but that quote did provide insight into how Obama thinks about government.
Click to expand...
And his severe lack of knowledge regarding starting a business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#127
#127
tumscalcium said:
And his severe lack of knowledge regarding starting a business.
Click to expand...
Yes. The "someone else" who made the bridge happen wasn't even the government - they simply took the money from someone who generated income in the past and used it to pay a contractor, who built the bridge. He falls into (purposely) this fallacy that things that the government does would never come into being if it wasn't for the government.

The entrepreneur is the entity that makes the whole thing run, not the government. Obama (and others of his ilk) look at it backwards in order to promote a narrative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77, 82_VOL_83, AM64 and 1 other person
#128
#128
luthervol said:
The deductions for a single head of household with 3 children would be substantial. I would think around 30k.
I'm even better with the minimum 13% rate on everyone if reasonable deductions remain in place.
Click to expand...

Why should there be deductions for kids? More kids means the family takes more from the government ... education, etc; and should pay more for the additional benefits. You have seemed to be concerned about man-made climate change; you do realize more people equals more bodies generating heat, consuming products and services that require energy, and generating more waste? Why should we reward people for increasing a climatological disaster in the making?
 
#129
#129
luthervol said:
People ease the burden also. Who are the workers of the future? If no one had kids, we would be even worse off.
Click to expand...

You mean the kids who go for liberal arts degrees and no worthwhile job skills ... and want the government to pay off their worthless degrees? Those workers of the future???
 
#130
#130
05_never_again said:
Yes. The "someone else" who made the bridge happen wasn't even the government - they simply took the money from someone who generated income in the past and used it to pay a contractor, who built the bridge. He falls into (purposely) this fallacy that things that the government does would never come into being if it wasn't for the government.

The entrepreneur is the entity that makes the whole thing run, not the government. Obama (and others of his ilk) look at it backwards in order to promote a narrative.
Click to expand...
He acts as if the govt is some benevolent foreign country sacrificing it's own money and people and costs us nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 05_never_again
#134
#134
luthervol said:
They are reducing their taxable income by $30k. Their taxable income would be adjusted from 50k to 20k. They would still be required to pay the appropriate taxes on income from 0-20k.
Click to expand...
so its fair for a family to get a deduction when an individual, or married couple doesn't? maybe the family of four makes more than that individual, where is the fairness in that?
 
#135
#135
LouderVol said:
Where does our money go? Straight down the drain. Yes I have beat this over the head, but I figure people would appreciate this information more today than other days.

Social Security: 1,102 Billion (SS taxes only cover 949 billion, the rest is paid out of the SS pot)
Medicare: 679 billion (medicare taxes only cover 289 of this, the rest comes out of general taxes)
Medicaid: 418 billion
"welfare" Unemployment Comp, Child Nutrition, Supplemental Security Income, Student Loans, retirement programs (these are considered Mandatory): 642 billion
Interest on Debt: 479 billion
Military Spending: 989 billion (this includes more than the DoD (576 billion) (VA, and most of the Alphabet Agencies that "protect us")) *after the first 325 billion, we are in debt.
And then you get about 437 billion in other spending that we can straight up not afford.

All told its 4,746 Billion dollars (4.746 Trillion) we only bring in 3.645 Trillion. 1,101 Trillion dollar deficit

Revenue: Income Tax: ~50% 1.824 Trillion
SS, Medicare and other payroll: ~36% 1.295 Trillion (compare this number to the money spent above)
Corporate Tax: ~7% 255 Billion
Other earnings: ~8% just over 260 Billion

So seeing where we are making money lets look at popular ideas:

TAX MOAAARRRRR!!!!! Especially those evil corporations. We would need to increase our corporate tax rate 6x to cover the deficit.
Well we already have one of the highest corporate rates in the world, and highest among developed nations at 39%FACT CHECK: Does The U.S. Have The Highest Corporate Tax Rate In The World?
So we would need a tax rate at around 234% to cover the deficit. Quiet impossible at least twice over.

Well maybe we just tax the rich: Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2017 Update
They (top 1%) pay about 600 billion of the total 1.4 billion. so we would just need to increase their tax rate 3x to cover the deficit. Average tax rate now of 27% (what they actually paid not the rates) so they would need to be 81% to pay the deficit. so even the 70% outrageous tax thrown around wouldn't be enough. I doubt we are keeping the rich people here at that tax rate.

Everyone shares the burden maybe? 14.34% effective tax rate across us all would need to be right around 27% averaged tax rate to cover the deficit. So the "average" American would need to pay a tax of the top 1% to cover the deficit. I doubt that sells very well at all.

We don't have an income problem, we brought in 200 billion more, with tax cuts, in 2018 than we did in 2017.

We have a SPENDING problem. we SPEND too much. We can not tax our way out of this mess. We have to cut spending.

If we cut EVERYTHING by 30% we could cover it. *if we actually keep the government from increasing spending in the future beyond rate of tax income increase*
Maybe 20% cut, and increase taxes to cover the rest (~18% average tax rate)
Maybe 10% cut, and increase taxes to ~22% average tax rate
Click to expand...
All I can say is you are getting older every day. Be careful what you wish for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#137
#137
luthervol said:
lol.........Who has ever found the graduated tax scale to be a disincentive to the point of not making the extra money? And if anyone does, it's probably an indicator that they should work a little less and enjoy some free time with their friends and family anyway.
The $100 I make that takes me from $199,900 to $200,000 is taxed at 20% so I'm willing to do it, but the $100 I make that will take me from $200,000 to $200,100 will be taxed at 25% so I'm not going to do it.
Click to expand...
So you wouldn't do the work because of an additional $5 in tax? You still keep $75 (instead of $80).

The taxes on the rest of your imaginary $200k are unchanged. Just making sure you understand.
 
#138
#138
kiddiedoc said:
So you wouldn't do the work because of an additional $5 in tax? You still keep $75 (instead of $80).

The taxes on the rest of your imaginary $200k are unchanged. Just making sure you understand.
Click to expand...
Of course I would. I was pointing out the lunacy of people claiming a small increase in taxes is a disincentive to work.
 
#139
#139
Hunerwadel said:
Believe what you want.

Did the U.S. have a record tax haul after Trump tax cuts?
Click to expand...
Total receipts, which include individual and corporate income taxes as well as estate taxes, excise taxes, and tariff duties, were up between the first 10 months of 2017 and the first 10 months of 2018. The rise was modest -- less than 1 percent -- but it was an increase.
Click to expand...
whats 1% of 3.8 Trillion? 38 Billion, and this ignores the tariffs and other revenue sources the fed has. and that has been one of Trumps biggest red marks is all the tariffs.

and to the rest of the article my point was never that Trump caused the tax revenue to go up. It was only that tax revenue went up DESPITE Trumps tax cuts. this is another classic case of redefining the argument to fit your side instead of what is actually being presented.

again the whole argument was SPENDING is the issue, not revenue. and thats backed up when the revenue rate goes down, but total revenue still goes up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#142
#142
AM64 said:
Why should there be deductions for kids? More kids means the family takes more from the government ... education, etc; and should pay more for the additional benefits. You have seemed to be concerned about man-made climate change; you do realize more people equals more bodies generating heat, consuming products and services that require energy, and generating more waste? Why should we reward people for increasing a climatological disaster in the making?
Click to expand...

This was a socialist move by the government, one of many. A certain amount of tax needs to be collected. They estimate what they will receive based on last years dependent and other deductions and adjust the tax tables accordingly. That means that a single man will be taxed at a higher rate than the guy next door with 4 kids. Why should that man be taxed to help support his neighbors kids?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#143
#143
Vol737 said:
Found this chart on a Yahoo Finance article today. Just an interesting illustration.
View attachment 202056
Click to expand...

this chart really says it all - I get that part of the effect is an income gap but still the tax code has evolved to effectively fund the government off of the upper middle class and beyond. We've increased the amount of services provided to the citizenry and those above middle class are funding it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, 82_VOL_83, LouderVol and 1 other person
#144
#144
luthervol said:
Of course I would. I was pointing out the lunacy of people claiming a small increase in taxes is a disincentive to work.
Click to expand...
I don't think a small increase in taxes is a disincentive to work. I think the tax increases many on the left openly call for would be disincentives not to work necessarily, but are disincentives to work more, work longer, expand a business, etc. It doesn't discourage someone who isn't rich from trying to become rich, but it probably discourages someone who has already made a lot of money from trying to make more.

But that's fine to y'all, because the rich already have enough money, right? Even though when "the rich" do things to make more money, it often entails expanding a business, coming up with a new product, etc. that leads to opportunities for others (who usually aren't rich)?
 
#146
#146
05_never_again said:
I don't think a small increase in taxes is a disincentive to work. I think the tax increases many on the left openly call for would be disincentives not to work necessarily, but are disincentives to work more, work longer, expand a business, etc. It doesn't discourage someone who isn't rich from trying to become rich, but it probably discourages someone who has already made a lot of money from trying to make more.

But that's fine to y'all, because the rich already have enough money, right? Even though when "the rich" do things to make more money, it often entails expanding a business, coming up with a new product, etc. that leads to opportunities for others (who usually aren't rich)?
Click to expand...

Thats like the Dem running for President who yesterday said, the rich got 100 times bigger refund than you did! This is an old Communist tactic right out of the text book to rile up the masses. They always leave out the part that they paid in 100 times more than you did. The real failure is leaving the door open for the rich corporations to hire layers who use the laws to pay lower taxes. There should be no laws to reduce corporate taxes past a certain point.
 
#147
#147
BearCat204 said:
The only administration that can pat themselves on the back is Clinton. Every other one has increased deficit spending. Reagan by a mile, but stop acting like the R's are the only ones with a spending problem. Its all of them

Its also not ALWAYS higher under R's. Obama had a higher increased rate than both Bush's
Click to expand...

Clinton rode the dotcom bubble and created what caused the subprime mortgage crisis. And raped a few women on the side for good measure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin, AM64 and 82_VOL_83
#150
#150
Did anyone watch the Bernie Sanders town hall yesterday. When they asked him why he didn't offer to pay more in taxes like he's proposing gets added to higher income earners taxes he went pffftttt. I paid what I owed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tumscalcium and AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top