U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-29-2017, 03:37 AM
 
284 posts, read 227,136 times
Reputation: 362

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hitpausebutton2 View Post
i understand the IRS site. but why are they depending on US to reflect on how much we want to take out vs just take out what is needed.. nothing more, nothing less.. Just tell them i have one child and wife doesnt work.. that should be enough info on what needs to be taken out correct? seems the tax system can be a lot more simpler if they really put some work in it.. Just seems they are really double dipping.. pay now and still pay more at the end, vs just take out in installments on your pay right the first time
No one has addressed the OPs real concern which is why do we have a system that forces you to file a return at all. Why not withhold at the source based on % indicative of the type of income it is and relieve the burden. And sadly the answer is politics. Politicians curry favor by introducing the concept of deductions and credits that are meant to incentivize people to use certain industries (eg the mortgage interest deduction helps those who buy a house) and the lobbyists like HR Block ensure that the tax code is complex enou to keep them in business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-29-2017, 06:20 AM
 
4,229 posts, read 1,909,438 times
Reputation: 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
As for the others, they are all proportional.
Proportional taxes are regressive by definition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
The only tax that is actually regressive is the SS portion of the FICA tax as it gets capped. The reason it gets capped is there will be no benefit to the people who are making income above it.
That's because the wage cap and benefits cap are set at the same level. Far from being a necessity, one of the ways to "save " Social Security from all the dire things that alarmists suggest for it would be to raise the wage cap while leaving the benefits cap right where it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
That income group will get their social security check, and have it taken back again come income tax time.
The worst that can happen is that 85% of your SS benefits become TAXABLE INCOME, not TAXES.

Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
The very poor don't, at net, pay much, if anything in taxes. Don't take that the wrong way, in my opinion I'm fine with that. However the facts do not support that the poor pay the most in taxes. It's simply not setup that way.
Hmmm. The bottom 20% by income lose a little more than 16% of their incomes to taxation at all levels. For the top 1%, it's about 30%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2017, 06:33 AM
 
4,229 posts, read 1,909,438 times
Reputation: 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradmilano View Post
No one has addressed the OPs real concern which is why do we have a system that forces you to file a return at all.
In some countries, the central tax authority simply sends you a bill. In the US, we have long had a voluntary system, which means that it is the taxpayer who determines what his tax liability is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradmilano View Post
And sadly the answer is politics. Politicians curry favor by introducing the concept of deductions and credits that are meant to incentivize people to use certain industries (eg the mortgage interest deduction helps those who buy a house) and the lobbyists like HR Block ensure that the tax code is complex enou to keep them in business.
Well, it could also be that you've misread the tea leaves entirely, and that what Congress actually wants is to help stabilize society and subsidize socially beneficial behaviors -- such as housing and educating the next generation of Americans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2017, 08:56 AM
 
6,032 posts, read 6,531,293 times
Reputation: 8305
OP, Hitpause, I confess I'm lost as to what your point is.....
-- do you want lower taxes?
-- do you want what you perceive to be fairer taxes?
-- do you want a simpler tax system?

If you don't have your calculations or W4 (used to calculate the federal income tax withheld from your paycheck) filled out as you like then you may underpay during the year and owe at tax time. Reversely, if you have more taken out than you owe, you'll get a refund.

Some people have income from which taxes are not taken out through withholding. So the money is not "taxed" during the year. IF they have not adjusted their W4 deductions to account for that, they may owe more at tax time because they haven't paid taxes on that income yet.

It can be frustrating when a person's tax situation changes two or three years in a row. Until you get the balance right for your situation you may have to tweak the W4 a few times. IF a person gets married, or has a child, or divorced, or starts working part time, or buys a house, etc. -- each one of those things can "throw off" the W4 calculations they'd already made. Heck some people play a mind game with it -- and adjust half way through the year. Every year.

I went through a few years where I thought it was better to owe a small amount Uncle Sam -- oh about $50-$150 bucks come April 15th. Friends had talked me into, saying "You let the government have your money all year?" Blah, blah blah. So, "I wasn't going to let the government have my money and not pay me interest." But for me -- just me personally -- psychologically -- even though I know I'd had a higher paycheck during the year. Psychologically it killed me to write a check for another dime come tax time. I know it was only about 50 bucks. I still didn't want to give it up.

The extra money in my paycheck wasn't that much anyway. So I changed my mind about owing (even that little bit). At one point I was getting 3K refunds. Then I bought a house and thought the gov't doesn't need to have THAT much of my money all year. Besides, a 3K refund was 115 a paycheck. Now, that amount I did feel was worth having in my pocket during the year. Since then I've been content with about a 1K refund. It's not enough out of my paycheck that I miss it. BUT still enough of a refund -- a big enough windfall -- that I feel I can actually do something with it and put it to good use when it comes. Even if it is just save it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2017, 10:28 AM
 
Location: Gainesville, FL
190 posts, read 195,816 times
Reputation: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
Proportional taxes are regressive by definition.
Full stop.

This may be the most oxymoronic statement I've ever read.

Last edited by Avram42; 07-29-2017 at 10:40 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2017, 06:53 AM
 
4,229 posts, read 1,909,438 times
Reputation: 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avram42 View Post
Full stop. This may be the most oxymoronic statement I've ever read.
Simple statement of fact. Look it up. The burdens of proportional taxation fall disproportionately on those with lower incomes. That's the definition of "regressive."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2017, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, AK
5,890 posts, read 3,160,844 times
Reputation: 11914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avram42 View Post
I've never heard this argument. Assuming you agree with the public funding of those functions I will play devil's advocate and say I disagree with your assessment. The concept of a "safety net" is that it's held by any and all, not simply the ones falling.
Should it be the function of government to provide a safety net? Why should taxpayers fund those who don't accept personal responsibility? Don't you get tired of stories about people who drink, smoke, eat junk food, don't take care of themselves, etc, all at our expense?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2017, 04:38 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
2,772 posts, read 1,217,970 times
Reputation: 5095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
Proportional taxes are regressive by definition.

+It's not a headcount tax. Excise taxes are not regressive, even if they're proportional, because they are a tax on an activity. Only 14 states even charge sales tax on groceries. What would you propose? No driving registration fees at all? No sales tax at all? Must everything department and commercial center bend down to come up with a complicated system of serving the poor?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
That's because the wage cap and benefits cap are set at the same level. Far from being a necessity, one of the ways to "save " Social Security from all the dire things that alarmists suggest for it would be to raise the wage cap while leaving the benefits cap right where it is.
+Or we could realistically look at a program, realize that people are living much longer than they used to and raise the age when people can start to receive a benefit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
The worst that can happen is that 85% of your SS benefits become TAXABLE INCOME, not TAXES.
+That's only AFTER your benefits have been reduced for income, but I've looked and see that haircut applies to those below the full retirement age currently. I'll concede on the current system. However, i still stand with Social Security not having enough funds to pay what they've promised. Even their statement says the same. Will we have a shared cut where everyone's SS payments drops 20-30%. Or will it be easier to simply eliminate benefits to the rich.

Surprising Social Security Advice for High-Income Retirees

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
Hmmm. The bottom 20% by income lose a little more than 16% of their incomes to taxation at all levels. For the top 1%, it's about 30%.
+Tabling issues with those numbers for a moment....Please do tell, what is the answer to all of our ills oh wise one. What should it be? Because you're obviously including other items besides income taxes, and excluding tax liabilities for the wealthy. So what should it be. We scrap the income tax, payroll tax, every county fee, property tax, sales and use tax, excise taxes, estate taxes.....in favor of __________.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2017, 07:42 AM
 
4,229 posts, read 1,909,438 times
Reputation: 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
+It's not a headcount tax. Excise taxes are not regressive, even if they're proportional, because they are a tax on an activity. Only 14 states even charge sales tax on groceries. What would you propose? No driving registration fees at all? No sales tax at all? Must everything department and commercial center bend down to come up with a complicated system of serving the poor?
What I would propose quite simply is that you learn the definition of regressive taxation and then stop misusing the term. All flat taxes are regressive, All proportional taxes are regressive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
+Or we could realistically look at a program, realize that people are living much longer than they used to and raise the age when people can start to receive a benefit.
We already did that in 1983. Full retirement age was 65 back then and it has been rising ever since. It is presently 66 and will reach 67 for everyone wishing to draw benefits in 2027 or later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
+That's only AFTER your benefits have been reduced for income, but I've looked and see that haircut applies to those below the full retirement age currently. I'll concede on the current system.
There isn't much sense in analyzing imaginary systems. In the current real world system, there is a four-year penalty of 25% that is applied in declining monthly increments from ages 62 to 66. There is also a four-year 32% bonus that is applied in increasing monthly increments from ages 66 to 70. That has nothing at all to do with taxation of SS benefits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
However, i still stand with Social Security not having enough funds to pay what they've promised. Even their statement says the same. Will we have a shared cut where everyone's SS payments drops 20-30%. Or will it be easier to simply eliminate benefits to the rich.
First of all, it would be important to understand that the Trustees' projections are based on very pessimistic assumptions. That's appropriate in some degree, as you do want to err on the side of caution. But in 1997, they indicated that the Trust Fund would be exhausted in 2029, and then in 2007, they indicated that it would be exhausted in 2042. So a decade went by, and instead of getting ten years closer, the exhaustion date got three years further away. That's because even though the interval between 1997 and 2007 was a mix of good and bad years for the economy, on average they turned out much better than the ten years that the SS Trustees had projected.

At present, their projections for the next 75 years include surprisingly low levels of economic growth and surprisingly high rates of success at further extension of human lifespans. They also foresee both legal and illegal immigration as being flat over the bulk of the projection period. Some doubt that given the fact that an aging population will increase overall demand for the sorts of medical, home, and personal services that immigrants have long specialized in. And keep in mind that because of sensitivity to initial conditions as noted above, if the Trustees are being only a little bit too pessimistic in their current assumptions, the Trust Fund would never be exhausted and the system could indeed afford to pay 100% of scheduled benefits in perpetuity just as it is.

Second of all, it would be important to understand that the SS Trust Fund was designed in 1983 as a means of coping with the eventual demographic benefits blip of retiring Baby Boomers. The Trust Fund itself was set at that time to expand over several decades, then to contract again as balances were used to pay benefits not covered by then-current receipts, finally disappearing altogether at about the time of the death of the last Baby Boomer. The last Boomers were born in 1964 and those surviving to 2050 would be 86 years of age at the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
+Tabling issues with those numbers for a moment....
There are no issues with these numbers. The bottom 20% by income lose a little more than 16% of their incomes to taxation at all levels while the top 1% lose about 30%. The "no skin in the game" meme is simply propagandist bunk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2017, 07:32 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
2,772 posts, read 1,217,970 times
Reputation: 5095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
What I would propose quite simply is that you learn the definition of regressive taxation and then stop misusing the term. All flat taxes are regressive, All proportional taxes are regressive.
Nothing but deflection. You willfully cling to your lie that you believe in rather than trying to bring out an actual regressive tax. We don't have a flat income tax. We have a progressive tax. We don't have a per capita tax. Other taxes are in proportion to something else, something that can be controlled. Taxation is not keeping people downtrodden.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
We already did that in 1983. Full retirement age was 65 back then and it has been rising ever since. It is presently 66 and will reach 67 for everyone wishing to draw benefits in 2027 or later.
1983? Really? That's over 30 years ago. Advances keep coming. Time to raise the age.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
There isn't much sense in analyzing imaginary systems.
At first I posted a copy/paste right from the social security office, but decided that was too long. You most certainly get a haircut on your benefits for working in the early retirement years, but I've already conceded that point. More deflection. In the meantime, I'll let the social security office tell me their projections...thanks.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
There are no issues with these numbers. The bottom 20% by income lose a little more than 16% of their incomes to taxation at all levels while the top 1% lose about 30%. The "no skin in the game" meme is simply propagandist bunk.
More deflection. You probably copied some numbers from a trash tabloid rag, and certainly have no understanding of them that you've shared. Anything concrete that could be actually analyzed. Even then, 16% (which obviously includes things other than income tax) isn't exactly draconian.

Put it out there little one. Unwrap the secret and show us precisely your taxation pain point that dooms the poor. You won't, because you can't. Because taxes don't keep the poor poor. The poor don't pay the lion's share of taxes. The poorest certainly have a negative tax rate.

Poor Pay a Higher Percentage of Income in Taxes

Was it a rag like that link? Is that why you can't supply detail? Took a headline and said....yep, that's enough due diligence?

I'll help you. The main argument some pose is the FICA taken out of a check. If I make $10K, I may well have a negative income tax, but I still have to pay FICA. FICA is proportionally taken based on how much I earn.

Except I have a problem with that. The problem is that the monies PAID OUT later in terms of Social Security and Medicare are often MORE than what was paid in. So it's tough to call this a tax, and instead call it forced savings. If that's the main pillar of the poor being ruthlessly driven into the ground in your taxation argument, realize how many boomers are about to retire with nowhere near the means to support themselves otherwise. Taking that away would be a killer for many. Not calling it a tax puts the average taxation for the bottom 20% in negative territory and if it is counted, then you're at a whopping 3.7%.

How does the federal tax system affect low-income households? | Tax Policy Center

But by all means....how should it be oh wise one?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top