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.
A flat tax or a consumption tax hurts the poor the most.
But that is a system that could not be "worked," no? You buy a lexus... and you pay a 50% tax on it. You buy a McMansion... and you pay a 40% tax on it. (those are both random numbers).
On the other hand, you buy food, you pay NO tax. You buy what someone like me would consider reasonable, you pay NO tax on it.
So, if you live frugally, you don't pay much of anything. I don't see how that hurts the poor. Can you explain?
(note: this is hypothetical, again. I just want to understand how this tax system would hurt the poor when the poor generally do not buy luxuries. It would be very similar to a luxury tax. A scaled system graded to the "luxury level" of the item.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
I don't know why you get suicidal every April, I finished my taxes the first week of February and have already gotten my returns. You probably only need to fill out one form which is your 1040, and it should only take you a couple hours at most.
Nope, I have to jump through extra hoops because part of my meager income does not come from voluntarily slaving (ooh... an oxymoron? ) for others.
Even at a couple of hours, that is a couple of hours of your life wasted filling out pointless forms or website screens. Besides, I don't do "returns" (aka refunds, if that's what you meant). Why would I want to give the government a tax-free loan, even if it is a pitifully small amount?
But that is a system that could not be "worked," no? You buy a lexus... and you pay a 50% tax on it. You buy a McMansion... and you pay a 40% tax on it. (those are both random numbers).
On the other hand, you buy food, you pay NO tax. You buy what someone like me would consider reasonable, you pay NO tax on it.
So, if you live frugally, you don't pay much of anything. I don't see how that hurts the poor. Can you explain?
(note: this is hypothetical, again. I just want to understand how this tax system would hurt the poor when the poor generally do not buy luxuries. It would be very similar to a luxury tax. A scaled system graded to the "luxury level" of the item.)
Nope, I have to jump through extra hoops because part of my meager income does not come from voluntarily slaving (ooh... an oxymoron? ) for others.
Even at two hours, that is two hours of your life wasted. Besides, I don't do "returns" (aka refunds, if that's what you meant) Why would I want to give the government a tax-free loan, even if it is a pitifully small amount?
Except when people who could afford it made their consumption purchases overseas to avoid having to pay any federal sales tax.
That is up to you, which if you don't wish to give the government a "tax-free loan" then you should put money aside throughout the year so that come the end of the year it is isn't a big deal to have to pay what extra you might still owe.
All the above being said.....our system won't change much.
You either have to become a cheerful giver or, learn to work the system.
It is a even playing field....learn the game.
Except for the fact that the game is rigged because it was written by Wall Street. Our tax codes should be completely restructured, but we both know that will never happen.
Except for the fact that the game is rigged because it was written by Wall Street. Our tax codes should be completely restructured, but we both know that will never happen.
How is it rigged???
The tax code is the same for everyone.....just smaller numbers in cases like mine.
I was lucky enough in my youth and as a young adult to spend my weekends showing AQHA horses with Sam Walton's accountant.
I made very little money and was "horse poor".
He showed me how to claim my horses as a business....that way I got back everything the government took and could spend it as I liked.
Very interesting. Now explain to me how Obama's wealth went from peanuts to in excess of $12 Million in four years. I keep multiplying his "salary" and somehow, it just doesn't add up. Must be "Common Core" math. 20.4% is a nice tax bracket.
Simple. Obama gets more than just his annual salary; he also gets income from books he wrote prior to being president. That particular income stream can fluctuate quite a bit from year to year. That accounts for the difference, and btw it is not $12M in four years if you add up his tax returns - although it is sizable. Also, he did not have "peanuts" before. As someone already posted, here is how it played out (from his tax returns that are posted publicly):
Simple. Obama gets more than just his annual salary; he also gets income from books he wrote prior to being president. That particular income stream can fluctuate quite a bit from year to year. That accounts for the difference, and btw it is not $12M in four years if you add up his tax returns - although it is sizable. Also, he did not have "peanuts" before. As someone already posted, here is how it played out (from his tax returns that are posted publicly):
So there really is no mystery here, unlike when wealthy Mitt Romney managed to legally voodoo magic his effective tax rates down to around 14%.
He filed a loss.
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.
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.
) for others.
