election day (United States)

[Freakzilla]

y'all have put up more posts in the last few hours
than Bryon's had all month Over There.








I likee !!

I hope that butt scratch is shaking his head, remembering that even if we did bitch about those shitty books, he used to have this kind of community over there. How anybody could just throw away something this good is beyond me.

Look at it this way, now he doesn't have to delete any posts.

[Freakzilla]

All that I meant was that 30% of income to someone who earns $30K is a much bigger hit than 30% of income to someone who earns $500K. You can live a helluva lot better on $350K after taxes than you can on $21K. That's all, and that someone who earns $21K with a couple of kids needs help, and that a lower tax burden for them would help.

As to abuse, that is why you need investigators. but the system is still necessary, IMHO. I think Clinton though had the right idea that most social programs need to be gap programs that pay a benefit until the person can get ahead a bit and do for themselves. But certainly not all programs. Some people need constant, life long government support. That is just a fact of some peoples lives. I for one appreciate the stability that comes from supporting all of them though. but you are right: the ones who cheat should be put to work and eased out of the system for good.

I second everything Omph said. (or "third" I guess, I see I've been beat to the punch again!)

I'm a strong believer that those who work harder should get more for that work, but the simple fact is that unless we put more of the burdon on those who can more easily bear it there will be problems. I can understand that some people think its unfair, and honestly it kinda is unfair, but it would be more unfair to create a system that traps entire classes of people into poverty cycles; which is what would happen with a flat tax. Sometimes there is no fair way to do something so we pick the least unfair. That's my take anyways. It isn't perfect and it requires constant supervision and revision, but all other options lead to disaster so until we come up with some miracle system its the way it has to be.

I'd guess I'd be happy if people who expected to get all their income tax back and can prove they did so in past years could be exempt from having it deducted from their pay.

[A Thing of Eternity]

All that I meant was that 30% of income to someone who earns $30K is a much bigger hit than 30% of income to someone who earns $500K. You can live a helluva lot better on $350K after taxes than you can on $21K. That's all, and that someone who earns $21K with a couple of kids needs help, and that a lower tax burden for them would help.

As to abuse, that is why you need investigators. but the system is still necessary, IMHO. I think Clinton though had the right idea that most social programs need to be gap programs that pay a benefit until the person can get ahead a bit and do for themselves. But certainly not all programs. Some people need constant, life long government support. That is just a fact of some peoples lives. I for one appreciate the stability that comes from supporting all of them though. but you are right: the ones who cheat should be put to work and eased out of the system for good.

I second everything Omph said. (or "third" I guess, I see I've been beat to the punch again!)

I'm a strong believer that those who work harder should get more for that work, but the simple fact is that unless we put more of the burdon on those who can more easily bear it there will be problems. I can understand that some people think its unfair, and honestly it kinda is unfair, but it would be more unfair to create a system that traps entire classes of people into poverty cycles; which is what would happen with a flat tax. Sometimes there is no fair way to do something so we pick the least unfair. That's my take anyways. It isn't perfect and it requires constant supervision and revision, but all other options lead to disaster so until we come up with some miracle system its the way it has to be.

I'd guess I'd be happy if people who expected to get all their income tax back and can prove they did so in past years could be exempt from having it deducted from their pay.

I hear what you're saying, it's hugely inefficient and a seemingly unnecessary burden for that "taxpayer" to make them pay taxes and then pay it back to them. - I think the reason they do it is because it's a lot easier for them to make you pay it and give it back than to try and get taxes out of you at the end of the year because you made more than what you/they were expecting you to. Also in that case, most people are too foolish to save the extra money so at the end of the year if they got a raise half way through they'd owe money that they didn't have anymore and (this having happened to me before) that realy sucks for the tax payer, sucks a lot worse than having some money missing for the whole year and then getting it back later, but thats just my opinion.

I don't really know if one way or another would actually work out better in the end.

I don't know about the US, your idea might work there, but up here it would just be too complicated and so few people fall into that category anyways. Our system taxes a person differently for every tiny difference in income, as in there are no sudden tax bracket jumps (and it starts at like 8Kish here not 40K as I think you mentioned you guys do).

I guess everyone is different, but I've always been proud to be a tax payer, and I was proud to be one even when I was barely making enough to eat and pay rent.

[SandRider]

Freak -




thank you !!

[Freakzilla]

Freak -




thank you !!

I exist only to serve.

[Freakzilla]

All that I meant was that 30% of income to someone who earns $30K is a much bigger hit than 30% of income to someone who earns $500K. You can live a helluva lot better on $350K after taxes than you can on $21K. That's all, and that someone who earns $21K with a couple of kids needs help, and that a lower tax burden for them would help.

As to abuse, that is why you need investigators. but the system is still necessary, IMHO. I think Clinton though had the right idea that most social programs need to be gap programs that pay a benefit until the person can get ahead a bit and do for themselves. But certainly not all programs. Some people need constant, life long government support. That is just a fact of some peoples lives. I for one appreciate the stability that comes from supporting all of them though. but you are right: the ones who cheat should be put to work and eased out of the system for good.

I second everything Omph said. (or "third" I guess, I see I've been beat to the punch again!)

I'm a strong believer that those who work harder should get more for that work, but the simple fact is that unless we put more of the burdon on those who can more easily bear it there will be problems. I can understand that some people think its unfair, and honestly it kinda is unfair, but it would be more unfair to create a system that traps entire classes of people into poverty cycles; which is what would happen with a flat tax. Sometimes there is no fair way to do something so we pick the least unfair. That's my take anyways. It isn't perfect and it requires constant supervision and revision, but all other options lead to disaster so until we come up with some miracle system its the way it has to be.

I'd guess I'd be happy if people who expected to get all their income tax back and can prove they did so in past years could be exempt from having it deducted from their pay.

I hear what you're saying, it's hugely inefficient and a seemingly unnecessary burden for that "taxpayer" to make them pay taxes and then pay it back to them. - I think the reason they do it is because it's a lot easier for them to make you pay it and give it back than to try and get taxes out of you at the end of the year because you made more than what you/they were expecting you to. Also in that case, most people are too foolish to save the extra money so at the end of the year if they got a raise half way through they'd owe money that they didn't have anymore and (this having happened to me before) that realy sucks for the tax payer, sucks a lot worse than having some money missing for the whole year and then getting it back later, but thats just my opinion.

I don't really know if one way or another would actually work out better in the end.

I don't know about the US, your idea might work there, but up here it would just be too complicated and so few people fall into that category anyways. Our system taxes a person differently for every tiny difference in income, as in there are no sudden tax bracket jumps (and it starts at like 8Kish here not 40K as I think you mentioned you guys do).

I guess everyone is different, but I've always been proud to be a tax payer, and I was proud to be one even when I was barely making enough to eat and pay rent.

I think they do it to earn interest off it.

[Omphalos]

All that I meant was that 30% of income to someone who earns $30K is a much bigger hit than 30% of income to someone who earns $500K. You can live a helluva lot better on $350K after taxes than you can on $21K. That's all, and that someone who earns $21K with a couple of kids needs help, and that a lower tax burden for them would help.

As to abuse, that is why you need investigators. but the system is still necessary, IMHO. I think Clinton though had the right idea that most social programs need to be gap programs that pay a benefit until the person can get ahead a bit and do for themselves. But certainly not all programs. Some people need constant, life long government support. That is just a fact of some peoples lives. I for one appreciate the stability that comes from supporting all of them though. but you are right: the ones who cheat should be put to work and eased out of the system for good.

I second everything Omph said. (or "third" I guess, I see I've been beat to the punch again!)

I'm a strong believer that those who work harder should get more for that work, but the simple fact is that unless we put more of the burdon on those who can more easily bear it there will be problems. I can understand that some people think its unfair, and honestly it kinda is unfair, but it would be more unfair to create a system that traps entire classes of people into poverty cycles; which is what would happen with a flat tax. Sometimes there is no fair way to do something so we pick the least unfair. That's my take anyways. It isn't perfect and it requires constant supervision and revision, but all other options lead to disaster so until we come up with some miracle system its the way it has to be.

I'd guess I'd be happy if people who expected to get all their income tax back and can prove they did so in past years could be exempt from having it deducted from their pay.

I hear what you're saying, it's hugely inefficient and a seemingly unnecessary burden for that "taxpayer" to make them pay taxes and then pay it back to them. - I think the reason they do it is because it's a lot easier for them to make you pay it and give it back than to try and get taxes out of you at the end of the year because you made more than what you/they were expecting you to. Also in that case, most people are too foolish to save the extra money so at the end of the year if they got a raise half way through they'd owe money that they didn't have anymore and (this having happened to me before) that realy sucks for the tax payer, sucks a lot worse than having some money missing for the whole year and then getting it back later, but thats just my opinion.

I don't really know if one way or another would actually work out better in the end.

I don't know about the US, your idea might work there, but up here it would just be too complicated and so few people fall into that category anyways. Our system taxes a person differently for every tiny difference in income, as in there are no sudden tax bracket jumps (and it starts at like 8Kish here not 40K as I think you mentioned you guys do).

I guess everyone is different, but I've always been proud to be a tax payer, and I was proud to be one even when I was barely making enough to eat and pay rent.

I think they do it to earn interest off it.

Exactly. Its an interest issue. So the tax break may be a slight bit less if they qualify for an exemption from automatic deduction. It all should balance out in the end. I think those with major medical expenses qualify for that sort of thing, and if you are below the taxable threshhold, then too.

[A Thing of Eternity]

All that I meant was that 30% of income to someone who earns $30K is a much bigger hit than 30% of income to someone who earns $500K. You can live a helluva lot better on $350K after taxes than you can on $21K. That's all, and that someone who earns $21K with a couple of kids needs help, and that a lower tax burden for them would help.

As to abuse, that is why you need investigators. but the system is still necessary, IMHO. I think Clinton though had the right idea that most social programs need to be gap programs that pay a benefit until the person can get ahead a bit and do for themselves. But certainly not all programs. Some people need constant, life long government support. That is just a fact of some peoples lives. I for one appreciate the stability that comes from supporting all of them though. but you are right: the ones who cheat should be put to work and eased out of the system for good.

I second everything Omph said. (or "third" I guess, I see I've been beat to the punch again!)

I'm a strong believer that those who work harder should get more for that work, but the simple fact is that unless we put more of the burdon on those who can more easily bear it there will be problems. I can understand that some people think its unfair, and honestly it kinda is unfair, but it would be more unfair to create a system that traps entire classes of people into poverty cycles; which is what would happen with a flat tax. Sometimes there is no fair way to do something so we pick the least unfair. That's my take anyways. It isn't perfect and it requires constant supervision and revision, but all other options lead to disaster so until we come up with some miracle system its the way it has to be.

I'd guess I'd be happy if people who expected to get all their income tax back and can prove they did so in past years could be exempt from having it deducted from their pay.

I hear what you're saying, it's hugely inefficient and a seemingly unnecessary burden for that "taxpayer" to make them pay taxes and then pay it back to them. - I think the reason they do it is because it's a lot easier for them to make you pay it and give it back than to try and get taxes out of you at the end of the year because you made more than what you/they were expecting you to. Also in that case, most people are too foolish to save the extra money so at the end of the year if they got a raise half way through they'd owe money that they didn't have anymore and (this having happened to me before) that realy sucks for the tax payer, sucks a lot worse than having some money missing for the whole year and then getting it back later, but thats just my opinion.

I don't really know if one way or another would actually work out better in the end.

I don't know about the US, your idea might work there, but up here it would just be too complicated and so few people fall into that category anyways. Our system taxes a person differently for every tiny difference in income, as in there are no sudden tax bracket jumps (and it starts at like 8Kish here not 40K as I think you mentioned you guys do).

I guess everyone is different, but I've always been proud to be a tax payer, and I was proud to be one even when I was barely making enough to eat and pay rent.

I think they do it to earn interest off it.[/quote]

Exactly. Its an interest issue. So the tax break may be a slight bit less if they qualify for an exemption from automatic deduction. It all should balance out in the end. I think those with major medical expenses qualify for that sort of thing, and if you are below the taxable threshhold, then too.

That too.

What is the taxible threshold in the states again? I thought someone (Freak) said 40K? Man that seems high, I guess I'm just not used to it.

[Omphalos]

Last time I checked it was around $33K to $36K, but that was a number of years ago.

[Freakzilla]

Wasn't me. I've been working since I was 13 at Dairy Queen making below minimum wage and I still had to pay taxes.

I didn't know there was such a thing.

[A Thing of Eternity]

Wasn't me. I've been working since I was 13 at Dairy Queen making below minimum wage and I still had to pay taxes.

I didn't know there was such a thing.

Minimum wage? You socialist bastard stealing money from the nice employers.

EDIT - didn't you say that most people get their taxes back? wasn't that you?

[Omphalos]

Wasn't me. I've been working since I was 13 at Dairy Queen making below minimum wage and I still had to pay taxes.

I didn't know there was such a thing.

There are other qualifications. It does not apply to those who are dependents. And back in the 80's it was much, much lower.

[Freakzilla]

Wasn't me. I've been working since I was 13 at Dairy Queen making below minimum wage and I still had to pay taxes.

I didn't know there was such a thing.

Minimum wage? You socialist bastard stealing money from the nice employers.

I don't get it. If you're below age 16 you have to sign a waiver to work and are not garaunteed minimum wage.

EDIT - didn't you say that most people get their taxes back? wasn't that you?

I heard on the Herman Cain show on my way home from work that 60% pay taxes. 40% get all the income tax they pay returned to them.

[A Thing of Eternity]

Wasn't me. I've been working since I was 13 at Dairy Queen making below minimum wage and I still had to pay taxes.

I didn't know there was such a thing.

Minimum wage? You socialist bastard stealing money from the nice employers.

I don't get it. If you're below age 16 you have to sign a waiver to work and are not garaunteed minimum wage.

I was just joking that min wage is socialism.

EDIT - didn't you say that most people get their taxes back? wasn't that you?

I heard on the Herman Cain show on my way home from work that 60% pay taxes. 40% get all the income tax they pay returned to them.

Okay, must have been someone else. So still, even with what Omph said, 33 or 36K is still pretty high for getting all your income tax back. Compared to what I'm used to anyways.

My point being that I like paying (and having them keep) taxes.

[DuneFishUK]

Last time I checked it was around $33K to $36K, but that was a number of years ago.

Hang on - "threshold" as in - 'you don't pay income tax on gross earnings under 33K'?

That is high - whatever the conversion. Here the threshold £6000 ish ($10K-ish...???). Up this year from £5000 ... (so they could justify doubling my tax and making me £200 worse off the bastards ... grumble grumble grumble rage)

[Freakzilla]

I'm not bitching about paying taxes.

My point is, Obama is promising tax cuts to 95% of Americans, yet 40% already pay nothing. The only way he can come up with that number is to count handouts.

Welfare is NOT a tax cut.

Maybe in liberal la-la land, but not in my world.

So who's left to pay for these new programs he wants and the handouts to the 40%?

The wealthiest 5%. The people that create jobs. That means they won't have as much money to put back into their businesses which means fewer raises and more layoffs.

Keep your handout Obama, I'd rather keep my job.

[Omphalos]

Last time I checked it was around $33K to $36K, but that was a number of years ago.

Hang on - "threshold" as in - 'you don't pay income tax on gross earnings under 33K'?

That is high - whatever the conversion. Here the threshold £6000 ish ($10K-ish...???). Up this year from £5000 ... (so they could justify doubling my tax and making me £200 worse off the bastards ... grumble grumble grumble rage)

Im probalby wrong about that number, guys. There is a tax threshhold under which the individual taxpayer does not pay. Its probably much lower than $33K. Now that I think about it, those who earn under $33K get additional tax breaks that probably returns all their moeny to them. I did taxes cases for low income people for a few years, and now that I think about it I think that number is more like $18K or $20K.

Freak, everyone pays taxes, and the government can earn billions on the withholdings. If their tax liablity drops to zero, then nodoby will get actual cash back unless there is some kind of program or stimulus. But a lowering of withholding is a "lowering of taxes," which puts more money in the average joe's hands during the year.

Or maybe he means 95% of taxpayers.

Or maybe he means that other taxes like federal gas tax or other federal taxes will be lowered.

Certainly Obama is blowing hot air up our asses, or at the very least he is overestimating the cuts he will be able to make, but I doubt that the plan is unworkable on paper or an outright lie.

[Freakzilla]

I'd still rather have a job than a tax cut.

[SandChigger]

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me....

[Freakzilla]

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me....

Now you know what to spend that welfare check Obama's going to send you on.

[GamePlayer]

If people in the US truly understood how much they are taxed (and more importantly, how many times they get taxed, including triple taxed), they would have run a revolution more than 50 years ago. I had it explained to me once by a yank that runs his own business. It was so mindblowing, I could hardly believe it. Thankfully for the people in power, 99% of the population has no idea how to decipher the complex tax system, which is no doubt intentional. Can't have the taxpayers penetrating the bureaucracy

[Freakzilla]

My mother ran her own business for twenty years and had to close it because she couldn't pay the taxes.

[Tyrant]

I'd still rather have a job than a tax cut.

employers will still need their employees....cause without them....whos gonna make them all their money?...not their lazy rich asses...thats for sure

[GamePlayer]

The tragedy is that it's not all one-sided either. I believe both the government and the taxpayers play a key role in the worsening tax burden. I know in my own country the problematic tax system is both the result of corruption/bureaucratic inefficiencies and the result of people demanding the government maintain their their increasingly high needs.

I really do believe that social programs have their place, but they also must be managed by the strictest of standards and curtailed by funding caps. Otherwise they get way out of control. A sad reality of social programs is they also serve as political blackmail. Every time a politician is elected into office and suggests cutbacks to curtail government spending and reduce debt, the public outcry is almost deafening. People want their government out of debt and want their taxes reduced, but they are not willing to sacrifice to dig ourselves out from under the truly dire situation that previous generations have created.

Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better.

What's truly frightening is municipal, provincial and federal debt burdens are now so high that the fiscal situation cannot be solved in a 4 year term. The province of Alberta, as an example, took 11 years to eliminate the provincial debt, a debt which it had lived with for over 35 years. Even if the people are willing to suffer cutbacks for 4 years, what are the odds that they will have the will to do so for another 7 years? They'll likely vilify the government and vote in another government that will give them their social programs back.

That's why I place such a high priority on debt elimination in government. If our government is in a strong fiscal state, they can cope with the ups and downs of the market far easier than under a debt burden. Imagine if we were out of debt. If Canada was hit by a recession, the government could kickstart the economy with tax breaks and even run spending deficits, knowing that they'd recover in a few years. We could even loan money to other countries in times of economic crisis if we were flush. But what can we do under the burden of a $650 billion debt?

We need to get our house in order before we can truly move forward and I suspect the US is in a very similar state.

[GamePlayer]

I don't believe it's right to demonize the rich. I know they make good villains for the everyman, but honestly, there has to be a reward for getting ahead. Otherwise, what's the point?

Take taxes for example; even if the rich are paying less in taxes than the poor, their proportional tax is far too high. A person earning several million annually is paying more tax proportionately than a hundred middle-class wage earners, even if the rich only pays half the percentage.

Also, business is the life blood of our economic system and they should be rewarded with tax breaks. Their proportional tax will ensure they pay more than enough tax than the government should need (if properly run). What we to ensure is that the tax burden is not placed upon those least capable. That's why the middle class is deteriorating, because they a shouldering an increasing amount of the personal tax burden.

We desperately need a reset button