As many of you know, during the campaign VP Biden let it be known that paying more taxes is a patriotic duty. I am sure many of you who want to be patriotic are struggling to achieve this in a system designed to hinder you, so i thought i would help out with a few tips.

First, fire your CPA or the tax service you have hired. Their job is to minimize the amount of taxes you pay - hardly patriotic. If you are using tax software, such as TurboTax, throw it away - it also is programmed to reduce your taxes to the legal mimimum.

Then avoid all the tax breaks for the rich. This means do NOT use any of those special treatments such as capital gains or tax-free interest on municipals. Show everything as ordinary income. Better yet, show it all as self-employment income. This can patriotically raise your taxes another 15.3%.

If you have a business, take no deductions. These can unpatriotically reduce your taxes, NOT the goal here. Just show the gross revenues without any costs.

Don't itemize. In fact, don't take the standard deduction either. Don't take personal exemptions, for that matter. They are all just TBFTR. They won't help you pay more taxes.

Follow these instructions and you will maximize your taxes. But wait, there's more. You don't have to stop here - you can JUST PAY MORE. Just add any amount you want to this number and send in the check. It's easy. Hint: Total income is NOT a ceiling.

For those of you who inherited wealth (nobody earned it, despite what they say) and are worried that the government might not get its fair share, rest easy. All you have to do to maximize the tax bite on the death tax is NOTHING. Action will only increase your children's share at the expense of the government, and nobody wants that to happen, do they? But there is a way to do even more. You can leave everything to the government in your will. Hard to do better than that.

Follow these tips and you will have joined the patriotic corps with your patriotic heroes, such as Biden, Pelosi, Soros, and of course, Ted. If you have any questions, look up our FAQs at paythemax.commu.

Paying taxes IS patriotic. Most people don't have a ton of sympathy for tax cheats when they're paying their share and still watching roads fall into disrepair and schools fail.

I assume you have no problem paying sales tax, or gasoline tax, or property taxes which fund your local government. I know that I don't. Sometimes I wish there were more cops out where i live so I didn't have to find broken glass in the parking lot EVERY MORNING this week.

What I have never been clear on, is that certain libertarian groups claim that federal income tax is (a) illegal (as in never ratified by necessary number of states) and (b) is almost entirely used to fund our money system, not government programs. At least that's the gist of what I got from the (admittedly super biased) documentary from Aaron Russo. However I add the disclaimer that I was drinking a lot of beer while watching it so maybe I just misunderstood the claim. Certainly people everywhere assume their income tax --> government spending on welfare, military, etc.

So anyway, back on point... what is it you're objecting to? Is taxing at 30% ok but 35% the work of evil communist forces? should a grad student making $20k pay $6600 of that in taxes? Or heck, maybe poor people should just become indentured servants to large estates of the rich like in the good old days! That worked out well for everyone!

Fiscal conservatives are always railing about "redistributing wealth" but the truth is that's how our system has worked for a long time, yes, even under the republicans. If you're going to quibble over 5% when you have enough to start your own charity, i just really, really don't feel sorry for you. Is that 5% really going to keep you from happiness?

I understand the argument that your money is "yours" and you want to keep it... but the system that allowed you to make that money isn't possible unless you pay into it. If you dislike the way it's handled then vote for those who would spend less (good luck with both parties spending like idiots generally). My feeling is, I'm not going to object to paying for something expensive if it's worth the result. Taxes should be dictated by what's necessary for a stable economy and society -- not spending limited by what people feel they can spare. Just think about how often you pass around the bill at a large dinner group and it comes up short - people always want someone else to pay.

The graduated system gets me when it comes to taxes.

Going from the 'grad student' salary of 25k to an entry level job at 50k increases your tax burden from $3350 to $8850. Not quite as linear.


Also an $11 billion budget for the IRS grinds my gears...

Well, sorry you took this TIC post seriously. Also, you seem to have read into it more than I intended. A LOT more. I thought with the recent exodus of the Can-dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it crowd, this wouldn't rile up anybody, but I guess i was wrong. Yes, I'm making fun of Biden and his statement, just as other people make fun of Sarah Palin and her see-Russia statement, Bush's "decider" statement, Obama's 57 states statement, etc., ad infinitum.

But since you took it seriously, i will answer your questions as best i can.

Taxes are neccesary. What is debatable are questions like who should pay them, how much should they pay, how should they be determined, etc. Possibly there are a few anarchists like we saw recently rioting in the streets who think we should pay no taxes, just as there are a possibly a few far leftists who think that all income belongs to the government, to be parceled out according to need. I fit in neither camp.

I agree, most people have little sympathy for tax cheats, especially if the people are paying their share (read: legal minimum or more). We have seen this reaction lately regarding some of Obama's appointments and attempted appointments, but truthfully, it is always the same - people who abide by the rules don't like those who don't, or who write the rules to exclude themselves. It's like cutting in line.

I have no problem paying the taxes i am legally required to pay, such as income tax, sales tax, gasoline tax, etc. ( I don't smoke or buy lottery tickets). But even though/just because i pay the required taxes does not mean i cannot or should not have an opinion on whether these are proper taxes or at proper levels. I can have have an opinion on whether a given tax should be enacted, raised, lowered, or canceled. Paying my taxes does not imply approval.

I don't know if the income tax is technically legal or not, but i do know my government will come down on me like a ton of bricks if i don't pay them, so I do. FTR, I propose replacing the income tax with a national sales tax. We can debate that later if you like, but for now I just want to point out that replacing one tax with another does not equal eliminating all taxes.

What am i objecting to? Actually, i was just making fun of the Biden statement. If you take it literally, the more patriotic you are, the more money you would want to pay in taxes. i just took this concept to the nth degree, is all. People make fun of the gaffes of public figures all the time. Seeing as April 15 is almost upon us, i thought this was the right time for this little satire. BTW, I overpaid my taxes this year and applied the excess to next year, effectively giving the government an interest free loan. I am very patriotic.

Is taxing at 30% OK but at 35% the work of communist forces? Frankly, I don't know the answer to either of those questions. As i said, the idea of "how much" is a debatable subject. The idea of "who from" is another. I really don't know where you got these numbers and what they mean. I do think a properly applied program of tax reductions can result in economic activity that benefits both the taxpayers and the government. I also think an improperly applied program of tax increases can result in a decrease in economic activity that is detrimental to taxpayers and the government alike. Please note i did not make a generic statement that all cuts are good and all increases are bad. That is the stereotype of me and people like me that some people would have you believe. Don't buy it.

I don't know if a grad student making $20K should pay $6.6K in taxes. Is that what is happening? I didn't pass that law.

FTR, I am against indentured servitude, just as i was against the military draft in the 60's (I see no difference). Not sure where that came from.

You're right about the redistribution of wealth. That has been going on since the graduated tax was introduced. Yes, Republican and Democrats alike have tried to modify it, each to their own definition of "more fair", but changing it is something beyond the power of even a majority administration to do, even if they wanted to. I don't have enough to start my own charity, unless you are counting the scholarship I sponsor, and I don't know what 5% you are referring to.

The system needs funding. As I have said again and again, and now again, who pays how much and why are topics open for debate. As for voting, i have always cast my vote for the people (and sometimes the party) who I felt would be most likely to handle fiscal and tax issues the way i would prefer. This is NOT unAmerican. In fact, it is very American. The people wanting me to pay are doing it too. I too have no problem paying for quality. I do have a problem paying quality prices for subpar products, but if it is the law, i will continue to do so.

When people pass around the bill at a group dinner, i usually pick up the tab. Part of it is being able to - and part of it is just wanting to avoid the fuss. But you are right - people always want someone else to pay. It's just that when i am that someone else, i don't have to sit and take it quietly. In this country, i have a voice, should i choose to use it.

I really do appreciate your response. I hope my response to you has met at least the minimum levels of civility. Since you reacted seriously, I responded seriously.

Emmie,

The problem is not the 5% increse between 35% now and 40% after the increase. The problem is the difference between the 35% (or 40%) and what is available elsewhere iln the world.

Tax burden (both individual taxes on business owners and corporate taxes on their businesses) are a cost of doing business. If that cost is higher here than elsewere, we need to create an advantage somewhere else in order to attract business to our country. It's actually not our individual income taxes (which are somewhere near the worldwide mean) that are the problem as much as our corporate, dividend, and capital gains taxes (which are all quite high compared to most of the world).

We hear a lot about how we can't compete with China, which pays starvation wages to child laborers who work under horrible conditions. Obviously, our labor costs are higher than theirs.

What we don't hear about is how difficult it is to compete with countries where our tax costs are much higher than theirs.

We need to be competitive somewhere, or we will just keep losing businesses and jobs to other countries. We can't have the highest wages and the highest taxes and the most expensive costs of environmental compliance and stay competitive. So, whch one should be cut?

Or are we happy just to see our economy collapse?

By the way, it's been fashionable to blame Shrub for the "rich get richer, poor get poorer" phenomenon. A look at the data reveals that this has been a pretty consistent trend--democrat or republican administration--since the 1960s. Ross Perot noted it in 1992, long before Shrub could have had ANY impact on it. Perot's analysis, with which I agree, is that we can't move from a value-added, manufacturing economy to a retail/service economy without encountering the problem that I can't afford to pay someone as much to deliver a pizza as I can pay him or her to run a steel mill. The econmics just aren't there.

Hope this makes some sense.

(04-13-2009 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, sorry you took this TIC post seriously. Also, you seem to have read into it more than I intended. A LOT more. I thought with the recent exodus of the Can-dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it crowd, this wouldn't rile up anybody, but I guess i was wrong.

LOL. I don't expect people to necessarily remember me or my temperament, but I am not at ALL one of your sensitive types. Nor am I riled up. Some people (and I am one of those) have difficulty reading tone in a context-less medium like email and messageboards. What I heard was an extremely bitter sounding rip on taxes, presumably for the upper classes, which I found a bit amusing a little frustrating. let's just say it's (possibly) our differences in situation that caused me not to find the humor. :)

However it's safe to say that I will over-analyze things so even TIC diatribes are likely to be mocked/questioned by me if you're not careful!

(04-13-2009 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But even though/just because i pay the required taxes does not mean i cannot or should not have an opinion on whether these are proper taxes or at proper levels. I can have have an opinion on whether a given tax should be enacted, raised, lowered, or canceled. Paying my taxes does not imply approval.

Absolutely, I don't generally try to deny people having an opinion. I suppose I just find it tiresome to always precede statements with "You may disagree but in my opinion..." all the time. Obviously what I say is my opinion and yours is something else. And as I mentioned, (in my opinion) the amount isn't really the thing to object to, it's the amount AND the when and the why and the who. Some people just seem to stop at "x% is unfair because it's... unfair!" type circular reasoning.

(04-13-2009 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't know if the income tax is technically legal or not, but i do know my government will come down on me like a ton of bricks if i don't pay them, so I do.

You might find that documentary interesting (if you can watch that type of thing and sift out the good from the propoganda). Supposedly there are people who have successfully beat IRS charges using the no-ratification defense. No, I'm not about to try it either.

(04-13-2009 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What am i objecting to? Actually, i was just making fun of the Biden statement. If you take it literally, the more patriotic you are, the more money you would want to pay in taxes. i just took this concept to the nth degree, is all. People make fun of the gaffes of public figures all the time. Seeing as April 15 is almost upon us, i thought this was the right time for this little satire. BTW, I overpaid my taxes this year and applied the excess to next year, effectively giving the government an interest free loan. I am very patriotic.

Fair enough. I guess you can say "whoosh" for the joke part not getting to me.

(04-13-2009 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is taxing at 30% OK but at 35% the work of communist forces? Frankly, I don't know the answer to either of those questions.
...

That is the stereotype of me and people like me that some people would have you believe. Don't buy it.

They're just random numbers that represent the sort of arguing over tax levels I see, they're not real numbers obviously.

(04-13-2009 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't know if a grad student making $20K should pay $6.6K in taxes. Is that what is happening? I didn't pass that law.

Absolutely not. LOL. Nowhere near that much, as you would expect for a bottom bracket. Perhaps I was being unfair by associating you with the people that want a flat tax, which would actually imply this situation or something like it.

(04-13-2009 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You're right about the redistribution of wealth. That has been going on since the graduated tax was introduced. Yes, Republican and Democrats alike have tried to modify it, each to their own definition of "more fair", but changing it is something beyond the power of even a majority administration to do, even if they wanted to.

which was more my point... for all the complaining you hear from everyone about taxes... what you're really talking about is a few percents one way or the other. I'm amazed that people with (for example) a 3000 sq ft house and 3 cars (i.e., I would think having everything they "need") will go crazy trying to get themselves into a lower tax bracket to save $10k. Ok, great, I guess. Maybe you'll do more with it than the government would, but is it really worth the whole histrionics about left versus right and fair and unfair and whatever else?

(04-13-2009 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I really do appreciate your response. I hope my response to you has met at least the minimum levels of civility. Since you reacted seriously, I responded seriously.

And I appreciate that (but again, I'm not one of the easily offended).

(04-13-2009 03:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Emmie,
We need to be competitive somewhere, or we will just keep losing businesses and jobs to other countries. We can't have the highest wages and the highest taxes and the most expensive costs of environmental compliance and stay competitive. So, whch one should be cut?

Or are we happy just to see our economy collapse?

By the way, it's been fashionable to blame Shrub for the "rich get richer, poor get poorer" phenomenon. A look at the data reveals that this has been a pretty consistent trend--democrat or republican administration--since the 1960s. Ross Perot noted it in 1992, long before Shrub could have had ANY impact on it. Perot's analysis, with which I agree, is that we can't move from a value-added, manufacturing economy to a retail/service economy without encountering the problem that I can't afford to pay someone as much to deliver a pizza as I can pay him or her to run a steel mill. The econmics just aren't there.

Hope this makes some sense.

It does, definitely. And for the record I have no opinion on taxes really at all, but I hope some of the supposedly smart people in Washington can start looking 10, 20 years ahead instead of 2, and tackle these problems. Seems unlikely.

Emmie, just to be clear, i don't count you as one of the "Dish it out..." crowd, I was just saying I thought this little spoof was less likely to upset somebody now than it would have a few months ago.

Yep. it is hard to "hear" nuances in a written medium. I wonder if some of my reactions are guided by my predispositions to "hear" what i expect to hear. Clear as mud, I know.

Interesting that $10K is so meaningless to you. It don't mean everything to me, but it is more than than I would dismiss as insignificant. I don't go crazy trying to get into a lower bracket - I don't try to get into a lower bracket at all - I list my income and deductions and let the chips fall where they may, but i guess i think that in a lot of cases the brackets are what is wrong, not the actual dollars. IOW, $10,000 is not the problem, it is the % that just happens to work out to $10K (or $1.00, it is the principle, not the amount).

(04-13-2009 04:55 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(04-13-2009 03:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Emmie,
We need to be competitive somewhere, or we will just keep losing businesses and jobs to other countries. We can't have the highest wages and the highest taxes and the most expensive costs of environmental compliance and stay competitive. So, whch one should be cut?
Or are we happy just to see our economy collapse?
By the way, it's been fashionable to blame Shrub for the "rich get richer, poor get poorer" phenomenon. A look at the data reveals that this has been a pretty consistent trend--democrat or republican administration--since the 1960s. Ross Perot noted it in 1992, long before Shrub could have had ANY impact on it. Perot's analysis, with which I agree, is that we can't move from a value-added, manufacturing economy to a retail/service economy without encountering the problem that I can't afford to pay someone as much to deliver a pizza as I can pay him or her to run a steel mill. The econmics just aren't there.
Hope this makes some sense.

It does, definitely. And for the record I have no opinion on taxes really at all, but I hope some of the supposedly smart people in Washington can start looking 10, 20 years ahead instead of 2, and tackle these problems. Seems unlikely.

Long-range planning in Washington means the time of the next election. That's a problem, and always will be. I think you might get slightly better results on this point from a parliamentary system, where the time frames for elections are variable--but only slightly.

By the way, how do other countries provide a more comprehensive social safety net with lower marginal tax rates for individual and corporate incomes? Three things:

1. They aren't speding more to defend other countries--such as Germany and Japan--than those countries are spending to defend themselves.
2. They all (the other 29 of the 30 OECD countries, at least) rely on some form of consumption tax--GST, VAT, or the "Fair Tax" that has been proposed in the US--for a significant portion of their total revenues.
3. Their tax rates are generally much flatter (less "progressive") than ours (generally a 5% to 10% smaller spread between lowest rates and highest rates than we have), so their average tax rates end up pretty close to ours.

I would propose all three for serious consideration here.

(04-13-2009 04:50 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(04-13-2009 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't know if the income tax is technically legal or not, but i do know my government will come down on me like a ton of bricks if i don't pay them, so I do.

You might find that documentary interesting (if you can watch that type of thing and sift out the good from the propoganda). Supposedly there are people who have successfully beat IRS charges using the no-ratification defense. No, I'm not about to try it either.

I found some interesting reading on this topic here. As I kind of suspected, I don't think anyone has beaten IRS charges on a no-ratification defense - at least, not in US courts. They seem to at least dance around the issue and not deem it worthy of consideration. Maybe it's flown in a tax court or two, but I cannot speak to that.

But he seems to do a pretty good job of summarizing the points on both sides and notes it's not a simple argument about Ohio possibly not being a state at the time of ratification. Considering that more than the necessary majority ratified the amendment, I don't think not having Ohio in the union is enough to kill the amendment.

There's also this on the textual inaccuracies of the versions each state voted on, another one of the arguments.

Was this the Wesley Snipes argument? I have never heard of it working, but i have often heard of people going to prison protesting the unfairness of it all.

i agree with with Emmie's basic contention that taxes are neccesary for the government to do needed things with. The questions of course, is what are the needed things, how much is needed to do the needed things, and how do we raise this money in a reasonable and fair way. Our present system fails the fairness test and in many ways fails the reasonableness test. The other questions remain the topics of debate.

I heard an interesting statistic on sunday - that on April 25th, the US will have spent every penny it expects to collect in taxes this year, and from that point on all the spending will be deficit spending of borrowed money. Maybe the definition of needed things is too broad, since taxes would have to more than triple to cover the expenditures without (further) borrowing. What would that be, about 70% of GNP? One reason I oppose(d) this Administration is that their spending plans could not be supported by the limited tax increases they promised, so something would have to yield. Two plus three does not equal seven, even if we vote that it is so.

I have heard people make the argument for over 30 years that the FIT is unconstitutional, and unfortunately, sometimes they convince others who end up losing everything and going to jail on top of that. It really doesn't matter if it is legal or not, they have the power to make you pay, one way or another, so i choose their way. Kind of like the indentured servitude i mentioned, called the draft. When i was called to appear at my draft induction center, I went, since arguing that it was temporary slavery seemed likely to result with me in prison. I still oppose a draft, but when it was time for my sons to register, i told them to do it. Five hundred years ago, i would have obeyed my king, also. Beats getting drawn and quartered.

Oh, well, they have my money for 2008 and 2009, too, so i am relatively safe from being imprisoned for the next couple of years. i don't think they have enough of everyone's money to do all they plan/promise to do, so we shall see what happens.

Lawdy, I didn't mean for this to be serious, but here we are.

Late-April seems too early. I'm pretty sure the budget is in the high $3 trillion dollar range, which would mean we'd be expecting to only take in just over $1 trillion in tax revenues and run a $2 trillion or so deficit (which I think is the actual figure). I'm not sure that feels right to me, particularly the small tax base, but I'm struggling coming up with supporting numbers to say otherwise. Anyone know any differently?

The date was mentioned by George Will during the round table discussion on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Although George did not give a source for that date, neither did any of the other panelists, liberal or conservative, raise any objection.

(04-13-2009 02:37 PM)lou Wrote:  The graduated system gets me when it comes to taxes.

Going from the 'grad student' salary of 25k to an entry level job at 50k increases your tax burden from $3350 to $8850. Not quite as linear.


Also an $11 billion budget for the IRS grinds my gears...

No one said it was linear. But, your numbers are specious. Using 2008 tax rates, standard deductions and exemptions, income taxes on your 25K and 50K salaries are

$25,000
Single - 1,946
Married filing jointly - 630

$50,000
Single - 6,725
Married filing jointly - 3,892

If you're salaried, there's also $1,912 (25K) or $3,824 (50K) in FICA you'll pay.

Do I get the sense that 50K is considered a low number (i.e., entry level, not what one expects to make after gaining some experience)? It might be low in comparison to expectations, but it's greater than the median US family income in 2006.

(04-14-2009 08:58 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(04-13-2009 02:37 PM)lou Wrote:  The graduated system gets me when it comes to taxes.
Going from the 'grad student' salary of 25k to an entry level job at 50k increases your tax burden from $3350 to $8850. Not quite as linear.
Also an $11 billion budget for the IRS grinds my gears...

No one said it was linear. But, your numbers are specious.

Nothing specious about the numbers at all. Assuming you include FICA (you pay it, don't you, so no reason not to include), and depending on how the deductions shake out, his numbers could be spot on.

(04-13-2009 11:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The date was mentioned by George Will during the round table discussion on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Although George did not give a source for that date, neither did any of the other panelists, liberal or conservative, raise any objection.

OK, found a Reuters article on the recent CBO estimate of a $1.8T deficit in 2009, out of a $3.55T budget. Using Obama's $1.75T deficit estimate, that's 49.30% of the total budget is deficit spending. Using the CBO estimate, that 50.70% in deficit spending. So under Obama's estimate, we spent all revenue by 7/5 (how ironic), while it's 6/29 under the COB estimate.

Now, the off-book items may push that spending number up, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't account for it all. To get to George Will's number, we'd get through 31.23% of the year before tax revenues are used up. Assuming the CBO deficit number as a starting block, we have ($1.8T + X)/($3.55T + X)=68.77%, which gives me the off-book spending of about $2.05T. Maybe we have that much, but I'm not sure the war spending and a few other things add up to that.

Again, doesn't pass the sniff test for me, but I need to know more about the assumptions.

And as we both know, those shows aren't set up for real, substantive dialogue and questioning among the participants. They're there to score points for "their side."

(04-14-2009 09:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-14-2009 08:58 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(04-13-2009 02:37 PM)lou Wrote:  The graduated system gets me when it comes to taxes.
Going from the 'grad student' salary of 25k to an entry level job at 50k increases your tax burden from $3350 to $8850. Not quite as linear.
Also an $11 billion budget for the IRS grinds my gears...

No one said it was linear. But, your numbers are specious.

Nothing specious about the numbers at all. Assuming you include FICA (you pay it, don't you, so no reason not to include), and depending on how the deductions shake out, his numbers could be spot on.

Could be, but probably not. It's interesting that you (properly) include FICA in the discussion. Most of those who complain about taxes unfairly burdening higher incomes ignore FICA (which is regressive).

RE the date by which we've spent the money:

The discrepancy (April vs June/July) could be due to the inclusion, exclusion, or even combination of inclusion with expenditures but exclusion with revenues of Medicare and Social Security. My guess, however, is that the April date comes from somebody using the federal FY calendar of Oct 1 - Sept 30, from which April is the 7th month.

(04-13-2009 08:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  d.

Oh, well, they have my money for 2008 and 2009,

.

What do you mean "my money." It is "their" money, the government's
money. Haven't you frequently heard, whenever there is legislation for a tax cut, a certain strain of the political spectrum shrieks that the government is intending to give a benefit to certain citizens (the roughly 50-60% that actually pay taxes) as if the money belongs to the government and not to the individuals. Not fair, because no money is going to the people who do not pay taxes. To paraphrase Tom Daschle, a tax cut means the government is giving Optimistic a Lexus. They never understand that it is our money, not theirs.

An interesting concept, frequently mentioned, would be to have Election Day in the vicinity of 15 April. Then, the big spenders might curtail their spending habits.