›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

GeekNights 070419 - Taxes in the US

RymRym
edited April 2007 in Everything Else
Tonight on GeekNights, we ramble a bit about tax time in the US. In the news, The Simpsons is two decades old, and Ubuntu Feisty Fawn is officially out.

Scott's Thing - What's Your Excuse?
Rym's Thing - I'm stuck to my chair. I'm so very scared. Help.

«1

Comments

  • SailSail
    edited April 2007
    Not downloading in the feed...
    Post edited by Sail on
  • Boy BlueBoy Blue
    Rym, do you have this name/link of the internal iso burning program mentioned?
  • CorbinCorbin
    google does
  • HecateHecate
    That tax system sounds like a fscking nightmare! Now I understand that episode of the Simpsons where homer dropped in his tax returns in an enormous paper ball held together with sellotape :)

    In Ireland your employer takes care of the majority of the paperwork for you, and there's no concept of state taxes - everything goes to central govt.
  • MagL33ToMagL33To
    edited April 2007
    Slightly off topic, whatever happened with that guy who installed ubuntu on his father's computer when he asked for vista? It was a news on the show a few months ago I believe...

    edit: Never mind, found it.

    The episode: 070205 - The IT Professional’s Toolkit
    The site: http://degredo.net/
    Post edited by MagL33To on
  • kenjurakenjura
    Feedless.

    Direct website download required.
  • AprecheApreche
    Feed should be fixed now. This problem will stop happening in the future after I do that server upgrade action.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    American taxes are insane.

    Unfortunately for those of us who pay taxes, all of those "tax preparer firms" make so much money off of the complexity of the American tax code that we will never see it simplified!

    We should go to a flat tax or a consumption (sales) tax system. Remove ALL deductions and keep it simple.

    We will likely never go in that direction because the tax code in the US is often used to effect(affect) social change. When the government says, "Here's a $3K tax credit if you buy this!" it becomes a nice financial incentive...
  • AprecheApreche

    We will likely never go in that direction because the tax code in the US is often used to effect(affect) social change. When the government says, "Here's a $3K tax credit if you buy this!" it becomes a nice financial incentive...
    I actually have no problem with the government using taxes to influence behaviour. Raise taxes on tobacco to discourage use. Raise taxes on gas to encourage public transportation. Give tax breaks for efficient cars and machines to encourage people to not waste energy. The government has the power to do this, and I have no problem with it.

    However, there is a side effect of this that I do have a problem with. That side effect is that the government never gives up a revenue source. They make these taxes, and then they depend on the revenue they generate. If and when people actually start changing behaviour, and less money comes in from the tax, the government will start going nuts looking for a way to keep making that money.

    Also, I'm not so sure that many of these taxes actually influence behaviour significantly. How many people really drive less when gas prices go up? If you want to influence behaviour with a tax, it has to be a huge tax. Raise gas to $10 a gallon to get people to stop driving. Tax cigarrettes to $50 a pack to get people to stop smoking. Of course, then people will start black markets for these goods, and you have another problem.

    Everything sucks.
  • JasonJason
    edited April 2007
    Except that gas tax would utterly destroy an economy built on getting goods from one place to another. $10 gas would mean +$7 t-shirts, +$7 watermelons, +$7 condoms, +$7 DVDs, +$7 anything that is transported. The poverty gap would widen like the San Andreas Fault in Superman: The Movie, and we'd all fall in.
    Post edited by Jason on
  • AprecheApreche
    Except that gas tax would utterly destroy an economy built on getting goods from one place to another. $10 gas would mean +$7 t-shirts, +$7 watermelons, +$7 condoms, +$7 DVDs, +$7 anything that is transported. The poverty gap would widen like the San Andreas Fault in Superman: The Move, and we'd all fall in.
    Damn side effects.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Taxes/tariffs as a social tool are a double-edged sword.

    Too high and you have a black market. Too low and you can't affect social change with them
  • DavidDavid
    The only problem with flat tax and 'consumption' taxes is they do exactly the same thing, fuck the lower classes hard. I do wish our progressive tax system was more stream lined as it would eliminate all of this hoopla we see every year around tax time.
  • AndrewAndrew
    How does a flat tax fuck the lower classes?
  • DavidDavid
    The way our system currently works is that if you make below a set amount of money, then you do not have a tax burden. Any money that has been paid into taxes is sent back to you as a refund check. Under a flat tax proposal, everyone would pay the same amount, which even if it is 10%, would make a huge difference in your life if you only make a thousand dollars a month.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    The way our system currently works is that if you make below a set amount of money, then you do not have a tax burden. Any money that has been paid into taxes is sent back to you as a refund check. Under a flat tax proposal, everyone would pay the same amount, which even if it is 10%, would make a huge difference in your life if you only make a thousand dollars a month.
    Well, why should anyone be free of the burden of taxation? Why should anyone have to carry more of a burden (percentage wise) just because they work harder?

    The problem with the income tax is that it penalizes people for making money, not for having money. Income taxes tax the accumulation of wealth not wealth itself.
  • DavidDavid
    Because there is no way to a: spread the burden so thin that it won't prevent people from buying food while b: still paying for things. And if you think poor people are poor because they don't work hard, you are full of shit. Yes it does tax you for making more money, but I've never seen a workable alternative suggested.
  • AndrewAndrew
    edited April 2007
    Because there is no way to a: spread the burden so thin that it won't prevent people from buying food while b: still paying for things.
    Why should we make exceptions for these people? What makes them any more worthy of a tax cut then me?
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • DavidDavid
    edited April 2007
    Short answer: Because life is unfair.
    In a perfect world, there would be no difference between taxation level of people, because everyone would be able to afford basic thing like food and a home. We do not live in that world, so our tax system is designed to have less of the tax burden on the poor than on the rich. Because it is much harder to make ends meet if you make $600 a month, and 10% goes to the government than if you make $6000 and 20% goes to the government. It also saves money in the long run. Those people who wouldn't be able to afford things because of their tax burden, would use government resources to make up the difference, which would use tax money.
    Post edited by David on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    David, if "life in unfair" why should we make it even more unfair by way of the tax code?

    What is so wrong with making someone who earns $10K per year pay $1K in taxes while also making someone who earns $100K a year pay $10K in taxes?

    The second part of your argument is entirely preposterous! Government resources do not help the average person in the way you might think. Most subsidies go to big business not the common man.

    The government does not hand you a check each month to defray the costs of your groceries, they hand a subsidy check to a big agro-firm!

    Look at the poor in America compared to poor in other countries. How many American "poor" own cars, TVs and have air conditioning? Look around the world... how poor are these poor people in the grand scheme of things?

    I've been poor. I've lived pay check to pay check and planned out exactly how long it takes a check to clear at some businesses. Even in those times I never jumped on the government dole.

    I believe tax rates should be the same for everyone with no deductions.

    Yes, I know the mortgage deductions help people own their own homes and fuel the mortgage business but, I don't see that big of a difference in my taxes because of it (yes I have a mortgage).

    The only deduction I could be convinced to support would be one for having kids. Otherwise everyone should pay their share.

    Don't forget, it is the rich in America who create the jobs by hiring people, not the government.
  • AndrewAndrew
    edited April 2007
    Dave, does that mean that Steve Job's doesn't have to pay ANY income taxes because he only makes $1 a year?
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • SparkybuzzedSparkybuzzed
    edited April 2007
    The Fair Tax ftw
    Post edited by Sparkybuzzed on
  • AprecheApreche
    Dave, does that mean that Steve Job's doesn't have to pay ANY income taxes because he only makes $1 a year?
    No because he has other sources of income. His salary might be only $1, but he has a lot of capital gains and investments that are taxed.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Dave, does that mean that Steve Job's doesn't have to pay ANY income taxes because he only makes $1 a year?
    No because he has other sources of income. His salary might be only $1, but he has a lot of capital gains and investments that are taxed.
    He only pays capital gains when he realizes a gain (i.e. sells some stock). Otherwise he has no tax burden.

    Income tax only taxes the accumulation of wealth. If you make $10B in one year and then never make any money after that you will never pay income taxes again.
  • JasonJason
    Except that you don't have it under your mattress. That $10 billion is somewhere, and it's generating revenue. You are taxed on your stock portfolio, and you are taxed on bank interest. He is taxed on the earnings of any venture into which he places that capital as well. Duh.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Except that you don't have it under your mattress. That $10 billion is somewhere, and it's generating revenue. You are taxed on your stock portfolio, and you are taxed on bank interest. He is taxed on the earnings of any venture into which he places that capital as well. Duh.
    You must have read my post too quickly as you missed: "and then never make any money after that"

    If I had $10B I would not put it in a bank. I would buy bullion (gold/platinum/silver) and invest heavily in tax-free municipal bonds.

    Don't forget that any bank transaction larger than $10K is reported to the feds.
  • AprecheApreche
    AFAIK, if you buy bullion and its value increases, you technically have to pay tax on that. Also, you are stupid to not put it in the bank or other investments. If you have $10B, you would be making millions a day with just a simple savings account, even after taxes. If properly invested, it would grow enormously, even after taxes. You would be making money from investments faster than you can spend it and faster than the govt. can tax it.

    If I had stupid amounts of money I would definitely spend most of it on new business ventures.
  • AprecheApreche
    I just did some maths. You can get a normal savings account with 4.5% APY interest with no fees. If you put 10 billion dollars into it, you would make 450 million dollars in interest every year. That's almost 9 million dollars a week. Even if you lived somewhere with socialist taxes of 60%, you would be making at least 3 million dollars a week.

    Also, this is one of the stupidest ways to invest this money. 3 million a week on a 10 billion investment is crap. The bank you have the savings account with will love you and make more money off of your savings than you can even think about in interest.

    A much better idea is to buy a bank or three to keep your money in. That will give you a crazy ass yield.

    Only an idiot would keep money in a mattress.
  • AndrewAndrew
    edited April 2007
    Only an idiot would keep money in a mattress.
    Unless you lived in America during 1929...right joe?
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    Only an idiot would keep money in a mattress.
    Unless you lived in America during 1929...right joe?
    I spent most of '29 in Cairo trying to track down the Lost Treasure of Anubis. I didn't get back to the Sates until they repealed Prohibition in '33, but I see your point.

    Notice how banks are more safe since the initiation of government regulations?
Sign In or Register to comment.