0
airdvr

Fair Share?

Recommended Posts

I know a few people who paid little to no federal tax last year and received a refund MUCH larger than the one I got. Is there a negative tax bracket that I'm missing?

I agree on a flat income tax. I understand why it was decided at some point to not be flat though. Less taxes for the rich so that they can use the money to create jobs. Less tax for the poor because they need the help. It doesn't work that way anymore. Alot (not all) of the very wealthy are pocketing more and investing less. Alot (not all) of the poor are riding unemployment and welfare instead of using them to help find work. The tax code isn't doing what it was designed to do anymore, so what's wrong with a flat income tax?
"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"substance use disorder" Wow. I didn't know we had changed the name to take out all personal responsibility. What were the symptoms of this disorder before we had abusable substances? Granted, that's been a few years.

People start out with the knowledge that the substance is likely to become addictive psychologically or physically. That hardly seems like a disorder to me.

Sorry for the rant. Just tired of changes in the language to absolve people of responsibility for their actions.



I retired in 2/2009. As I recall the official terminology changed in early 2008. Our executive director informed us that we were no longer a drug treatment program.

We, the industry, was focusing on dual diagnosis treatment. My reasoning is that the change made for a more viable phraseology for funding. For example, client/patient has a psychiatric Axis I disorder and an Axis I substance use disorder.

It also obfuscates the difference between alcohol and drugs. Alcoholics tend to reject the notion of being addicts.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Personally, I have yet to hear an explanation of why a flat income tax is not 'fair'. Everyone is invested. Those who earn little, pay little. Those who earn much, pay much.



Indeed, make Romney pay at the same rate the middle class does, instead of a favored 13.9% available only to the poor and the super rich.

If Mitt paid at the same rate I do, the extra revenue could provide college scholarships to hundreds of low income students.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree he should pay the same amount as everyone else. But lets say a vote went thru for equal taxes for all citizens. Dan says half the country doesn't make enough to pay taxes right now. Are they going to vote to pay taxes? Most likely not. I doubt most of the rich would agree to pay more either. Combining those two income groups, I bet it would be a failed vote.

It's kind of like asking Congress to vote to eliminate congressional stock trading and salary reduction. They aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot.
"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

If Mitt paid at the same rate I do, the extra revenue could provide college scholarships to hundreds of low income students.



That is the problem with you people.

If Mitt paid at the same rate I do, the extra revenue could be used to pay off the national debt!



for that matter - "scholarship" should be a merit based term. Else it's called "charity"

I'd rather pay off the debt. But if money is used for higher education, I'd prefer it go to smart kids, regardless of affluence or lack thereof.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Zero is not a fair share

The vast majority of people who pay zero income tax do pay sales tax, property tax (even if in the form of rent, which always includes the owner's property tax costs), etc.

If there were a flat rate of (say) $25 minimum, what would be the cost of administering that flat rate, and what would be the rate of return to the gummint for collecting it, enforcing it, etc. Would it be worth it? You might bend over to pick up pennies, but not everyone thinks it's worth their while.



I think everyone should pay some federal income tax. We all need to be invested in America, and have some stake in how the money gets spent. If 47% pay no federal taxes, then that's 47% who don't care about federal spending, and thus we have out-of-control federal spending. If everyone had to pay something, then everyone would pay more attention to federal spending, and would vote to get it under control. Even if you only make $20k per year, you ought to pay, say, $200 federal income tax. We need something to make people a part of this country, and to care about how it's run. If half of all Americans have no stake in it, then we're doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I know a few people who paid little to no federal tax last year and received a refund MUCH larger than the one I got. Is there a negative tax bracket that I'm missing?



No, they're just calculating their withholdings incorrectly.

If your life is pretty stable year to year (not buying houses, changing jobs, getting married, or having kids) you shouldn't be owing or being refunded large sums of money. There are calculators online you can use but for every 800-900 bucks or so you receive as a refund, you should bump up your federal allowances on your W-4 by one. If you're owing that much, bump it down by one.*

* if you think "800-900" is too low in that statement then you probably aren't the target demographic for my advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

My reasoning is that the change made for a more viable phraseology for funding.

Quote



Yes. I can see that.
You'd more easily get funding for a guy that suffers a "disorder" than you would for guy that is "a complete fuck-up".
Makes sense.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

My reasoning is that the change made for a more viable phraseology for funding.

Quote



Yes. I can see that.
You'd more easily get funding for a guy that suffers a "disorder" than you would for guy that is "a complete fuck-up".
Makes sense.



And then, when you are in the recovery stage you realize you were a complete fuck-up. :D At least it's true in my case.:D
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0