Slashdot Mirror

[Maryland is] A terrifying prospect as a residence?

Best damn state to live in on the East Coast. States between the Coasts are of course uncivilized backwaters not worthy of serious consideration. Washington state? Home of the pestilence known as Microsoft, enough said. Oregon? Yeah, right. Some parts of California are nice, if you can afford it (and only until it falls into the ocean anyway). That leaves only Maryland, my Maryland, hon.

Packed with taxes and guaranteed to stultify?

Our state and local tax burden is just about average (10.3% versus 10.1%).

An unfortunate bump on the road from DC to New York?

You just keep thinking that, tell your friends - maybe it'll slow down the rush of DCer's invading B'more.

Convinced (like so many other states) that gambling is going to save their children from shitty education?

The "slots will save our schools!" thing is pretty much recognized as bullshit from our current gov (who I *so* look forward to seeing tossed out). We'll probably end up with some slot machines at the racetracks, but few people beleive they'll do much more for our schools than horse racing does now.

You're an ignoramus. I'll spell out what's in that spreadsheet: the Red States get the most money back on the Federal tax investments (net gain), and the Blue States get the least (net loss). Even on a per-capita basis (not what we're talking about, and not evaluated by "state") the Blue States still get the shaft, subsidizing the Red States.

Now stop shooting off your mouth about economics about which you know nothing. But please do move to a Red State. You're obviously dragging down the average intelligence and pleasantness in Canada. You're looking for a handout, while bitching about the "liberals" who have kept you alive through so many winters - climatic and otherwise. So you certainly should move to a Red State, where you can carry a gun in peace, and shoot that off instead - the closer to your intellectual cousins the better. The best part is that since you'll have your medieval corporate state there, I won't have to worry about running into you too much here on the Internets.

Why doesn't the government lay the lines for internet where needed and let companies use them? Just like the Tennessee Valley Authority Act but with internet.

I think the risk here is that we'd soon see yet another version of the Telephone Excise Act (aka: "The Spanish American War tax"), only this time with a much longer life-span (as if 107 years isn't bad enough), and a much higher cost. Somebody's going to want to turn a profit off the effort, or offset the cause, and a connectivity tax is probably the only way to do it.

I do not think the vast majority of ppl realize the total tax burden placed on them .

Tax Freedom Day, 1980-2005

I realize that the government needs money to run, don't get me wrong , but make it fair and proportional .

Sounds like you need to join the Free State Project

The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property. The success of the Project would likely entail reductions in taxation and regulation, reforms at all levels of government to expand individual rights and free markets, and a restoration of constitutional federalism, demonstrating the benefits of liberty to the rest of the nation and the world.

What if record keeping was good enough (nevermind the privacy issues etc) that your taxes, no matter how complex, could be computed for you without any effort of your own?

Would you be happy or ...perhaps just a nice sheep in the flock getting fleeced on a yearly basis?

**start vignette**

You (looking like a sheep): "Baa. Baa."

Uncle Sam: "This won't hurt a bit, we need just a little bit more to fund Senator [enter favorite name here]'s pet project."

You (looking less like a sheep not much coat left): "Baa. Baa."

Uncle Sam: "Oh it turns out that prescription drug for the older sheep is going cost a bit more." Buzzing sound heard in the background.

You (looking a bit naked): "Baa. Baa."

Uncle Sam: "Remember that Social Security thing? Well it turns out you sheep haven't been getting it on enough and the older sheep just keep getting older and older. So just a bit more if you don't mind."

**end start vignette**

Losing the ability to see how much the government is taking of your hard earned money is NOT a good thing, because if they could they would take more and more... they would.

Everytime I have to read the instructions for any section, I get so mad. I often scratch my head and re-read things multiple times because it is far too complicated. To see all the rules that they make up to give each little interest group their piece of the pie is amazing. Can you imagine trying to do your taxes by hand? omg, shoot me.

Getting mad at tax time is important!

I could go on for a while... but I'll spare people who have read this far more diarrhea of the mouth.

I think you get the picture.

hmm? what is it going to be? You want to be a sheep?

"Baa. Baa."

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/52.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/
http://www.socialsecurity.org/
http://www.atr.org/

What if record keeping was good enough (nevermind the privacy issues etc) that your taxes, no matter how complex, could be computed for you without any effort of your own?

Would you be happy or ...perhaps just a nice sheep in the flock getting fleeced on a yearly basis?

**start vignette**

You (looking like a sheep): "Baa. Baa."

Uncle Sam: "This won't hurt a bit, we need just a little bit more to fund Senator [enter favorite name here]'s pet project."

You (looking less like a sheep not much coat left): "Baa. Baa."

Uncle Sam: "Oh it turns out that prescription drug for the older sheep is going cost a bit more." Buzzing sound heard in the background.

You (looking a bit naked): "Baa. Baa."

Uncle Sam: "Remember that Social Security thing? Well it turns out you sheep haven't been getting it on enough and the older sheep just keep getting older and older. So just a bit more if you don't mind."

**end start vignette**

Losing the ability to see how much the government is taking of your hard earned money is NOT a good thing, because if they could they would take more and more... they would.

Everytime I have to read the instructions for any section, I get so mad. I often scratch my head and re-read things multiple times because it is far too complicated. To see all the rules that they make up to give each little interest group their piece of the pie is amazing. Can you imagine trying to do your taxes by hand? omg, shoot me.

Getting mad at tax time is important!

I could go on for a while... but I'll spare people who have read this far more diarrhea of the mouth.

I think you get the picture.

hmm? what is it going to be? You want to be a sheep?

"Baa. Baa."

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/52.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/
http://www.socialsecurity.org/
http://www.atr.org/

Gee, with a comment like yours, maybe it makes sense for me to post as an AC. Glad to see that a "revolutionary" like you advances concepts like "free speech" and "open debate." Nice.

The important point, which has been made by others in this discussion, is that it is really quite incomplete to say that IBM made $X and therefore should throw money at something.

I agree that there are problems with global corporations, but I would find more sensible an argument that Sam Palmisano made $11mm last year or that IBM gives away an egregious amount of executive options than an argument that IBM makes "too much money."

By the way, your precious unions control an awful lot of money too. Did you know the AFL-CIO Housing Investment Trust managages over $3.6 BILLION? Me neither.

Even more impressive is the amount of money sitting in the public and union pension funds. CalPers is pushing $150 BILLION. The Teamsters are somewhere over $41 BILLION. And guess where all that money is invested? Or at least 46% of it? That's right - the stock market - in IBM and every other big, evil corporation.

Don't kid yourself, the unions are big business just as much as IBM is. At least IBM comes right out and says 'screw the worker'. Just like the Democrats, unions pretend to help out the working stiff, but they shaft him in the end just the same.

Riiiight.

So, you posit that rural dwellers are self-reliant and accountable for their own actions, while city dwellers want government handouts.

Well, actually, the real data shows that the opposite is true. Let's talk taxes. Consider this study of the 2000 Bush-v-Gore election results, as mapped against states that receive net benefits from federal spending. If you want more recent data, you can map the raw facts yourself against the result of the 2004 Bush-v-Kerry election using this data published by taxfoundation.org.

I'm come from plain talking folk, so let me just say it how it is. How red staters can keep posing about their hardy self-reliance while simultaneously sucking so hard on the public teat provided by the blue staters strikes me as being, at the very least, impolite. I don't mind contributing my fair share of taxes - I view it as an investment in my country for all that it provides to me- and for some of those taxes to go to support the undereducated, indigent or unfortunate, be they rural or urban. I don't even expect the recipients to say "please" or "thank you" when they take the money given to them. But do expect not to have my hand spit when I'm trying to give you the handout.

So, pass this around to your fellow self-reliant, hardy, accountable red staters -- Strut around and pose all you want, but if you can't be polite, give us back our taxes.

Thanks a bunch.

Excellent point.. this would be confusing not to mention frustrating (trying to plan financially when your pay would be adjusted continually with tax changes)

But the real danger is in creating a large pool of citizens whose vote determines tax rates, but who don't pay taxes. No good can come of that.

We are rapidly approaching that point anyway. According to this website, as many as 44% of the US population do not pay FIT anyway

Frankly, that's a retarded attitude, but a lot of lazy people share it. To have your employer automatically subtract (sorry, "withhold") taxes just so you can feel like you're winning the lottery when you get your "refund" is... retarded. Not only do you lose out on the interest, but the government has you by the balls because you don't even really feel the pain of PAYING taxes.

Since I'm self-employed, nobody withholds from me, so I get to feel it when I write my two checks to Fed and State treasuries.

By the way, Tax Freedom Day for 2005 falls on April 17th, so you're still working to payoff taxes until then... but at least you won't feel it. :)

Here's some data to back that up:

Link

Note the top 25% of income, people making greater than $56k a year, in 2001, paid 83% of the total tax bill.

And the top 10%, making 92k or more a year, paid 65%.

The bottom 50%, below 28k, paid only 3.5% of the total income tax bill.

That doesn't sound like "tax the poor and spare the rich" to me.

Only problem comes on what that first $xxx is. If it is. First you have the argument over at what point it should be. Anyone below that amount wouldn't give a shit over the tax rate as they wouldn't be paying any (we are starting to have this problem now with many people filing zero tax returns). They would say, up the taxes and not care, and still want any freebies they were getting before. Second, Inflation would make it so that more people would be above that over time and tying it to inflation would not necessarily be the best idea as that same argument would start to apply. If you're going to tax at a flat rate and truly call it fair it has to be everyone at the same rate with no deductions at all.

As for reducing the burden on the poor, I think that if you taxed everyone at the same rate with no deductions at all (starting at 25% is just my example here) I would bet that the rate could be reduced as more money would probably flow in than now. Look at the reasons behind the Alternative Minimum Tax and you will see why. Deductions of any sort create loopholes.

Info on the zeron return filers can be found here. http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/zerotaxfilers.html

The most common citation is an Atrios article which refers to data from TaxFoundation. Indeed, state & local tax rates are higher in Georgia than they are in Mass. It would be even worse, except that Massachussets is a net federal donor that subsidizes a bunch of other states.

The most common citation is an Atrios article which refers to data from TaxFoundation. Indeed, state & local tax rates are higher in Georgia than they are in Mass. It would be even worse, except that Massachussets is a net federal donor that subsidizes a bunch of other states.

There are excise and duties levied on items like cigarettes and liquor. I believe you'll see a little state seal on packs of cigarettes and what-not. Remember that taxes on cigarettes

So, I think we're mixing up two very different ideas and legal issues when we call it a sales tax.

Info from 2003 here

As you can see we're talking money well over and beyond the sales tax for these items.

Interesting that one of the solutions proposed for SS is to raise taxes. Even more reason to eliminate it. (Or get out of it).

Higher classes get most of their incomes from different areas, like capital gains, which do not pay their due burden for our government. As for the poor and middle class being more burdened, fewer people are paying any income tax now. http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/zerotaxfilers.html A flat rate, with no deductions, on all whould tax everyone equally. It would also prevent a need for moving around the brackets as wages move up.

Solution: Eliminate corporate income tax (otherwise it is a double tax on the divedends) and count divedends under income. Flat tax on all income including that which is currently defined as captitol gains.

Remember that SS was put into place because most Americans weren't putting any (or enough) money away for retirement.

So some should be penalized for the idiocy of others? It wasn't meant to be the wealth redistribution scheme it has become. Also SS was not originally supposed to be under federal control. Also, there are several states that have their own pension plans in place of SS that give much better returns (http://dcexaminer.com/articles/2005/02/08/opinion /editorial/01aaedit.txt. that 3% figure that they give in the article you have should be more like 2% from what I have read. (sorry, can't find that link, though this may help http://www.heritage.org/research/features/socialse curity/)

Please examine the facts of the tax situation in the US here. It is a pretty good resource without politics. If I may quote "The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers earned 64 percent of the nation's income and paid more than four out every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (83.9 percent) in 2002." The top 1% of the rich pay 33% of the taxes! (And that is after all the loopholes they could find!)

No matter how you look at it, the rich are paying for this country. Everybody seems to think that this is fine. I think the real problem is that what people don't realize is that "he who pays the bills decides the priorities."

I think the rich pay too much, and therefore have way too much power!

Think about it...

I'm sorry, this is just totally wrong. Please look at the facts here. If I may quote "The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers earned 64 percent of the nation's income and paid more than four out every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (83.9 percent) in 2002."

The real poor pay no taxes at all, and still get a refund (its called EIC or earned income credit). The middle class (about the middle 50%) pay 16% of the total taxes. The rich (the top 25%) pay 83.9% of all taxes.

Really, you are totally wrong!

If you're going to compare to the EU, let's go all the way. The EU has a declining birthrate and a large number of people on the verge of retirement. Their socialist systems will implode under their own weight.

The same is being said about our Social Security system, which btw, is the largest socialist program that is not identified as a socialist program. Socialism in the US?! Never!!

Let's also mention military might. The EU spends about $0.35/year on their military budget, and that's why when some asshole in Absurdistan starts massacring people, the EU sends a platoon of potato peelers and the US sends 20 battallions of armed and trained Marines.

I'd rather we followed the prime directive. We don't. But despite spending almost as much as the rest of the world does on military, we don't have a stellar record of policing the world.

I don't remember any of our marines showing up when Pol Pot butchered a million (give or take a few hundred thousand) Cambodians. Or when Idi Amin "Dada" wiped out half a million of his subjects. Where exactly where our marines when Juvénal Habyarimana was waging a genocidal war against the Tutsis? (Of course, after his death another 800,000 were slaughtered, so can't directly credit him with every death.) BTW, it was the French who stepped in to bring a fragile "peace" (a little too late for all the dead), but our marines were quite conspicuous by their absence during all this turmoil. Did our marines show up when Augusto Pinochet was busy imprisoning, torturing and executing 30,000 Chileans?

So yes, we send our Marines only to the Absurdistans that happen to have oil. See how our marines took care of the "Butcher of Baghdad"; but let us not dampen our euphoria by also mentioning the 17,500 to 100,000 we have managed to wipe out in the process of deposing Saddam Hussein.

BTW, it is not as if the EU is stingy when it comes to spending money on their military. France, Germany, the UK, and Italy are 4 of the top 7 countries when it comes to the military expenditures. France, Norway, Greece, UK, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, Finland, all make it to the top 25 Military Expenditures per capita.

The EU socialist-lite system works because it depends on the charity of the American military.

For all the money we are pouring into the military complex, we'd better believe that we are doing it for charity, or we'll have to start asking some really disturbing questions. The EU may or may not collapse under the weight of their socialist systems. But one thing is certain - if current levels of military expenditures continue and 'boomers start to retire in 2010, then by 2015 the US budget will have little else to spend on other than the Defence, Soc. Sec, and medicare. No wriggle room.

By 2025 the proverbial shit will hit the fan. Don't take my or anyone else's word for it (such as the NYTimes, WashingtonPost or for that matter

We didn't support your president

That's kinda the point, but you nimrods are so stupid, sarcasm flies completely over your heads, kinda like we do when we pass over your inbred ass selves on our way to and from the coasts.

and we sure as fuck don't want your support. Go back to dreaming about Bill Clinton's misshapen cock now.

Sadly, you need our support a shitload more than we ever needed yours. But seriously, you don't want our support? Stop watching all TV and movies except the 700 club, the Jerry Falwell hour, The Grand 'Ol Opry and Fox Fucking News. The rest was probably made buy one of us hated liberals. Oh, and give us our fucking tax money back while you're at it, you ungrateful shitheels.

Modern conservatives hold the belief of independence from the state

That's a nice thought and theory on why people vote that way, but if you look at how much is paid per capita in taxes vs. how much is received in federal expenditures, the people in the red states are predominantly on the receiving end of the taxes paid by the people in the blue states:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html

I'd really like to see a map overlay, but it looks to me like they vote like vampires...because they certainly aren't opposed to welfare.

They also seem way too interested in controlling what happens inside other peoples' bedrooms and bodies.

For 2003 a single man making 28,400 dollars, and living in WA state (8% sales tax) he will pay 27% of his wages in tax.

Where are you getting those numbers? Spending half of his earnings on taxable goods yields about $1100 in sales tax, or about 4% of the income. Are you implying that he would have a 23% income tax rate? Think again...

At the other end of the income spectrum, the bottom 50 percent of the nation's taxpayers (everyone whose adjusted gross income was under $28,654) earned more and paid less. Total income for this group rose from $861 billion to $870 billion. That was up from 13.8 percent of all income in 2001 to 14.23 percent in 2002. Despite growth in the percentage of total income earned by the bottom half of earners, their average tax rate fell from 4.1 percent to 3.2 percent.

(http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincome.html)

What a lot of people are confused about when it comes to income taxes is that just because you get a certain amount of money taken out of your paycheck (in the neighborhood of >20%) doesn't mean that that's your actual tax rate. When tax return time comes around, you get a lot of it back (depending on how much you make), making your effective tax rate far lower than what it APPEARS to be on your paychecks. If you make a decent amount of money, you OWE additional money come tax time, making your effective income tax rate even HIGHER.

You know why low income earners don't get many tax breaks? Because they hardly pay any taxes to begin with!

Here's a good table: http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html

For 2003 a single man making 28,400 dollars, and living in WA state (8% sales tax) he will pay 27% of his wages in tax.

Where are you getting those numbers? Spending half of his earnings on taxable goods yields about $1100 in sales tax, or about 4% of the income. Are you implying that he would have a 23% income tax rate? Think again...

At the other end of the income spectrum, the bottom 50 percent of the nation's taxpayers (everyone whose adjusted gross income was under $28,654) earned more and paid less. Total income for this group rose from $861 billion to $870 billion. That was up from 13.8 percent of all income in 2001 to 14.23 percent in 2002. Despite growth in the percentage of total income earned by the bottom half of earners, their average tax rate fell from 4.1 percent to 3.2 percent.

(http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincome.html)

What a lot of people are confused about when it comes to income taxes is that just because you get a certain amount of money taken out of your paycheck (in the neighborhood of >20%) doesn't mean that that's your actual tax rate. When tax return time comes around, you get a lot of it back (depending on how much you make), making your effective tax rate far lower than what it APPEARS to be on your paychecks. If you make a decent amount of money, you OWE additional money come tax time, making your effective income tax rate even HIGHER.

You know why low income earners don't get many tax breaks? Because they hardly pay any taxes to begin with!

Here's a good table: http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html

Sources?

I sincerely hope and expect that such astounding Internet Ignorance will swiftly be eliminated from our gene pool.

I found it with Google.com in under 7 seconds. That's 13 seconds less than the mandatory post-delay imposed on slashdot comments.

Furthermore, to be unaware of the famous paradox that Republican states get the most benefit from Democrat-linked "big government" programs... actually, I suppose that's the typical reality-aversion of the American electorate.

The vast majority of folks who want this changed live in New York and California -- States that consistently get lots more federal money than they pay in federal taxes.

Maybe you should check the facts. I know that you want to say "Those damn California liberals want my money!" but that's simply not what's going on. Republican states tend to be poor and sparsely populated. This means that they generate little revenue for the federal government, but actually require more in spending (primarily in highway funds). The non-partisan Tax Foundation issued a report about his recently.

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

The vast majority of folks who want this changed live in New York and California -- States that consistently get lots more federal money than they pay in federal taxes.

Maybe you should check the facts. I know that you want to say "Those damn California liberals want my money!" but that's simply not what's going on. Republican states tend to be poor and sparsely populated. This means that they generate little revenue for the federal government, but actually require more in spending (primarily in highway funds). The non-partisan Tax Foundation issued a report about his recently.

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

Congratulations on buying a supercomputer for your third rate school with our money. The smart people who made it in California and sold it to you must be very happy. And thanks for hosting a NASA test site too dirty for any state of smart people to have in their backyard (at least 200 miles from yours), though it's a good demonstration of socialism working to drag smart people from out of state to prop up a failed society. Offering them the state's 70 miles of beachfront probably helped them ignore the swamp of ignorance and mud to the north.

Since I embrace the smart Mississipians who can cut it here in New York City (and elsewhere that I've met your refugees), I'm hardly the bigot that you are. Unless a prejudice for smart people as "smart" is bad. Of course, I don't expect you to understand words like "bigot", when you point at state schools which admit 13% of their students as black in a state with 36% black people: "in 1992 it was necessary for the U.S. Supreme Court to order the state college system to end its tradition of segregation". Thanks for the chance to quickly research the facts behind the obvious display of bigotry and idiocy that is synonymous with "Mississippi" after all your hard work. Please send back some of our tax money - I promise New York will spend it on sending you more of that good TV that you love so much.

THey tax the rich and upper income earners more than we do (50% at least)

but the "largest tax increase in the history of mankind" (according to Rush Limbaugh anyway)

No, actually according to anyone who cares to read the numbers. Please see chart #1 at Tax Freedom Day and note that from 1992 to 2000 (the Clinton years), taxes did nothing but go up, fast.

Why is there only the complete liberal vs the absolute fascist?

I would like to first clear up the misconception that a libertarian resembles a fascist. Fascists heavily control private enterprise, which is the opposite of a libertarian. I also wouldn't classify fascists as non-interventionists. I'm trying to figure out if there's any similarity at all.

Next, remember that Badnarik is running for Federal office. Libertarians want a small Federal government. The Constitution set up a framework for a union of states, and he's following that. Small-scale social programs are often quite effective, and much easier to control. Many libertarians would not even oppose a small-scale (small state or local) social program.

Local programs don't really have the ability to confiscate in quite the same way. You can move, or attend a town hall meeting and voice your opinion, etc. If you disagree with Social Security and don't pay in, you go to prison. And just try to voice an opinion about Social Security and see how far you get. Now that is confiscation.

Remember that 122 Million Americans are completely outseide the Federal tax system, according to this source. That means they can vote your money away with no consequences whatsoever.

It is clearly the role of government to crush false hope wherever it may be found, by whatever means necessary!

A substantial number of people in this country feel it is immoral to use embryonic stem cells for research. The ban on using new embryonic stem cells applies only to federally-funded research projects.

So, one might also ask: is it the role of government to confiscate resources from some people (122 million people are outside of the federal tax system, according to this source) and conduct research that many of those people do not believe in?

I prefer there to be embryonic stem cell research. But I would not favor confiscating other people's money to do it, particularly if those people are not like-minded about the type of research.

The actual number is something like 45%, although it doesn't explicitly say that in this article. I have long been an advocate of a simple yearly "citizen's fee", where government sends you the bill and the citizens see EXACTLY how much they're forking over. (There may or may not be seperate bills for federal/state/local governments.) As it is, government has designed their system to be as un-noticable as possible -- they don't suck us dry all at once, they suck us dry little by little so the average joe has no clue how much he's really paying. If we don't know how much we're paying, how can we determine whether or not we're getting our money's worth?

but I can't think of any Federal activity that is incrementally affected by my child. And my kid goes to a private school, so that one doesn't really happen either.


It's not just a question of federal, since most states have similar deductions.

As an aside, I was pretty surprised how much that varies from state to state.

There are federal funds for education as well, but you seem to be subsidizing everybody else on that one as well (private school).

I was surprised to find that (from what I could find with a quick google search) there were far fewer federally funded child related programs than I thought. The most common result was for so called "dead beat dads" who don't pay their child support, which it certainly seems does not relate to you.

Try coming up with some. I'm really curious.

Well, there it was. Not too much at all, at the federal level. None to some at the state level assuming we're in the same state and that state has a dependent tax credit.

Also curious why you believe that three people living on 60K/year should pay as much taxes as two people living on same. Or six people, for that matter.

Well, this is basically the crux of my argument.
I am curious why you believe that you should pay less taxes just because you actively chose to increase the number of people you have to support on your salary.
That is my main point about it being a subsidy.
I pay more because you have increased your expenses. Why shouldn't I get a break if I have to support myself, my wife, my crack habit and a string of hookers on my salary. That's 4 major expenses to your 3.
Do you see the point I'm trying to make?

Specifically with your Medicare and Social Security taxes. Which are Pay as You Go, no matter what you have heard to the contrary

Well, they come out of every one of my paychecks, so I have to assume that "Pay as You Go" has some specific meaning I don't know since I have no idea what could be said to the contrary.

When you retire, the workers of that time will be paying for your benefits. A Ponsy Scheme, in other words

Agreed 100%.

And I disapprove of property taxes in general.

Just curious, assuming you believe that taxes are necessary at some level (I do), what kind do you approve of?

In reply to your factless, logic-devoid ad hominem attack defending the thinking of Red Staters by attacking mine, I cheerfully back up my own statements:

You just keep thanking god,

You just thanked god for our republic. I don't remember seeing god's signature on the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

and we, the majority on the coasts,

I live in NYC, on the East Coast, which is home to over 102M people, while the West coast is home to over 45M people. Not even counting the Gulf Coast, that's over half of Americans, plus the people who are counted as living outside those coasts, but actually live here while they go to school or work. That's a majority. We're popular.

will keep making the money that's always propped you up

The great myth of "Western Independence" is belied by simple evidence like the net transfer of wealth from East/West Coast states through even the income tax, and federal spending. Find your welfare state in the handy chart! Don't forget to thank us.

since you massacred the Indians.

OK, *you* personally have never massacred any Indians. But where do you think that healthy environment around you came from? The stewardship of SUV driving, TNT-fishing, laser-scope hunting, WalMart shopping aboriginal tribes of golfshirt people?

Just remember that we don't need you brain-drainees so much now that the Cold War is over,

Look at all the out of towners around NYC, the johnny-come-latelies in California, and all the people fleeing the vast wasteland between the mountains, then turning to the monster truck rallies, wrestling supermatches, and amber waves of grain. You might prefer the peace and quiet, but we've got your best and brightest. Once your Bush boys have waved goodbye to all the jobs except China's WalMart salesdroids, even those charming missile silos won't endear you to an American economy fighting to compete in a global info economy strangely alien to downhome tractor drivers.

so when your pickups are trudging through the next Dust Bowl

You didn't learn from the last one, judging from the mileage on those pickups and SUVs. Isn't history funny the way it repeats? And I don't mean just the perpetual war on your History Channel.

searching for the last gallon of gas

Of course you can trust your buddies in Oklahoma and Texas to save some for their country cousins, right?

don't come whining to us about how we've moved on.

That one might be off the mark. You'll probably figure out some way to send in the troops to our coastal states, because we've got WMDs or something.

And keep your apocalypse stories away from our Button.

"God speaks through me." - GW Bush. Cut the crap, denier. You made the mistake of insulting New York, where the smart people live. You're the kind of mockery that isn't funny, coming unarmed to a battle of wits. This is not a joke. Your empty, obnoxious insults, biting the hands that feed you, are unacceptable. Don't be surprised when we cut off the free ride.

What, like in 2000? Yeah, right.

Well, right now you're modded "Insightful", so at least one mod shares your knee-jerk tinfoil-hat mindset. That doesn't mean you have any actual insight, however. It's easy to be cynical. When you're cynical you can just lean back in your chair, lick the orange stuff from your Cheetoes off your fingers, and sneer at everything. Doing something to effect real change is much more difficult.

To the extent that the "major parties" get preferential treatment under US election law, I actually don't disagree with you. However, the fact remains that convention delegates are *not* government officials, are generally *not* public figures, and so retain the same rights of privacy as anyone else. Yourself included, even if you chose to attend a convention as a delegate for some reason.

So, yes, people with that kind of power over the politicians who will spend 60+% of your hard-earned cash every year should be publicly accessible.

You'll find that delegates have relatively little power. At least for the first ballot, they have no choice as to how to cast their votes under the current primary system. Their individual identities are therefore as relevant as those of the Electors who actually vote for the President. At least the Electors' duty is Constitutionally mandated! And seriously, is there any doubt about who they're going to nominate? If there wasn't for the Democrats, where there was more than one candidate in the primary field, how can there be for the Republicans?

Incidentally, tax freedom day this year was April 11, representing rather less than 60% of your income.

builds his house outside the city limits to avoid paying property tax

And still has to pay for the school district his property is undoubtedly within, and doesn't receive city services like police or fire protection. Sounds fair to me.

He buys his expensive cars and such across state lines so he doesn't pay sales tax.

This doesn't work-- I really wish it did. But almost all states have use tax tied to car registration. And if you try to avoid taxes this way, you can go to jail (witness the problems Kozlowski of Tyco is experiencing).

So, no, I don't believe that the lower 50% of taxpayers pay under 4% of all income tax.

Well, the Congressional Budget Office as cited by the National Taxpayers Union thinks so. Sure, if you count state and local taxes, in addition to the income tax and FICA, you'll come up with a little more than 4%.

But to take an example, my state (California) has a really high tax burden, at $3676 per capita. California residents pay $7286 per capita in income tax. Even if all of the state tax was equally divided over all California citizens, the lower 50% of wage earners would pay 19.4% of the combined state and federal tax burden. And of course, most of this money is raised in a highly-progressive income tax (even more so than the federal income tax), rich people tend to pay more per capita in property tax because they tend to have more property.. and they tend to buy more stuff to pay sales tax on, etc etc etc.

Sources:

Federal tax burden and expenditures by state
Tax Foundation's sunmmary of California tax burden

Nobody's rights have been violated by the Patriot Act. Name one or shut up.

The deficit as a percent of GDP is LOWER now than it was under Clinton.

It was the low bidder; what do you want - WalMart supplying our troops?

The president penalized hundreds of millions of Americans for not being rich enough, siphoning off billions to hand back to his rich donors. Reinvesting in faith corporations (churches) that merely sap productivity was his cover for derelicting his duty to protecting the infrastructure and markets. Those WTC/Pentagon attacks followed up the USS Cole bombing, during which his defense/intelligence staff dropped intelligence in favor of drugs and pornography.

The worst damage to our economy has been the doubling of oil prices, obviously another perk for Bush's natural constituency of Saudis and American oil companies. Lesser damage has been done by refocusing from communications to warfare, while feeding foreign nations, like China, more export business. The most serious damage has been to the "magic" US reputation, abroad and at home, for stability and justice. People would rather do business with someone else, or not at all, and that's starving our spirit and our economy.

Oklahoma is a welfare state: handed $1.32 in 1992, and $1.52 in 2002, for every dollar invested in the Federal wealth redistribution; the #10 & #11 welfare states in those years, respectively. My state, NY, only got back $0.86 & $0.85 in those years (#40), so we're paying your way. If you cross-reference those data with the 2000 election data, you'll find that only 4 Red States haven't been rewareded with Federal handouts by Bush: Texas (he can't lose their support, and his people there don't pay taxes), Colorado (winning as of 6/8/04 by only 48:43%, much tighter than his other rightwing policies would suggest), Nevada (currently a tie at about 45% each) and New Hampshire (currently Kerry's at 49:42%). So that welfare has been well spent by Bush, to protect his base.

At least you and I agree that the best way to keep the government doing its least damage is to keep it doing its least. And one way is through "divided government", or the traditional American electorate behavior of "balancing the ticket". The apathy to which I refer is the acceptance of Bush's malfeasance in a job for which he's not qualified, except as the spokesmodel for the corporations that are sucking America dry. Enron... The American spirit to which we both refer is the distrust of government, institutionalized in our separation of powers, united to work by checks and balances. Since Congress will likely remain a Republican Party asset next year, it's that much more important to get rid of Bush, and his central Republican committe at the White House.

No, Anonymous mendacious Coward, Bush's $10T loss has already sucked all the corporate welfare out of the foreseeable American future. There's no welfare left for Kerry to hand out. Typically, it's Bush who's promising the handouts, and there's reason to believe him: Compare his 2000 Presidential election Red States with his 2002 Federal tax/spend ratios. You'll see that all his Red States got paid off in welfare sucked from Blue States, with 4 notable exceptions. Texas is already his oil fiefdom, while Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire are now likely Kerry victories. Again, corporate lies steal America from its people - this time, uttered by your anonymous, cowardly mouth.

tax freedom day

Contrast this the states: (April 11) taxfoundation

Enter your particulars, does the date come out after June 30? Then you are paying more than 50% tax.

Granted, this is an average, and assumes that you don't live like a hermit. Personally, I spend pretty much everything I make, and most of what I buy is subject to tons of tax. I don't sit at home munching on bulk crackers.

I assume you mean "GDP", as I have no idea what "GPD" might mean. In any case, no, that's not what it indicates - you're completely wrong. Even if the total Swedish GDP is lower than the US, which it surely is, the Swedes pay out a higher percentage of that smaller pie in taxes. If you compare per capita GDP, the disparity becomes even more apparent - the Swedes have a per capita GDP of about $26,000 per year (PPP adjusted), of which they lose more than 50% to taxes, or more than $13,000 per year per person. The United States has a per capita GDP of about $36,000 per year, of which they lose about 28% to taxes, or about $10,000 per year per person.

How you got modded insightful, I'll never know.

In the US, around 50% of my income goes to taxes.

I doubt it. In the state with the highest total tax burden, Connecticut, the average tax burden when combining federal, local, and state taxes is about 33% of income. Either your income is much higher than average to hit 50% taxation, or, more likely, you're just plain wrong. Of course, if you want to lower taxes, I'm listening, but the plain and simple fact is that total taxation in the US is already among the lowest in the developed world.

I don't know your situation (obviously) but page 13 of that same report mentions that Canada's "Tax Freedom day" - the day that the average Canadian has earned enough to pay all of the taxes for that year - in 2003 fell in the 178th day of the year, June 27th. That's even worse than Britain's "TFD", which will be on the 163th day of the year, June 11th. Contrast that with the US "TFD", which was on April 11th. So the US tax rates are lower than Canada's after al - lower by a couple of months!

Of course, they are all still way too high. Even God Almighty only asks for a tithe.

I don't know your situation (obviously) but page 13 of that same report mentions that Canada's "Tax Freedom day" - the day that the average Canadian has earned enough to pay all of the taxes for that year - in 2003 fell in the 178th day of the year, June 27th. That's even worse than Britain's "TFD", which will be on the 163th day of the year, June 11th. Contrast that with the US "TFD", which was on April 11th. So the US tax rates are lower than Canada's after al - lower by a couple of months!

Of course, they are all still way too high. Even God Almighty only asks for a tithe.

No need to calculate it your self here is a site that does it by each state.

At least $200 billion per year.

5.8 billion person-hours in 2002 - the equivalent to the entire labor of a city of 2.7 million people.

> Income: xxxxxx
> x 0.20
> Tax owed: xxx

The question is "how do you define income" -- at which point we're back to square one. Capital gains? Dividends? Revenue from your business? Or profits? If profits -- how do you handle the deduction of your legitimate business expenses? What expenses are legitimate and what expenses aren't? That yacht you bought to entertain your guests? The hamburger you bought when you were interviewing your first employee?

I believe that taxing consumption, not income, allows for a less complex system.

If I had to "patch" the US Internal Revenue Code, I'd:

1. Abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax. One tax code is enough.

2. Eliminate holding periods such as the one-year holding period to differentiate a "short-term" capital gain versus a "long-term" capital gain, and the "30 days, not necessarily consecutive, during the 60 days surrounding the ex-dividend date" used to determine whether dividends are "qualified" or "unqualified" dividends, and the 2-year rule on principal residences. Eliminating these arbitrary time periods and the differential tax rates they cause throughout dozens of forms would eliminate *hundreds* of lines of calculations that deal with the intersection of these arbitrary time periods, Section 1250 contracts, and the myriads of "wash sale", "straddle" and "constructive sale" rules, etc etc etc.

3. Eliminate phaseouts. There's nothing dumber than going through the entire year assuming you get a $5000 deduction, only to find out that the $5000 deduction is "phased out" by $0.25 for every dollar over $32,767 that you made, until $49,152. (Unless you're an Albino Sheep, in which case you have the Albino Sheep Allowance of $6000, phased out by $0.52 for every dollar over $39,152 to $42,767.) If you must have progressivity or social engineering measures in the tax code, make 'em all-or-nothing.

4. Tax employment income, interest income, dividend income, and capital gains income at the same flat rate. (Double taxation on dividends could be prevented under such a scheme by providing full deductibility for corporations that issue dividends. My personal opinion is that because investments are purchased with after-tax dollars, the only morally-justifiable tax rate on investment income - interest, dividends, or capital gains - is zero. But in this post, I'm talking about how I'd patch the existing Internal Revenue Code so as not to be so fucking confusing, not to make it "right".)

5. Scrap the motherfucker. And replace it with a consumption-based tax. But since #5 isn't gonna happen - ever - I'll vote for any ruler who includes any of #1 through #4 in his platform.

Then it's good that you live in a country where you pay about 12% of your paycheck in income taxes, and maybe another 10% in various other taxes. If you do your deductions right, it's probably even less than that. Very, very few Americans pay more than a third of their income in all taxes.

That's just plain wrong. The LOWEST federal income tax rate is 10%. The average income per American is around $28,500, which puts the federal income tax rate at 15-25% (depending on whether the person is married). (Reference: here)

Saying that the average person doesn't pay more than 1/3 in taxes is also just plain wrong. According to the nonprofit, non-partison organization known as the Tax Foundation, this year's Tax Freedom day is April 11, which is very close to exactly 1/3 through the year. It's also the lowest since 1967. (Reference: here.

After you've controlled for family income, education of the parents, ethnicity, rural vs. urban setting, and the kid's IQ, you're left with very few comparable cases. This makes it very difficult to examine outcomes of children in private vs. public schools.

I'm not in as good of a mood as I was yesterday, so my responses may not be as "politically correct" as they were then... so forgive me if I say Bullshit. That's a cop-out that anybody can see through. People that actually believe that are just making excuses for why their children aren't getting as high grades as the next person's children. It's a really sad excuse that has NEVER been proven, or even evidenced. The very fact that you'd bring up ethnicity as a possible reason for why some children aren't performing as well as others is symptomatic of a deeper issue within yourself that I won't delve into here. As far as the person's IQ, rural vs. urban environment, or family income, there have been so many examples of why that formula doesn't apply, I'll only mention a couple... Bill Gates, Colin Powell (grew up in the Bronx, did you know that?), my own father, in fact.

Also, if you only measure academic performance, you're only getting part of the picture.

I'd say this was a cop-out as well. You're effectly saying that you can have no job, but as long as your family loves you and you have some good friends, you're successful in life. Again, bullshit. May I also point out that the lower you go in terms of education, the higher the chances are of you ending up on drugs or in therapy.

As far as saying human beings are social animals, you're right. We are. But I fail to see how that argument has anything to do with whether society will benefit from me having to pay your education. Unless the alternative is that I have to live alone, with no family, no friends, and no acquaintances, sitting in a cold dark room for the rest of my days, I'd rather keep the money I work for. If that's not the only alternative, maybe we should explore why you imply that it is?

No, not really. Having a lower standard of living now so that you can have a higher one later is not the same as going into debt and putting your life on hold such that you *never* have certain opportunities. Going into debt is expensive. Americans don't really seem to get this.

Or maybe you don't understand my point. If you go into debt, you have to make small payments every month for a long period of time. If you're saving for retirement, you have to make small payments every month for a long period of time. In the end, you're still putting aside a portion of your paycheck that you won't benefit from until later in life.

Actually, for a lot of people, it's most important to study something that will make you *happy*. For some people, that happens to be whatever will make them the most money... their happiness is tied to their financial status. For most, though, they can make tons of money and be perfectly miserable.

I saw that after-school speci

Engaging in what is essentially part-time slavery is bad management; those who engage in it, or look the other way, are criminals.

God forbid that the folks making 90k+ a year are already paying 65% of the current tax load should have to pay -MORE- of the tax load (and those making 55k+ are paying almost 83%).

Ignoring the fact that you fail to cite those numbers (since they appear accurate), it's a meaningless figure. What percentage of the total money made are made by the people? A more accurate figure is the percentage of income that is paid as taxes by this group.

Tax Foundation has a table with just such data (cited as from the IRS for 2001). Their numbers match yours (65% paid by the top 10% (92k+)). However, the top 10% also makes 43% of the total money. At 21.4%, they do have higher tax rates than the average (14.2%). However, this takes into account only federal income tax, not other federal taxes, such as payroll and estate taxes, and not any state or local taxes.

I don't know what planet you're from, but here on Earth Bush inherited a large budget surplus

Apparently, you are not all that interested in looking at actual facts (Bushwatch.com?? Really??).

Here is the real data. You might notice that Federal Debt increased every year under Bill Clinton. So much for that "budget surplus" he bragged about.

Oh, and Public Debt as a percentage of GDP has actually declined from 33.6% to 32.7% under George W. Bush.

Calling it "tax cuts for the rich" is bogus anyways. As it is, the bottom 50% of income earners only pay 4% of the income tax collected, so it's not like there is much there to give back to them!

The top 1% earn 20.8% of the income and pay 37.4% of the taxes. Giving them back 1 or 2% is hardly cataclysmic. They already pay proportionally FAR more as it is.

You can't give a tax cut to someone who doesn't pay taxes. The people who will benefit the most from a tax cut are those who pay the most in taxes.
Duh.

To be in the top 1% of income earners, BTW, takes "only" $293K a year (as of 2001, anyways). A lot of traditionally left-wing people often make that much - athletes, actors, lawyers, doctors. Not to mention that succesful small business owners will frequently make at least that much as well - even a small restaurant can top $350K a year if their restaurant is reasonably popular.

In terms of politicians, according to Forbes, 6 of the 10 richest politicians in the US are... democrats! Only 3 are republicans. Gee, who's the party of the evil, hated rich?
http://www.forbes.com/2002/10/29/cx_dd_richpols.ht ml

Some other good links that either confirm some of the above or just make for good reading:
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,0 0.html
http://taxfoundation.org/SR118.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/lists/results.jhtml?passList Id=10&passYear=2002&passListType=Person&resultsSta rt=1&resultsHowMany=25&resultsSortProperties=%2Bnu mberfield1%2C%2Bstringfield1&resultsSortCategoryNa me=rank&category1=Country+of+Citizenship&searchPar ameter1=11Str%7C%7CPatCS%7C%7CUnited+States&catego ry2=category&searchParameter2=unset