IRS Computer Problems Shut Down Tax Return E-file System (foxnews.com)

Mr.Intel writes: The IRS stopped accepting electronically filed tax returns Wednesday because of problems with some of its computer systems. The outage could affect refunds, but the agency said it doesn't anticipate "major disruptions." A "hardware failure" forced the shutdown of several tax processing systems, including the e-file system, the IRS said in a statement. The IRS.gov website remains available, but "where's my refund" and other services are not working. Some systems will be out of service at least until Thursday, the agency said. "The IRS is currently in the process of making repairs and working to restore normal operations as soon as possible," the IRS said.

Comments

Sanders 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

Bernie Sanders 2016. Feel the Bern.

Re:Sanders 2016

[CajunArson]

Totally! If we just elect Bernie then problems like these will be a thing of the past.

Instead of worrying about filing taxes 100% of income goes right to the Feds and every year you can apply to the Federal Government for a welfare package that will be given out based on politically correct preferences regarding race (no whities), gender (no Benjamins for Benjamin unless Benjamin was born Bethany), language & lack of citizenship (Habla Ingles? No Dinero!), and of course, whether or not you used a substantial portion of last year's welfare check to pay off Union "community organizers" Vido & Guido who run Bernie's local chapter of the Revolutionary Guard.

All you need to do is fill out a trivially simple 200 page form in triplicate, get it notarized by an official government agent, send it via certified mail and wait 18 - 24 months. Take that corporations!

Re:Sanders 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 Troll


time to change your sig, btw

Re:Sanders 2016

[MobSwatter]

Bernie Sanders 2016. Feel the Bern.

Probably has more to do with international trade being halted since December, and the federal reserve closing the New York location than a computer bug. Probably a good time to pull money out of the banks as there is a federal law that states what is in the bank belongs to the bank in a financial meltdown. Going to happen sooner or later, the one thing Ponzi scheme's all have in common is a clock and this time there is no where to kick the can.

Re:Sanders 2016

[FlyHelicopters]

Totally! If we just elect Bernie then problems like these will be a thing of the past.

Instead of worrying about filing taxes 100% of income goes right to the Feds and every year you can apply to the Federal Government for a welfare package that will be given out based on politically correct preferences regarding race (no whities), gender (no Benjamins for Benjamin unless Benjamin was born Bethany), language & lack of citizenship (Habla Ingles? No Dinero!), and of course, whether or not you used a substantial portion of last year's welfare check to pay off Union "community organizers" Vido & Guido who run Bernie's local chapter of the Revolutionary Guard.

All you need to do is fill out a trivially simple 200 page form in triplicate, get it notarized by an official government agent, send it via certified mail and wait 18 - 24 months. Take that corporations!

^ You got modded down to troll, but what is sad is that such things can happen.

They exist, right now, on Earth. Not in the US of course, but the USA is full of human beings. Those other nations are full of human beings.

There is nothing overly special about the humans here vs the humans there.

Too many people assume "different" means "better". No, different means "different". It COULD be better... but it doesn't have to be...

"The beatings will continue until moral improves!"

Re:Sanders 2016

[TechyImmigrant]

>Probably has more to do with international trade being halted since December

You know international trade is not halted, yet you said it anyway. That makes you a liar.

Re:Sanders 2016

[PopeRatzo]

They exist, right now, on Earth. Not in the US of course, but the USA is full of human beings. Those other nations are full of human beings.

Can you name the top 5 countries in the world with a 100% income tax?

Re:Sanders 2016

[FlyHelicopters]

It doesn't have to hit 100% for the effect to be largely the same.

Ronald Reagan once said in support of lower top tax rates that the old 91% rates from the 50s were pointless and counterproductive, because people would work for 3 months, then when they hit that rate, just stop working for the rest of the year (or work overseas or for cash) because no one was going to labor only to keep just 9% of their income.

Re:Sanders 2016

[riverat1]

What you fail to take into account with the 91% tax rate is that it was a marginal rate. It only applied to income over a certain amount. I'll use $1,000,000 for the sake of argument. So if the 91% rate applies to income over $1 M all of your income up to that point is taxed at the lower rate that people not making that much pay. And even if you reach the point where you're paying 91% taxes on income over $1 M you'll still make more money than if you purposely hold your income under $1 M. Now I'm not advocating for a 91% tax rate but I don't think something like a 50% tax rate on income over $10 million is crazy to contemplate.

Regarding the 91% tax rate it applied from around the end of WW II until Kennedy changed it to around 75% in the early 1960s. Yet that period was one of the most productive in terms of economic growth and infrastructure building to support that growth in the history of the USA. I don't think tax rates are as important to economic growth as a lot of people think.

Re:Sanders 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

What you fail to take into account with the 91% tax rate is that it was a marginal rate. It only applied to income over a certain amount.

That's why he said people would work for 3 months: that's when they cross into the 91% rate bracket. I think he gets it.

Re:Sanders 2016

[PopeRatzo]

It doesn't have to hit 100% for the effect to be largely the same.

Riddle me this: When is less than 100% really 100%?

When it's a Republican complaining about a 38% marginal tax rate.

Re:Sanders 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

What you fail to take into account with the 91% tax rate is that it was a marginal rate. It only applied to income over a certain amount. I'll use $1,000,000 for the sake of argument. So if the 91% rate applies to income over $1 M all of your income up to that point is taxed at the lower rate that people not making that much pay. And even if you reach the point where you're paying 91% taxes on income over $1 M you'll still make more money than if you purposely hold your income under $1 M. Now I'm not advocating for a 91% tax rate but I don't think something like a 50% tax rate on income over $10 million is crazy to contemplate.

Regarding the 91% tax rate it applied from around the end of WW II until Kennedy changed it to around 75% in the early 1960s. Yet that period was one of the most productive in terms of economic growth and infrastructure building to support that growth in the history of the USA. I don't think tax rates are as important to economic growth as a lot of people think.

Well if after $1,000,000 you'd be handing most of it over to Uncle Sam that probably encouraged business owners to instead reinvest into the company more than taking profits for themselves while looking for more ways to cut costs and shaft the employees.

Re:Sanders 2016

[tsstahl]

... Kennedy changed it to around 75% in the early 1960s. Yet that period was one of the most productive in terms of economic growth and infrastructure building...

That was a production based economy with two continents needing massive rebuilding. We now have a consumer based economy; you need cash to consume.

Insert car analogy here illustrating fundamentally different argument starting points.

Re:Sanders 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that it matters, the 91% tax rate never really existed. If you look at actual tax rates of the day, though the maximum tax bracket was 91%, effective tax rates were less than half that. The dropping of those insane tax rates had more to do with elimination of loop holes in the tax code than anything else.

Re:Sanders 2016

[riverat1]

So if my yearly income was $10 million but I decided to stop working after the first million I'd be foregoing $810,000 in income after taxes. I guess if you're that rich already it's not that big a deal. But as I said I don't support a 91% tax rate but if the rate was 50% you'd be foregoing $4,500,000 in income in my example. Do you really think that's such a disincentive that people would quite working?

Re:Sanders 2016

[riverat1]

I don't see what cutting costs and shafting employees has to do with reinvesting in the company.

Re:Sanders 2016

[riverat1]

I agree that the circumstances after WW II were very favorable for the USA but that doesn't obviate the fact that despite a top marginal tax rate of 91% the country did very well economically.

Re:Sanders 2016

[KGIII]

You are aware that nobody actually paid that 91% marginal tax rate, right? I mean that literally. Not. One. Person. Nobody paid that marginal tax rate - there were plenty of loopholes and far less manpower to find those exploiting them. The lines of tax code were fewer then and they had far more ways to avoid (or even evade - which is illegal) taxes then.

No, look at the actual numbers and notice the tax income that the government actually got in relation to the income the people generated? Yeah, it was lower then. I've dug out the number and pretty charts in the past. I guess I can Google and see if I can find them again, if you really want. But no... Nobody was paying that percentage and the government got a lower percentage of income then than it does now. (Percentages, not totals - however, the government still gets a higher total today. I've not crunched the numbers to find absolute values, adjusted for inflation and buying power, so I can't speculate on that area.)

Re:Sanders 2016

[riverat1]

Yes, I'm aware that practically no one paid that rate and there were a lot of loopholes, then Kennedy lowered the tax rate to 75% and closed a bunch of loopholes. My main point is that high taxes by themselves don't necessarily kill the economy.

Re:Sanders 2016

[MobSwatter]

>Probably has more to do with international trade being halted since December

You know international trade is not halted, yet you said it anyway. That makes you a liar.

LOLZ, as of this moment there is less than 10 cargo ships operating on the entire planet, the rest are moored. You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences, and they are already here. How about them train profits last month huh? No biggy on those 100 wally worlds shut down this week either huh? Your lack of perception does not make me a liar, just makes you fit right in on the bus load of retards.

Re:Sanders 2016

[FlyHelicopters]

What you fail to take into account with the 91% tax rate is that it was a marginal rate. It only applied to income over a certain amount. I'll use $1,000,000 for the sake of argument. So if the 91% rate applies to income over $1 M all of your income up to that point is taxed at the lower rate that people not making that much pay.

I don't fail to take anything into account... What YOU fail to understand is that once you hit that $1,000,000 number, you might as well sit home and watch Oprah...

Sure, the tax rate "isn't so bad" on the first $1,000,000, but on the second $1,000,000 you only get to keep $91,000.

That is stupid, you're done for the year, there is no point to working to make another million when you keep less than 10% of it.

Now I'm not advocating for a 91% tax rate but I don't think something like a 50% tax rate on income over $10 million is crazy to contemplate.

You can do that all you like, but it would be ineffective. 50% is high enough that people will find ways to avoid it, or just not work. I'm not going to pay it, most other people aren't either.

About 1/3 is as high as you can go, before I personally will do whatever it takes to avoid it. Your statements about "but you have enough, you can afford it" largely will fall on deaf ears.

Regarding the 91% tax rate it applied from around the end of WW II until Kennedy changed it to around 75% in the early 1960s. Yet that period was one of the most productive in terms of economic growth and infrastructure building to support that growth in the history of the USA.

Correlation is not causation. The two had nothing to do with each other.

Re:Sanders 2016

[FlyHelicopters]

When it's a Republican complaining about a 38% marginal tax rate.

Don't feel bad, I won't pay 38% either... You get beyond 1/3 and I'd do whatever it takes to avoid paying it. Frankly below that is worth a lot of effort to avoid.

If you make $100,000, having $38K of it taken away is highway robbery.

A flat 20% tax rate and the removal of all deductions would go a long way towards balancing the system.

Re:Sanders 2016

[TechyImmigrant]

>Probably has more to do with international trade being halted since December

You know international trade is not halted, yet you said it anyway. That makes you a liar.

LOLZ, as of this moment there is less than 10 cargo ships operating on the entire planet, the rest are moored. You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences, and they are already here. How about them train profits last month huh? No biggy on those 100 wally worlds shut down this week either huh? Your lack of perception does not make me a liar, just makes you fit right in on the bus load of retards.

http://www.snopes.com/cargo-sh...

You should take the pills the psychiatrist prescribes.

Re:Sanders 2016

[riverat1]

Correlation is not causation. The two had nothing to do with each other.

Exactly. If a 91% tax rate was so bad shouldn't it have put a damper on economic growth?

Re:Sanders 2016

[FlyHelicopters]

Well if after $1,000,000 you'd be handing most of it over to Uncle Sam that probably encouraged business owners to instead reinvest into the company more than taking profits for themselves while looking for more ways to cut costs and shaft the employees.

Yea, because it is only "greedy" business owners that could make that kind of money.

Lord, our education system has failed, I read the replies and it just... is sad...

Re:Sanders 2016

[FlyHelicopters]

So if my yearly income was $10 million but I decided to stop working after the first million I'd be foregoing $810,000 in income after taxes. I guess if you're that rich already it's not that big a deal. But as I said I don't support a 91% tax rate but if the rate was 50% you'd be foregoing $4,500,000 in income in my example. Do you really think that's such a disincentive that people would quite working?

Quit working?

No. Quit working in such a way as to pay that tax rate? Yes.

Many people in the 50s simply worked overseas to avoid it.

No one making $10 million is going pay $4.5 million if they have any brains, and most do.

A 50% tax rate won't get paid any more than the current 35% corporate tax rate gets paid.

Re:Sanders 2016

[FlyHelicopters]

You are aware that nobody actually paid that 91% marginal tax rate, right? I mean that literally. Not. One. Person. Nobody paid that marginal tax rate - there were plenty of loopholes and far less manpower to find those exploiting them.

Yes, because people WILL NOT PAY such a rate...

People complain that Warren Buffet pays half the effective tax rate as his minions... that is BECAUSE he is taxed at such a high marginal rate...

Lower it to 20% and remove all the deductions.

Re:Sanders 2016

[FlyHelicopters]

Yes, I'm aware that practically no one paid that rate and there were a lot of loopholes, then Kennedy lowered the tax rate to 75% and closed a bunch of loopholes. My main point is that high taxes by themselves don't necessarily kill the economy.

Yea, but people think that "tax the rich" will solve all our money problems too...

It won't, it never raises as much actual money as you think... people change their behavior to avoid the taxes.

Flat 20%, no deductions.

Re:Sanders 2016

[FlyHelicopters]

Exactly. If a 91% tax rate was so bad shouldn't it have put a damper on economic growth?

Using that logic, why not just raise all tax rates to 100%, then load it up with deductions?

All that does is give those who can afford tax advice a way to pay less than those who can't.

I don't pay half of my top marginal tax bracket, because I have good tax advice. You can earn half what I earn, and I probably pay less in percentage terms than you do.

That isn't right, but raising my rate isn't going to change it.

Re:Sanders 2016

[PopeRatzo]

Don't feel bad, I won't pay 38% either... You get beyond 1/3 and I'd do whatever it takes to avoid paying it. Frankly below that is worth a lot of effort to avoid.

If you make $100,000, having $38K of it taken away is highway robbery.

You dumb shit. Do you understand how marginal tax rates work? If you make $100,000 and the rate is 33% you do not pay a third of your money in taxes.

http://www.investopedia.com/as...

It's no goddamn wonder the political system in this country is so fucked up. We've got people voting who don't understand the most basic things about how government works.

Re:Sanders 2016

[slavdude]

Too bad Reagan purposely misrepresented what *marginal* tax rates are.

Re:Sanders 2016

[FlyHelicopters]

Too bad Reagan purposely misrepresented what *marginal* tax rates are.

Too bad that you're doing the same, by saying nothing other than that.

Reagan's point was completely correct. No on is going to give 91% of their income to the government. Either they'll find tax deductions or other options to avoid it, or they'll go somewhere else, or they'll just not work.

He was correct, such a tax rate is stupid, it doesn't get paid, having it is a lie.

You keep defending the current tax code, yet it is that code that allows Warren Buffet to pay half the effective tax rate of his staff. Why are you defending this?

Re:Sanders 2016

[MobSwatter]

>Probably has more to do with international trade being halted since December

You know international trade is not halted, yet you said it anyway. That makes you a liar.

LOLZ, as of this moment there is less than 10 cargo ships operating on the entire planet, the rest are moored. You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences, and they are already here. How about them train profits last month huh? No biggy on those 100 wally worlds shut down this week either huh? Your lack of perception does not make me a liar, just makes you fit right in on the bus load of retards.

http://www.snopes.com/cargo-sh...

You should take the pills the psychiatrist prescribes.

http://www.marinetraffic.com/

You should probably get rid of those rose colored glasses.

Re:Sanders 2016

[FlyHelicopters]

You dumb shit.

Right back at you...

The $100K is clearly the "last $100k", that part should have been obvious, but you choose to be obtuse instead.

We've got people voting who don't understand the most basic things about how government works.

Yes we do, but I'm not one of them. You seem to think that a 38% rate is acceptable for ANY level of income. It isn't, and that is what is wrong with you.

Re:Sanders 2016

[TechyImmigrant]

>Probably has more to do with international trade being halted since December

You know international trade is not halted, yet you said it anyway. That makes you a liar.

LOLZ, as of this moment there is less than 10 cargo ships operating on the entire planet, the rest are moored. You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences, and they are already here. How about them train profits last month huh? No biggy on those 100 wally worlds shut down this week either huh? Your lack of perception does not make me a liar, just makes you fit right in on the bus load of retards.

http://www.snopes.com/cargo-sh...

You should take the pills the psychiatrist prescribes.

http://www.marinetraffic.com/

You should probably get rid of those rose colored glasses.

Read the Snopes article to which I linked which explains how that website only shows coastal traffic and so it doesn't give any information on shipping out at sea.

Our family business has been importing goods from Europe without interruption. We had a shipment arrive from Ireland yesterday. You are not showing good judgement in what and who you believe.
 

Re:Sanders 2016

[slavdude]

How do I *keep* defending the current tax code? This is the first comment I have made on this story. Do you know why Buffet pays less than his staff? Because of people like Reagan and you who take marginal tax rates to mean absolute tax rates. When you talk about a marginal tax rate of 91%, it doesn't mean you are giving 91 percent of your total income to the government. It means you are giving 91% of your income *over a certain amount* to the government. If we were to follow your logic, a person making a million dollars would end up paying $910,000 in taxes (assuming for the sake of argument that the tax rate at that level is 91%). That is patently not the case. Marginal tax rates are set up so that an increasing amount of each tax bracket is paid as tax. You don't pay a total amount of tax based on the highest bracket you belong to. Let us assume that for the first $20,000 of income one pays zero percent tax, and that the next bracket ($20,001-$30,000) pays, say, two percent. Let us then assume that you earn $20,001 in a year. How much tax will you pay? Two cents. That is two percent of the amount you earned over $20,000. You pay nothing on the first $20,000 of income. Say at $30,001-$40,000 the rate goes up to four percent, and you earn $40,000. How much is your tax? Six hundred dollars. That is 0 + 200 (for the 2% level at 20,001-30,000) + 400 (for the 4% level at 30,001-$40,000). If you paid the 4% on *every* dollar, you would be paying $1600.00, i.e., four times as much, since the highest tax bracket gets applied to all income rather than specified amounts. Look at a tax table sometime and you'll see what I mean. By no means am I defending this tax code. There are too many loopholes and too much gutting of the tax brackets since the 1980s when St. Ronald of Reagan (Ayn Rand rest his soul) was the bestest president ever.

Re:Sanders 2016

[zentigger]

Well if after $1,000,000 you'd be handing most of it over to Uncle Sam that probably encouraged business owners to instead reinvest into the company more than taking profits for themselves while looking for more ways to cut costs and shaft the employees.

You are absolutely correct. The higher tax rates were a great incentive for companies to invest in CAPEX and actual tangible growth. The company could avoid taxes by spending money on infrastructure and workers that would increase share value by creating greater productivity. The current trend in "trickle down economics" is for the corporations to increase share value by moving money overseas to dodge taxes and showing a bigger bottom line while decreasing productivity and crippling future growth.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that only one of these strategies is sustainable in the long-term.

Re:Sanders 2016

[PopeRatzo]

The $100K is clearly the "last $100k", that part should have been obvious, but you choose to be obtuse instead.

So, if you are taxed one dollar out of $1,000,000, you would see that as being taxed for 100% of the last dollar you earned? You are worse than stupid. You are intractably and willfully ignorant.

. You seem to think that a 38% rate is acceptable for ANY level of income.

There is no one in the United States who pays 38% of their income in income tax. Not only do you not understand how marginal tax rates work, but you are intent on maintaining this state of not understanding marginal income tax rates.

Re:Sanders 2016

[FlyHelicopters]

You are worse than stupid. You are intractably and willfully ignorant.

The grand irony is that actually that applies to you, not me.

The situation is clear to me, but you are being obtuse either on purpose, or out of ignorance.

Re:Sanders 2016

[FlyHelicopters]

How do I *keep* defending the current tax code? This is the first comment I have made on this story.

Fair enough, I don't always pay much attention to the names on comments, and your response was similar to many others.

Do you know why Buffet pays less than his staff? Because of people like Reagan and you who take marginal tax rates to mean absolute tax rates.

No, Buffet pays less than his staff because the tax code is written to favor him and not his staff.

When you talk about a marginal tax rate of 91%, it doesn't mean you are giving 91 percent of your total income to the government. It means you are giving 91% of your income *over a certain amount* to the government.

I think everyone here understands that, but it still isn't true, because most of Buffet's income falls into the top tax rate, and he STILL doesn't pay it. He makes enough that his total income over the top rate is the vast majority of his income.

If we were to follow your logic, a person making a million dollars would end up paying $910,000 in taxes

That isn't what I said, and no one should have taken that meaning, unless they wanted to argue.

A person making $1 million pays a lot of different tax rates. A person making $2 million pays the same as person 1 on the first million, but on the second million, pays ONLY the highest tax rate.

If that tax rate is 91%, then indeed, $910,000 in taxes on the second million goes to the government.

My point is that no one is going to bother to earn the second million, only to keep $90,000 of it, if they can't avoid the taxes some other way. That was Reagan's point as well. People just don't want to hear it.

I'm personally in the 33% tax bracket, but I don't pay 33% on ANY of my money, due to deductions. I could earn $2 million and I still wouldn't pay 33% (or 35% or more) on any of it, due to deductions.

I can afford good tax advice, and I plan my money so that I don't. I likely pay a lower total tax rate than people earning half as much.

It doesn't matter what you raise rates to, I won't pay them, no one else will either, it is a bad plan. Yet people keep bringing up "raise taxes on the rich" like it solves anything.

Flat 20% tax across the board, no deductions. (not even the house)

Re:Sanders 2016

[slavdude]

Twenty percent, eh?

Twenty percent is a lot bigger burden for someone making only $30,000 a year (say) than it would be to someone making (say) $100,000. It's that much less money available for the person at the low end than it is for the person at the high end. And if a person is making $100,000 and has to pay $20,000 in taxes (which, IIRC, is more than they have to pay now), what makes you think they won't try to avoid it like the wealthy do?

Why not restore the rates that were in force in the 50s, 60s, and 70s? The economy was doing just fine then.

Failing that, get rid of tax havens and exemptions for unearned income over a certain amount.

Re:Sanders 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

The real irony is that you think it doesn't apply to you either, but continue to rely on your own perceived superiority rather than engage in a constructive discussion.

Sometimes you a person chooses to take the higher ground, sometimes you choose to jump in the mud.

Re:Sanders 2016

[FlyHelicopters]

wenty percent is a lot bigger burden for someone making only $30,000 a year (say) than it would be to someone making (say) $100,000.

Ahh, the "you can afford it" argument.

I actually don't agree, if you're making $30K a year, 20% is $6K. If you're surviving on $30k, you'll make it work at $24k.

If I'm making $100K, I have to pay $20K, that is 2/3 of your entire income. Expecting me to pay $23K so you only have to pay $3K is rather... selfish, crappy, and frankly stupid.

Why not restore the rates that were in force in the 50s, 60s, and 70s? The economy was doing just fine then.

Correlation is not causation, the economy had nothing to do with the tax rates back then. The actual amount collected in percentage terms hasn't actually changed that much. Who it comes from has however.

Failing that, get rid of tax havens and exemptions for unearned income over a certain amount.

When I say 20%, I mean 20%, that includes business income, unearned income, investment income, hedge fund income, everything. No deductions for anything.

Re:Sanders 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to think that a 38% rate is acceptable for ANY level of income. It isn't, and that is what is wrong with you.

You seem to think your opposition to 38% is anything except an arbitrary statement of no particular meaning, all you've said is that somehow 20% is somehow better as a flat rate, but provided no greater reasoning, let alone a basis for that number being more bearable than any other.

You've described it as highway robbery. No, highway robbery is when a person, probably in a mask, accosts you on the highway, and takes your money, without even giving you a pretense of value for it.

I'm sorry, but you've offered gut feelings, nothing more.

That's probably a bad way to set tax policy, let alone government spending.

Even the Laffler Curve tries to be somewhat more sensible than that.

Re:Sanders 2016

[MobSwatter]

>Probably has more to do with international trade being halted since December

You know international trade is not halted, yet you said it anyway. That makes you a liar.

LOLZ, as of this moment there is less than 10 cargo ships operating on the entire planet, the rest are moored. You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences, and they are already here. How about them train profits last month huh? No biggy on those 100 wally worlds shut down this week either huh? Your lack of perception does not make me a liar, just makes you fit right in on the bus load of retards.

http://www.snopes.com/cargo-sh...

You should take the pills the psychiatrist prescribes.

http://www.marinetraffic.com/

You should probably get rid of those rose colored glasses.

Read the Snopes article to which I linked which explains how that website only shows coastal traffic and so it doesn't give any information on shipping out at sea.

Our family business has been importing goods from Europe without interruption. We had a shipment arrive from Ireland yesterday. You are not showing good judgement in what and who you believe.

I take into account a lot of factors and read between the lines as we all know that media sources are doing a lot of BS'ing, profit loss in the train based shipping industry over the last month does appear to support cargo shipping has a serious problem that ultimately reflects on health of the world economy and there have been interviews with people in that industry that capitulate truth to the fact international shipping has fallen just short of halted as they would have to operate at a loss, oil industry has also taken notice and stopped gouging as much but at $20 a barrel the cost of fuel should be lower than it is, Wal-Marts in the hundreds closing is not a good sign at all either. Federal reserve closure of the NYC location and moved over to Chicago could likely be to cut costs to continue to present the illusion of a healthy economy by buying up stock when the NYSE/NASDAC starts to tank. Doctored figures on the actual unemployment rates. Pretty sure by the looks of the over all picture will be shown in the trucking industry next. Being that there is federal law that dictates the money in your account that is in the bank belongs to them in the event of a financial meltdown of the banking industry (again), the money belongs to the bank. Based upon what we saw in Greece, knowing there really isn't anywhere for the federal reserve system to kick the can this time, I myself would not trust the banks with the money. Sure, even the president stated that those who have stated the economy is in bad shape are full of it, but how often have you seen the government be honest about pretty much any situation days. There is too much real data to reference publicly available to support that the president is one that is full of it. It is also understood that it is an election year and the economy does experience an element of uncertainty during this process but this appears to be a bit more than just an element.

Re:Sanders 2016

[slavdude]

If you're surviving on $30k, you'll make it work at $24k.

Have you tried?

If I'm making $100K, I have to pay $20K, that is 2/3 of your entire income. Expecting me to pay $23K so you only have to pay $3K is rather... selfish, crappy, and frankly stupid.

Where did the $23K come from?

At any rate, income is not taxed below a certain level. I *do* think that's fair, since it is more difficult for those with fewer means to make ends meet. A proportionally larger share of their income has to go to basic necessities such as food and housing (and yes, in our society cell phones and the internet are as much a necessity as land lines were not too long ago).

I might be okay with a flat tax rate if it were used to pay for other things such as single-payer health care, public education (including vo-tech and even public universities), and retirement benefits that allow seniors to live at something like the level they did in their working lives.

Re:Sanders 2016

[TechyImmigrant]

>Probably has more to do with international trade being halted since December

You know international trade is not halted, yet you said it anyway. That makes you a liar.

LOLZ, as of this moment there is less than 10 cargo ships operating on the entire planet, the rest are moored. You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences, and they are already here. How about them train profits last month huh? No biggy on those 100 wally worlds shut down this week either huh? Your lack of perception does not make me a liar, just makes you fit right in on the bus load of retards.

http://www.snopes.com/cargo-sh...

You should take the pills the psychiatrist prescribes.

http://www.marinetraffic.com/

You should probably get rid of those rose colored glasses.

Read the Snopes article to which I linked which explains how that website only shows coastal traffic and so it doesn't give any information on shipping out at sea.

Our family business has been importing goods from Europe without interruption. We had a shipment arrive from Ireland yesterday. You are not showing good judgement in what and who you believe.

I take into account a lot of factors and read between the lines as we all know that media sources are doing a lot of BS'ing, profit loss in the train based shipping industry over the last month does appear to support cargo shipping has a serious problem that ultimately reflects on health of the world economy and there have been interviews with people in that industry that capitulate truth to the fact international shipping has fallen just short of halted as they would have to operate at a loss, oil industry has also taken notice and stopped gouging as much but at $20 a barrel the cost of fuel should be lower than it is, Wal-Marts in the hundreds closing is not a good sign at all either. Federal reserve closure of the NYC location and moved over to Chicago could likely be to cut costs to continue to present the illusion of a healthy economy by buying up stock when the NYSE/NASDAC starts to tank. Doctored figures on the actual unemployment rates. Pretty sure by the looks of the over all picture will be shown in the trucking industry next. Being that there is federal law that dictates the money in your account that is in the bank belongs to them in the event of a financial meltdown of the banking industry (again), the money belongs to the bank. Based upon what we saw in Greece, knowing there really isn't anywhere for the federal reserve system to kick the can this time, I myself would not trust the banks with the money. Sure, even the president stated that those who have stated the economy is in bad shape are full of it, but how often have you seen the government be honest about pretty much any situation days. There is too much real data to reference publicly available to support that the president is one that is full of it. It is also understood that it is an election year and the economy does experience an element of uncertainty during this process but this appears to be a bit more than just an element.

You've gone off the deep end. Start swimming the other way.

Re:Sanders 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, the "you can afford it" argument.

I actually don't agree, if you're making $30K a year, 20% is $6K. If you're surviving on $30k, you'll make it work at $24k.

If I'm making $100K, I have to pay $20K, that is 2/3 of your entire income. Expecting me to pay $23K so you only have to pay $3K is rather... selfish, crappy, and frankly stupid.

That's nice. But can we see your reasoning?

Or perhaps you should consider, what's easier, being at 80K, and going to 77K, or going from 30K to 24K versus say, 27K?

If you can't see the difference, perhaps you're the one who is...frankly stupid.

Re:Sanders 2016

[FlyHelicopters]

Have you tried?

Yes, I've been poor, I've been paycheck to paycheck... it sucks, no doubt about it...

Never again, but I worked my butt off to make that happen...

$20K +$3K = $23K

You said that 20% was too high for someone making $30K, which is $6K. So cut their tax rate to 10%, that reduces their taxes to $3K, but the other $3K has to come from somewhere, so "the rich", right? That would be me by that logic.

So raising my taxes to $23K *ONLY* raises my tax rate by 3%, but it cuts the poor's tax rate in HALF!

Sounds great, doesn't it? Sure, except it is exceptionally unfair to me and as you push more and more in that direction, sooner or later I might decide to take my marbles and play somewhere else (as thousands of French have done in the past two years, since the tax rates there were raised).

At any rate, income is not taxed below a certain level.

That is true, but it is wrong. Everyone benefits from the system, everyone should pay into it.

I *do* think that's fair, since it is more difficult for those with fewer means to make ends meet.

You can think it is fair all you like. It isn't. No amount of progressive or regressive taxes are remotely fair. The only fair tax is a flat tax, with no exceptions, no deductions, nothing.

And yes, I'm willing to give up my deductions if it means the poor give up theirs.

I might be okay with a flat tax rate if it were used to pay for other things such as single-payer health care, public education (including vo-tech and even public universities), and retirement benefits that allow seniors to live at something like the level they did in their working lives.

I would agree with all of that.

Re:Sanders 2016

[MobSwatter]

>Probably has more to do with international trade being halted since December

You know international trade is not halted, yet you said it anyway. That makes you a liar.

LOLZ, as of this moment there is less than 10 cargo ships operating on the entire planet, the rest are moored. You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences, and they are already here. How about them train profits last month huh? No biggy on those 100 wally worlds shut down this week either huh? Your lack of perception does not make me a liar, just makes you fit right in on the bus load of retards.

http://www.snopes.com/cargo-sh...

You should take the pills the psychiatrist prescribes.

http://www.marinetraffic.com/

You should probably get rid of those rose colored glasses.

Read the Snopes article to which I linked which explains how that website only shows coastal traffic and so it doesn't give any information on shipping out at sea.

Our family business has been importing goods from Europe without interruption. We had a shipment arrive from Ireland yesterday. You are not showing good judgement in what and who you believe.

I take into account a lot of factors and read between the lines as we all know that media sources are doing a lot of BS'ing, profit loss in the train based shipping industry over the last month does appear to support cargo shipping has a serious problem that ultimately reflects on health of the world economy and there have been interviews with people in that industry that capitulate truth to the fact international shipping has fallen just short of halted as they would have to operate at a loss, oil industry has also taken notice and stopped gouging as much but at $20 a barrel the cost of fuel should be lower than it is, Wal-Marts in the hundreds closing is not a good sign at all either. Federal reserve closure of the NYC location and moved over to Chicago could likely be to cut costs to continue to present the illusion of a healthy economy by buying up stock when the NYSE/NASDAC starts to tank. Doctored figures on the actual unemployment rates. Pretty sure by the looks of the over all picture will be shown in the trucking industry next. Being that there is federal law that dictates the money in your account that is in the bank belongs to them in the event of a financial meltdown of the banking industry (again), the money belongs to the bank. Based upon what we saw in Greece, knowing there really isn't anywhere for the federal reserve system to kick the can this time, I myself would not trust the banks with the money. Sure, even the president stated that those who have stated the economy is in bad shape are full of it, but how often have you seen the government be honest about pretty much any situation days. There is too much real data to reference publicly available to support that the president is one that is full of it. It is also understood that it is an election year and the economy does experience an element of uncertainty during this process but this appears to be a bit more than just an element.

You've gone off the deep end. Start swimming the other way.

Can't float the economy on smoke and mirrors, that bottom line thing always gets in the way. The mind control doesn't seem to have any effect on it when the people are financially sunk, the banksters already ran with the gold and stuck us all with a big fat dinner check to the tune of about 20 trillion playing on the paper. But you know what? I'll leave you to your fantasy smoking Rockefeller's and Rothschild's Khazarian mafia sausage, you seem to be quite content with it, go make a big deposit.

Re:Sanders 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I've been poor, I've been paycheck to paycheck... it sucks, no doubt about it...

Never again, but I worked my butt off to make that happen...

You didn't examine the real point, now did you? What does 3K$ mean to one person, versus the other?

Or are you unable to fathom the difference, despite allegedly experiencing it?

Sounds great, doesn't it? Sure, except it is exceptionally unfair to me and as you push more and more in that direction, sooner or later I might decide to take my marbles and play somewhere else (as thousands of French have done in the past two years, since the tax rates there were raised).

Why is it exceptionally unfair to you? Why do you feel it abuses you? Give us your reasoning.

Besides, you might decide to blow off and leave for any number of reasons, at a certain point, accommodating you is a futile gesture as well, isn't it?

That is true, but it is wrong. Everyone benefits from the system, everyone should pay into it.

Ok, then how much? What should they pay into the system? How do we determine that value?

(And that isn't even asking what the system should be providing...)

The only fair tax is a flat tax, with no exceptions, no deductions, nothing.

Nope, that's not even remotely close to establishing something as actually fair.

Why? Well, for one thing, 100% tax is flat. So is 99%. Yet you can't say it's not part of your assertion.

Because it doesn't even establish a value of taxation that's fair, you're just saying it has to be flat. Which is a bland declaration, without even giving us a numerical value to use.

Besides, if you're going to try to be fair, why not try weighing how much you benefit from government services. Wouldn't that be fair?

Re: Sanders 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooh, sorry, not how the tax system works.

In the US, you would be paying the same for your first 30,000 dollars of income as everybody else.

The next 70,000 or whatever would then be taxed at its rates.

Re:Sanders 2016

[FlyHelicopters]

You didn't examine the real point, now did you? What does 3K$ mean to one person, versus the other?

That doesn't matter.

If you think it does, then that same logic would justify stealing, if only from "rich people", who don't need it as much.

Ok, then how much?

The same percentage.

Nope, that's not even remotely close to establishing something as actually fair.

Yes it is. Your inability to see it doesn't make it not so.

And I did give a number, but you clearly didn't bother to read anything I posted. 20%

Re: Sanders 2016

[FlyHelicopters]

Ooh, sorry, not how the tax system works.

I didn't say it did, but from the various replies here, clearly reading is hard.

I said that is how it SHOULD work...

Flat 20% across the board, first dollar, millionth dollar.

Re: Sanders 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, you misunderstand, I'm not talking about your flat tax idea.

I was talking about your description of the current tax system. It's especially problematic that you're assuming only two persons, that's oversimplifying to the point of distortion.

Re:Sanders 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't matter.

Why doesn't it matter? What is your reasoning for that? You have seen the reasoning for a progressive system, haven't you? You haven't been able to articulate an argument against it that I've seen.

If you think it does, then that same logic would justify stealing, if only from "rich people", who don't need it as much.

Well, first off, taxation isn't stealing, but an exchange of payment for services rendered. But yes, there are many gradations among crimes, including stealing.

For example, taking some food, may range from necessity to excusable, to intolerable, depending on the circumstances. It's not at all prudent to punish all crimes the same way, but rather, we have a variety of sentences.

In addition, similar restrictions apply to other government actions besides taxation, for example, collection of debts. There are many protections for your home, or your vehicle, or even items you use to perform work. Yet other things can be taken.

Ok, then how much?

The same percentage.

It seems you missed the whole line:

"Ok, then how much? What should they pay into the system? How do we determine that value?"

I'm asking for you to tell us how much and how it is determined, not give a non-responsive answer.

Yes it is. Your inability to see it doesn't make it not so.

Your repeated assertions of it doesn't make it actually so.

And I did give a number, but you clearly didn't bother to read anything I posted. 20%

I don't read everything you posted, no, but it wasn't in your above post, no.

But thanks for producing a number. Now tell us why it comes up to 20% as fair and acceptable, give us a rationale and reasoning that can be shown and examined. Why not 21%? Why not 19%? Where does this number arise?

And why is it better than weighing how much you benefit from government services. Wouldn't that be fair?

I noticed you left that out. But I think that's worth examining.

Well, what do you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

MFM hard drives don't last forever.

Re:Well, what do you expect?

[bjb_admin]

Didn't they upgrade to RLL a few years ago?

Re:Well, what do you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

MFM hard drives don't last forever.

Of course not, if they did you'd be required to hand over all the email they contain.

Re:Well, what do you expect?

[operagost]

Yeah, but they didn't get the interleave right. Then they forgot which ROM location they needed to jump to to reset it.

Re:Well, what do you expect?

[bjb_admin]

Spinrite to the rescue!

Re:Well, what do you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they just replaced the HBAs with RLL encoding ones to squeeze a couple extra megs out of their MFM drives. Not using RLL certified drives is probably what caused the outage...

Re:Well, what do you expect?

[idontgno]

DEBUG g=c800:5

Re:Well, what do you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

---> triggered --- Ack!

Happens every year

[Anonymous Coward]

Problems like this happen every year 1/15 to 2/15 is them getting the bugs worked out of the system so things go well 2/15 to 4/15 when most taxes get processed.

Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[EzInKy]

Really, just "let it be done" that governments print whatever they need to pay their expenses and eliminate the IRS once and for all.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[thaylin]

Just because it is fiat does not mean you want it worthless. Money still has value, under your plan it would not.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[EzInKy]

Fiat money has value only because government's say it has value.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Money has no intrinsic value. The worth of money is in what people believe it can be exchanged for. If you flood a market with currency, it will not take long before even the text on the bills claiming that they are "legal tender for all debts, public and private" and the threat of governmental force against those who would refuse the currency are not enough to retain any value.

The USA has an economic advantage from the US dollar being an accepted international trade currency. Foreign currency speculation and international investors buffer the consequences of ill-conceived federal monetary policy. No amount of investors and currency speculators can restrain the abject idiocy of factorial devaluation that would result from a government just printing money until debts are paid off. Every government that has gone that way ended the process by abandoning their old currency and defining a new one not tied to the old agreements.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I have all your money, then? Or do you think it has value too?

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[EzInKy]

Not quite right. Money is a representation of the value of labor. Eliminating the IRS would eliminate many wasted hours spent on enforcing a myriad of obtuse tax loopholes.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[thaylin]

No, it has value because the people says it does.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[halivar]

The Fifth Zimbabwean Dollar was worth 100 trillion Fourth Zimbabwean Dollars.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[drinkypoo]

And the steady inflation would discourage saving of cash, promoting spending. You still have to find a way to keep money in the country, though. Otherwise you'll just have to print money too fast.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[EzInKy]

Hey thaylin, I'm telling you this twig is worth $5000. Take it in trade for your Toyota?

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[EzInKy]

Ahh, but spending is what keeps an economy moving.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this kindergarten?

Or do you not understand that people is a large group of individuals.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[MachineShedFred]

Are you posting from Zimbabwe? Because that's a strategy that worked out so well for Robert Mugabe, and also for the Weimar Republic 100 years ago.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[drinkypoo]

Ahh, but spending is what keeps an economy moving.

Right, but you need money to be spent in your local economy to keep the local economy moving... not in the economy of Dubai or whatever, unless you happen to live there

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[EzInKy]

High wages would enable people to spend more. Here in the US businesses are doing their best to keep them low though.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[moeinvt]

Government doesn't print money (or even do the digital equivalent). They borrow money from private banks and the Federal Reserve. The personal income tax (which was passed at roughly the same time as the Federal Reserve was established) is merely the federal government's tool for guaranteeing that the bankers will always get their interest payments.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

All money works that way. Money is an idea, not some force of wizard magic.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[number6x]

Correct, money has no intrinsic economic value. Just like gold, silver and diamonds. The economic value any of these things have is the value that people, as a whole, give to them.

we usually use them all (money, gold, etc) as place holders for exchange of goods, services or labour.

Note: Gold and silver do have some intrinsic value in electronic circuitry, diamonds as industrial abrasives. However, this value is small compared to their main use is as objects of art, decoration and as place holders of economic value.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Artistic worth is an intrinsic value, and raw materials good for art thus have an intrinsic potential. There is plenty of space to debate that the populace overvalues certain types of art (like diamond jewelry), but not all worth is in food and cell phones.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[GrumpySteen]

Because that worked out so well in Zimbabwe.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[bruce_the_loon]

People, not person. Plural, not singular. And very, very plural. I do suspect that 7 billion (that's a thousand million) people agree that the specific piece of paper called $$$ has a certain value right now.

Those 7 billion also agree that an ounce of gold has a certain value right now. They could also decide tomorrow that it doesn't. It's just currently more difficult to produce enough gold to do that. Until we find a solid gold megaton asteroid out there and then gold is ISM as well.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[mlw4428]

Is gold or silver any different? That's pretty much ANY currency system.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only temporarily until new quantity is priced in and equilibrium is reached.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear this a lot ("gold is just a shiny metal with no intrinsic value") but it's ultimately meaningless, because regardless of whether or not YOU think gold has intrinsic value, the world's most powerful financial insitutions and governments certainly DO.

The main intrinsic value of gold, as a form of money, is that it can't be manipulated by government or any other single entity, i.e. that its price is controlled purely by market forces (supply and demand). Gold stands on its own. It can be knocked down, but will always get back up -- unlike fiat currency, which can easily go to zero and stay there (being nothing but a promise from other people). That's why physical gold is still used as the "money of last resort" by the world's largest central banks, and will continue to be the money of last resort until it can be cheaply synthesized, causing the supply to skyrocket (which may or may not ever happen, we just don't know at this point in our technological evolution).

To be clear, the financial world demands a form of money that can't be controlled by any single entity, precisely because no single entity can be trusted to control money, and gold is by far the most suitable candidate for that essential job, as it has been for thousands of years.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Naw. Its /. - where petty strawman arguments are king!

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're both wrong. What makes fiat currency valuable (i.e. what causes demand for it) is that (1) we're required to use it for paying taxes, and (2) we're banned from competing with it.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[peragrin]

You can't eliminate the Irs even in a flat tax. Doing so means you stop caring whether or not people are being accurate with their tax bills.

99% of the irs job is verifying that the income you report and pay taxes on is equal to the income you actually took in.

In a country without an irs net revuene from taxes would fall to a million dollars after the first year or two. I know I would only claim an income of a few hundred dollars. As I would count everything I spent first.

Stop being stupid.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

(1) is true but (2) is false, otherwise Bitcoin et. al. would have long ago been deemed illegal.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

It has value because people want it. Why do they want it? Because the government demands that you give it to them. Taxes force certain things to have value.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why physical gold is still used as the "money of last resort" by the world's largest central banks

To be clear, the financial world demands a form of money that can't be controlled by any single entity

False, and false.

Governments and the financial world use whatever currency is convenient for them, usually their local one but often USD as well. If the US ever started acting up they'd just switch to something else, say pound, euro, yuan, promissory notes, etc... There's absolutely no need for one overarching currency with our modern system of floating currencies.

The world has no grand unified monetary system, and that's exactly how it should be.

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[ausekilis]

Except precious metals are no longer acknowledged as currency. As of 2012, only a small fraction of currency has gold backing. In the US and UK, the amount of currency that is backed by gold is roughly 5% (according to that article, not sure about 2016 values).

Re:Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Worked out great for Zimbabwe

Lois Lerner Syndrome

[OffTheLip]

LLS, carry on.

My fault

[DigiShaman]

Sorry everyone! It's my fault. I just e-filed the day before because I'm due for a big refund. They didn't like that, so conveniently a hardware problem occurred. :(

Re: My fault

[Anonymous Coward]

More likely the problem is that someone requested a $0 refund and this created a deadlock between the check printing mainframe and the bill sending mainframe

Re:My fault

[antdude]

You owe the affected people money then! :P

Tax Returns???

[acoustix]

Why do people give the government an interest free loan? Getting money back from the IRS is wasteful. Let your money work for you during the year (investments) and then pay the government if necessary.

Re:Tax Returns???

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, shut up, you sanctimonious puke.

Re:Tax Returns???

[Anonymous Coward]

What interest???!!! You mean, the soon-to-be NEGATIVE interest rates? Look pal, the whole point of letting the IRS keep extra money is as a hold-over in case we didn't pay enough taxes; so it forces us to live within our means. It's better to get money back than have to cut them a check at the end of the year.

Re:Tax Returns???

[operagost]

A lot of people simply don't understand how the system works. One of my in-laws convinced her husband to put in 0 withholding allowances (or maybe 1; I forget) for years, ending up with a huge refund. Mind you, they had several children, so it was a relatively immense check. I think she thought somehow this was a hack that got them free money. Meanwhile, he had to borrow money from his own kids sometimes, because his cash flow was so bad.

Re:Tax Returns???

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. Just because the Bank of Japan is stupid doesn't mean everyone else is.

. It's better to get money back than have to cut them a check at the end of the year.

But then you said this, so...

Re:Tax Returns???

[MachineShedFred]

Because the US Tax Code is so fucked that some people don't ever know if they will be getting a refund or owe more until they do the paperwork in February.

I am one of those people. Last year I owed, this year I'm getting a refund.

Re:Tax Returns???

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of people simply don't understand how the system works. One of my in-laws convinced her husband to put in 0 withholding allowances (or maybe 1; I forget) for years, ending up with a huge refund. Mind you, they had several children, so it was a relatively immense check. I think she thought somehow this was a hack that got them free money. Meanwhile, he had to borrow money from his own kids sometimes, because his cash flow was so bad.

Possibly, or it was a hack she used on her husband. It's hard to justify big expenses when you've got a little extra money coming in each month, but if you suddenly get a check for $8k...."honey, lets take that Caribbean cruise I've conveniently been planning since last April (when we 'unexpectedly' got that $8k tax refund and took our European tour)"

Re:Tax Returns???

[moeinvt]

The $5 in interest I would have earned by depositing that wealth in a money market account isn't worth the risk of paying too little and being fined. Nor is it worth expending the time and effort required to ensure that I pay the minimum necessary to avoid the penalty.

Re:Tax Returns???

[bws111]

Tax returns are the forms you file with the government, whether you get money back (which is a tax REFUND) or not. If you are going to pretend to be smart, at least have some idea what you are talking about.

Re:Tax Returns???

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to include your hyperlink to your explanation of how you know how much you owe. I've never been able to get very close. You have to estimate your taxes for a year to come in which you don't know how much money you'll make, how much tax you'll have to pay, or anything else. You're taking a wild guess.

Re:Tax Returns???

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people feel the need to whine about other people giving the government a free loan? Most of us don't really give two sh*ts about it and I have more things to do with my time over the year than worry about whether or not the Feds get a 0% from me.

So they get a 0% from me.. WGAS. You know what is nice? That nice little bonus to me, from me, in March each year.

Re:Tax Returns???

[TheRealMindChild]

EIC and Child tax credit aren't interest free loans

Re:Tax Returns???

[laie_techie]

Why do people feel the need to whine about other people giving the government a free loan? Most of us don't really give two sh*ts about it and I have more things to do with my time over the year than worry about whether or not the Feds get a 0% from me.

So they get a 0% from me.. WGAS. You know what is nice? That nice little bonus to me, from me, in March each year.

Most people don't whine about other people giving the government an interest-free loan. Most people who whine do so because the government gets any interest on any tax they overpaid. We also make fun of people who think that a tax refund is a bonus or free money. Shoot, my state taxes tax refunds as income!

Re:Tax Returns???

[Anonymous Coward]

Again I say, WGAS?

Guess I just make enough money that it doesn't matter to me one way or another that I'm not going to squabble with what is to me pennies.

Re:Tax Returns???

[LynnwoodRooster]

Because one of the top triggers for an audit is underpayment of taxes. I try to break even, but shade towards a small refund. Been through the grist mill once with the IRS, never, ever want to do it again.

Re:Tax Returns???

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you are in a relatively simple & stable financial situation and plan every detail of your next year's return, it can still be difficult to predict how it will turn out. Changes to things like property tax, sudden unexpected gains (company bonus, stock sale, bursty side business) or writeoffs from unexpected losses (big medical expense, etc.), birth or death in the family, charitable donations, and all other kinds of things can easily push you from tax owed to refund or vice versa.

On the other hand, for poor financial planners who live month to month without adequate savings and emergency funds, it may be better to overpay taxes a little at a time and end up with a windfall, than to risk a sudden unexpected tax bill. The interest they could have made on those small overpayments would be minimal.

Re:Tax Returns???

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the US Tax Code is so fucked that some people don't ever know if they will be getting a refund or owe more until they do the paperwork in February.

I am one of those people. Last year I owed, this year I'm getting a refund.

Yep, now that I itemize instead of just taking the standard deduction I have no clue exactly where the wind will blow so it's easier to just keep the withholding allowances at 2 every year.

Re:Tax Returns???

[Mass Overkiller]

I don't disagree with this philosophy. Yes the government is using your money and giving it back without interest. Yes you should be investing that money instead of letting the government keep it all year. But in the real world, having a 'bonus' of money at the beginning of the year, even if it's my money, and even if its money the government should have given to me throughout the year, is something I'm ok with. There are some things that make sense logically that just don't work in the real word, and I believe this is one of them.

Re:Tax Returns???

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it makes a lot of sense. It is a completely rational decision to make for an individual who may have a hard time saving money. Further if you don't understand your finances well, and are thus in a situation where your with holding is too large - which seems like an easy assumption - having the government hold it for 12 months and then give it back is perhaps acceptable. The downside to this is what the interim consequences are for individuals with an insufficient cash flow from their work. You hear all the time about the predatory practices of tax preparers upon the poor who cannot wait longer to get their return. It is an easy argument to make that they _needed_ that money more every month. Which begs the question: why the IRS doesn't automatically adjust the withholding amounts for people since it is an approximate "helicopters dropping money" that people actually earned - and thus should have no political framing problems to get through congress or via an executive order?

Re:Tax Returns???

[bws111]

Your state does not tax refunds as income. What happens is that your state taxes assume as a starting point that your federal taxes are as stated on your W2, and your state AGI is reduced by that amount. However, if you overpaid your federal taxes, some of that money is coming back to you and was not really taxes paid. That money (your refund) should have been taxed by the state, but wasn't, so it gets added in as income. Likewise, if you underpaid your federal taxes you can claim the underpayment as additional taxes paid and that money comes off your state tax, but you don't count that as the state 'rewarding' you for underpaying your federal taxes, do you?

Re:Tax Returns???

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Well considering that I seem to only be able to get my total additional yearly tax bill to +-$1500 each year it is pretty difficult. I don't like the loan but when you have variable income sources that come in as 1099-MISC from prize winnings, my wife quilts and some years she does well at shows and other years not so much. Between some years the swing in income is almost $10,000 so it is kind of hard to deal with that other than put some of the winnings aside to cover the taxes.

Re:Tax Returns???

[bws111]

The only way the IRS could 'adjust' withholding properly is when there is a single earner with a single source of income and that income is steady throughout the year. Everything else completely screws up withholding.

Re:Tax Returns???

[Woldscum]

Because that is illegal. If you are self employed or own a business you must pay quarterly estimated income tax to the IRS. If you owe too much at the end of the year you will be penalized the next year. 15 years ago I owed $1200 on filing. I got a nasty gram stating if I owed more than $700 the next year I would be fined a certain %.

Re:Tax Returns???

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding me? Once an individual pays their taxes, indicates they have dependents, etc... The IRS could make an educated decision at that point. They have to know all those things.

Isn't the R for redundancy?

[unixcorn]

The IRS is an evil entity spawned by crooks who only want to pay off their lobbyist cohorts for political payola and apply pork barrel pandering to their constituents. Even worse, it seems to be managed by those who have no idea how to set up a computer system. Instead of a complex tax code and an IRS, set a percentage of a wage and make everyone pay. That's the only fair way to do it. Those who make more will pay more.

Re:Isn't the R for redundancy?

[drinkypoo]

Instead of a complex tax code and an IRS, set a percentage of a wage and make everyone pay. That's the only fair way to do it. Those who make more will pay more.

Corporations don't earn wages, I'll just have my corporation own everything and I won't pay anything, easy peasy.

Re:Isn't the R for redundancy?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy until you want to take money out. Then that money counts as your "wage" and you'd have to pay the going rate on it.

Re:Isn't the R for redundancy?

[Nidi62]

set a percentage of a wage and make everyone pay. That's the only fair way to do it. Those who make more will pay more.

A percentage on wage is grossly unfair, as all those executives and CXO's who get paid a salary of $1 but get millions worth of stock options would literally pay pennies in taxes. The only fair way would be a percentage of all income:wages, capital gains, disbursements from foundations/non-profits/corporations, etc.

Re:Isn't the R for redundancy?

[MachineShedFred]

I work on a team that writes billing and invoicing software for my company. I can tell you with first hand experience that accountants have no fucking clue how a computer works, other than what they can do in Excel. Because of this, they want to do EVERYTHING in Excel whether it's even remotely the right tool or not.

Example: someone wants to export the general ledger from the billing system to an Excel spreadsheet, and doesn't understand why a two million row data set might be a problem for Excel.

These issues are exactly why "Business Intelligence" tools exist - to provide Excel-ish functions, backed by a real database. But they don't want to hear that, because it means that Excel might actually have limits, and they would have to learn a new tool.

Getting closer to TFA, I'm sure that somewhere in the IRS they have honest-to-goodness network engineers who set this shit up, or at least contractors that they paid to do it. Hardware failures happen in any data center, and you try to mitigate with redundancy and automatic fail-over. But it's never perfect, there's always something that gets missed, or something that doesn't work exactly as expected.

Re:Isn't the R for redundancy?

[Anonymous Coward]

"crooks who only want to pay off their lobbyist cohorts for political payola and apply pork barrel pandering to their constituents"

And you know, to pay for roads and stuff.

Re:Isn't the R for redundancy?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Then the IRS gets to estimate the value of the housing expense you're given by your corporation, the value of your transportation you're provided by your corporation, and so on. Income isn't just monetary funds; it's any compensation applied for working. So if you live in corporate housing, and have a corporately-owned car - that's compensation that will be taxed.

Re:Isn't the R for redundancy?

[LynnwoodRooster]

You're someone who never cashed in options, are you? When you have the options - they have potential value, but no real value until exercised. Then you get to pay income tax on the realized gains of those options (because they are realized in less than 1 year time - you typically exercise and sell on the same day, or at least within a week).

Now, you CAN take out loans against the value of your options, if the options are for publicly traded stocks. But then you're essentially mortgaging your future for payments today, and hope that the value of the stock continues to increase. If it doesn't - you get into really bad financial situations really quick. And even if that's not the case, the loan may be considered as income by the IRS and subject to full income tax.

Re:Isn't the R for redundancy?

[drinkypoo]

It's easy until you want to take money out. Then that money counts as your "wage" and you'd have to pay the going rate on it.

Why would I ever take the money out? I'll just gin up bullshit business expenses. I mean, I'll make the trip about business by doing one business-related thing, like everyone else does. It's not evasion, it's avoidance. Whee!

Re:Isn't the R for redundancy?

[Anonymous Coward]

A thousand time this. I ****ing hate excel because of how many accountants, bean counters, whatever you like want to do EVERYTHING in it when they need a ******** database!

Re:Isn't the R for redundancy?

[Anonymous Coward]

But the income from the options is taxed at the capital gains rate of 15% and not the income tax rate (which tops out around 39%).

Re:Isn't the R for redundancy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guys, I work there. One word should terrify you.

COBOL.

Yep, ya got it.

Re:Isn't the R for redundancy?

[LynnwoodRooster]

No, stock options are almost always taxed as ordinary income. The basis of a stock option is not set until you exercise the option. With a stock option, you own NOTHING. It is simply a promise by the company to sell you stock at some future date at a fixed price - there is no value to you in that promise, until you exercise the option.

When you exercise the option, you then establish a cost basis of an actual item of value (the stock). Since few people have the money to actually buy their stock outright, they tend to sell the stock on the same day as they exercise the option. Cash out, so to speak. And thus actual ownership of the item - the stock - was less than 365 days, and so it is taxed as ordinary income, not long-term capital gains.

Rarely does someone pay capital gains tax on stock bought via a stock option. You have to pay for the option itself up front, then hold it for at least 1 year. Most people don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars lying around - so they exercise the option and sell the stock on the same day. No money out of their product, but the profits are taxed as full ordinary income (and, because of the values, typically in the several hundred thousand dollar range, the majority is at 39% Federal - and in the state of California, usually 12% State as well).

Re:Isn't the R for redundancy?

[bws111]

I think that no matter if you sell the stock or not, the difference between the stock price (when you exercise the option) and the option strike price is always ordinary income.

A lot of people seem very confused about options, but they aren't that difficult. Let's say you have been granted options for your stock at $100. On the day you exercise your option the price of the stock is $120. You pay $100 for the stock, and have $20 of ordinary income. The cost basis for the stock is now $120. If you later sell the stock for $200 you have $80 of capital gains (long-term or short term, depending on how long you hold it).

The reason for the exercise and sell on the same day is as you said. If you don't have $100 to buy your stock, you exercise the option and sell the stock and walk away with the $20 of ordinary income.

Stock grants are similar. The entire value of the stock on the day of vesting is ordinary income. The cost basis is then that value.

Stock grants and options are not some sort of tax dodge (for the grantee), although that certainly is the rhetoric. The questionable part of them is how the company accounts for them.

Re:Isn't the R for redundancy?

[riverat1]

Even though I never enjoyed programming in COBOL (it was like writing a term paper) I think it's a perfectly good language for most of the computing the IRS does.

Re:Isn't the R for redundancy?

[LynnwoodRooster]

I think that no matter if you sell the stock or not, the difference between the stock price (when you exercise the option) and the option strike price is always ordinary income.

A lot of people seem very confused about options, but they aren't that difficult. Let's say you have been granted options for your stock at $100. On the day you exercise your option the price of the stock is $120. You pay $100 for the stock, and have $20 of ordinary income. The cost basis for the stock is now $120. If you later sell the stock for $200 you have $80 of capital gains (long-term or short term, depending on how long you hold it).

Correct. You either pay full income tax on the whole thing, OR you hold the stock and sell it later and pay capital gains tax on the accrued value after your got the stock. Bottom line is you always pay at least some income tax, and usually (because few people actually buy and hold the stock) pay income tax on the whole thing, and never get to leverage any appreciation in value as a capital gains tax rate.

Re:Isn't the R for redundancy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could be worse. Where I work they think a multiple page spreadsheet IS a database.

Re:Isn't the R for redundancy?

[RyoShin]

Because of this, they want to do EVERYTHING in Excel whether it's even remotely the right tool or not.

You. You are a true comrade, you understand my pain (being the solo developer for a small payroll/accounting "firm").

You know my sorrow. Let us weep together.

Hard-to-find hardware?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

A "hardware failure" forced the shutdown of several Vax processing systems

There, fixed that for you...

Fox News???

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously?

Good thinking!

[Tailhook]

That's a great idea. Not surprisingly your plan is shared by other brilliant folks, such as Venezuela's new economy czar Luis Salas. He has pointed out that "inflation does not exist." Specifically, the traditional Western economic model that claims printing money devalues currency is bogus and all price increases are merely the result of the parasitic businesses seeking excessive profits. Therefore government should do as you say and print whatever funds they require while diligently preventing greedy speculators from raising prices.

And it's a good thing, too. Prior do Luis Salas's incredible insights Venezuela's fortunes were looking pretty bleak. Doubtless his printing presses will be able to turn all of that around and the rest of the world will be thrilled to restock PDVAL's shelves in exchange for beautiful new bolivars. Why, only yesterday we learned that Luis is importing newly printed cash by the planeload to implement this strategy.

So thankfully your thinking has been adopted in the nick of time and saved Venezuela from collapse. Good work.

Re:Good thinking!

[EzInKy]

If the Venezuelan government says a Llama is equal to one Bolivar than a Llama is equal to one Bolivar. That assumes of course the Venezuelan has enough guns to make that so.

Re:Good thinking!

[thegarbz]

Guns are not required. Economic value is.

Re:Good thinking!

[ThatsNotPudding]

The only thing that will save Venezuela from collapse is if the CIA would stop meddling in their affairs. They still see the entirety of South America as US puppets to fuck with whenever they desire.

Re:Good thinking!

[Tailhook]

If the Venezuelan government says a Llama is equal to one Bolivar than a Llama is equal to one Bolivar.

Sure it does. And if that means the one Bolivar Llama is entirely theoretical because all the real Llamas are elsewhere being traded at market prices, then that's just greedy speculators undermining the revolution.

Re:Good thinking!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why isn't Columbia collapsing then? I doubt any SA nation has more CIA in it than Columbia, yet they seem to be able to feed themselves.

Re:Good thinking!

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing that will save Venezuela from collapse is if the CIA would stop meddling in their affairs. They still see the entirety of The World as US puppets to fuck with whenever they desire.

FTFY.

IRS, tax code IS too complex, but here's why tax

[raymorris]

The IRS is certainly an expense, partly because the tax code is extremely complex and partly because the US government is designed with efficiency as a top priority. However, getting rid of taxes and printing money doesn't actually work - it's been tried more than once. Google "hyperinflation" for some examples.

The crux of it is that if the government prints whatever money they need, they end up "needing" trillions of dollars. Even voting on spending on stop it; 51% of people will vote for "free" health care, "free" college education, "free" housing, "free" cell phones, "free" solar companies, etc. If the people don't have to pay for these things fairly directly through taxes, they vote to spend like a drunken Ted Kennedy on amateur night at the strip club.

So the government prints a shit-ton of dollars to pay for all this stuff. The actual value of the dollar, aka prices, is set by supply and demand. Printing more dollars reduces the value of the existing dollars. (The value of each dollar is separate from the government declaring that the official money is called the dollar, aka fiat.) So the value of the dollar falls when the government prints a bunch. The next month, the government needs to pay their bills again. Remember now the value if each dollar is less, so they have to print more in order to pay their bills. Printing more reduces the value of the dollar again, so the next month they have to print even more. In about a year, the dollar becomes basically worthless. At that point people stop using the official currency and switch to another country's currency.

Since the US became a super-power through WWII, several countries with local currency that was hyperinflated by their government printing it switched to the US dollar, specfically because the US dollar is stable. The number printed isn't decided by the government, but by an independent board tasked with keeping the value properly "stable". (Properly stable here means slight inflation because slight inflation reduces unemployment).

That should delay the hackers

[Anonymous Coward]

From Survey: Average Successful Hack Nets Less Than $15,000 above,

60 percent will give up if an attack takes 40 additional hours.

I for one thank my IRS overlords for protecting the people's tax data from criminally-oriented hackers. Well, maybe for 60% of them anyways.

typo: NOT designed for efficiency

[raymorris]

That should read:
because the US government is NOT designed with efficiency as a top priority.

Bi-cameral legislature isn't efficient, it would be more efficient to have one body. In fact, debate isn't efficient, it would be more efficient to have all the decisions made by Kim Jong Obama. Public hearings certainly aren't efficient. It's not efficient to have courts examine the Constitutionality of federal laws. Obama once taught a course on the Constitution, it would be more efficient to just assume he knows what he's doing and all of his decisions are constitutional. But we've decided that when it comes to the federal government, some things are more important than efficiency.

Fox News?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was Fox News really the best source for this story?
Good ol' Fox News filing this in the "Politics" section.

Re:Fox News?

[Alypius]

Considering the AP is in the byline, it doesn't really much matter which website it came from.

Re:IRS, tax code IS too complex, but here's why ta

[cayenne8]

...and partly because the US government is designed with efficiency as a top priority.

LOL!!!

OMG....you pretty much made me spew my hot tea on my monitor with that one.....

Haha...good one!!

Safe secure efficient filing a thing of the past

[Earthquake Retrofit]

It's called paper and the postal service.

obviously I skipped the word "NOT"

[raymorris]

I of course meant NOT designed with efficiency as a top priority- and for good reason. See also http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

What economic model?

[Anonymous Coward]

the traditional Western economic model that claims printing money devalues currency

What economic model is that? As far as I can tell, the US government defines inflation by its effect (rising prices) and makes absolutely no mention of the cause (falling dollar). Obviously, when you're the one controlling the money supply, you have a major incentive to define it that way, because it relieves you of any responsibility.

But common sense tells us that prices across an entire diversified economy can't possibly rise in unison unless they are economically tied together by something, and that something is, obviously, the currency they are priced in. But government (and hence popular opinion) generally won't have any of that. Even on the most reputable financial discussion boards you will find a strong majority taking the view that rising prices are caused by rising prices.

Online lulz

[Anonymous Coward]

About 10 years ago I tried the IRS free file option. After spending several hours failing to find a vendor that actually allowed the free file option to work without charging me money, I went back to the IRS website, downloaded the 1040ez and 5 minutes later the form was in the mailbox waiting for the mailman. Haven't looked back since.

Re:Online lulz

[Anonymous Coward]

In the last few years the IRS has added basic free file options for those making less than $62000. Try checking out their web site for more info. If you make more than $62000, Try http://www.freefilefillableforms.com. The IRS web site links directly to it as a way to free e-file regardless of income. I've been using it for a few years now. You basically just fill out the IRS forms online so you have to know how to do the forms or be able to read the instructions. The site does some basic calculations for you (the ones where there is only one way to calculate it correctly). If you are already doing a paper 1040EZ, this should be simple for you and maybe even quicker than doing it by hand. I'm using it with a full 1040, 1 W2, schedule A, schedule C, schedule D, schedule SE, form 8829, form 8889, and form 8949 and it took me around 4 hours this year. It is only for federal filings.

Re:Online lulz

[Woldscum]

Yep 1040EZ is great IF you qualify. You need to make less than $50k. Also have less than $400 in interest income. You can not claim dividends or capital gains or rental income, etc. ALSO if you have Obama Care you will receive a 1095A listing all government monthly subsidies and they count as income. So no EZ for you. Longform 1040 only.

Drowning in a bathtub

[PopeRatzo]

Keep the government out of our income taxes!

Re: Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it has value because if you don't accept it in payment for already used services the government will protect the debtor from having to pay with whatever scheme you two had originally agreed upon.

Never forget the power of a small group with very large guns.

Re: Since all money is fiat, why have taxes at all

[davidwr]

So, you shouldn't mind giving all of that worthless paper/coins/bank-ledger entries you have to the IRS?

Seriosly though, fiat currencies and coins do have intrinsic value. Well, as much value as and any similar-sized/shaped object make of the same materials. Bank-ledger-entries, not so much.

Pre-1982 copper US pennies have a metal value higher than face value. Ditto pre-1964 silver coins and late-1960s half dollars, and pre-WWII gold coins. I admit I am "cheating" with the gold and silver, as part of their value is because people treat them as "money." Copper on the other hand is values for its intrinsic properties, not as a store of value.

You're not fined for paying too little

[rsilvergun]

I do this every year. If you can't pay in full by April 15th you get a very small fine and (thanks to out right wing congress) interest penalties. It's still a fraction of even the best credit card rates and they try hard to work with you. I've had some rough patches due to family illnesses and I'd take the IRS as a creditor over any one else.

If you can afford to live well enough to

[waspleg]

not give a fuck after you only get 9% of your income I have a hard fucking time feeling sorry for you or your tax rate. Even billionaires like Warren Buffett see the intrinsic unfairness of rich fucks getting taxed at half or less of their secretaries (the unspoken part being that perpetuates a system where said secretary gets shit on for life while billionaires try to find something interesting to do with their money/time).

Re:If you can afford to live well enough to

[pnutjam]

If you deal with kids you might have found one that has an unhealthy obsession. It could be reading, video games, fighting, watching tv, pokemon cards, whatever... You eventually have to step in and say you can only do this activity for this much time and you need to find something else to do with the rest of your time.

The 91% tax rate functions much like this. It says, "Dude, your just running up the scoreboard. There's more to life." Some people just never mature enough on their own.

Re:If you can afford to live well enough to

[KGIII]

Somebody needs to do some online lessons in learning about the tax code, business law, and things of that nature. I know enough to know that I'm not really qualified to do so. Let me see if I can help you out, I'll do what I can - if you've got questions then go ahead and ask. This will be a bit long - I encourage you to read and not skim but that's up to you.

No, he (probably) doesn't pay less in taxes than his secretary. Warren pays a lower percentage than his secretary. Numerically, I'm guessing he pays a much higher number. Why? Because he's spending (or moving) that money. When profits are realized is when you get taxed. You get taxed when you move or spend the money.

For example, I pay a marginal tax rate of about 23% (State and Federal) on Capital Gains. That's probably a much lower percentage than what you pay. I do not have, personally, any taxable income - I pay no Income Taxes. It's also important to note, I'd pay the Income Tax rate if I realized those profits in less than a year. In other words, you get taxed at Income Tax rates if you do short-term investing. You get taxed at Capital Gains rates if you do long-term investing (a period longer than one calendar year). The reasons for this are obvious - the lower rate is to encourage those who've accumulated some wealth to leave their money in long-term investments that enable the economy to function as well as it does.

Warren's taxes are surely more complicated than mine but the reality is that his Income Tax is exactly the same as his secretary's Income Tax on the same amount of money. They are numerically the same - as the default. He may structure differently than she and may be able to reduce his tax burden in ways that she's unable (or unwilling) to utilize but the intrinsic number is exactly the same as it is for her as it is for him.

Where that differs is in investments like stocks, bonds, or even just interest gained from keeping your money in the bank for the bank to use. (An example might be that I probably get a much higher interest rate on plain savings than you do - simply because I am able to give them access to great valued assets.) Those are taxed at varied rates that depend on duration, value, method, and other things. It's a bit complicated and I honestly do not know enough to give you exact figures.

However, at the same dollar total, he'd pay exactly what his secretary would pay on any of those things - there's no magic space where my tax burden is any different than your burden given the same level of involvement. We may both write down and reduce burden and offset income based on optimizing one's overall tax burden but, really, the numbers exactly the same for you as it is for Warren.

He has choices, by the way. He can get his secretary an accountant and a lawyer and enable her to structure her income to be more beneficial to her. He can simply pay the secretary more. He can not use every mechanism in the book - write-offs and reductions are not automatic, you need to file for them. Odd that he complains but still uses those mechanisms to reduce his burden. He can even donate and pay more than his obligated amount. Yes, you can donate to the government - I have. You can't just be all that picky about where it goes. I donated to NASA but I was unable to earmark it for something like an educational outreach program or inviting aliens to tea on Mars.

So, he's complaining about various reductions in taxes - that he's opting to use, are not mandatory, and could be utilized by anyone with that level of income - including his secretary. He's bitching about the effects of reducing the tax burden while purposefully reducing his tax burden. He does all that while he has a plethora of other options that include things like paying his secretary enough money so that they get to worry about taxes too.

He's not necessarily wrong but he's neither innocent nor is what he said really interpreted very well by most folks who hear it. Do the lines need to be adjusted? Quite probably, yes. To what end? The g

Re:If you can afford to live well enough to

[FlyHelicopters]

If you can afford to live well enough to not give a fuck after you only get 9% of your income I have a hard fucking time feeling sorry for you or your tax rate.

You don't have to care, but you're deluding yourself if you think people will work, earn money, and pay taxes at that rate.

The whole point of passing higher taxes is to raise money, is it not? Well it doesn't raise money if no one is paying the rate, now is it?

France recently tried this, raising the top rate to 75%. Oh sure, that'll bring in a lot of taxes, right?

No, it really doesn't.

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/...

People will avoid such tax rates at all costs.

Oh Lord, can we stop spreading that myth

[rsilvergun]

Reagan was lying by omission. He did that lots. It was a technique invented by Karl Rove then implemented and perfected by Reagan. He neglected to mention that 91% tax rate didn't kick in until the 2016 equivalent of $20 million dollars and only applied to income _over_ that amount. Hell for your first $200k you paid the same rate as I do, and I don't make squat. Someone who cleared $30 mil would still make $990,000 a year more that year. This is what marginal tax rates are. They're to prevent run away income inequality and all the horrible things it entails (like the 1% buying up everything under the sun and forming monopolies like we're seeing with today's Mega Mergers and the billionaire's stranglehold on politics through money).

And besides, let 'em take a 9 month vacation. I'm sure somebody else will pick up that $10 million in slack. If there are no volunteers I'll take it.

Re:Oh Lord, can we stop spreading that myth

[FlyHelicopters]

He neglected to mention that 91% tax rate didn't kick in until the 2016 equivalent of $20 million dollars and only applied to income _over_ that amount.

You are mistaken, he didn't "neglect" to mention it, it is obvious and anyone who knows anything knows that.

What YOU ARE MISSING is that once you hit that rate, you might as well stay home and watch TV, you're done.

No one is going to pay such a rate if they can avoid it, it is stupid.

And besides, let 'em take a 9 month vacation.

Yea, good thing you don't make policy. Perhaps you can move to France where they tried it recently. It just doesn't work the way you think it does.

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/...

Assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope someone hacks these assholes and all the employees that work there

Where's the explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you explain, then, why gold is considered essential by the largest and most powerful governments in the world? Actions speak louder than words, and their actions imply that gold is absolutely essential. Not only do they hold thousands of tons of gold, their vaults have better security than federal prisons. There's a reason they all have it, and it's not because it's shiny. Even the IMF, the #1 advocate of fiat currency and Keynesian economics, holds gold. Why in the world would the people who built their business on fiat currency want to own the anti-christ of fiat currecy?

Go ahead, let's hear your explanation. (I'm assuming you do have a rationale besides "you're wrong".)