Slashdot Mirror
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.
MFM hard drives don't last forever.
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!
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Really, just "let it be done" that governments print whatever they need to pay their expenses and eliminate the IRS once and for all.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
LLS, carry on.
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. :(
Life is not for the lazy.
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.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
A "hardware failure" forced the shutdown of several Vax processing systems
There, fixed that for you...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
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 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.
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.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
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.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
LOL!!!
OMG....you pretty much made me spew my hot tea on my monitor with that one.....
Haha...good one!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It's called paper and the postal service.
Fifty years of Yippie! 1968-2018
Considering the AP is in the byline, it doesn't really much matter which website it came from.
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.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I of course meant NOT designed with efficiency as a top priority- and for good reason. See also http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
>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.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
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.
Can you name the top 5 countries in the world with a 100% income tax?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Keep the government out of our income taxes!
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
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!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
... 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.
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).
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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?
I don't see what cutting costs and shafting employees has to do with reinvesting in the company.
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.
Cheap storage VM.
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.
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.
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
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.)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Too bad Reagan purposely misrepresented what *marginal* tax rates are.
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?
>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.
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.
>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 should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
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.
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.
the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head
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.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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)
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.
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.
>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.
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.
>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.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
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.
>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 $20 a barrel the cost of fuel should be lower than it is, Wal-Marts in the hundreds closing is not a good sign at all either. Federal reserve closure of the NYC location and moved over to Chicago could likely be to cut costs to continue to present the illusion of a healthy economy by buying up stock when the NYSE/NASDAC starts to tank. Doctored figures on the actual unemployment rates. Pretty sure by the looks of the over all picture will be shown in the trucking industry next. Being that there is federal law that dictates the money in your account that is in the bank belongs to them in the event of a financial meltdown of the banking industry (again), the money belongs to the bank. Based upon what we saw in Greece, knowing there really isn't anywhere for the federal reserve system to kick the can this time, I myself would not trust the banks with the money. Sure, even the president stated that those who have stated the economy is in bad shape are full of it, but how often have you seen the government be honest about pretty much any situation days. There is too much real data to reference publicly available to support that the president is one that is full of it. It is also understood that it is an election year and the economy does experience an element of uncertainty during this process but this appears to be a bit more than just an element.
You've gone off the deep end. Start swimming the other way.
Can't float the economy on smoke and mirrors, that bottom line thing always gets in the way. The mind control doesn't seem to have any effect on it when the people are financially sunk, the banksters already ran with the gold and stuck us all with a big fat dinner check to the tune of about 20 trillion playing on the paper. But you know what? I'll leave you to your fantasy smoking Rockefeller's and Rothschild's Khazarian mafia sausage, you seem to be quite content with it, go make a big deposit.
You didn't examine the real point, now did you? What does 3K$ 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%
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.
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.