Will America recover?

[David Dennison 18856]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I think Americans should follow the law and report their income.  You apparently disagree.

Even dear old granddad?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Even dear old granddad?

What an odd post.

[Guest]

Maybe it's just me, but if I were having to write 7 figure checks to the government I don't think I'd like it either. I'd rather give money away how I'd prefer to give it away, but I understand and I think most understand the mandatory nature of taxes (no wesley snipes), but that doesn't mean everyone has to be thrilled about it.

[wildcat09 29352]

1 minute ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Maybe it's just me, but if I were having to write 7 figure checks to the government I don't think I'd like it either. I'd rather give money away how I'd prefer to give it away, but I understand and I think most understand the mandatory nature of taxes (no wesley snipes), but that doesn't mean everyone has to be thrilled about it.

I don't love paying taxes either, but I recognize that without them my job wouldn't exist and most of my time would be spent securing and defending food and shelter, rather than this laughably easy life that Johnny Sack probably considers hard work because he's never had to do a real day's work in his life.

[Brew 3049]

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

He's really big on fairness. Waitresses who don't declare their tips are unfair to American taxpayers, particularly those taxpayers who had to scratch out seven figure checks to the IRS.

I mean, can you imagine how shitty your year was if you had to write a seven figure check to Uncle Sam? That is some big time punishment for the makers of this country. 

So yeah, waitresses better report every fucking dime of those tips. Takers need to know their place.

This take is just as stupid as his take of poor people just need to work harder. The vilification of the rich by some on here is weak. I write a large check and disagree with how the government spends a large portion of it. Am I just supposed to accept it because I can afford it?

Also, they should report their income just like everyone should report their income. The law is the law on that case. Argue for tax reform not tax fraud. Under reporting income costs everyone more money.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 minute ago, Brew said:

This take is just as stupid as his take of poor people just need to work harder. The vilification of the rich by some on here is weak. I write a large check and disagree with how the government spends a large portion of it. Am I just supposed to accept it because I can afford it?

Also, they should report their income just like everyone should report their income. The law is the law on that case. Argue for tax reform not tax fraud. Under reporting income costs everyone more money.

$500-600 billion a year in tax revenue is lost due to unreported income.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

I don't love paying taxes either, but I recognize that without them my job wouldn't exist and most of my time would be spent securing and defending food and shelter, rather than this laughably easy life that Johnny Sack probably considers hard work because he's never had to do a real day's work in his life.

I hear you. 

I'm just not sure how maligning a guy for being born privileged/wealthy and having the ideological/philosophical trappings that come with being born privileged and wealthy is any different  than maligning the poor and disadvantaged and their ideologies and philosophies born from a culture of generational poverty. I guess it's fun to make harass the wealthy and powerful because of catharsis and because of resentment and unmet expectations we have on what they should do or think.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I hear you. 

I'm just not sure how maligning a guy for being born privileged/wealthy and having the ideological/philosophical trappings that come with being born privileged and wealthy is any different  than maligning the poor and disadvantaged and their ideologies and philosophies born from a culture of generational poverty. I guess it's fun to make harass the wealthy and powerful because of catharsis and because of resentment and unmet expectations we have on what they should do or think.

Yeah,  but it makes him feel sooooo good and superior.

[Brew 3049]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

$500-600 billion a year in tax revenue is lost due to unreported income.

I see it every day. However, there are just as many if not more rich people that under report  by way of questionable deductions  as people not reporting income.

[VRHorn 718]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

$500-600 billion a year in tax revenue is lost due to unreported income.

From 2015, but this says $270 billion.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-the-irs-knows-you-didnt-report-income/

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, VRHorn said:

From 2015, but this says $270 billion.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-the-irs-knows-you-didnt-report-income/

This article says $500 billion

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/032916/how-big-underground-economy-america.asp

[Brew 3049]

4 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I hear you. 

I'm just not sure how maligning a guy for being born privileged/wealthy and having the ideological/philosophical trappings that come with being born privileged and wealthy is any different  than maligning the poor and disadvantaged and their ideologies and philosophies born from a culture of generational poverty. I guess it's fun to make harass the wealthy and powerful because of catharsis and because of resentment and unmet expectations we have on what they should do or think.

This.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Brew said:

I see it every day. However, there are just as many if not more rich people that under report  by way of questionable deductions  as people not reporting income.

We probably all know a couple "Son of BOSS"-ers. Pigs get fat; hogs get slaughtered.

[GSU&UT 1798]

10 minutes ago, Brew said:

This take is just as stupid as his take of poor people just need to work harder. The vilification of the rich by some on here is weak. I write a large check and disagree with how the government spends a large portion of it. Am I just supposed to accept it because I can afford it?

Also, they should report their income just like everyone should report their income. The law is the law on that case. Argue for tax reform not tax fraud. Under reporting income costs everyone more money.

The rich can at least take solace in the fact that they have much much more powerful advocates in congress for them than the poor.

[Sawbonz 27548]

27 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

"The rules of the game are completely rigged to favor me, but even though the rules are very unfair to me I comply with them, so the people the rules are designed to exploit should comply with them too!"

I thought you were all about the rule of law. 

[Sawbonz 27548]

13 minutes ago, Brew said:

This take is just as stupid as his take of poor people just need to work harder. The vilification of the rich by some on here is weak. I write a large check and disagree with how the government spends a large portion of it. Am I just supposed to accept it because I can afford it?

Also, they should report their income just like everyone should report their income. The law is the law on that case. Argue for tax reform not tax fraud. Under reporting income costs everyone more money.

This is not the thread for rational thought and logical consistency 

[Fozzz 152]

I like this take from one of the the new brand of race realists/eugenicists Quillete is boosting - maybe we can breed out welfare dependency?  Very thought provoking.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/09/adam-perkins-welfare-dependency-can-be-bred-out?__twitter_impression=true

 

[RandomIdoit 655]

29 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

As far as I'm concerned, waitstaff make $2.13 an hour or whatever the minimum is for tipped employees now, and tips are charity. If you want them to pay income taxes on more than $2.13 an hour, maybe you should support them being paid more than $2.13 an hour.

I support them being paid more than $2.13 an hour. But I bet the first ones to bitch about making their pay $10 or $15 per hour would be the servers themselves. They would be making less, and they would have to claim all of it on their taxes.

[David Dennison 18856]

3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I like this take from one of the the new brand of race realists/eugenicists Quillete is boosting - maybe we can breed out welfare dependency?  Very thought provoking.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/09/adam-perkins-welfare-dependency-can-be-bred-out?__twitter_impression=true

 

Can we stop subsidizing the rich first?

[Fozzz 152]

Sorry but fascism is far more practical David. 

[babysdaddy 2721]

American can recover if someone will tell me who RandomIdoit's avatar is.  Thx

[Sawbonz 27548]

3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I like this take from one of the the new brand of race realists/eugenicists Quillete is boosting - maybe we can breed out welfare dependency?  Very thought provoking.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/09/adam-perkins-welfare-dependency-can-be-bred-out?__twitter_impression=true

 

Just based on the title that guy’s ideas aren’t even worth looking at to refute, but the concept of “employable traits” is about to undergo revolutionary changes. Most of us won’t be needed for work regardless of our skillset in an automated, AI managed and  service oriented economy.  Writing code and repairing robots until the robots can do it on their own I guess

[Sawbonz 27548]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Can we stop subsidizing the rich first?

How much of their money should they be allowed to keep? Or do you even believe any of it belongs to them?

[David Dennison 18856]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

How much of their money should they be allowed to keep? Or do you even believe any of it belongs to them?

I'd be happy with the tax brackets that existed before 1981. Those are fair.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

I support them being paid more than $2.13 an hour. But I bet the first ones to bitch about making their pay $10 or $15 per hour would be the servers themselves. They would be making less, and they would have to claim all of it on their taxes.

They would definitely complain.  And technically, the already "have" to claim all tips on their taxes.  Just like you have to claim your winnings from saturday night poker night, and you have to claim the value of the 12 pack of beer your friend buys you for dropping him off at the airport (minus your mileage deduction).  Bartering income is income too.

All that is nothing in the grand scheme of things. Business expenses include quite a lot of "client" dinners and associated events that didn't always include an actual client.  And "home offices" often don't follow the guidelines.  Then you have guys like Trump who seem to funnel almost every personal purchase through the "business expense" ringer.

[Sawbonz 27548]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

I'd be happy with the tax brackets that existed before 1981. Those are fair.

Define fair

[babysdaddy 2721]

https://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable/1980

 

you are out of your fucking mind

[David Dennison 18856]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

Define fair

In this case, the tax brackets that were in effect prior to the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.

[David Dennison 18856]

1 minute ago, babysdaddy said:

https://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable/1980

 

you are out of your fucking mind

Adjusted for inflation, of course.

[Incredulity 11667]

Just realize under those bracket the 1% you loathe so much gets to deduct all meals and entertainment expenses.  So then you are subsidizing Bushwood 70cents on the dollar.

[Sawbonz 27548]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

They would definitely complain.  And technically, the already "have" to claim all tips on their taxes.  Just like you have to claim your winnings from saturday night poker night, and you have to claim the value of the 12 pack of beer your friend buys you for dropping him off at the airport (minus your mileage deduction).  Bartering income is income too.

All that is nothing in the grand scheme of things. Business expenses include quite a lot of "client" dinners and associated events that didn't always include an actual client.  And "home offices" often don't follow the guidelines.  Then you have guys like Trump who seem to funnel almost every personal purchase through the "business expense" ringer.

This is why we need a national consumption tax. Much harder to cheat (“legal” cheating included). Give a standard rebate below say 2 x poverty, tax any income above a certain threshold,l (say 4 x poverty) regardless of source, at a flat rate and you can fix a lot of our issues. 

[David Dennison 18856]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Just realize under those bracket the 1% you loathe so much gets to deduct all meals and entertainment expenses.  So then you are subsidizing Bushwood 70cents on the dollar.

Oh, I didn't say we should revert back to pre-1981 deductions. I endorse the brackets, not the rest of the code.

Edited June 13, 2018 by David Dennison

[llanoflash 151]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Oh, I didn't say we should revert back to pre-1981 deductions. I endorse the brackets, not the rest of the code.

Soo.. if i make 108k this year i should be able to keep about 35k?

is that really fair to you?

[David Dennison 18856]

1 minute ago, llanoflash said:

Soo.. if i make 108k this year i should be able to keep about 35k?

is that really fair to you?

Wow. Do you really not understand how marginal tax rates work?

[wildcat09 29352]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Wow. Do you really not understand how marginal tax rates work?

Apparently not.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

12 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

This is why we need a national consumption tax. Much harder to cheat (“legal” cheating included). Give a standard rebate below say 2 x poverty, tax any income above a certain threshold,l (say 4 x poverty) regardless of source, at a flat rate and you can fix a lot of our issues. 

Except there would no doubt be a business expense exception to a consumption tax, so we'd be in a worse place than we are now.

If we ever did go to a consumption tax, we need to change our pricing structure.  Listed prices need to include tax rather than being "plus tax".

[llanoflash 151]

i guess not. standard deduction today is 12000

108000-12000=96000x.7=67200

i get to keep 40800.00.

i got not other deductions so..

[David Dennison 18856]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

Except there would no doubt be a business expense exception to a consumption tax, so we'd be in a worse place than we are now.

If we ever did go to a consumption tax, we need to change our pricing structure.  Listed prices need to include tax rather than being "plus tax".

Listed prices need to include tax now, regardless of consumption tax. 

[David Dennison 18856]

Just now, llanoflash said:

i guess not. standard deduction today is 12000

108000-12000=96000x.7=67200

i get to keep 40800.00.

i got not other deductions so..

If you fall into the highest tax bracket, that doesn't mean all of your income is taxed at that rate. It only means that the amount you earn over the income level where that rate kicks in is taxed at that rate. Income below that amount is taxed at lower rates. That's how marginal tax rates work and it's why the magic number for paying taxes is your effective tax rate, which is the percentage of your income you actually end up paying after it's all said and done. That effective rate is much lower than the highest tax bracket.

 

[Smax 3800]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

What an odd post.

 

very but jealousy is an ugly trait

[Sawbonz 27548]

35 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

In this case, the tax brackets that were in effect prior to the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.

Explain how those rates are fair

[Jack Burton 35]

12 minutes ago, llanoflash said:

i guess not. standard deduction today is 12000

108000-12000=96000x.7=67200

i get to keep 40800.00.

i got not other deductions so..

You have to do math for each bracket. It's not a whole amount multiplied by 0.7

[David Dennison 18856]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

Explain how those rates are fair

They are progressive. They tax those who can afford it at higher rates as they reach higher levels of income.

I think that's fair. I understand you don't. That's politics.

[Sawbonz 27548]

16 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Except there would no doubt be a business expense exception to a consumption tax, so we'd be in a worse place than we are now.

If we ever did go to a consumption tax, we need to change our pricing structure.  Listed prices need to include tax rather than being "plus tax".

I don’t see how that puts us in a worse position. Administer it like the European Union  VAT.  Also listing prices “plus tax” is just a marketing ploy. Everyone knows the total will be higher

[936horn 910]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

They are progressive. They tax those who can afford it at higher rates as they reach higher levels of income.

I think that's fair. I understand you don't. That's politics.

What % rate could you consider "punitive"? Obviously not 70. 80? 90? 99?

[wildcat09 29352]

16 minutes ago, llanoflash said:

i guess not. standard deduction today is 12000

108000-12000=96000x.7=67200

i get to keep 40800.00.

i got not other deductions so..

This is hysterical. How the hell do you make six figures and not understand how marginal tax rates work?

[Guest]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

This is hysterical. How the hell do you make six figures and not understand how marginal tax rates work?

Two words: Oil. Gas.

 

j/k my O&G bros

[936horn 910]

Just now, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Two words: Oil. Gas.

 

j/k my O&G bros

You're not wrong.

[David Dennison 18856]

2 minutes ago, 936horn said:

What % rate could you consider "punitive"? Obviously not 70. 80? 90? 99?

Because they are marginal rates, I don't consider any rate punitive.

[Sawbonz 27548]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

They are progressive. They tax those who can afford it at higher rates as they reach higher levels of income.

I think that's fair. I understand you don't. That's politics.

That doesn’t explain how the specific rates are fair. A completely separate argument would be whether a progressive system is fair. How are the specific brackets more fair in your opinion than any other set of progressive rates?