Income Tax Return

denverpilot said:
Sigh... "claimed more than 0"... don't get me started on how our system penalizes the childless.

(Of course, the majority -- the parents up to their eyeballs in non-logical behavior anyway, just barely holding on to sanity while dealing with their offspring -- see it differently. They "deserve" to pay less in taxes so they can support their ankle-biters... and the usual argument is 'kids are more expensive than you pay in taxes for not having them!', which they seem to think is a logical, reasonable point... when talking about taxation fairness. They really get cranky when I say I and the retirees with grown kids are the ones actually paying the property taxes that pay for their kid's education, not them... heh heh.)
Click to expand...

or those who choose not to donate to charities or not improve their dwellings with energy efficient appliances and heating and cooling or buy vehicles that use electric rather then petroleum for power or.. oh that's right those are things that benefit society as a whole so maybe we should use the tax code to encourage them.

As for school taxes.. The retirees with grown kids had their costs covered by others when their kids were in school. I don't commit crimes and I don't see where the police have stopped crimes against me so does that mean the police give me no benefit? No these are all costs of living in a community. If you don't want the benefits then move out of the community and go to area that does not provide them. You won't have a lot of neighbors but you won't have to pay for the services either.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Even if they don't send the 1099, I believe you're still supposed to report it.

That said, I'd be surprised if more than a single digit percentage of Americans report all their income (eBay, CraigsList, garage sale income) on their returns... I bet most only report what gets reported to the IRS on a form.
Click to expand...

My coworker is a CPA. I will verify whatever I intend to do with her first. For some reason my Mom claims I made very little last year (as in less than a hundred dollars). I did not keep track and my bank doesn't show check images online (lame I know). We'll see what happens. For now I'm excited that I might get a small refund, equal to a 50nm each way cross country maybe (or almost).
 
I have no problem paying taxes for schools even though I don't have kids. I was educated in public schools all the way through college and think it's a good idea to have an educated population.
 
Everskyward said:
I have no problem paying taxes for schools even though I don't have kids. I was educated in public schools all the way through college and think it's a good idea to have an educated population.
Click to expand...

Agree. The more kids in school - the less kids in my yard.
 
Yeah the usual arguments came back. They never address the inequality of the payments or the actual logical complaint. Always off in the weeds somewhere.

I have no problem paying for your kid's school. In fact, I'll pay more than I do now and I vote yes on school funding mill levys.

It's not an argument pro/against public education, pro/against society, pro/against government, or ANY of that.

It's a complaint that you... as a kid squirter, by your own choice and out of your own budget... have offspring and then get to pay LESS into that system than I do, by a very significant margin for almost two decades.

It's a perfect example of "majority wins" over logic. I pay more than you do to the government, for your kids not to end up stupid. Sure, you pay more overall, but the "public" part isn't level. I choose no kids, you get to put me in jail if I don't pay more into the public education system than you do. That's the bottom line.

You also make darn sure to vote for politicians who make sure that remains the law of the land.

I sincerely doubt I will ever see a deduction for a dependant in my entire life. You'll have it for 18-25 years.

Sure I may end up fiscally ahead anyway, but the point is that there's a permanent handicap fiscally employed by tax codes on anyone with no kids. It's built into our society.

I'd happily take a level playing field on that one if you're all willing to give up your dependant claims and send 'em to me to make up the opportunity costs lost by my higher tax rate.

(Never had anyone take me up on the offer yet.)
 
denverpilot said:
Yeah the usual arguments came back. They never address the inequality of the payments or the actual logical complaint. Always off in the weeds somewhere.

I have no problem paying for your kid's school. In fact, I'll pay more than I do now and I vote yes on school funding mill levys.

It's not an argument pro/against public education, pro/against society, pro/against government, or ANY of that.

It's a complaint that you... as a kid squirter, by your own choice and out of your own budget... have offspring and then get to pay LESS into that system than I do, by a very significant margin for almost two decades.

It's a perfect example of "majority wins" over logic. I pay more than you do to the government, for your kids not to end up stupid. Sure, you pay more overall, but the "public" part isn't level. I choose no kids, you get to put me in jail if I don't pay more into the public education system than you do. That's the bottom line.

You also make darn sure to vote for politicians who make sure that remains the law of the land.

I sincerely doubt I will ever see a deduction for a dependant in my entire life. You'll have it for 18-25 years.

Sure I may end up fiscally ahead anyway, but the point is that there's a permanent handicap fiscally employed by tax codes on anyone with no kids. It's built into our society.

I'd happily take a level playing field on that one if you're all willing to give up your dependant claims and send 'em to me to make up the opportunity costs lost by my higher tax rate.

(Never had anyone take me up on the offer yet.)
Click to expand...

So you have no objections to tax deductions in general, you just object to ones that you don't qualify for.
 
denverpilot said:
I'd happily take a level playing field on that one if you're all willing to give up your dependant claims and send 'em to me to make up the opportunity costs lost by my higher tax rate.
Click to expand...
I think the playing field is more level than you think. Even as a single person I get an exemption, for myself. If I had four kids and they had to file their own taxes they would each get their own exemption. However, filing as a family the parent gets to take all five exemptions (one for themselves and one for each of the four kids).
 
denverpilot said:
(Double take...)

Wow. Just... Wow.

My dad asked a bank teller what her New Year's resolution was a few days ago.

She said, and I quote...

"To budget my checkbook."

...

After recovering from being stunned he said, "You mean balance your checkbook right?"

"Oh yeah! That's what I meant! It's been seven days, and so far, so good!", she replied cheerfully.

A bank teller. Seriously.

Dad's private commentary on the phone went something like this...

"We're f---ed."
Click to expand...

What's a checkbook???
 
denverpilot said:
I think they should all be done away with. Flat tax.
Click to expand...

Yep, me too.

I've always wondered how much money we'd raise if everybody paid 10%, no deductions, no exemptions.

Take however much new money (salary, interest, realized gains on investments, etc) you got last year, divide it by 10, send it in.


You only made 17,000 as a regional airline pilot? Well you only owe 1,700. You made 17,000,000 as a trader? Then you owe 1,700,000.

And everyone can be proud they paid their fair share, regardless of their income.
 
We'd save billions in firing most of the IRS too, and sorry but a ton of accountants too.
 
denverpilot said:
We'd save billions in firing most of the IRS too, and sorry but a ton of accountants too.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how to tax business, I'm inclined to not tax them at all, except when wealth/value is transferred to an individual.

Buy a tractor? That transaction is ultimately taxed in the income of the various people who got paid for supplying/building/shipping/selling/delivering that tractor to you.
 
woodstock said:
I write checks for everything too.
Click to expand...
It's not that I write that many checks but I didn't know of any other way to pay for the car. I didn't have that much cash on me and my credit card limit is not that high. :dunno:
 
Everskyward said:
It's not that I write that many checks but I didn't know of any other way to pay for the car. I didn't have that much cash on me and my credit card limit is not that high. :dunno:
Click to expand...
I tried to buy a truck with my American Express last week but ultimately the dealer was going to raise the price 3% of I did it....so sadly I had to go home and get a check.

I just wanted to see them swipe the card for the truck -- to see if I'd actually be able to hear the Dave Ramsey folks cry out at my action.
 
TMetzinger said:
Yep, me too.

I've always wondered how much money we'd raise if everybody paid 10%, no deductions, no exemptions.

Take however much new money (salary, interest, realized gains on investments, etc) you got last year, divide it by 10, send it in.


You only made 17,000 as a regional airline pilot? Well you only owe 1,700. You made 17,000,000 as a trader? Then you owe 1,700,000.

And everyone can be proud they paid their fair share, regardless of their income.
Click to expand...

Don't wish to sound rude but what a pleasant fantasy regarding true human nature :)

So long as taxable income is largely left up to the imagination of the earner or agent to (mis)state, no tax system will be any better than our current one. And you'd fire a host of old experts so you could hire the new ones you'd need.

How much pride of doing ones fair share have you sensed in this thread?
 
alaskaflyer said:
much pride of doing ones fair share have you sensed in this thread?
Click to expand...
I may not agree with the tax structure - but at the end of the day it is the law and I make the best of it. I try not to pay anything I shouldn't but I pay every penny I should and I take pride in the fact that I do.
 
jesse said:
I may not agree with the tax structure - but at the end of the day it is the law and I make the best of it. I try not to pay anything I shouldn't but I pay every penny I should and I take pride in the fact that I do.
Click to expand...

I don't I have pride in the fact that I pay a LOT of money to the government. I have a lot of disrespect for those that take it from the government unnecessarily, and I hold a lot of contempt for the government in the amount of waste they have.

If they'd just cut out the stupid ****, I'd have a lot more pride.
 
TMetzinger said:
Yep, me too.

I've always wondered how much money we'd raise if everybody paid 10%, no deductions, no exemptions.

Take however much new money (salary, interest, realized gains on investments, etc) you got last year, divide it by 10, send it in.


You only made 17,000 as a regional airline pilot? Well you only owe 1,700. You made 17,000,000 as a trader? Then you owe 1,700,000.

And everyone can be proud they paid their fair share, regardless of their income.
Click to expand...

The problem is to be revenue neutral the flat tax would need to be around 23% which is raising the tax bill for a large percentage of the population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_neutrality_of_the_FairTax
 
jesse said:
I may not agree with the tax structure - but at the end of the day it is the law and I make the best of it. I try not to pay anything I shouldn't but I pay every penny I should and I take pride in the fact that I do.
Click to expand...

That's about it for me too. I like to fantasize that my taxes paid for something I agree with. Like my own salary.
 
And as a liberal I agree that corporate taxation is for the most part unfair and certainly counterproductive as a social policy tool.
 
Too close to SZ to provide answers...
 
TMetzinger said:
I'm not sure about those numbers.
Click to expand...

Neither am I, but who cares... we're never going to do it. 24% or whatever is actually fine, if that's what the cost is. (24% would be a significant drop for me... and a significant rise for some... and that's not "progressive" so like I said, it'll never happen.)

I read last night where poor Wall Street was considering cutting new banker's salaries... you know, the "Associates" who make over $200K in their first year, and typically make $700K by their seventh or eighth year?

My heart bleeds for them. I'm so glad I'm paying for their bailout. Really. Wouldn't want them to hurt or anything from their own bad risk analysis and decision-making.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top