Gee, I can't wait to pay my taxes

OnDborder · Feb 9, 2007, 04:27 PM

In order for more crap like this to go on with our tax donations to the feds.. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/...rss_topstories

363 tons of 50 and 100 dollar bills

gone in just months. I guess you all know what our money is based on.. It's so easy for the feds to just print it up and ship it out.

Some of that cash probably ended up buying weapons to kill/injure the US personel.. Someone needs to be prosecuted.

~~DudeBoyz~~ · Feb 9, 2007, 04:40 PM

I just got my tax return.

Falstaff · Feb 9, 2007, 05:41 PM

I have to pay english taxes....and american taxes...this year sucks..
if you make over 120K you pay and pay!

**Asmoday** · Feb 9, 2007, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falstaff

I have to pay english taxes....and american taxes...this year sucks..
if you make over 120K you pay and pay!

With that kind of income you can afford to pay!

Lelisevis · Feb 9, 2007, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falstaff

I have to pay english taxes....and american taxes...this year sucks..
if you make over 120K you pay and pay!

Oh my heart bleeds you poor soul

. That was four years work in my previous job LOL.

PS, just noticed the wolfs on the left of your sig, do you have a larger copy of that you could PM me.

Sandok · Feb 9, 2007, 05:50 PM

Well techincally taxes are proportional to the amount of $$$ you make... I don't got any taxes to pay, being a student but my dad on the otherhand, ouch

cozumel · Feb 9, 2007, 06:02 PM

Out of interest, is there anyone out there in DHland who lives in a country where they feel they get good value for money from their taxes or does it suck the world over?

SFOSOK · Feb 9, 2007, 06:09 PM

I still find it absolutely dispicable that people have to pay a higher percent if they make more money.

A set percent would affect everyone equally. While I don't make millions of dollars a year I don't think they should have to pay a higher percent than someone who make 50K or less a year.

Its like punishing someone for their hard work and self sacrifice and just because you have the money doesn't make it ok for you to be over taxed.

***temeteus82*** · Feb 9, 2007, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnDborder

Some of that cash probably ended up buying weapons to kill/injure the US personel.. Someone needs to be prosecuted.

Who's idea was it to go there... And who said that they need money to rebuild.....

cozumel · Feb 9, 2007, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFOSOK

I still find it absolutely dispicable that people have to pay a higher percent if they make more money.

A set percent would affect everyone equally. While I don't make millions of dollars a year I don't think they should have to pay a higher percent than someone who make 50K or less a year.

Its like punishing someone for their hard work and self sacrifice and just because you have the money doesn't make it ok for you to be over taxed.

I assume your not including families who live on or close to the poverty line. Why shouldn't people such as myself pay more to ensure that those children are able to have a happy childhood? I am very happy to pay higher taxes to assist the disadvantaged. I earn more money than I need to have a good life.

cozumel · Feb 9, 2007, 06:39 PM

In fact David Beckham, IMHO, should pay at least 99% otherwise he's just plain greedy..

No-one can say that people like him work their butts off for evry dollar they earn. Kind of takes to post I just made in the Anna Nicole thread about the problems with modern society. This Beckham salary is another example of societies general poor health.

OnDborder · Feb 9, 2007, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by temeteus82

Who's idea was it to go there... And who said that they need money to rebuild.....

Who's idea?
Rumsfeld, Chenney, and Wolfowitz.
Bush just had to have a reason.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Pe...tion_0207.html

***temeteus82*** · Feb 10, 2007, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnDborder

Who's idea?
Rumsfeld, Chenney, and Wolfowitz.
Bush just had to have a reason.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Pe...tion_0207.html

I would hold all four responsible for this mess....

~~DudeBoyz~~ · Feb 10, 2007, 03:27 AM

The inequity does suck. I wish that somehow there was a better balance in terms of the distribution of wealth.

But I've always been one to pay my taxes. I don't like to shirk my responsibilities and never really seek to avoid paying.

The way things end up getting spent may not be quite the way I would prefer, but I never feel as though I don't do my part to contribute to society in general through those taxes.

I fund my local schools and libraries through taxes, along with the building of roads and subsidizing health care for the poor and elderly through Medicare and Medicaid.

I also vote so that I can try to participate in electing candidates that don't try to screw the system. But sometimes, if the majority of folks in my area vote for a dork, then we get stuck with that dork, my vote not withstanding.

But, all things considred, at least I can go to bed and sleep with a fairly clean conscience.

I can only do what I can do, after all.

Sandok · Feb 10, 2007, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFOSOK

I still find it absolutely dispicable that people have to pay a higher percent if they make more money.

What? I guess America must be like CH where the richer pay more tax but it's always proportional to the amount of money you make. Rich people can afford it and it keeps the system running...

There is a good reason 90% of countries have such a way of collecting taxes

~~DudeBoyz~~ · Feb 10, 2007, 03:43 AM

I know when you go to the store and you buy milk, you don't pay a higher price based on how much you make.

In theory, it would be technical fairer of people paid a flat dollar amount, regardless of income.

But in reality, society would degrade into a world of haves and have-nots even worse than it is now, if we went that route.

I'm not saying it's 100% fair, but I am saying that it's more realistic and practical given the way things are.

Pompey · Feb 10, 2007, 03:59 AM

The main justification for a progressive tax structure is that the govt can take more from wealthier people without causing hardship. If the government tried to get the same amount of revenue by taxing everyone equally then it would put a lot more strain on ordinary people, who may already be financially stretched.

A flat tax could probably be made to work and I think its an option our govt should look into (but the current one wont). If we dont tax income up to a certain threshold and increase that by x amount for each dependant we could avoid adverse hardship.

It would have been interesting to see the consequences for nz of Roger Douglas's proposed flat tax of 21%, had he been able to get support for it.

Im actually in the middle of compiling a list of all the different taxes you have to pay in nz. So far I have like 10 things (that may not sound like much, but nz has quiet a simple tax structure.)
Hand up everyone who has earned all their money under the table!

OldBuzzard · Feb 10, 2007, 04:23 AM

OnDborder:

Maybe you should read that article a bit more closely.

It was NOT 'taxpayer' money. It was IRAQI money. Oil money, assets frozen when Saddam 'Insane' was in power, etc. It's their money, and they can do with it what they want. You may not like what they do with it, but to blame OUR government for the Iraqi government's actions is just a bit rediculus.

~~DudeBoyz~~ · Feb 10, 2007, 05:42 AM

Well, in Iraq, I thought that once they started pumping oil again, the revenue from that was going to fund things. I wonder why they aren't using that money for infrastructure improvements in Iraq?

Anyway, a flat percentage would be a good experiment, but I do think that it is likely in that case wealth would shift even faster to the already rich. There are many low-end income folks who don't even have to pay any taxes, because of personal exemptions, exemptions for children and Earned Income Tax Credit, stuff like that. Suddenly going from essentially 0% to 21% would be an extreme hardship on some of them.

I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I know that returning to some sort of Autocratic system is not something that sounds appealing. But either is a push towards Socialism / Communism.

Sandok · Feb 10, 2007, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeBoyz

Well, in Iraq, I thought that once they started pumping oil again, the revenue from that was going to fund things. I wonder why they aren't using that money for infrastructure improvements in Iraq?

Maybe because the war in Iraq has destroyed the majority of the pipelines and oil stations throughout the country...

Oil won't be profitable from Iraq for a number of years to come. The country is in civil war, so that's also gotta contribute to something...

~~DudeBoyz~~ · Feb 10, 2007, 06:41 AM

Bummer. I had hoped at least the oil would flow and help make the country prosperous again. The citizens really do need the resources.

SFOSOK · Feb 10, 2007, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandok

Maybe because the war in Iraq has destroyed the majority of the pipelines and oil stations throughout the country...

Oil won't be profitable from Iraq for a number of years to come. The country is in civil war, so that's also gotta contribute to something...

You confuse the war with Sadam's actions. He pulled a Russia and decided to destroy most resources and other things before the US or the new Iraqi government that would be emplaced could get their hands on them.

cozumel · Feb 10, 2007, 02:05 PM

I just think it funny the image of subcontractors running round Iraq inone direction with sacks full of US dollars. Then you got arabs running away in the opposite direction with sacks full of US dollars. It's just the crazy image that pops in to my head makes me laugh.

SFOSOK · Feb 10, 2007, 02:16 PM

Wait wait wait, isn't this about taxes?

Ok, there was someone who commented on what I said earlier about higher percents for those with more money. I'm not sure you understand how percents work, they affect everyone equally. Higher percents for rich and lower percents for poor is just another system of inequality. Lets say you take 1 cent from 1$ of a poor person and 1$ from 100$ of a rich person. That 1 cent would have the same value to the poor person as the 1$ to the rich person.

If you really wanted to help the poor maybe you should go to skid row or a povert area and give some money out. Or perhaps donate to programs that help instead of letting the Gov rape you out of your money for making you feel bad.

So again, though all the money may go to good causes it should be one set percent because I'm positive rich people do not see that money come back to them and the only purpose it serves is satisfying their guilt.

Also, if this system worked should things have gotten better by now? Well they haven't, and they haven't improved either. Looks like its time for a change.

Also Wellfare should be abolished of I can at least opt for my tax money not to go for it.