Realist29: Come to Kansas City - education is abysmal. I think one of our suburbs was a on "boil water" order a few weeks ago. The streets are crumbling, Unions control the work force for inane wages (i.e at the Ford plant a guy that bolts on a flimsy car door gets close to $70 hr in total compensation) Our police force is dwindling and under staffed. I could go on and on. We pay not only Federal Taxes, State taxes, County property tax AND an additional 1% of our income to the City. Oh by the way - more than half the population in our beloved city don't pay ANY of these taxes. Its not what we pay but what we are getting for it and whom is putting in their fare share. MAYBE - just maybe if EVERYONE paid taxes we wouldn't be in the mess we are in.

Maybe if we didn't spend so much on wars that appease the stupid we would have something to show for it. That couldn't be it though could it?

NuclearWinter: Total tax burden of $55,187.80 for Federal, State, and Local income tax. 34.5%. That's assuming that all 160K is taxable. Since you're saying you reduced your taxable income with the maximum 401K contributions (which would be about 16K in deductions from taxable income, and that's only ONE 'tax dodging strategy'), you apparently fail at doing your own taxes. You should hire an accountant.

Be specific. I can't deduct student loan interest, because I make too much money. I can't deduct IRA contributions. I took full advantage of 401(k) contributions, exemptions and itemized deductions (charity and state taxes, mostly). But for somebody who makes income by alienating their labor, there aren't really any "tax dodging strategies" out there. What I was saying above is that even after all the legal strategies available to me, I still ended up paying about 52K in taxes.

I am annoyed by the over $10 in taxes and fees (ie, more taxes) on my cable bill, but other than that, I don't feel horribly overtaxed.

TheRedMonkey: The problem is that only about half of the people submitting tax returns actually paid anything.

Because the people who keep the rich rich (read: consumers) need to have money to give to the rich in exchange for goods and services.

All the tax cuts in the world won't help the rich if they have no one to sell to.

Forced Perspective: Be specific. I can't deduct student loan interest, because I make too much money. I can't deduct IRA contributions. I took full advantage of 401(k) contributions, exemptions and itemized deductions (charity and state taxes, mostly). But for somebody who makes income by alienating their labor, there aren't really any "tax dodging strategies" out there. What I was saying above is that even after all the legal strategies available to me, I still ended up paying about 52K in taxes.

yeah the limits on deductions like that are pretty ridiculous. I think they feel that over $75k or something like that, you are suddenly independently wealthy and have no need to deduct interest expenses for your education nor do you deserve a tax break on your IRA contributions

Forced Perspective: NuclearWinter: Total tax burden of $55,187.80 for Federal, State, and Local income tax. 34.5%. That's assuming that all 160K is taxable. Since you're saying you reduced your taxable income with the maximum 401K contributions (which would be about 16K in deductions from taxable income, and that's only ONE 'tax dodging strategy'), you apparently fail at doing your own taxes. You should hire an accountant.

Be specific. I can't deduct student loan interest, because I make too much money. I can't deduct IRA contributions. I took full advantage of 401(k) contributions, exemptions and itemized deductions (charity and state taxes, mostly). But for somebody who makes income by alienating their labor, there aren't really any "tax dodging strategies" out there. What I was saying above is that even after all the legal strategies available to me, I still ended up paying about 52K in taxes.

You said you made 160,000. Assuming no additions or deductions other than your 401k and state and city taxes, your taxable income is only ~129,000. By a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, that makes your total federal+state+city income taxes way under 52k.

Is the Scary tag for how little they are paying?

When I look at my numbers this makes me want to lobby for a PISSED tag.

I am also a little annoyed when homeowners gripe about taxes. They get to deduct their mortgage interest. Supposedly, in 2012, it will total $131 billion.

The commie fascist meter is in the middle. Why?

the_falling_duck: Don't know if anyone called you out on this, but if we had a flat percentage tax on everyone the richest 1% would still be paying for 40% of the total tax amount.


Yes... but it would be an equal rate for all, and that is just and fair.

Do you realize a flat tax would empower the people? Right now they can divide us up into groups and marginalize us. Obama the Great Divider is doing this right now playing class warfare.

If we all paid the same rate he could never do that.

Empower the People! Flat Tax.

Walking away after taxes with over 100k and still complaining about the system? Unfarkingbelievable.

theoriginalslash: I am also a little annoyed when homeowners gripe about taxes.



Homeowner gripe about local property taxes. They can be a problem.

Do you own a home?

Big Al: Walking away after taxes with over 100k and still complaining about the system? Unfarkingbelievable.


How much did they make and how much did they pay out to teh gov't?

Phil Herup [TotalFark] Quote 2010-09-09 12:00:43 PM

Do you realize a flat tax would empower the people?

>>>>

Phil can you name one thing your party has done to empower the people? If you mean empower corporations and the wealthy through lobbyists that have more power than the people then I completely agree with you.

Big Al: Walking away after taxes with over 100k and still complaining about the system? Unfarkingbelievable.

seriously, we should just cap everyone at $100k and tax the excess at 100%.
Friggin ingrates.

Forced Perspective: NuclearWinter: Total tax burden of $55,187.80 for Federal, State, and Local income tax. 34.5%. That's assuming that all 160K is taxable. Since you're saying you reduced your taxable income with the maximum 401K contributions (which would be about 16K in deductions from taxable income, and that's only ONE 'tax dodging strategy'), you apparently fail at doing your own taxes. You should hire an accountant.

Be specific. I can't deduct student loan interest, because I make too much money. I can't deduct IRA contributions. I took full advantage of 401(k) contributions, exemptions and itemized deductions (charity and state taxes, mostly). But for somebody who makes income by alienating their labor, there aren't really any "tax dodging strategies" out there. What I was saying above is that even after all the legal strategies available to me, I still ended up paying about 52K in taxes.

The maximum 401K contribution is about 16K. That can come off your taxable income. On top of that, itemizing knocks off another 16K or so in state and local income taxes. Plus the personal exemption.

Was the 160K gross or taxable? You made it seem like gross, but the numbers only make any level of sense as taxable. If it was gross income, then you really need to find a CPA (or fire your current one).

skullkrusher Quote 2010-09-09 12:09:23 PM

seriously, we should just cap everyone at $100k and tax the excess at 100%.
Friggin ingrates.

>>>

Do you have any idea how the middle class wealth was built in the past? By making sure the money was not hoarded at the top by an aristocracy. Do people not learn anything from past mistakes?

LasersHurt: that the low earners earn so little that they'd not be able to maintain the basics of life.


they can shop at evil Wal Mart

Big Al: By making sure the money was not hoarded at the top by an aristocracy.


The function of taxation is to collect revenue only. It is not designed to prevent the accumulation of wealth.

There is nothing wrong with people having money is there? Do you think there is limit to when you 've "made enough money"?

Obama does.

doubled99: papabusche 2010-09-09 09:50:51 AM

The truth's a biatch, isn't it?
Don't like that one? Try watching a city road crew at work. Or try the unemployment office. Or try to get something done with your local zoning commision.. Or a hundred other inept government run services.
By the way, most of your money goes to the military, not roads and services.

truth is, my DMV gets me in and out in 20 minutes. what's wrong with that?

if most of our money goes to military, it's comedy that you complain about the DMV, yah?
i mean, are you serious? I guess i thought you were kidding.

Phil Herup [TotalFark] Quote 2010-09-09 12:18:57 PM

The function of taxation is to collect revenue only. It is not designed to prevent the accumulation of wealth.

There is nothing wrong with people having money is there? Do you think there is limit to when you 've "made enough money"?

Obama does.

>>>

Wow you are just a never ending sad mix of tired worn out one liners. The function of taxation is not to just collect revenue. Do you think the government imposing tariff taxes is only trying to collect revenue? No, they are singling out certain competitors to even the playing field.

So why can this be done with everything but income taxation? There is a reason more taxes are taken from people who can afford it more, it's the only way you can take the burden off of the lower classes to give them opportunities to rise up. The problem is the upper classes have all figured out ways to deflect their tax burden onto everyone else as shown by the graph.

theoriginalslash: I am also a little annoyed when homeowners gripe about taxes. They get to deduct their mortgage interest. Supposedly, in 2012, it will total $131 billion.

Uh huh yeah. My awesome mortgage interest deduction works out to about $3600 / year. Remember, a deduction means you reduce your taxable income by that much, it does not mean you reduce your taxes by that much. Meanwhile, I pay almost $12K in property taxes, for which I get next to nothing*. So yeah, go ahead and be annoyed.

* no municipal garbage collection, no municipal water or sewer, no municipal snow clearing. My town taxes pay for the speed traps out on Route 9. My school taxes pay for the school, which I guess will be great when my kid is old enough for that. Until then I also pay $350/mo for preschool.

And taxation of unhealthy things is not only to collect revenue but for the government to punish what it views is bad behavior. See Phil there are much deeper meanings compared to your one lined 1980's era phrases after all.

Lando Lincoln: Well, it's not doing a very good job, since we have a huge deficit and a giant pile of debt. Guess we should raise taxes.

"I spend more than my net income and I have a lot of credit card debt. Guess I should force my boss to give me a raise." Yup, sounds stupid on a personal level too.

Phaid: theoriginalslash: I am also a little annoyed when homeowners gripe about taxes. They get to deduct their mortgage interest. Supposedly, in 2012, it will total $131 billion.

Uh huh yeah. My awesome mortgage interest deduction works out to about $3600 / year. Remember, a deduction means you reduce your taxable income by that much, it does not mean you reduce your taxes by that much. Meanwhile, I pay almost $12K in property taxes, for which I get next to nothing*. So yeah, go ahead and be annoyed.

* no municipal garbage collection, no municipal water or sewer, no municipal snow clearing. My town taxes pay for the speed traps out on Route 9. My school taxes pay for the school, which I guess will be great when my kid is old enough for that. Until then I also pay $350/mo for preschool.

Your property taxes are deductible as well, so there is that.

I pay a whopping 3% on my income here, add to that a 7% VAT and I'm done with taxes. There are small taxes on alcohol and cars but nothing like back in the states. There isn't any safety net but at least I can save enough money to make my own.

Lando Lincoln: skullkrusher: Big Al: Walking away after taxes with over 100k and still complaining about the system? Unfarkingbelievable.

seriously, we should just cap everyone at $100k and tax the excess at 100%.
Friggin ingrates.

How about we just go back to the 1950's levels of taxation. Our country was doing great back then. Huge prosperity for most Americans. Federal debt was super low.

you want someone making about $17500.00 to be taxed at 20%? Wow.

Feh, I have more of a problem with how inefficient our government is than I do with tax rates. I'm not frustrated at paying for it, I'm frustrated that we get very little bang for the buck. The whole bigger/smaller thing is simple and easy to wrap around, but I'd rather focus efforts onto simply making government better.

LasersHurt: Bad analogy. more like "My house burned down, but my insurance only covered part of it. The extreme expenses needed to set things right have piled up, and my debt is large. Perhaps I should apply for a higher-paying job."

The country's house burned down? The country has homeowner's insurance? What?

pudding7: I just checked my 2009 tax return. I paid 21.1% total taxes, state plus federal. Income was $189,000.

I'm fine with that.

No AMT worries?

Big Al: Do you have any idea how the middle class wealth was built in the past? By making sure the money was not hoarded at the top by an aristocracy. Do people not learn anything from past mistakes?

You're pretty sure "aristocracy" starts at $100k huh?

They better be sure not to advance in their careers. Once you hit that $100,000 mark, you're considered "rich". Then it gets ugly.

/ Find it hard to believe they only pay 24.1% ... I did the same analysis 2 years ago and was hovering around 45%.

Phil Herup: LasersHurt: that the low earners earn so little that they'd not be able to maintain the basics of life.


they can shop at evil Wal Mart let them eat cake

right?

skullkrusher Quote 2010-09-09 12:32:25 PM

You're pretty sure "aristocracy" starts at $100k huh?

>>>

Did I say that anywhere? Explain how you jumped to that conclusion?

elvindeath: They better be sure not to advance in their careers. Once you hit that $100,000 mark, you're considered "rich". Then it gets ugly.

/ Find it hard to believe they only pay 24.1% ... I did the same analysis 2 years ago and was hovering around 45%.

As pointed out with another poster... you're likely doing something wrong with your taxes if you're paying that much.

I paid the second installment of my property taxes yesterday.

I do not like paying property tax.

I really want this changed to "residency tax."

Things in my city and county must be funded, but if you are renting, you get to attend school, use the library, fire dept, etc just like I do.

I do not see why i have to pick up the check because I bought my house.

Big Al: skullkrusher Quote 2010-09-09 12:32:25 PM

You're pretty sure "aristocracy" starts at $100k huh?

>>>

Did I say that anywhere? Explain how you jumped to that conclusion?

You posted about how it is unbelievable that a family making $100k is complaining about their taxes. I said we should tax everything over $100k at 100%. You responded talking about the aristocracy. If you don't consider them part of the aristocracy, why begrudge them their grudge?
Also, where do you see that they are taking home $100k after taxes? You realize they live in the Northeast, right?