Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       01-19-2012, 10:16 AM Reply   
I know several people that are getting back 800 to 900% of what they paid in.
This has been the case for a few years now.......hmmmmm.

this doesn't seem to me to be the best strategy to pay down the deficit
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-19-2012, 10:56 AM Reply   
Um? What did they pay in?
Old    C.I.E..... Evan (guido)      Join Date: Jul 2002       01-19-2012, 12:34 PM Reply   
Yeah, please clarify... ?
Old    Bruizza (bruizza)      Join Date: May 2009       01-19-2012, 12:48 PM Reply   
so you are saying if they paid 10k in taxes they are getting 80-90k back?
Old    Train (ttrigo)      Join Date: Dec 2004       01-19-2012, 1:17 PM Reply   
Moose? Is that you?
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       01-19-2012, 1:43 PM Reply   
does it matter?

they paid in anywhere from $1000-$2000

the least amount someone gets back is $7300. She paid in $1150
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-19-2012, 3:20 PM Reply   
It does matter. I pay over $1000/mo so if their annual income is equivalent to my monthly income perhaps they are in need of some financial assistance.
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       01-19-2012, 3:48 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by ttrigo View Post
Moose? Is that you?
Haa! Maybe it's Mitt Romney.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-20-2012, 5:11 AM Reply   
Tons of reasons this could be the case. They could be terrible travelling salesmen getting $.50 a mile.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-20-2012, 7:37 AM Reply   
They probably paid in at least the amount they got back in FICA taxes. Better than welfare.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-20-2012, 8:39 AM Reply   
No, a friend of mine is an accountant and if you have--lets say hypothetically-- 4 kids and make less than somewhere around 30,000 a year, you'll get everything you paid in and a big bounus. How much bonus will vary depending on your situation. There are quite a few folks out there not paying any taxes and getting additional money back. at the end of the year, but they are working.
Old    Scott R (ScottR)      Join Date: Aug 2011       01-20-2012, 9:04 AM Reply   
This has some merit. I own a insurance agency and one of my staff paid in just over $2000 for the year in taxes. She has 2 kids and is a single mom. She makes roughly $33,000 a year. She just did her taxes online on Turbo Tax. She had me help her answer some of the questions as she has 2 baby daddy's. So all in all she hits the button and boom....$7200 back in taxes. I was like...hmmm that can't be you only paid it a bit over $2000. She said, yeah I get this back just about every year.

Now, I want her to be taken care of as she is a great employee but c'mon... I own the business pay a S#*t ton of taxes, have 4 kids and tons of bills like every other person in the world. She pays in very little, and gets alot back. NO WONDER our economy SUCKS!!!!
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       01-20-2012, 9:11 AM Reply   
Wow...I admit that I didn't know this was possible...I thought it was a "tax refund" (meaning you over payed), not another form of welfare. Our tax system is so screwed up!
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-20-2012, 9:19 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
They probably paid in at least the amount they got back in FICA taxes. Better than welfare.
Not counting the FICA tax holiday, here's the scoop on Scott's employee....

Wages = 33,000, FICA paid = $5,049 + tax paid = 2,000 = Total paid $7,049. Got back $7,000. Look pretty close to even. Better than welfare.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-20-2012, 9:22 AM Reply   
Guess you guys never heard the phrase... "Making Work Pay".
Old    C.I.E. J-Rod (jarrod)      Join Date: May 2003       01-20-2012, 9:33 AM Reply   
Under the radar welfare on the down-low.
Old    Scott R (ScottR)      Join Date: Aug 2011       01-20-2012, 9:51 AM Reply   
John, Actually I went and got her W-2.

She made $32,141
Federal income tax withheld - $3484
Soc Sec -$1350
Medicare Tax - $465

Got back just over $7000....you tell me how the heck that makes any sense. Like I said, love her to death but just shows how messed up the whole system is in general!

Then you look at mine as an employer and I wanna PUKE my guts out. Just seems so unfair. I take all the risk as the employer AND pay all the tax. SYSTEM SUCKS BALLZ!!!

Rant over
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       01-20-2012, 10:15 AM Reply   
Scott, your business must not be big enough (too big to fail) to reap the benefits of the other end of our broken tax system. Start putting money in offshore business and accounts.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-20-2012, 10:26 AM Reply   
Scott, those FICA numbers look low because of the 2% discount (tax holiday I referred to) on her SS contribution. You forgot to include that you also paid another 7.65% FICA tax in return for her services. It makes sense because it costs people to go to work. And when people are close to poverty having them work and ultimately pay no taxes is better than being on welfare.

I really don't see what your problem is. Are you saying that you are making $33K, living near poverty and can't get the same break? WRT taking all the risks.... that's your choice. Got get a salary job from somewhere else. There will always be somebody that's wants to be their own boss and fill the niche.

Or better yet, stop working and paying high taxes. Make your money from investments and pay the lowest taxes of all. Why are you taking such risk with your money while having to actually work when you could be house watching TV and letting the stock market earn a living for you while paying only 15% capital gains of all that cash rolling in?
Old    Scott R (ScottR)      Join Date: Aug 2011       01-20-2012, 10:38 AM Reply   
John,

I don't have a "problem" man. Yes my business is relatively small compared to "big" business. I make great money and pay alot of taxes. I am not saying I shouldn't. All I am contributing to this thread is another real world person who pays very little in taxes then gets it all back and then some. I don't consider $33k living near the poverty level at all. She makes very good money for what she does. She likes it here and I like her. As far as taking risks, I meant that as the employer I take alot of risk on when I hire someone. My business is sales driven so if she doesn't sell I am out her salary, (although I am quick to fire) i am still out something.

Bottom line, I just think the system as a whole is broken. I don't know the fix or answer. If I did I would run for office. All I know is I see and hear how much we spend as a country then see situation like this where I really feel something is broken. She got back over 100% of what she put in. I make very good money and no way to I get 100% back personally, then you look at my business and again no way I get back 100%. Just seems unfair. I do know life is unfair, and have seen that first hand, I just was showing a real world situation that as an employer I see, where alot of people don't realize this situation exists.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       01-20-2012, 11:16 AM Reply   
Scott
I'm right there with you. You can't convince some people.......

The other tragic side of this is what they do with the money. Every one that I know in this situation will have all of that money spent before April. It doesn't go to necessities. I t pays for gambling, parties, flat screens, $200 shoes, top shelf booze, bigger rims...etc.....
Some even give away opportunities to make money in December and January, because they know that the refund check is coming. I guess that those who want to defend this kind of thing turn a blind eye as to what really goes on. I guess supporting the THEORY that we are helping the needy/helpless makes people feel good enough about themselves to justify anything

They don't save it for a rainy day or use it to buy a house. If they truely NEEDED it, it would be spent differently.

and lets not forget that our "wonderful leader" wants to take more from the hard working successful guy and give even more to the poor down trodden $35,000 a year worker.........
Old    Scott R (ScottR)      Join Date: Aug 2011       01-20-2012, 11:22 AM Reply   
Well said CLIFF....sitting here RIGHT NOW watching her plan her Spring Break at $1800 for the week. Her exact words to me...."My tax check will be $7000 so I think $2500 is my budget for the room for the week" I just sit here shaking my head.

People that is YOUR MONEY SHE IS SPENDING on sand and sun, not food and clothes for her kids. She rents an apartment, never has enough money for her kids lunches at school, and just isn't smart when it comes to money. That said, as her boss I would love to mentor her and show her how to spend smart but she doesn't care. Paycheck to paycheck.....year to year....she would rather spend what money she has coming back on Spring Break.

God love her, just makes me very angry!
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-20-2012, 11:28 AM Reply   
All you have to do to get 100% back is to make little and have mouths to feed. You are focused on those paying too little in taxes but the real problem lies elsewhere. Unfair has many faces. Is it fair that we as Americans consume so much oil that if the rest of the world suddenly consumed as much as us that it would be a crisis? Is it fair that medical costs are so high that people of lessor means have no access to medical if their were no ER charity? Is it fair that we satiate our gluttonous needs by exporting over a 1/2 trillion a year out of economy buying the cheapest products, destroying domestic manufacturing, and mortgaging the country to leave to future generations?

The solution is to redefine what "standard of living" means. We knew that would should have transitioned to smaller more efficient cars 40 years ago, but chose not to care about the future. We know we ship over 1/2 trillion of our economy overseas every year and have to replenish the domestic money supply with govt debt but would rather prolong the inevitable by cutting help for the needy. We would rather label jobless people as unmotivated instead of caring that all our products are made overseas by companies that domestic manufacturers can't compete with because of mandated unfair advantages.

The GOP's solution is to be competitive by having American workers lower their standard of living to the level of the Chinese. The real solution is to refocus on what is a healthy standard of living is and make sure Americans are creating products with a living wage and stop living in a disposable society. So what if an iPhone costs 50% more, or sneakers, or anything. Our economic paradigm is unsustainable. Essentials will continue to rise in price and eat up all the disposable income of the middle and lower class. IMO things are not going to get better until the public as a whole has an epiphany and realizes that you won't fix America by crying about poor people getting too much.
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       01-20-2012, 11:42 AM Reply   
Fly, We normally see eye to eye, but not in this case. Our tax system is designed to disguise how much or how little we actually pay. I have been vocal with my posts about some of the wealthy not paying their share and I feel the same way about the other end of the social classes.

At the end of the day, EVERYONE should pay roughly the same percent. For the poor, 15% of $10,000= $1,500. For the wealthy 15% of $1,000,000= $150,000. I have no issue with a additional tax for goods. The percentage may be off, but this sounds fair to me.

What pisses me off is when I see Kim Kardashian and Mitt Romney paying 15% or less when I pay a much higher rate. It also pisses me off when I see "the poor" draining the system by not paying a fair percentage of taxes and in this case making money off our government that is flat broke and can't even balance a budget.

I understand that there're people in need, but supporting the poor year after year with my tax dollar is unacceptable. What is their motivation to actually work? I'm a public employee and in my state I'm now the "enemy", yet I earned every paycheck and have never taken a handout. I also had nothing to do with the fraud and greed that caused this economic crash. I just don't get it.

These two issues are why I believe the lack of income is just as much of a problem as government spending.
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       01-20-2012, 11:48 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
All you have to do to get 100% back is to make little and have mouths to feed. You are focused on those paying too little in taxes but the real problem lies elsewhere. Unfair has many faces. Is it fair that we as Americans consume so much oil that if the rest of the world suddenly consumed as much as us that it would be a crisis? Is it fair that medical costs are so high that people of lessor means have no access to medical if their were no ER charity? Is it fair that we satiate our gluttonous needs by exporting over a 1/2 trillion a year out of economy buying the cheapest products, destroying domestic manufacturing, and mortgaging the country to leave to future generations?

The solution is to redefine what "standard of living" means. We knew that would should have transitioned to smaller more efficient cars 40 years ago, but chose not to care about the future. We know we ship over 1/2 trillion of our economy overseas every year and have to replenish the domestic money supply with govt debt but would rather prolong the inevitable by cutting help for the needy. We would rather label jobless people as unmotivated instead of caring that all our products are made overseas by companies that domestic manufacturers can't compete with because of mandated unfair advantages.

The GOP's solution is to be competitive by having American workers lower their standard of living to the level of the Chinese. The real solution is to refocus on what is a healthy standard of living is and make sure Americans are creating products with a living wage and stop living in a disposable society. So what if an iPhone costs 50% more, or sneakers, or anything. Our economic paradigm is unsustainable. Essentials will continue to rise in price and eat up all the disposable income of the middle and lower class. IMO things are not going to get better until the public as a whole has an epiphany and realizes that you won't fix America by crying about poor people getting too much.
I agree with that statement...now I'm off to the boat show to drop 100k on a boat I can't afford.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-20-2012, 12:03 PM Reply   
It's not the government's job to redistribute money, especially when there is no accountability.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-20-2012, 12:09 PM Reply   
Scott, I was thinking this one client got at least a $7900 bonus check.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-20-2012, 12:15 PM Reply   
Shooter, who judges whether you really earned every dime or not? Have your defined benefit pensions been funded completely and adequately in the year you worked or is some tax payer in the future going to have to foot the bill? Has all that money the govt paid for your health benefits really been spent in the best way or did it just contribute to the over-inflation of the healthcare system. I agree that it's upsetting to see people pay 15% on millions when If I send my wife to work even at a mediocre paying job the effective tax rate on her earnings will be 40+%. But I don't begrudge poor people paying less because they are not the problem,

I begrudge people who do well but don't have the intellectual honesty to question the monetary and regulatory policies of this country. I've said before if you removed the tax deduction for HI and allow people to opt out of HI and put the pay in their pocket that HI companies would go out of business. If so then this is proof that the HI industry is not only a recipient of govt welfare, but destructive to healthcare in that it's sucking our economy dry. The more money you make the more you pay for the transgressions of too much wealth. That's why everyone paying the same % isn't fair. The poor would be paying for your gluttony.

The AMA and pharmaceuticals both get govt protection for their profits. Subsidies to agriculture for the growing of poor quality food products and a govt that is afraid to tell the truth about how bad commercial food products are for your heath. We are living in a world where greed trumps morals in our thought processes. I have no sympathy for people who complain that their taxes are too high because poor people don't pay enough.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-20-2012, 12:18 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laker1234 View Post
It's not the government's job to redistribute money, especially when there is no accountability.
National security is the govt's job. The trade deficit is a threat to national security, but I don't see you calling on the govt to do something. If the govt didn't redistribute money you have no idea how bad things could be. If you want the govt to do the right thing then speak out for it to do so. If you can only see what benefits you as the right thing expect others to have a different opinion. IOW the status quo will prevail and we will all whine ad infinitum.
Old    SamIngram            01-20-2012, 12:48 PM Reply   
John,
Quote:
We are living in a world where greed trumps morals in our thought processes. I have no sympathy for people who complain that their taxes are too high because poor people don't pay enough.
Maybe that's your excuse, but not mine. Don't accuse others of living immorally just because you do. As for me, I don't ask for your sympathy and never will. I complain that my taxes are too high because I pay to much and IMO a disproportionate amount than others.

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." - Relating to prices and the poor, 1766 - Ben Franklin

This is later, again proven, by listening to Adam Carolla's experience with his mom when he was nine...


Poor people are poor and remain so for generations in this country because we make it easy for them, providing just enough to get by comfortably. When my sister worked as a social worker on the south side of Chicago she would come home tell us about all the families living in the Robert Taylor Homes. Many of the apartments had three generations of a family living in them. Many of them paid nothing for housing but had Air Jordan's, big screen televisions, and nice cars.

If you are so concerned for the poor, get off your pulpit, stop judging those who are successful, and give the poor a hand up, not a hand out, and not with my tax dollars. Your leftist BS on here makes me want to puke. You act as though the federal government is the only reason that people are successful and that it has nothing to do with their own work. The idea that congress decides how much of the results of the efforts of my own toil I can keep is criminal.

I think it is pretty obvious that you believe in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", or translated, every person should contribute to society to the best of his or her ability and consume from society in proportion to his or her needs.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       01-20-2012, 1:32 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Not counting the FICA tax holiday, here's the scoop on Scott's employee....

Wages = 33,000, FICA paid = $5,049 + tax paid = 2,000 = Total paid $7,049. Got back $7,000. Look pretty close to even. Better than welfare.
That would be true if a person actually paid 15% on FICA tax, but its split with the employer. Employees pay 6.2% SS and 1.45% Medicare, and so does the employer.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-20-2012, 1:37 PM Reply   
Paul, are you saying the employer contribution has no correlation with the employee proving services?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-20-2012, 1:53 PM Reply   
Sam, morals are a matter of opinion. I have no reservations living just as immoral as anyone else WRT the economic policies involved.

I'm not judging anyone because they are successful. And I'm not on a pulpit or a hypocrite, It's a matter of intellectual honesty. If I consume more than my share of the worlds resources it becomes a matter of morals. Personally I don't care because I'm not willing to participate in sacrifice unless everyone else is on board. But the economics involved are obvious. You can puke all you want. Your puking isn't going to make me stupid. This is a world of might makes right and no absolute morals. Make em up as you go along, I don't care.

If you don't want to deal with a conflict of moral philosophy then you should just withdraw into a shell of like minded people. Maybe you guys can equip your arsenal and start a coup to create a new govt. Then you can create a definitive constitution that gives the spoils to the "successful". As far as I'm concerned your tax dollars belong to the US govt, not you. If you don't like it then you need to craft an argument that convinces the majority to see things your way. IMO, you're not doing a good enough job.

The poor people in your example are a product of capitalism. Sure they have big screen tvs and air jordans, but they don't have any money. They gave it to the capitalists that sent it out of the country. My eye is on the ball. Your's is on your wallet. And there is nothing to see there except money.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       01-20-2012, 2:01 PM Reply   
Im saying she didn't pay in $7049 in taxes, so to get back more than she paid in is immoral because she is using up more of the resource than she contributed.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       01-20-2012, 2:03 PM Reply   
Solution is to eliminate the federal income tax. It was only introduced to pay for the war. There is absolutely no need for it. A nice side effect of eliminating the federal income tax is the federal government would have to be downsized and would return to a Constitutional role. No more federal welfare programs or handouts. Meanwhile middle class people like myself and some of us here struggle to get by, in large part due to federal taxes. If I had an extra $1k/mo in my pocket I'd go from scraping by rations to eating healthy and all around have a much better quality of life... Perhaps I'd even be able to afford nice things. Our government won't have any of that though, they'll keep stealing from us productive people to give to those who didn't earn it.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-20-2012, 2:07 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by psudy View Post
Im saying she didn't pay in $7049 in taxes, so to get back more than she paid in is immoral because she is using up more of the resource than she contributed.
Seems like you've been puppet mastered. IOW, let's mandate that part of the compensation for your services be handled through your employer so that it's like it's not in return for your services. When I see the govt make employers pay that 7.5% whether they hire someone or not then I will agree with your reasoning. However, logic dictates that money is paid solely because your employer wants your services. The govt is the employees pimp, but the employee is the one doing the work.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       01-20-2012, 2:19 PM Reply   
see what I mean.....?

It's a simple question that doesn't pass the say it out loud test. Anything else is smoke and mirrors or the "left" doing the puppet mastering

the question: Should ANYONE get more tax money back than they pay in? NO
it's that simple

It doesn't need to be complicated with where the jobs are. That's a separate issue that I mostly agree with John on.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-20-2012, 2:35 PM Reply   
Cliff, I'm not advocating that govt policy should be that anyone gets all the tax revenue generated from working paid back to them. OTOH I'm not outraged by it because I don't think that it makes a rat's a$$ difference in the world from my perspective. IOW, whether they get it all back or not isn't going to change my taxes or make a dent in the deficit.

To me it's a red herring. I agree with Libertarians about a lot of things related to restricting govt. The difference is that I don't agree with them because I'm appalled at what poor people get or even aligned with their philosophies. I agree with them because many govt policies are f**king up our economy and restricting our rights.

I see our economy different than a lot of people. If we kept our money in our economy I think that people would be freer and have more opportunities. The possibility to lower taxes on the rich comes from restricting govt's obsession with giving money to the wealthy and pandering to protecting their rights to extract more and more from the public. Which is symbiotic with the govt's need to expand larger and become more bloated. IOW, less govt services and less laws steering money to the wealthy and special interests. If that happens then even if we give money to the poor it will go right back into the economy fueling business and generating tax revenue. The economy will be a renewable resource instead of a depleting resource.
Old    SamIngram            01-20-2012, 2:40 PM Reply   
Quote:
If I consume more than my share of the worlds resources it becomes a matter of morals.
Who decides what your share is? WHO? You? Me? The government? WHO?

Quote:
Personally I don't care because I'm not willing to participate in sacrifice unless everyone else is on board.
Exactly, that is my point, you are lazy. If you, and the poor that you care so much about, would actually work for yourself, and make a personal sacrifice - working, saving, planning, etc... you, the poor poor people, could get ahead and no longer be poor.

Quote:
Your puking isn't going to make me stupid. This is a world of might makes right and no absolute morals. Make em up as you go along, I don't care.
Again, if you need an excuse it is easy to come up with one.

Quote:
As far as I'm concerned your tax dollars belong to the US govt, not you. If you don't like it then you need to craft an argument that convinces the majority to see things your way. IMO, you're not doing a good enough job.
See, you are a damn socialist. My argument is that my money is the toil of my labor and no one else's. If I don't toil then I don't reap the rewards and benefits of doing so; therefore it is my money, no one else's. A socialist like yourself, says that the government provided the atmosphere where I could be successful and gain from my toils; therefore, the benefit is partially the government's. Well guess what, the government can not be "The Government" with out me; therefore, any money that is the government's is mine. My job is not to convince you of anything, you can't convince stupid of anything, nor do I feel the need. Socialism on any level is stupid. You speak of morals, what is moral about someone taking the benefits of my toil and giving it to someone who does not toil? Have you ever heard of the The Grasshopper and the Ant?

Quote:
The poor people in your example are a product of capitalism. Sure they have big screen tvs and air jordans, but they don't have any money. They gave it to the capitalists that sent it out of the country. My eye is on the ball. Your's is on your wallet. And there is nothing to see there except money.
Giving money to the poor so that they can participate in the economy is not capitalism, it is Keynesian philosophy. Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophers think, but don't produce.

Your vision and definition of Capitalism is based off the system in which we currently operate. Of course it is totally screwed up, people with your mindset have transformed, bastardized, and crippled it for hundreds of years. You screw up a system then complain about how immoral and screwed up it is. Every argument and thought that comes out of you is screwed up. You look at everything as though it is negative and unfair.

Like Adam Carolla said,
It’s like, instead of lookin’ in the mirror and go, “Why the f&#$ am I not doin’ better?” You just find some guy who’s got more s#%@ than you and go “Hey man, what do you need all that s#%@ for?”

It’s the same version of, “Hey man, what do you need an MVP trophy for?”

“‘Cause I bust my ass. That’s why. Or maybe I’m just genetically better than you. Either way, buddy. I got the trophy, so shut the **** up and get the **** back to work, or better yet: on the bench, where you belong.”

The ideas that you speak of here have never worked, ANYWHERE/ANYTIME in the history of world.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-20-2012, 3:10 PM Reply   
Sam, if the money is yours then why do you give it to the govt? I can tell you why... because the govt is mightier than you. The same rationale is used to determine what share of the worlds resources you deserve. If you have the might then you take it. It's yours because you have the ability to take it. If you want to step away from the might makes right paradigm then you might see that the worlds resources belong to everyone equally. Otherwise stick with might makes right and hand over your money to the govt when they tell you to. Simple as that.

While you are offended at the suggestion of being immoral, I'm not. I would be offended by lacking intellectual honesty. We have different priorities. I'm not suggesting anyone give their money to the poor. I'm suggesting that we all have a moral obligation to recognize that our riches make the poor poorer because of the affect of excessive consumption. If others don't care about that moral obligation then I don't either.

Am I lazy as you claim? Perhaps, but I don't think I fit your definition since I work hard and pay my own way along with raising a family and providing for others, plus saving for the future. Maybe you could enlighten me further about my laziness.

BTW, my vision of capitalism is based on reality. Not a fantasy. Why do you base your beliefs on something that cannot exist?

Oh yeah, enlighten me about what has ever worked in history.
Old    SamIngram            01-20-2012, 4:05 PM Reply   
Your vision of capitalism and the government in general can be summed up in this example:

You wreck my car. You then complain when traveling with me, you don't feel safe and that you are embarrassed by everyone seeing you in my wrecked car. You then blame me for not getting a new car because you don't feel safe and are embarrassed. You don't actually ever acknowledge that you wrecked my car.

You have allowed the economy and capitalism to become what it is. You set the cruise control at 100 mph and wrecked it. You were asleep at the wheel, you did nothing to stop it and even contributed to it. Your leftist ideals, lack of morals, and laziness caused the car to crash.

You, yourself, said that you were lazy,

Quote:
Personally I don't care because I'm not willing to participate in sacrifice unless everyone else is on board.
You never took a stand, you never thought about the consequences of your decisions and actions, and you were unwilling to sacrifice unless everyone else did too.

You are the very epitome of Louis Blanc's quote, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". The capitalism that my great grandparents and grandparents left your generation is not what we have now. You were and are lazy, instead of protecting and projecting what is right, you philosophize what is wrong with system. You think and speak in circles. You present us with arguments that purport an intellectual dishonesty. You argue that the basis of our discussion is wrong, that we are immoral, and that everything is unfair, that something unearned is still deserved. You should instead tell us how things in your mind should be, where we went wrong, and help generate ideas to fix things.

You, sir, are nothing but a lazy socialist, you know right from wrong, but refuse to do anything, anything at all, to help to rectify it. To quote you,
Quote:
Personally I don't care because I'm not willing to participate in sacrifice unless everyone else is on board.
AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM, YOU DON'T CARE!
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-20-2012, 6:17 PM Reply   
Sam, you are mistaken in your assessment of me. I am taking a stand by exhibiting intellectual honesty. My stance is observing reality for what it is. Your summation is irrelevant to anything I've stated.

Blaming me for wrecking "your" country is absurd. It's not my fault you are ineffectual at getting the change you want. Save your bombastic accusations for someone who is stupid enough to believe them.
Old    SamIngram            01-20-2012, 6:32 PM Reply   
Yes, that's it, take your ball and go home. Of course it wasn't you, it was people like you. You can't present a clear, concise argument, only talk in circles and how honest you are...
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       01-20-2012, 8:11 PM Reply   
"You act as though the federal government is the only reason that people are successful"
Thats pretty much true, Every "Rich Man" has gotten their wealth from the people or if they inherited their wealth, the wealth would eventually be traced back to the people with the backing of the government, this goes back to the early 1800's in America.
"‘Cause I bust my ass"
Has anybody noticed in our society that the hardest jobs are the ones that pay the least?
Old    SamIngram            01-20-2012, 9:12 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeshmoe View Post
"You act as though the federal government is the only reason that people are successful"
Thats pretty much true, Every "Rich Man" has gotten their wealth from the people or if they inherited their wealth, the wealth would eventually be traced back to the people with the backing of the government, this goes back to the early 1800's in America.
"‘Cause I bust my ass"
Has anybody noticed in our society that the hardest jobs are the ones that pay the least?
Oh, my... Cry me a river... Poor baby didn't win the genetic lottery and has to work for a living...

Since the people, the money they spend, and the needs they have, make up the economy, of course wealth comes from the people... In exchange for a good or service that they want.
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       01-20-2012, 9:15 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeshmoe View Post
"‘Cause I bust my ass"
Has anybody noticed in our society that the hardest jobs are the ones that pay the least?
ain't that the truth..The assumption that the wealthy are smarter, work harder or "just genetically better than me" is a bunch of BS. My experience has shown the opposite in many cases.

Wow Sam, take it easy. Although I disagree with Fly in this matter, it appears he has out debated you.
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       01-20-2012, 9:28 PM Reply   
It's funny how worthless some lives of the wealthy really are. Pro athletes, actors, singers, business people who sell some widget that everyone wants, but no one really needs. Many willing to sell their souls for another dollar. Who cares that their actions are legal, yet sometimes morally wrong. In the end, they may have money, but their lives were actually a waste.

The people who make a positive impact on society and the people around them are seldom rich or famous.
Old    SamIngram            01-20-2012, 9:51 PM Reply   
First, nice try cheesecake...

Second, I love how you're somehow qualified to judge the worth of someone else's life... Nice. I love how everyone is now an expert in morals... I suppose you're qualifie to decide who has a positive impact...
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-21-2012, 7:12 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
Yes, that's it, take your ball and go home. Of course it wasn't you, it was people like you. You can't present a clear, concise argument, only talk in circles and how honest you are...
I think that my argument is presented clearly. Your problem appears to be a lack of comprehension combined with frustration driven rambling.

You think that the country is too socialist and you think I am too socialist. But you call me lazy because I'm not working harder to achieve my philosophical goals for society. Are you accusing me of being lazy because I haven't made the country socialist enough? Even though you claim that despite being lazy I've ruined it? Imagine what I could do if I tried!
Old    SamIngram            01-21-2012, 8:02 AM Reply   
LOL... No They are one and the same, not different. What I'm trying to say, without saying it, is that you talk in circles, talk about honesty, etc., never actually say anything. You're an old dude and some of these kids on respect you. You should actually explain your thoughts to them in a clear, concise manner, but don't. I called you a socialist hoping that you would retort and actually set the kids here straight. People like shooter and joe don't know any better. Many are just like he OWC crowd. If you don't at least try when you have the opportunity we will emd up just like Europe, with an entitlement-socialist society.

But what do I know, I'm running for state congress, I'm probably the stupid one...
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       01-21-2012, 8:04 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Seems like you've been puppet mastered. IOW, let's mandate that part of the compensation for your services be handled through your employer so that it's like it's not in return for your services. When I see the govt make employers pay that 7.5% whether they hire someone or not then I will agree with your reasoning. However, logic dictates that money is paid solely because your employer wants your services. The govt is the employees pimp, but the employee is the one doing the work.
When I hire an employee and pay them a salary, they are not entitled to the salary plus 7.5%. They pay taxes on the amount they make. I expense the 7.5% as a cost of doing business to lower my taxable income on the corporate side. So to say they are entitled to all 15.3% in a refund is really just double dipping by allowing the corp to expense it and the employee to claim it. Bottom line. The employee wasn't burdened with the expense, so they shouldn't get the benefit.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-21-2012, 8:16 AM Reply   
Paul, it's a shell game. An employee's worth is determined by the costs associated with employing them. I can see how as the employer you would say any rebate should go back to you. But the point of the rebate would be lost. It's not a matter of whether the employer should get it back. It's a matter of if the rebate to the employee serves any legitimate purpose. There is no denying that the value of the tax is directly related to the employee's service.

The employers argument would be that the money should be his because in the absence of the tax policy the employer could have negotiated lower costs when hiring the employee. You can think of the IRS as the unionless man's union. They hardballed some extra money for the employee as long as it went into FICA.
Old    SamIngram            01-21-2012, 8:19 AM Reply   
LOL... No They are one and the same, not different. What I'm trying to say, without saying it, is that you talk in circles, talk about honesty, etc., never actually say anything. You're an old dude and some of these kids on respect you. You should actually explain your thoughts to them in a clear, concise manner, but don't. I called you a socialist hoping that you would retort and actually set the kids here straight. People like shooter and joe don't know any better. Many are just like he OWC crowd. If you don't at least try when you have the opportunity we will emd up just like Europe, with an entitlement-socialist society.

But what do I know, I'm running for state congress, I'm probably the stupid one...
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-21-2012, 8:20 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
You're an old dude and some of these kids on respect you. You should actually explain your thoughts to them in a clear, concise manner, but don't. I called you a socialist hoping that you would retort and actually set the kids here straight. People like shooter and joe don't know any better. Many are just like he OWC crowd. If you don't at least try when you have the opportunity we will emd up just like Europe, with an entitlement-socialist society.
So you're saying that the kids here don't understand my philosophy about the economy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
But what do I know, I'm running for state congress, I'm probably the stupid one...
I hope you win. Seriously. I'm all for people shaking up the system a bit.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       01-21-2012, 8:57 AM Reply   
So you are saying its ok for both the employer and the employee to get the benefit ? The company gets to lower its taxable income by 7.65% and the employee gets to claim the entire 15.3% ? Thats raping the IRS.

And people wonder why our government is broke.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-21-2012, 10:13 AM Reply   
I'm saying that any expense paid for having an employee is because of the services they provide. No matter how you cut it, it's part of the formula that determines the value of their services. That's why I don't buy into the idea that it's not their money in a philosophical sense, If the govt decides to give it back to them. Whether they should get it back is another argument.

Why am I making a distinction about this point is because the complaint is that they never paid in what they got back. If the complaint was that the money is supposed to go into FICA and they shouldn't get the break, then I wouldn't be arguing that they deserve it.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-22-2012, 9:21 AM Reply   
I find it funny that people constantly criticize the lower class for "extorting" the income tax system, yet the wealthy do the exact same and that's okay. If you earn good money and find a way to "beat the system", that's using the tax code to your advantage, but if you are poorer and find a way to "beat the system", you're a criminal. That's just plain hypocrisy. The thing is, where do you think the poor family's income tax return is going go? 9.9999 times out of 10, it will be circulated back into the economy.

And Sam, what does this bit mean: "But what do I know, I'm running for state congress, I'm probably the stupid one.."? Does running for office make one smarter than the rest?
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       01-22-2012, 4:47 PM Reply   
I thought that the point of this post was whether they should get it. All of the redirecting has not changed the main point. No one should get more back than they paid in. They certainly shouldn't get back 2 to 3 months worth of income back. If they qualify for welfare (in a revamped system where you really have to qualify), then let them collect it. Don't disguise welfare in the form of a tax rebate.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-22-2012, 5:16 PM Reply   
^So I should be okay with paying 35% in income tax, while there are some that make exponentially more than I do and get away paying 10 to 15%? That bothers me more than some family with 4 kids receiving EIC.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       01-22-2012, 5:26 PM Reply   
I never said that you should be okay with any of it. I would like to see the entire system revamped before we are even further along the path that Greece has blazed. I have no problem with a flat tax system that doesn't allow for ANY write offs or adjustments.
Old    Scott R (ScottR)      Join Date: Aug 2011       01-23-2012, 7:44 AM Reply   
Wow, this post went nutz.... I agree this post started as just a basic question...

HOW DOES ONE GET BACK MORE THAN THEY PAY IN...?

Someone said have lots of little mouths to feed somewhere in here....I have 4 small kids (10,8,5,3) so tried that idea...HA Look, my basic point is alot like Cliff's, how can someone pay something in and get MORE OUT. I am not a genius, but as the NFL ESPN crew says "C'mon MAN!" That just isn't right.

I just think things have gotten so far gone on soooo many levels we can't find the exit which is why nothing will ever be solved. No matter who we put in power things seem to get worse not better. Tax laws and "work arounds" for those that can use them are just plain GROSS. Small time business get pounded every chance they get, while BIG business gets tax breaks and all that. People who make good money get short end of the stick while the SUPER RICH and blue collar guy get more back than they pay or just pay less than I do. Seriously how is that fair to those that make good enough money to pay the stupid 28% or 33% tax bracket. Makes me PISSED to see everyone else who is less or more fortunate than me get a free pass.

JUST SAYIN IT IS BROKEN !!!
Old    Scott R (ScottR)      Join Date: Aug 2011       01-23-2012, 7:45 AM Reply   
Bash away
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-23-2012, 8:06 AM Reply   
This is why the tax code needs to be rewritten. Tax is basically a cost of membership. That membership should not cost one person a different precentage than any other. Every citizen needs to have skins in the game. Ones choices in income should not cause ones percentage owed to change up or down.

The big difference between John and Sam isnt in debating right and wrong, it debating whether or not it can be changed and would the reprocussions of righting the ship be more costly than the money it saves. John says its already socialist so lets be socialist, and Sam says right the ship even if it destroys our society. Neither are desirable end results.

The problem with the current system is that the method we use to balance the scales is the adding of inequities. Its happened for so long that the pile on either side of the scale is mostlyinequity. We give tax money to the poor. We offset that inequity with tax incentives to the rich. We continually use unfair practice to try to create fairness.

This is why a complete reboot is in order. No breaks, no incentives. Everyone should be able to get a precise tax bill by knowing two simple numbers; 1. How much you earned, and 2. the tax rate. If the government wants to reward a certain behavior (ie. driving a hybrid), they can write a check, rather than reward you through tax shuffling. The federal government should get out of the handout business and transfer that to the communities. Communities are willing to help people, but they also will not tollerate being taken advantage of. They can see this first hand where the federal government cannot.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-23-2012, 8:25 AM Reply   
Quote:
This is why a complete reboot is in order. No breaks, no incentives. Everyone should be able to get a precise tax bill by knowing two simple numbers; 1. How much you earned, and 2. the tax rate.
This would kill the heath insurance industry and most likely drive the stock market way down. I'm for it. Of course you have to realize that you can't have employers buying things for employees that aren't taxed to truly do what you are saying. That includes pension contributions and health insurance. In addition the employee needs to have the choice of putting the money in his pocket and opt out. IOW no financial coercion into special interests like HC and Wall Street.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-23-2012, 9:17 AM Reply   
Quote:
This would kill the heath insurance industry and most likely drive the stock market way down. I'm for it. Of course you have to realize that you can't have employers buying things for employees that aren't taxed to truly do what you are saying. That includes pension contributions and health insurance. In addition the employee needs to have the choice of putting the money in his pocket and opt out. IOW no financial coercion into special interests like HC and Wall Street.
It would kill the need for much of the IRS as well, but we cannot worry about industry obsolescence.

I think companies could offer incentives as long as they are also covering the tax on them and it is not a writeoff. This would probably discourage them from doing so. I dont care if employers incentivise as long as they are paying the tax and not able to write off.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-23-2012, 2:07 PM Reply   
"HOW DOES ONE GET BACK MORE THAN THEY PAY IN...?"

There are many ways. For one, google Earned Income Credit. There are several other ways. Hypothetically, say you pay 1,400.00 over the course of the year in Federal Income Tax. Assume you have one child. Everything else aside, you can receive a 3,000.00 tax credit for said kid.

3,000 - 1,400 = 1,600. There is one simple example of one getting back more than they pay in.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       01-23-2012, 2:58 PM Reply   
I don't think that anyone was really asking "how". The question was more about why should they...
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-25-2012, 11:54 AM Reply   
^The only way is to abolish any type of tax credits or write-offs.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       01-25-2012, 12:32 PM Reply   
Ouch. I feel sorry for charities if that happens.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       02-01-2012, 6:45 AM Reply   
I saw this and thought that it was relevant
Attached Images
 
Old    C.I.E..... Evan (guido)      Join Date: Jul 2002       02-06-2012, 12:40 PM Reply   
Cliff.... HAHAHAHAHAHA ! That's too good.

I can sum up a fix for our broken tax code in two words: FLAT TAX

I completely agree with Cliff and (not suprisingly) Sam on this one. I'm really tired of being wedged right into the "wealthy" class where I'm just well enough off to pay maximum taxes, but don't have the investments or businesses to be able to take advantage (Romney style). Will I bitch and whine and decide to sit on the couch instead? No way. I'm aiming to get to the next level.

As for those that don't think they can better themselves: My parents bankrupted a successful family business. Spent a ton of money on custody battles and generally squandered all their money before I was a teenager. I paid my way through school. Have had a steady job since I was barely a teen. I didn't get any handouts, just worked hard and decided what I wanted out of life. My wife grew up in an apartment and worked in a laundermat after school everyday. She went on to become a very successful executive. We live very well now, and it was all the result of hard work. To be successful you need to do three things: work hard, work smart and be willing to make certain sacrifices along the way.

It's really simple. You make $10k a year and pay in $1k. You make $100k and pay in $10k. You make $1m and you pay in $100k. Why is this not fair? It still leaves the wealthy with the majority of the burdon.

Also, who determines what is wealthy? Somebody decided that $250k/year makes you wealthy... I totally disagree.

The more you make being "poor" comfortable, the more people will be complacent. It's human nature.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-07-2012, 5:05 AM Reply   
Evan, compared to every normal person out there, $250k/yr is filthy rich. No worries about basic things, like "how much do I have to cut back on food to keep the heat on this winter", or "who can I beg to put gas in the car until my next check". For most Americans, $250k means an extra $200k for wants, fun money, retirement, etc. Well, really more like $134k after government extorts part of it. Still, that's almost triple the median wage in this country... In addition to that first $50k that you can live on. I feel no sympathy for people making $250k+ that live paycheck to paycheck. It's surprising how many "wealthy" people keep spending until it's all gone and they're no better than they were making $50k. I do feel a lot of sympathy for people making $250k+ that have to pay those higher tax rates though, the same sympathy I feel for the median guy making $40k-$50k and paying a lot of taxes. The only people I feel no sympathy for are poor people who get a net gain from the government, at our expense.

Regardless, I agree a flat tax would be a far better system than we have now. An even better system would be to divide the budget for a given year equally among among everyone. Everyone pays the same amount, the same fair share.

Alternatively if you like a progressive tax (which I think is terrible), have a federal sales tax instead of an income tax.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-07-2012, 8:22 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
Alternatively if you like a progressive tax (which I think is terrible), have a federal sales tax instead of an income tax.
A sales tax by its very nature is regressive not progressive.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-07-2012, 11:26 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
A sales tax by its very nature is regressive not progressive.
How do you figure?

The poorest people aren't buying anything that the sales tax applies to. The richest are buying all sorts of things (expensive things) that are taxed. Under such a tax system the rich pay more, the poor pay little or nothing in taxes. The best part is we all get to decide how much we pay in taxes, if we even want to pay any at all. It's progressive because for the vast majority, the more you make the more you pay in taxes.

Though as I stated, I don't care for progressive tax systems, or regressive for that matter. I prefer that everyone pays the same as that is truly equal. It would also create a great incentive for everyone to unite against government waste as every dollar government saves would be one dollar less that people have to pay at the end of the year.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-07-2012, 12:09 PM Reply   
Low income households spend a greater proportion of their incomes on taxable goods. A regressive tax will affect a low income household disproportionately than a high income household. Ergo, sales tax is regressive.
Old    jimmy z (strife)      Join Date: Feb 2010       02-07-2012, 1:14 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
LOL...
But what do I know, I'm running for state congress, I'm probably the stupid one...

You must be joking... I can assure you that you will never get into office with all the rhetoric you have posted on this forum.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-07-2012, 1:20 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by strife View Post
You must be joking... I can assure you that you will never get into office with all the rhetoric you have posted on this forum.
Depends on the demographics of his district. Do you honestly think that the people we currently elect formulate arguments more cogent than found on here?
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-07-2012, 8:13 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
Low income households spend a greater proportion of their incomes on taxable goods. A regressive tax will affect a low income household disproportionately than a high income household. Ergo, sales tax is regressive.
With a sales tax, not on necessities, the tax is entirely optional. You want a new TV... pay the tax. If you're happy with a smaller older second hand unit... Or don't have a TV like me, no tax. The regressive argument doesn't hold any water when it's an entirely optional tax.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       02-08-2012, 1:26 PM Reply   
I too, believe a sales tax would be regressive, people who don't make that much money get taxed on most of their income because they spend all the money they make, saving money is not an option and the apartment, cars, and clothes are not an option(well, maybe where you live)
whereas the rich do not spend every penny they earn, so the tax would be a much smaller percentage of their income, therefor the tax is regressive.
15% ? That's not even a tax! thats a joke! (but look how much money they pay into special interests)Looks like Romney took a hit yesterday.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-08-2012, 2:35 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
The regressive argument doesn't hold any water when it's an entirely optional tax.
Food (some states), clothing, and items needed to get by are not optional. Your POV on this subject is myopic. Even Huckabee's Fair Tax proposal would have "prebated" low income households to offset the regressive nature of a sales tax based approach.

The fact remains that low-income households aren't out there buying flat screens or living high on the hog. These people are paycheck to paycheck, many not due to their own fault, and only consuming necessities. A sales tax approach without a prebate is regressive and not equitable.

Last edited by norcalrider; 02-08-2012 at 2:38 PM.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 9:49 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us