3.8 million words!!!

44 posts / 0 new

That is the length of the federal tax code. And the government does not believe that this is long enough. This debacle will surely get longer and more complicated unless we demand and end to the madness. I believe that I heard that Americans spend about 27 billion dollars per year to purchase tax related products and services. There is no excuse for this. A tax code so complicated that you need to hire a lawyer or accountant so that you don't go to jail or get ripped off by the feds. This crap is getting so insane that even the secretary of the treasury could not get his taxes right. There needs to be a revolt!!!

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am

Comments

The simpler the tax code is; the harder it is to cheat. People like you and I don't get a say in such things. Big money spent on legislature does get a say in these things. Obviously the tax code was not written for the average person's benefit but we have to wallow through it none the less.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

rigel, if what you are calling for is good government, join the Progressives. We have been for tax reform and for the end of the Corporate Written Cheat Sheet for a long time. We are the ones that want the Big Money out of politics and who defend "capitalism" against Corporatism.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DRC:

rigel, if what you are calling for is good government, join the Progressives. We have been for tax reform and for the end of the Corporate Written Cheat Sheet for a long time. We are the ones that want the Big Money out of politics and who defend "capitalism" against Corporatism.

I think that most people agree with my above statement. But we are all too hardheaded to join forces even on the things we agree on. I would gladly march under the progressive or any flag on the issue of tax simplification. And why not? There is power in numbers. Lets focus on the issues we agree on and get it done. There will always be plenty of time to fight. Would you be willing to side with tea partiers on tax reform? I'm sure that our society would survive if we reduced the tax code to a mere 100,000 words.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am

Rigel1,

What is your position on "capital gains taxes" on government securities, such as treasury bonds? I have always found it peculiar that the government sells bonds with interest rates, only to tax that interest! Would it not be easier and better to sell bonds with slightly lower interest rates?

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 3:57 pm

rigel, if we could sit down over a cup of good tea and have an informed discussion of simplified tax fairness, very good. My problem has been that what I hear from the Tea Party has been about the "death tax" and other protections for the wealthy, and not about getting the rich back into the game or making Corporations pay what they once did in successful times. Anytime the Tea Party folk want to cut their ties to the Kochs and Dick Armey and confront empire, corporate cronyism and "supply side," I think we could have a good time.

But, while we wait for that awakening, why don't you address the same issues and why the GOPimps are so dogmatic and uncivil in their economic policies. For example, the incredibly bad Paul Ryan budget compared to the very good People's Budget from the Progressive Caucus. I keep saying that the real small government, local, ground-up, fiscal conservatives are over here in the Progressive Caucus and left critics of the DLC.

We also have better rock and roll.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote micahjr34:

Rigel1,

What is your position on "capital gains taxes" on government securities, such as treasury bonds? I have always found it peculiar that the government sells bonds with interest rates, only to tax that interest! Would it not be easier and better to sell bonds with slightly lower interest rates?

Yes!

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
Quote DRC:

We also have better rock and roll.

Okay here is how I would start. Demand that we reduce the tax code from 3.8 million words to 3.7 million words. Let the politicians figure out how to do it. Let the ones who are opposed explain why 100,000 words are not enough.

Without all the flakes, gays, liberals, progressives, do gooders and bleeding hearts in rock & roll, we would have no rock & roll. Yeah, ya'll are good for something (wink).

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am

In all cases the market determines the rate of interest on all debt.

I think U.S. Treasuries work like this: The Fed sells you a piece of paper promising to pay you $1,000 in ten, twenty, thirty years. So you decide how much you are willing to pay today for $1,000 in 2022. ($600? $700?)

Even with municipal and state bonds with a stated rate of interest, you will pay a premium if the bond pays 4% and all other bonds pay 3%. (and you'll pay less than face value, a "discount" if the bond pays 4% and all other bonds pay 5%.)

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I could get it done a few thousand, treat all income as income, with some simple progressive rates.

We could just repeal all the changes to the code, and go back to the Reagan 1982 code, or the Nixon tax code of 1970. That will vastly simplify things.

And so we are clear, the vast majority of pages are devoted to efforts by lobbyists to get the freedom for bribery to have subsidies and tax breaks.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

You could just go back to the original income tax law. Under that no one who made under what would be the equivalent of about $100,000 would even file a tax form. How simple is that? All that tax not paid would be immediately injected into the economy.

The reams of tax code are all exemptions for specific companies under specific circumstances. That do not apply to hardly anyone. So saying it is 3.8 million words is a little disingenuous. I did my taxes in about 30 minutes this year, then I helped my neighbour do his. I never had to deal with all that code. I think you will find that the increase in pages of tax code directly corresponds with the number of lobbyists in Washington.

planetxan's picture
planetxan
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote planetxan:

You could just go back to the original income tax law. Under that no one who made under what would be the equivalent of about $100,000 would even file a tax form. How simple is that? All that tax not paid would be immediately injected into the economy.

I have a serious problem with that. That would make most of us who use roads, infrastructure, and government sevices parasites living off of the money of others. I have no problem paying my own way. If I go to a baseball game, I do not expect my rich friend to buy my ticket and pay for my beer. I prefer to pay my own way. With taxes, I am paying my own way. But the feds blow my money on crap while our bridges crumble and national parks close.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
Quote rigel1:
Quote planetxan:

You could just go back to the original income tax law. Under that no one who made under what would be the equivalent of about $100,000 would even file a tax form. How simple is that? All that tax not paid would be immediately injected into the economy.

I have a serious problem with that. That would make most of us who use roads, infrastructure, and government sevices parasites living off of the money of others. I have no problem paying my own way. If I go to a baseball game, I do not expect my rich friend to buy my ticket and pay for my beer. I prefer to pay my own way. With taxes, I am paying my own way. But the feds blow my money on crap while our bridges crumble and national parks close.

No, we would not be parasites. The roads and infrastructure increase production, and they increase it more than the taxes that are paid back by the businesses. Our ability to access these businesses as customers and employees makes them more money.

Or if you truly insist on paying your own way, next time you go to Target™, insist, and I mean really insist, that you pay for parking. The business pays for this service so that customers can shop there easier. On a larger scale, the gov't pays for infrastructure, or subsidizes it, so that it is cheaper for business to do business. They should subsidize health care (maintenance of human capital) and education (improvement of human capital) for the same reason. There is so much out there you don't even begin to pay for. Your gas taxes for instance hardly dent the costs of road construction and maintenance, not to mention all that parking (which takes an enormous amount of land out of productive use).

A very large portion of our overall productivity is produced simply by the organization of our society. There is no one to pay for that, so we all get a piece of it as a dividend. We are not being parasites in doing so. There is no reason that people making less than $100,000 need to pay income tax at all. Their work is contribution to society. Most of the wealth generated by the organization of society (and the gifts of nature, let's not forget those) tend to go to a small number of high paid people and enterprises. If taxes need to be paid, that is where it needs to start.

planetxan's picture
planetxan
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote planetxan:
Quote rigel1:
Quote planetxan:

You could just go back to the original income tax law. Under that no one who made under what would be the equivalent of about $100,000 would even file a tax form. How simple is that? All that tax not paid would be immediately injected into the economy.

I have a serious problem with that. That would make most of us who use roads, infrastructure, and government sevices parasites living off of the money of others. I have no problem paying my own way. If I go to a baseball game, I do not expect my rich friend to buy my ticket and pay for my beer. I prefer to pay my own way. With taxes, I am paying my own way. But the feds blow my money on crap while our bridges crumble and national parks close.

Or if you truly insist on paying your own way, next time you go to Target™, insist, and I mean really insist, that you pay for parking.

Target is a great example!

I do insist on paying for parking. And I do. But why would I want to pay for parking twice? Target includes all of their overhead when they price their goods. They offer merchandise at a decent price. Something the feds have no idea how to do. If Target double tags people for parking we will simply take our business to Wallyworld where we are only charged once. Everybody in America should pay some tax. Even if it's a dollar.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am

You miss the larger point. BTW, I pay for your parking at Target, and I have no car.

My point is, when you work and pay for stuff, that is sufficient. Things are set up in a way that infrastructure pays for itself through the increased productivity that it causes. A certain amount of the country's productive capacity goes toward government operations. This is measured in overall taxes paid. It is not necessary for everyone to pay them.

Good grief am I arguing in favour of elliminating taxes for most Americans while you are arguing against it? What the hell happened?

Well, I am. Twice median income and below, in my opinion, should not be taxed. That's about $100,000.

planetxan's picture
planetxan
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

oops

I should point out that when taxes are implemented anywhere, a certain percent of that works its way into consumer prices, just like the Target™ example. We just don't see it. This is the common argument against raising corporate taxes, is it not? The taxes will just be passed on. So everyone will pay, but the savings in efficiencies should make up for it.

planetxan's picture
planetxan
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

How do taxes on profits work their way into consumer prices?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote chilidog:

How do taxes on profits work their way into consumer prices?

It's simple. If you raise the taxes on a corporation 50%, they will raise the price of a candy bar from $1.00 to $1.50. They will simply pass on the tax to you.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
Quote rigel1:
Quote chilidog:

How do taxes on profits work their way into consumer prices?

It's simple. If you raise the taxes on a corporation 50%, they will raise the price of a candy bar from $1.00 to $1.50. They will simply pass on the tax to you.

Really? That means that they just raised their taxable profit by 50%. Now they owe even more in taxes than they did before. Granted some corporations do this but it makes more financial sense to "reduce" profits without actually losing money. That is done by investing in newer or better equipment that will eventually pay for itself while reducing their taxes. Hiring employees that pay for themselves while reducing tax burdens.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote rigel1:
Quote chilidog:

How do taxes on profits work their way into consumer prices?

It's simple. If you raise the taxes on a corporation 50%, they will raise the price of a candy bar from $1.00 to $1.50. They will simply pass on the tax to you.

Really? That means that they just raised their taxable profit by 50%. Now they owe even more in taxes than they did before. Granted some corporations do this but it makes more financial sense to "reduce" profits without actually losing money. That is done by investing in newer or better equipment that will eventually pay for itself while reducing their taxes. Hiring employees that pay for themselves while reducing tax burdens.

Yes they do owe more in taxes, but their bottom line also increases. Some of them reduce expenses by cheating the sytem and hiring illegals. History backs me up. They do raise prices when their tax burden is increased.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
Quote rigel1:

They do raise prices when their tax burden is increased.

Not all taxes are created equal.

Some taxes rise and fall with production, and all competitors pay the same rate, such as utilities taxes.

Some taxes do not change with production, and competitors may pay varying rates, such as taxes on real property in California.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote chilidog:

How do taxes on profits work their way into consumer prices?

This is economics 101, taxes are 'passed-through' a product through price, depending on how flexible the supply and demand is. If it is kind of a one-to-one ratio (if the cost doubles, I will buy half) then half of the tax will be paid by the producer and half by the consumer. In monopolies this changes dramatically, because the producer can set their own price. If this monopoly is a good that everyone must have, like water, then again this changes things. This pass-through is why sales tax and VATs tend to be not so good. Also the case with labour tax (income and SS) - the employer pays half, the employee pays half, no matter how it is divided in the paper work.

planetxan's picture
planetxan
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I do not understand this concept. Let's say Bob and Mike both have hamburger restaurants across the street from each other. Bob bought his building 40 years ago and doesn't have any deductions for interest or depreciation. Mike just set up his restaurant and owes lots of money to everybody. They both sell burgers for $3 apiece. Bob cannot charge more for his burgers just because he has more profits and he pays more income taxes.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote rigel1:
Quote chilidog:

How do taxes on profits work their way into consumer prices?

It's simple. If you raise the taxes on a corporation 50%, they will raise the price of a candy bar from $1.00 to $1.50. They will simply pass on the tax to you.

Then, if this were true, what should we happen to prices for companies that pay Zero in taxes? If cell phone company ACMETel pays the top rate of 35%, but Corruptizon pays Zero%, then wouldn't we espect that Verirrupt cell phone service be much lower that their competitors? Or the price of gas at a tax paying station should be much higher than gas at an Exxon station. Or that the cost of mercenaries from Blackwater be nearly free? Or the price for tools from Stanley be practically free?

Of course it doesn't work that way. The cost of any g&s is based on demand / supply rules.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

Okay, we've strayed a bit from the topic.

Is there anyone out there who can argue that a tax code of 3.8 million words is better than a tax code of 100,000?

K.I.S.S.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am

The number of words isn't the ultimate measure of betterness. But we could start by repealing all tax code changes since 1975.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

I have an easier way to fix the tax problem as well as get the government enough money to live off. you start by makeing it so everyone pays their fair share and the tax code could be less than one page long. you ready here it is

everyone that has an income from working, and I mean everyone pays 10 percent in taxes no loop holes not way out no deductions. corporations same rules but they pay 15 percent. no capital gains taxes, no estate taxes, no Inheritance taxes of any kind.

no capital gains taxes because you already taxed the money before it was invested

no estate taxes because the money was taxed before it was used to better the family

same goes for Inheritance taxes were paid as the money was made

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:

I have an easier way to fix the tax problem as well as get the government enough money to live off. you start by makeing it so everyone pays their fair share and the tax code could be less than one page long. you ready here it is

everyone that has an income from working, and I mean everyone pays 10 percent in taxes no loop holes not way out no deductions. corporations same rules but they pay 15 percent. no capital gains taxes, no estate taxes, no Inheritance taxes of any kind.

no capital gains taxes because you already taxed the money before it was invested

no estate taxes because the money was taxed before it was used to better the family

same goes for Inheritance taxes were paid as the money was made

What? When it comes to capital gains tax you have two parts don't you? First you have capital. That is the money that was already taxed before it was invested. Second you have "gains". That is the brand new money that is being made from the invested capital. That is called profit. Profit from investing and not profit from labor. You don't labor for capital "gains". It's free money. You worked for the capital, not the gains. According to you and your brethren that's like a welfare queen getting free money.

But that free money doesn't come from my taxes so it's different. Not really, somebody out there in the world is laboring (working) in order to give you free money on your investment. It's free income and you are entitled to it but it still needs to be taxed just like my income is.

It's the same thing with estates and inheritances. If I accumulate great wealth over my lifetime and my kid sits on his butt his whole life then why in the heck should he get all of my money free and clear? As soon as he does it's a form of income. If we allowed that without taxing it in some way or form then 200 years from now 10 people would own all of the money in the US. That makes a lot of sense now doesn't it. Every penny that the average worker makes goes almost directly back into the system. That's what makes our economy work. If you take billions out of the system then the system will fail.

Your ideas are valid for the poor and middle class worker because it gives them a chance to accumulate for a retirement. That's something that they will need very soon since the republicans are hell bent on destroying social security and medicare. The already and always will be rich people don't need that advantage. They need to pay back into the system a lot more than you or I do because they can. We can't.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

There is no such thing as an "inheritance tax" in this country. We have an estate tax. We also have a gift tax that "is paid" by the donor.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Uh, 10%? We already collect 18% of gdp, and you plan a massive tax cut? Should we listen to the galactically stupid?

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:

I have an easier way to fix the tax problem as well as get the government enough money to live off. you start by makeing it so everyone pays their fair share and the tax code could be less than one page long. you ready here it is

everyone that has an income from working, and I mean everyone pays 10 percent in taxes no loop holes not way out no deductions. corporations same rules but they pay 15 percent. no capital gains taxes, no estate taxes, no Inheritance taxes of any kind.

no capital gains taxes because you already taxed the money before it was invested

no estate taxes because the money was taxed before it was used to better the family

same goes for Inheritance taxes were paid as the money was made

What? When it comes to capital gains tax you have two parts don't you? First you have capital. That is the money that was already taxed before it was invested. Second you have "gains". That is the brand new money that is being made from the invested capital. That is called profit. Profit from investing and not profit from labor. You don't labor for capital "gains". It's free money. You worked for the capital, not the gains. According to you and your brethren that's like a welfare queen getting free money.

But that free money doesn't come from my taxes so it's different. Not really, somebody out there in the world is laboring (working) in order to give you free money on your investment. It's free income and you are entitled to it but it still needs to be taxed just like my income is.

It's the same thing with estates and inheritances. If I accumulate great wealth over my lifetime and my kid sits on his butt his whole life then why in the heck should he get all of my money free and clear? As soon as he does it's a form of income. If we allowed that without taxing it in some way or form then 200 years from now 10 people would own all of the money in the US. That makes a lot of sense now doesn't it. Every penny that the average worker makes goes almost directly back into the system. That's what makes our economy work. If you take billions out of the system then the system will fail.

Your ideas are valid for the poor and middle class worker because it gives them a chance to accumulate for a retirement. That's something that they will need very soon since the republicans are hell bent on destroying social security and medicare. The already and always will be rich people don't need that advantage. They need to pay back into the system a lot more than you or I do because they can. We can't.

every nickel paid out in welfare is free money, it was taxed away from some one who has earned it and given to some one that has not earned it.

estate taxes is having the money double taxed as I earned it I paid the taxes on it I should be able to leave it to whom every i want with out them being punished because i saved the money. the money would not stay in the hands of 10 or 20 families that way you say it would because they would still be spending money on products. that would keep the money flowing.

if you are going to tax the estates of people because the person receiving it did not earn it than we should tax the money parents pay for the kids education after all the kid did not earn it.

it is not the governments responsibility to save money for you to retire on that is your responsibility.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote Phaedrus76:Uh, 10%? We already collect 18% of gdp, and you plan a massive tax cut? Should we listen to the galactically stupid?
.

for some it would be a tax cut and some would have a tax increase, at 10 percent everyone would be paying the same percentage. I thought the progressives wanted everything to be fair?

At 10 percent across the board on individuals and 15 percent on corporations we would collect far more than 18 percent of the GDP, because the bottom 50 percent that currently pay zero would be paying 10 percent. than you add in the 15 percent from every corporation in the country you would have zero corporations not paying in so GE would have a few billion dollar tax bill instead of being able to write off everything.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

I have a question for everyone here! What about tax deductions for giving to charity, for both the rich and poor. I don't know much, but I think that giving tax deductions for giving to charity is an excellent "loop hole." It helps provide funds to help people that otherwise would have to come from tax paid government. Anything wrong with that? I don't think so. Also, by encouraging charity, the people as individuals have more power to fund charity that agrees with their own social values specifically, while with government "charity" the taxpayer has to fund programs they like and those they dislike!

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 3:57 pm

Except the "poor" half already pay 6% in payroll taxes, their employer chips in 6%, they pay gas taxes, cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes, use fees for national parks, etc etc to the feds. So, if you eliminate everything, and start at a flat 10%, that is a tax cut even for the poorest Americans.

Oh wait, you probably meant to keep all the taxes that the poor already pay, and add on a new tax, so it is a massive tax increase for the working poor.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:

Except the "poor" half already pay 6% in payroll taxes, their employer chips in 6%, they pay gas taxes, cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes, use fees for national parks, etc etc to the feds. So, if you eliminate everything, and start at a flat 10%, that is a tax cut even for the poorest Americans.

Oh wait, you probably meant to keep all the taxes that the poor already pay, and add on a new tax, so it is a massive tax increase for the working poor.

well first of all the 6 percent is SSI taxes that should not be paid csuse the government should not be collecting money for your retirement. The gas tax is paid by everyone not just the poor. The gas tax should be left alone so it pays for thr roads. All the other taxes you site are paid by everyone who use those services and should be left in place.

I am only talking about income taxes and corp taxes.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote micahjr34:

I have a question for everyone here! What about tax deductions for giving to charity, for both the rich and poor. I don't know much, but I think that giving tax deductions for giving to charity is an excellent "loop hole." It helps provide funds to help people that otherwise would have to come from tax paid government. Anything wrong with that? I don't think so. Also, by encouraging charity, the people as individuals have more power to fund charity that agrees with their own social values specifically, while with government "charity" the taxpayer has to fund programs they like and those they dislike!

I have no problem with charity deduction like you said it allows charities to support people in need. So the only deduction is charity.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

How is your proposal different from what we've done for the last 31 years?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

.

We have not been doing what I am proposing for the last 31 years. During the last 31 years we have made some moves towards a better tax system, However, the tax rates have been way higher than ten percent and they have not been fair. the top 10 percent pay 75 percent of the taxes collected. the middle 40 percent pay the last 25 percent and the bottom 50 percent pay zero.

what I am suggesting is that we cut out all deductions except for charities reset all tax rates at a fair 10 percent across the board, reduce the size of the IRS by 97 percent the last 3 percent can handle looking at the charitable deductions and corporations to make sure they are paying their part. The lower corporate tax rate would also allow corporations to be profitable again while expanding their operations in America instead of china.

Than once we have the tax system fair we can start eliminating unconstitutional, overlapping, unneeded government agencies

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

Why not 9%?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

the top 10 percent pay 75 percent of the taxes collected

Are you trying to foist this standard Republican disinformation off on us? You forgot the key work “income” in your tax claim. Don’t you know that we listen to Thom Hartmann?

To address your main thesis, I would like to say that income taxes have a couple of purposes. One is of course to collect revenue. The other is to balance the economy so the supply side and the demand side complement each other.

Your prescription will be yet another piling of money into the supply side. The supply side is awash in cash already and they are using it to do mischief. They have no productive investments to make (i.e. plants and equipment in the US) so they take it to the Wall-Street casino.

We are already on the road to ruin with this bloated and poorly regulated financial sector. You want to put the petal to the metal and crash us sooner and harder. No thanks, we have seen this disaster movie before.

olenzekm's picture
olenzekm
Joined:
Oct. 26, 2010 10:01 am

The Flat Tax is a ruse. You sell it as a way to simplify the tax code. This is transparent nonsense.

The complexity in the tax code comes from determining your taxable income. That is where all of the deductions and exemptions are. You will find your 3.8 million words there. The final computation of the tax on the taxable income is very easy and could fit on one page.

If you want to simplify the code, get rid of most or all of those deductions. You can still have a strongly progressive tax-rate structure and submit your taxes on a post card.

Admit that you are a shill for the Rich and wouldn’t mind seeing a plutocracy in this country. Do not try to tell us that you are interested in simplifying the tax code. That is just a Trojan horse.

olenzekm's picture
olenzekm
Joined:
Oct. 26, 2010 10:01 am
Quote workingman:

every nickel paid out in welfare is free money, it was taxed away from some one who has earned it and given to some one that has not earned it.

estate taxes is having the money double taxed as I earned it I paid the taxes on it I should be able to leave it to whom every i want with out them being punished because i saved the money. the money would not stay in the hands of 10 or 20 families that way you say it would because they would still be spending money on products. that would keep the money flowing.

if you are going to tax the estates of people because the person receiving it did not earn it than we should tax the money parents pay for the kids education after all the kid did not earn it.

it is not the governments responsibility to save money for you to retire on that is your responsibility.

[/quote]

Every nickel paid out to your boss is free money, it was taken away from somebody who has earned it and given to somebody who has not earned it. But that's different huh.

Isn't an inheritance the same as welfare? Your kids did not earn it. According to you people who take money that they did not earn are evil. That would mean that inheriters are evil and business owners are evil according to that logic. Paris Hilton lives the life of luxury and has never made one worth while contribution to society. (Welfare Queen)

I have been paying for my kids to go to college for years now. I DO pay taxes on the money I paid for my kids education.

Millions of people will work hard and barely make enough money to survive for an entire lifetime. They cannot and will never be able to save money for their own retirement. The government forces you to take steps for your retirement so that you will not be a burden to society in your later years. It isn't much but at least they can afford to eat if nothing else. That's unless Ryan and his boys get their way.

Your ideology makes no sense. It's contradictory. That's why it's so clear that it's not real, but a manipulated ideology built on propoganda and out right lies.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:

every nickel paid out in welfare is free money, it was taxed away from some one who has earned it and given to some one that has not earned it.

estate taxes is having the money double taxed as I earned it I paid the taxes on it I should be able to leave it to whom every i want with out them being punished because i saved the money. the money would not stay in the hands of 10 or 20 families that way you say it would because they would still be spending money on products. that would keep the money flowing.

if you are going to tax the estates of people because the person receiving it did not earn it than we should tax the money parents pay for the kids education after all the kid did not earn it.

it is not the governments responsibility to save money for you to retire on that is your responsibility.

Every nickel paid out to your boss is free money, it was taken away from somebody who has earned it and given to somebody who has not earned it. But that's different huh.

Isn't an inheritance the same as welfare? Your kids did not earn it. According to you people who take money that they did not earn are evil. That would mean that inheriters are evil and business owners are evil according to that logic.&nbsp Paris Hilton lives the life of luxury and has never made one worth while contribution to society. (Welfare Queen)

I have been paying for my kids to go to college for years now. I DO pay taxes on the money I paid for my kids education.

Millions of people will work hard and barely make enough money to survive for an entire lifetime. They cannot and will never be able to save money for their own retirement. The government forces you to take steps for your retirement so that you will not be a burden to society in your later years. It isn't much but at least they can afford to eat if nothing else. That's unless Ryan and his boys get their way.

Your ideology makes no sense. It's contradictory. That's why it's so clear that it's not real, but a manipulated ideology built on propoganda and out right lies.

[/quote]

the inheritence is when you leave money to your family so they will have a better life than you. That money is taxed before it was saved as well as any income it made was also taxed. Welfare is money given to people for no effort on their part. Business owners risk a lot to get that business up and running. They also pay their employees for the work they do. What work do welfare recipients do for the money coming from the government.

Your kids did not earn the money that you are paying for thier education and should be tax just like inheritence of the rich. Welfare queens are that girl on welfare using her welfare money to win the lottery and than continued to accept food stamps. Rich peoples kids put no burden on society by have enough monet to support themselves

Millions of people would be far better off if they were allowed to keep the 12 percent the government takes. They would not be a burden on government they may need their family to pick up the slack cause the government should have zero programs to help the poor that is a responsibility of a charrity not government.

My views are not contradictory you are responsible for you and your family. The government is to ensure freedom and opportunity for all not opportunity for some (welfare) at the expence of others.

Excuse typos posted from phone.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

Petit pomme de terre.

The tax code is a puny, if somewhat misshapen, reptile compared to the great matted-haired mammal that is the compilation of U.S. Code.

And remember Law Enforcement's position: Ignorance of the law is no excuse (even of secret laws).

Some may find that to be an odd assertion for a country that doesn't include much education for the common folk on it.

Rodger97321's picture
Rodger97321
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Is George Zimmerman Right?

It's time to listen to George Zimmerman. Seriously, and I'll explain in a minute.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system