A Prognostication
 

In article , Han wrote:

Wait a minute. You're using statistics that divide the taxes paid among
people. That is totally inappropriate for my statement, whether true or
not. US Median income is ~$45K (roughly picked from wikipedia). On that
income you'd pay ~$6900, or ~15% taxes.

That is incorrect. You'd pay $6900 on a *taxable* income of $45K -- but
that's not the median *taxable* income in the U.S.

A Prognostication
 

On 8/3/2011 12:34 PM, Han wrote:
Jack wrote in
:

On 8/3/2011 9:15 AM, Han wrote:

Right now the codes are penalizing regular wage earners with
much higher taxation then those of us who earn income from capital
gains and dividends. Of course, that was enacted to stimulate
investment, and perhaps rightly so. But the law of unintended (I
hope) consequences is indeed now heaping tax upon tax on wage earners
(income tax, SS tax, medicare tax etc), while unearned income doesn't
have that. Hey, I shouldn't complain, really. I am retired ...

Right now, regular wage earners ain't paying dick, compared to above
regular wage earners: In fact, many of the lower group, like my son,
received income taxes for doing less.

Tax Year 2008
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1% 38.02%
Top 5% 58.72%
Top 10% 69.94%
Top 25% 86.34%
Top 50% 97.30%
Bottom 50% 2.7%

Personally, I think everyone should pay the exact same rate, with the
exception of those that earn so little it would cost more to process
their taxes than they would pay, say $50 in taxes could be ignored.
Everyone else needs an opportunity to participate.

At any rate, your statement that "regular wage earners" are penalized
by tax codes is not only wrong, but 180° wrong.

Wait a minute. You're using statistics that divide the taxes paid among
people.

Yes, based upon what those people earn as a percentage of income. The
bottom 50% pay 2.7% of the taxes.

That is totally inappropriate for my statement, whether true or
not.

US Median income is ~$45K (roughly picked from wikipedia). On that
income you'd pay ~$6900, or ~15% taxes.

Long Term Capital gains are taxed at 15%, same as those "regular wage
earners" you say pay 15%. So "regular wage earners" are NOT penalized
as you stated, at worst, they pay the SAME rate. Further more, I doubt
anyone grossing 45K a year in wages pays taxes at 15%. Whatever, the
fact is the bottom 50% of earners pay about ZERO taxes, the top 5% pay
about 60%, so the tax codes are grossly unfair to 50% of the population.

That's the same as on all unearned (long-term) income.

so then your statement that "Right now the codes are penalizing regular
wage earners with much higher taxation then those of us who earn income
from capital gains and dividends." is bogus.

That means that half the people with earned
income pay more income taxes than those who subsist on unearned income.

Well, half the people with earned income pay no income taxes at all, and
a whole boat load of them get paid to not pay any taxes at all, that
much we know.

--
Jack
What one person receives without working for, another person must work
for without receiving.
http://jbstein.com

O/T: A Prognostication
 

On Jul 29, 7:53*pm, Just Wondering wrote:

1. The first place we need to cut is our defense budget.

Q. *Why have so many National Guard units been called to active duty
over the past several decades?
A. *Because the federal military budget is not large enough for the
Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force to fulfill their missions.


Um, do you think maybe it is because we smack a little of
Imperialism? Is there any reason we have so many troops and
facilities abroad? Do we need that many? Are they all necessary?
Wouldn't they be better used to serve in these United States? Just
wonderin'...........



3. We need to start seriously looking at entitlements. *Why should
Warren Buffett get Social Security or be allowed to sign up for
Medicare?

Do you have any evidence that Warren Buffett is collecting SS, or using
Medicare? *I dunno, but I rather suspect most ultra-wealthy do not
participate because they can afford not to, and it's not worth the
hassle for them.


I have no evidence of that but they are allowed to tap into it. And,
yes, I do know people who are receiving it but don't really need it.
They use the check to fund their "fun" things. For example, one guy I
know uses it to go to Atlantic City for gambling money. Ain't that
wonderful? Seems like a good use of that money to me. He bristles
whenever questioned about the ethics involved and his response is that
he paid into it and he should be allowed to do what he wants with his
share because it is his. That is one example I know of. Maybe we
need to seriously increase the age when a person receives SS.
Whenever it was introduced (as a VOLUNTARY thing, mind you), the
average life expectancy was around 65--now it is much higher. T'ain't
working anymore, McGee!!




One alternative would be that instead of unearned welfare
benefits, they would have to work for the government, mowing lawns,
cleaning toilets, picking up litter, whatever, at 75% of the minimum
wage rate. *They could either do that, or go out and get a private
sector job, but they couldn't simply sit at home watching TV on the
government dole.

Now, I like that idea!! I remember a guy who used to say this. He
called his plan Welfare Hall. It is like a union carpenter who is
sitting on the bench. Whenever his name is called, he either chooses
to accept the work (and the subsequent paycheck) or he doesn't (and he
goes hungry). The government would have a list of things that needed
done and would pay you your welfare check providing you performed the
task. He didn't think of the 75% of the minimum wage rate but that is
the key to this: it needs to be more worth somebody's while to work at
a minimum wage job than to sit back and collect welfare. GREAT
IDEA!!!

O/T: A Prognostication
 

On Jul 30, 12:59*pm, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 17:53:32 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:
One
alternative would be that instead of unearned welfare benefits, they
would have to work for the government, mowing lawns, cleaning toilets,
picking up litter, whatever, at 75% of the minimum wage rate. *They
could either do that, or go out and get a private sector job, but they
couldn't simply sit at home watching TV on the government dole.

I have a feeling a considerable number would turn to crime, resulting in
prison, resulting in us paying for them anyway - and at a higher rate.


What is the matter with good, old-fashioned chain gangs? We could
provide the hard-boiled eggs though!

A Prognostication
 

Leon wrote:
On 8/3/2011 11:55 AM, Bill wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 8/3/2011 11:36 AM, Jack Stein wrote:
On 8/3/2011 12:22 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
In ,
wrote:

Nonsense. Right now the codes are penalizing regular wage earners
with
much higher taxation then those of us who earn income from capital
gains
and dividends. Of course, that was enacted to stimulate investment,
and
perhaps rightly so. But the law of unintended (I hope)
consequences is
indeed now heaping tax upon tax on wage earners (income tax, SS tax,
medicare tax etc), while unearned income doesn't have that.

Which is why we should stop taxing income altogether, and tax
consumption
instead.

Sales taxes are good, flat tax would be good. What we have now sucks,
big time.


I realistically don't think a sales tax would be enough to defend
ourselves. If you have another economic down turn and sales drop we
don't have money for defense. Look at how most police departments suffer
and crime goes up when spending cuts are applied.

Every one should pay exactly the same tax, no income tax, including non
citizens working here.

That's easy to say if you can afford it, unless you mean the same tax
rate.

The same rate, I live here so I pay "x" dollars, same as my neighbor. It
would not happen over night obliviously but there would be no favoritism
votes.

Well, that's somewhat the way property taxes work. If you want to a
community that spends alot on education, for instance that's your choice
and you and all of your neighbors share the cost. It's sort of
democratic too. If you don't want to support good schools, you can move
to a different neighborhood with other interests.

I don't think our country has as much of a tax problem as it does a
budget problem. At this juncture, there are no easy answers. I was not
impressed with the recent efforts of congress (either).

Bill

O/T: A Prognostication
 

On Jul 30, 12:57*pm, Larry Blanchard wrote:

A lot of those folks aren't trainable. *By definition, half the
population is of below average intelligence. *If someones mother was a
alkie or a drug addict, or even just had really bad eating habits, that
person is going to be considerably below the average.

Even that problem could be overcome if we could somehow bring back more
manual labor jobs, but the only way that would happen is with another
CCC. *Still government assistance, but at least with some return.

But another problem remains. *Some of the people you're trying to change
just plain don't want to work. *How many times have we heard of some
black kid trying to better himself while the local gang members accuse
him of "acting white". *And I'm not picking on black folks. *The same
attitudes exist in other groups such as the "po' white trash" who accuse
a child in similar circumstances of "acting uppity" or "above himself".

And they pass those attitudes on to their children. *The only way you'll
break that cycle is to remove the kids at birth and give them to a family
that will raise them properly. *And even that doesn't solve the problem
of those who are born brain-damaged.


I hate to say that you have a point. But what I am trying to do is
arm these people with something tangible, like a skill. I know a high
percentage of them will scoff at this but we need to quit just giving
money away. It is this practice of giving money away that gave these
people the attitudes they undoubtedly do. It took 40+ years to get to
this point, so I know it will take an entire generation or so to get
away from it. 20-30 years. But you need to do something instead of
just gripe about it.

A Prognostication
 

On 8/3/2011 12:36 PM, Han wrote:
Jack wrote in

Corporations don't pay taxes, period, unless they have a printing
press in their basement, they get ALL their money from YOU.

You give your money to the corporation and SOME of them pay (GE paid
ZERO, XOM paid $36BILLION, or ZERO % vs 45%)

The problem of course is first, most people are too freaking dumb to
realize business collects ALL it's money to pay taxes from YOU, and
secondly tax codes are so ****ed up some, like GE pay zip, whilst
some, like EXXON-Mobil pay a ton.


Corporations do pay taxes, whether extorted from you or me.

Government tells business the MUST collect taxes from you, they do it,
and you call that extortion?

But when they take my money and DON'T pay
taxes, I should get upset, methinks.

I think you should get upset when they interfere with competition by
forcing one business to collect more taxes from you than another.

That is why I amtotally for tax simplifications. Let's make it sort of
flat rate,
no exceptions (well, I do like my property tax and mortgage deductions).

We agree on that, except for the property tax and mortgage deductions.
Why do you think you should get these deductions?

--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com

A Prognostication
 

On 8/3/2011 12:42 PM, Han wrote:
Jack wrote in :

snipped

Jack, we agree (I think) that confiscatory taxes are a no-no, that tax
simplification and elimination of loopholes and crazy "shelters" woukld be
good, and, moreover, that we should spend as we generate income (as
governments). Now, then we should have a really good set of REALLY wise
men and women sit down and figure out how to get to a zero deficit.

We probably agree on all that. I think one place we disagree, but I'm
not sure, is that everyone should be taxed equally. I don't think the
"RICH" should be punished for being successful. It bothers me a lot.
Also, I hate hidden taxes. IE, business taxes should be eliminated
completely, since they simply pay those taxes from money collected from
you, why not just tax me to begin with instead of hiding it with
indirect taxes.

You mentioned SS taxes a bit ago, and it is one of my pet peeves.
Everyone thinks they pay something like 7.5% SS tax, BUT, your employer
ALSO pays 7.5% in your name. So when you get your pay check, it shows
7.5%, which is a lie, your employer sends in 15% to SS. You never see
any of it, and the true amount is the amount the employer sends in,
regardless of the BS written on your pay stub.

I am sure that will need to include revenue enhancement, since abolishing
Medicare/Aid or the Pentagon is not to the country's best interests.
Agriculture give-aways, perhaps eliminating those would be good, etc, etc.

I'd eliminate damn near all of them. The government is WAY to far into
the individuals business. They do little good at enormous cost in both
freedom and productivity.

--
Jack
Got Change: big government ===== BIG GOVERNMENT!
http://jbstein.com

A Prognostication
 

In article , Jack Stein wrote:
On 8/3/2011 12:34 PM, Han wrote:
Jack wrote in
:

On 8/3/2011 9:15 AM, Han wrote:

Right now the codes are penalizing regular wage earners with
much higher taxation then those of us who earn income from capital
gains and dividends. Of course, that was enacted to stimulate
investment, and perhaps rightly so. But the law of unintended (I
hope) consequences is indeed now heaping tax upon tax on wage earners
(income tax, SS tax, medicare tax etc), while unearned income doesn't
have that. Hey, I shouldn't complain, really. I am retired ...

Right now, regular wage earners ain't paying dick, compared to above
regular wage earners: In fact, many of the lower group, like my son,
received income taxes for doing less.

Tax Year 2008
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1% 38.02%
Top 5% 58.72%
Top 10% 69.94%
Top 25% 86.34%
Top 50% 97.30%
Bottom 50% 2.7%

Personally, I think everyone should pay the exact same rate, with the
exception of those that earn so little it would cost more to process
their taxes than they would pay, say $50 in taxes could be ignored.
Everyone else needs an opportunity to participate.

At any rate, your statement that "regular wage earners" are penalized
by tax codes is not only wrong, but 180° wrong.

Wait a minute. You're using statistics that divide the taxes paid among
people.

Yes, based upon what those people earn as a percentage of income. The
bottom 50% pay 2.7% of the taxes.

That is *not* true. The bottom 50% pay 2.7% of the personal income tax. They
pay a much greater share of the *total* payroll tax, because they're paying
social security too.

[...]
Well, half the people with earned income pay no income taxes at all

That also is not true. They don't pay the income tax that is labeled as
"income tax", but they *do* pay the income tax that is labeled as "social
security tax". *Both* of those are taxes on income. Only one of them is called
an "income tax" but they *are* both income taxes regardless.

A Prognostication
 

On 8/3/2011 12:54 PM, Bill wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In , Jack
wrote:
[...]

At any rate, your statement that "regular wage earners" are penalized by
tax codes is not only wrong, but 180° wrong.

No, it's not. You're ignoring the fact that "regular wage earners" pay
social
security taxes on most or all of their income, even if they pay no
personal
income tax at all, while those with unearned income (i.e. dividends,
capital
gains, and interest) do not. A great many wage earners pay
substantially more
in social security tax than they do in personal income tax. I need
look no
further than my own tax return for an example: in 2010, we paid $2500
more in
social security tax than we paid in personal income tax. They are
*both* taxes
on income, but only one is actually *called* that. And only one is
actually
paid by those whose income is entirely, or primarily, from dividends and
capital gains. Those who actually *work* for a living pay *both*. And
that's
fundamentally unfair.

All other factors (deductions, exemptions, etc.) being equal, someone
with
$100K annual income solely from dividends pays significantly less in
*total*
taxes than someone with $100K annual income solely from salary. That's
not
right.


Good point Doug. I never thought of that. That does not even take into
account that long term capital gains are taxed at a significantly lower
rate.

Long term capital gains are taxed at 15%.

SS taxes are more of a contribution to a pension fund (a bad one) than a
tax.

--
Jack
Got Change: The Individual ======= The Collective!
http://jbstein.com

A Prognostication
 

On 8/3/2011 3:23 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
In , Jack wrote:

Yes, based upon what those people earn as a percentage of income. The
bottom 50% pay 2.7% of the taxes.

That is *not* true. The bottom 50% pay 2.7% of the personal income tax. They
pay a much greater share of the *total* payroll tax, because they're paying
social security too.

That is not true, because SS tax is not a tax, but a pension fund
contribution.

[...]
Well, half the people with earned income pay no income taxes at all

That also is not true. They don't pay the income tax that is labeled as
"income tax", but they *do* pay the income tax that is labeled as "social
security tax". *Both* of those are taxes on income. Only one of them is called
an "income tax" but they *are* both income taxes regardless.

No, one is a government pension fund contribution that is called a
tax".

--
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong.
http://jbstein.com

A Prognostication
 

Jack Stein wrote in :

We agree on that (simplified taxes), except for the property tax and
mortgage deductions.
Why do you think you should get these deductions?

You're right, they are unfair to the renters. But the property tax
deduction makes a big difference for me (~12K in property taxes/year). I
don't have much of a mortgage anymore.

But try to eliminate those deductions and listen to the cries of woe ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

A Prognostication
 

Jack Stein wrote in
:

On 8/3/2011 12:42 PM, Han wrote:
Jack wrote in
:

snipped

Jack, we agree (I think) that confiscatory taxes are a no-no, that
tax simplification and elimination of loopholes and crazy "shelters"
woukld be good, and, moreover, that we should spend as we generate
income (as governments). Now, then we should have a really good set
of REALLY wise men and women sit down and figure out how to get to a
zero deficit.

We probably agree on all that. I think one place we disagree, but I'm
not sure, is that everyone should be taxed equally. I don't think the
"RICH" should be punished for being successful. It bothers me a lot.
Also, I hate hidden taxes. IE, business taxes should be eliminated
completely, since they simply pay those taxes from money collected
from you, why not just tax me to begin with instead of hiding it with
indirect taxes.

You mentioned SS taxes a bit ago, and it is one of my pet peeves.
Everyone thinks they pay something like 7.5% SS tax, BUT, your
employer ALSO pays 7.5% in your name. So when you get your pay check,
it shows 7.5%, which is a lie, your employer sends in 15% to SS. You
never see any of it, and the true amount is the amount the employer
sends in, regardless of the BS written on your pay stub.

As I understand it, SS is paid out from a trust fund. It works like a
rob Peter to pay Paul system. Current workers pay into the fund (which
has until very recently had a surplus of income). The fund pays the
current retirees. Whether you call worker and employer payments a tax or
a contribution is semantics (at times I like semantics!). The primary
thing is to keep those moneys separate from the general fund (hasn't
always been done). Whether right or wrong, other countries have the same
system of minimal pension, financed similarly. Who copied whom is not my
problem. To keep the system afloat some decades ago it was decided that
people were living longer and therefore that the SS retirement age should
go up from 65 to 67. I am in the 66 class of 1944. I think it will
always be a matter of discussion whether you get more out of it than you
put in if you live for X years after starting to collect, and how to
judge the value of the dollar paid in year X versus collected in year Y.


I am sure that will need to include revenue enhancement, since
abolishing Medicare/Aid or the Pentagon is not to the country's best
interests. Agriculture give-aways, perhaps eliminating those would be
good, etc, etc.

I'd eliminate damn near all of them. The government is WAY to far
into the individuals business. They do little good at enormous cost
in both freedom and productivity.

I'd like to eliminate most of them too, but I am not current with the
intricacies of many of these things. For instance property tax and
mortgage interest deduxtions would be difficult to get rid of, since many
people like them.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

A Prognostication
 

On 8/3/2011 1:52 PM, Bill wrote:

Well, that's somewhat the way property taxes work. If you want to a
community that spends alot on education, for instance that's your choice
and you and all of your neighbors share the cost. It's sort of
democratic too. If you don't want to support good schools, you can move
to a different neighborhood with other interests.

I don't think our country has as much of a tax problem as it does a
budget problem. At this juncture, there are no easy answers. I was not
impressed with the recent efforts of congress (either).

That brings up a couple of good questions:

For property tax purposes, does a single family _primary residence_ that
appraises at $500k derive correspondingly more benefit in police, fire,
roads, government, schools, etc. than one that costs $250k?

If not, why should it pay proportionately higher property taxes for the
same amount of benefit?

Inquiring minds looking for a rationale

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

A Prognostication
 

Swingman wrote in
:

That brings up a couple of good questions:

For property tax purposes, does a single family _primary residence_
that appraises at $500k derive correspondingly more benefit in police,
fire, roads, government, schools, etc. than one that costs $250k?

If not, why should it pay proportionately higher property taxes for
the same amount of benefit?

Inquiring minds looking for a rationale

If you can afford a more expensive home,you can afford more taxes. BIG
GRIN

I'd assume (yesss) that a bigger home would have space for more kids,
more cars, more prisons, etc. So yes, a bigger home should pay more.

Property taxes are based on many things. Some may be the number of
plumbing fixtures, the amount of living space, etc.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

A Prognostication
 

In article , Jack Stein wrote:
On 8/3/2011 3:23 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
In , Jack
wrote:

Yes, based upon what those people earn as a percentage of income. The
bottom 50% pay 2.7% of the taxes.

That is *not* true. The bottom 50% pay 2.7% of the personal income tax. They
pay a much greater share of the *total* payroll tax, because they're paying
social security too.

That is not true, because SS tax is not a tax, but a pension fund
contribution.

Garbage. Of course it's a tax. Do you have any choice about paying it? Even
the IRS calls it a tax: refer to box 4 of your W-2, labeled "Social Security
Tax Withheld". They just don't call it an *income* tax, even though it clearly
is one.


[...]
Well, half the people with earned income pay no income taxes at all

That also is not true. They don't pay the income tax that is labeled as
"income tax", but they *do* pay the income tax that is labeled as "social
security tax". *Both* of those are taxes on income. Only one of them is called
an "income tax" but they *are* both income taxes regardless.

No, one is a government pension fund contribution that is called a
tax".

Wrong. One is a tax that's called a government pension fund contribution, in
order to disguise its true nature as a tax.

A Prognostication
 

On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:03:07 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 8/3/2011 9:32 AM, Markem wrote:

Good idea as I have heard this "The weather in Houston is great 78
degrees all the time, now why anyone would want to go outside is with
tht is beyond me."

Two shop fans, blowing 105 degree, 90% humidity laden air, and the
temptation to come in from the shop the past couple of days is overwhelming.

AKA why I'm wasting time in the office at this time of day ...

Here in Southern Illinois it is about 5 degrees cooler than that, so I
can totally understand. Went through basic at Lackland AFB, July
through Sept 74 it ain't a dry heat.

Mark

A Prognostication
 

On 8/3/2011 4:28 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

That brings up a couple of good questions:

For property tax purposes, does a single family _primary residence_
that appraises at $500k derive correspondingly more benefit in police,
fire, roads, government, schools, etc. than one that costs $250k?

If not, why should it pay proportionately higher property taxes for
the same amount of benefit?

Inquiring minds looking for a rationale

If you can afford a more expensive home,you can afford more taxes.BIG
GRIN

I'd assume (yesss) that a bigger home would have space for more kids,
more cars, more prisons, etc. So yes, a bigger home should pay more.

Why? ... they don't get any more services.

Suppose your "bigger home", of the same size and quality, is in Waco
where the appraised values for an equal sized home are half that in
Houston, but the government services those tax dollars provide are
equal, if not better?

I would argue that your assumption falls apart in that, very common,
scenario.

Property taxes are based on many things. Some may be the number of
plumbing fixtures, the amount of living space, etc.

Property taxes on primary residences are almost universally based on
"appraised value" in this country. Around here these appraisals are done
by a government instituted "appraisal district".

Among other things, creating an appraisal distrcit conveniently allows
elected officials to effectively circumvent "taxation without
representation" ... IOW, no longer can you hold an elected official
accountable for raising tax rates and vote him out of office. The
appraisal district, under the thumb of the government, sets the
appraised values, which almost always has the effect of increasing tax
revenue, without the inconvenience to an elected official of increasing
tax rates ... and, even during these tough times, "appraised property
values" have not fallen at the same rate as actual real estate prices
.... not even close.

My point is that I think it would be more equitable, and allow much more
power to the taxpayer (where it arguably belongs under our
Constitution), to base single family primary residences (very important
distinction here, your one and only "homestead" so to speak) on a state
wide "square foot" basis, instead of an easily manipulated "appraised
value" basis.

still based on "size", as in your first above ...

After all, most rural land has always been taxed on the former
principal, on an acreage basis, for decades ... a universally more
equitable practice, and allowing the citizen to actually hold his
elected representatives feet to the fire a la "taxation with
representation".

Another consequence (unintended or not) is that the system generated
built-in increases in revenue without elected officials having to do
anything, has certainly served to make it more convenient to increase
the rampant government spending we see at all levels.

I'm of the opinion that property taxes on primary residences are
becoming a crushing burden, to the point that, for all practical
purposes, you simply do not own your "home" any longer ... you are
renting it from the government. Stop paying those taxes and see how long
your "ownership" stands up ... and not the usurious "penalties and
interest" that make it almost impossible to recover from a temporary
setback in fortune.

Tilting at windmills, I know ... but it irks me how these things are
structured to take rights away from citizens, and without a whimper from
same, as most folks never "realize" their property tax payments because
it is handled like "withholding" from their paycheck.

I've been around too long, methinks ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

A Prognostication
 

On 8/3/2011 4:28 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

That brings up a couple of good questions:

For property tax purposes, does a single family _primary residence_
that appraises at $500k derive correspondingly more benefit in police,
fire, roads, government, schools, etc. than one that costs $250k?

If not, why should it pay proportionately higher property taxes for
the same amount of benefit?

Inquiring minds looking for a rationale

If you can afford a more expensive home,you can afford more taxes.BIG
GRIN

I'd assume (yesss) that a bigger home would have space for more kids,
more cars, more prisons, etc. So yes, a bigger home should pay more.

Property taxes are based on many things. Some may be the number of
plumbing fixtures, the amount of living space, etc.


First off property taxes are based on many things, none of them make
sense unless you are tax man paying the appraisal district.

I have personally experienced the appraisal based on square footage,
what other homes in the vicinity are selling for regardless of size, and
aerial photographs to up the value of you home because of a storage
shed. In a single home I have had the way to determine taxable value
change at leas 3 times. So obviously one of the methods was not fair.

Now, concerning the notion that you should pay more tax because you have
a larger house can be read many ways.

1. As you mentioned, you can afford it and higher taxes. Maybe, maybe
not. Think about the housing bubble and all those people that cheated
the system to qualify for a big home loan and can't afford to pay for
them now. Should they pay more taxes?

What if some one saved and lived within their means and paid cash for a
more expensive home. Should they pay more taxes because they live more
frugally, handle their money better, and still make the same money as
those that poof off every cent they earn and live in an much much
smaller home but get the same services as the expensive home buyer
making the same money??


2. A bigger house affords you to raise you a larger family...Really? It
seems to me that those that have the largest families live in less
valuable homes and by in large pay the least amount of taxes. All those
deductions. Many don't know how to stop having kids, and they ain't
smart enough to earn a decent living any way so they get more government
help.

Now lets reconsider again why a more expensive home owner should pay
more taxes...

If assumptions are a valid point for determining taxability lets explore
other possible options.

1. Lets look at taxing those that did better in school and or those that
spend responsibly. Certainly they have the mental resources to figure
out how to pay more taxes. Seems fair, they have the potential.

2. Lets look at taxing those that can afford to retire, hell they can
afford to retire, let them pay more taxes, they can afford it.

See any problems with any of this yet?

I still say every one is liable to pay the same amount of tax, period.
A single person pays "x". A married couple pays "2x". If they have a
child they pay "3x" until that child moves away from home or can afford
to pay his own tax. 3 kids, "5x".

Cant afford to pay taxes for 3 kids, you can afford to raise 3 kids.

That truly is the only fair method.

A Prognostication
 

On 8/3/2011 2:45 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
On 8/3/2011 3:23 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
In , Jack
wrote:

Yes, based upon what those people earn as a percentage of income. The
bottom 50% pay 2.7% of the taxes.

That is *not* true. The bottom 50% pay 2.7% of the personal income
tax. They
pay a much greater share of the *total* payroll tax, because they're
paying
social security too.

That is not true, because SS tax is not a tax, but a pension fund
contribution.

[...]
Well, half the people with earned income pay no income taxes at all

That also is not true. They don't pay the income tax that is labeled as
"income tax", but they *do* pay the income tax that is labeled as "social
security tax". *Both* of those are taxes on income. Only one of them
is called
an "income tax" but they *are* both income taxes regardless.

No, one is a government pension fund contribution that is called a
tax".



Well the SS scenario you have mentioned is how it is supposed to work...

But in real life if the government is using your SS contributions to run
the government it is a tax. The past weeks threat of missed SS payment
checks would never have been a second thought if that fund was a
separate entity not mixed in with the general fund. Today the SS fund
is simply another Government liability account. Than you Prez Clinton.

A Prognostication
 

On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:34:00 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

On 8/3/2011 12:54 PM, Bill wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In , Jack
wrote:
[...]

At any rate, your statement that "regular wage earners" are penalized by
tax codes is not only wrong, but 180° wrong.

No, it's not. You're ignoring the fact that "regular wage earners" pay
social
security taxes on most or all of their income, even if they pay no
personal
income tax at all, while those with unearned income (i.e. dividends,
capital
gains, and interest) do not. A great many wage earners pay
substantially more
in social security tax than they do in personal income tax. I need
look no
further than my own tax return for an example: in 2010, we paid $2500
more in
social security tax than we paid in personal income tax. They are
*both* taxes
on income, but only one is actually *called* that. And only one is
actually
paid by those whose income is entirely, or primarily, from dividends and
capital gains. Those who actually *work* for a living pay *both*. And
that's
fundamentally unfair.

All other factors (deductions, exemptions, etc.) being equal, someone
with
$100K annual income solely from dividends pays significantly less in
*total*
taxes than someone with $100K annual income solely from salary. That's
not
right.


Good point Doug. I never thought of that. That does not even take into
account that long term capital gains are taxed at a significantly lower
rate.

Long term capital gains are taxed at 15%.

SS taxes are more of a contribution to a pension fund (a bad one) than a
tax.

Technically, it's a tax. The point that hasn't been raised is that the
low-wage earners will get a higher percentage out of SS, as well. The whole
plane is shifted away from the makers to the takers.

A Prognostication
 

On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:24:20 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 8/3/2011 4:28 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

That brings up a couple of good questions:

For property tax purposes, does a single family _primary residence_
that appraises at $500k derive correspondingly more benefit in police,
fire, roads, government, schools, etc. than one that costs $250k?

If not, why should it pay proportionately higher property taxes for
the same amount of benefit?

Inquiring minds looking for a rationale

If you can afford a more expensive home,you can afford more taxes.BIG
GRIN

I'd assume (yesss) that a bigger home would have space for more kids,
more cars, more prisons, etc. So yes, a bigger home should pay more.

Why? ... they don't get any more services.

Suppose your "bigger home", of the same size and quality, is in Waco
where the appraised values for an equal sized home are half that in
Houston, but the government services those tax dollars provide are
equal, if not better?

Are the mil rates in Waco the same as Houston? Most (not all, amazingly[*])
jurisdictions divide the total costs by the "grand list" of properties to set
the mil rate for that year. A city-wide reassessment theoretically does
nothing, then.
[*] it's not done that way here, hence a windfall when property values
increase and budget shortfall when property values go down. Dumb.

I would argue that your assumption falls apart in that, very common,
scenario.

Property taxes are based on many things. Some may be the number of
plumbing fixtures, the amount of living space, etc.

Property taxes on primary residences are almost universally based on
"appraised value" in this country. Around here these appraisals are done
by a government instituted "appraisal district".

Not everywhere. In VT, they added so much per bathroom, more if it was tiled,
for instance. I guess it was really a shortcut to estimating the value of the
house. $$/bedroom, I can see. More bedrooms ~= more kids in school (though I
have 3/0). More bathrooms could ~ more sewer, except it doesn't. ;-)

Among other things, creating an appraisal distrcit conveniently allows
elected officials to effectively circumvent "taxation without
representation" ... IOW, no longer can you hold an elected official
accountable for raising tax rates and vote him out of office. The
appraisal district, under the thumb of the government, sets the
appraised values, which almost always has the effect of increasing tax
revenue, without the inconvenience to an elected official of increasing
tax rates ... and, even during these tough times, "appraised property
values" have not fallen at the same rate as actual real estate prices
... not even close.

In normal circumstances, a uniform change in property values wouldn't matter.
The costs are what matters. If they're spending too much, vote 'em out.

My point is that I think it would be more equitable, and allow much more
power to the taxpayer (where it arguably belongs under our
Constitution), to base single family primary residences (very important
distinction here, your one and only "homestead" so to speak) on a state
wide "square foot" basis, instead of an easily manipulated "appraised
value" basis.

Why tax property at all. Property has nothing to do with the "ability to
pay", or anything else. A property tax is no different than a tax on your
bank account.

still based on "size", as in your first above ...

After all, most rural land has always been taxed on the former
principal, on an acreage basis, for decades ... a universally more
equitable practice, and allowing the citizen to actually hold his
elected representatives feet to the fire a la "taxation with
representation".

In VT, they taxed land on its "best use". If a farm was zoned for
single-family, too bad. Many farms went under because of taxes.

Another consequence (unintended or not) is that the system generated
built-in increases in revenue without elected officials having to do
anything, has certainly served to make it more convenient to increase
the rampant government spending we see at all levels.

Right. Attack the spending, not the taxes. If spending is going up faster
than (or even equal to) inflation + population, fire the bums. ...on all
levels.

I'm of the opinion that property taxes on primary residences are
becoming a crushing burden, to the point that, for all practical
purposes, you simply do not own your "home" any longer ... you are
renting it from the government. Stop paying those taxes and see how long
your "ownership" stands up ... and not the usurious "penalties and
interest" that make it almost impossible to recover from a temporary
setback in fortune.

Of course. As I've said, I moved out of VT mainly because there was no way I
could afford the taxes after I retired. ...and that was only HALF what you
pay.

Tilting at windmills, I know ... but it irks me how these things are
structured to take rights away from citizens, and without a whimper from
same, as most folks never "realize" their property tax payments because
it is handled like "withholding" from their paycheck.

Yep.

I've been around too long, methinks ...

You just haven't been loud enough. ;-)

A Prognostication
 

Doug Miller wrote the following:
In article , Swingman wrote:
[...]

Basically, this is NOT the same country I grew up in ... if you weren't
here 50 years ago, you have NO idea how much it's changed, arguably, but
IMO, for the worse!


Isn't that the truth. My home town is Muskegon, Michigan, a city of some 60K
people, I think, when I lived there in the 1960s. I remember frequently going
downtown to the library, on the bus, *alone*, at the age of six or seven. It
was perfectly safe.

Any parent who allowed a child to do that now would be facing an investigation
by Child Protective Services.



As a kid living in the North Bronx, NY, in the late 1940s, we used to
take the subway south until it became elevated next to Yankee Stadium.
With free tickets from the NYC PAL (Police Athletic League) we watched
all the Yankee and other AL greats in the late 1940s.
My parents and I left the Bronx and moved to the suburbs when I was 14 YO.


--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

A Prognostication
 

Somebody wrote:

Which is why we should stop taxing income altogether, and tax
consumption
instead.

Sales taxes are good, flat tax would be good. What we have now
sucks,
big time.
------------------------------------

Usage (sales) and flat taxes are the most regressive forms of taxation
known.

Low income earners are forced to spend a larger portion of their
income for necessities vs. a higher income earner, thus low income
earners pay a higher portion of their income on usage taxes.

Lew

A Prognostication
 

On 8/3/2011 7:22 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 8/3/2011 6:56 AM, Han wrote:

Doug, wake up. You can't cut income and increase expenses like Bush did
and expect to NOT increase the deficit. It's obvious from all statistics
that wealth has increased mnuch more for the wealthy than for the not so
wealthy. The only rightful way is to correct that imbalance or prepare
for a revolution.

I'm sorta thinking that the root cause of any current "imbalance" is NOT
based on the tax code so, instead of trying to fix it with the tax code,
doesn't it make more sense to get at the root cause?

At least part of the "root cause" is that some people, through
education, experience, natural ability, etc. know how to create a
surplus and others don't. If you took one of each and started them out
on an equal footing, before long one would be rich and the other would
be poor. How do you propose to "get at" the unequal distribution of
talent and ability for making and holding onto wealth?

A Prognostication
 

"Swingman" wrote:

I'm sorta thinking that the root cause of any current "imbalance" is
NOT based on the tax code so, instead of trying to fix it with the
tax code, doesn't it make more sense to get at the root cause?
--------------------------------
What?

You don't have a problem with a 14,000 page federal income tax law?

I'm surprisedGrin.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that ****Can-101 should apply and do a
serious rewrite of the tax laws.

Can't you just see the lobbyists on "K" street drooling at their jowls
if it ever
came to pass.


Lew

A Prognostication
 

On 8/3/2011 6:47 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Somebody wrote:

Which is why we should stop taxing income altogether, and tax
consumption
instead.

Sales taxes are good, flat tax would be good. What we have now
sucks,
big time.
------------------------------------

Usage (sales) and flat taxes are the most regressive forms of taxation
known.

Low income earners are forced to spend a larger portion of their
income for necessities vs. a higher income earner, thus low income
earners pay a higher portion of their income on usage taxes.

They're regressive in the sense that exclusions for food, clothing and
shelter, your "necessities", are not always forthcoming from our governors.

You would think that a warm and fuzzy, progressive leaning society would
allow those exclusions, but they are not applied for the welfare of the
people, but only in a manner to insure the iron rule of of the oligarchy.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

O/T: A Prognostication
 

On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:53:17 -0700, busbus wrote:

But you need to do something instead of just gripe about it.

What needs to be done is to bring back jobs for unskilled labor. But
other than point that out to the politicians, there's not much an old
geezer like me can do.

BTW, how many migrant farm workers do we import every year because
American workers won't do stoop labor? At least that's what the farmers
(i.e. farm corporations) claim.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

A Prognostication
 

On 8/3/2011 9:21 AM, Han wrote:
Jack wrote in :

On 8/2/2011 11:13 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Cut taxes so that additional debt is created.

Except since at least JFK, cutting taxes has ALWAYS resulted in
increased revenues.

Fudged statistics, I'm sure. At least it defies logic that by cutting
income you'll get more money in.

No it doesn't. If ABC Company and DEF company both make widgets at a
cost of $6 each and sell them at $10 each, they'll have the same income.
But if ABC Company cuts its selling price to $9 each, it cuts its
income by a dollar for each widget it sells, so it will make less money,
right? Wrong. It stimulates the market - more people can buy widgets
when they cost less, so more total widgets can be sold. Plus, some
people that would have bought from DEF now buy from ABC to save a buck.
As a result, by reducing its price and thus its incremental profit
margin, ABC gets more money. It's more complicated, but reducing
incremental tax rates has the same overall effect -- it stimulates
growth in the private sector, which ultimately results in increased revenue.

A Prognostication
 

"Doug Miller" wrote:

No, it's not. You're ignoring the fact that "regular wage earners"
pay social
security taxes on most or all of their income, even if they pay no
personal
income tax at all, while those with unearned income (i.e. dividends,
capital
gains, and interest) do not. A great many wage earners pay
substantially more
in social security tax than they do in personal income tax. I need
look no
further than my own tax return for an example: in 2010, we paid
$2500 more in
social security tax than we paid in personal income tax. They are
*both* taxes
on income, but only one is actually *called* that. And only one is
actually
paid by those whose income is entirely, or primarily, from dividends
and
capital gains. Those who actually *work* for a living pay *both*.
And that's
fundamentally unfair.

All other factors (deductions, exemptions, etc.) being equal,
someone with
$100K annual income solely from dividends pays significantly less in
*total*
taxes than someone with $100K annual income solely from salary.
That's not
right.
---------------------------------
You do a great job of making Obama's case to increase the taxes on
that part of a $250K or greater income above $250K.

If you earn $250K/year, then by all means you should vote Republican.

If you earn less than $250K/year, the Republicans a neither using
Vaseline nor giving you a kiss as they stick it to you while shearing
the sheep you have allowed yourselves to become.

Lew
..

A Prognostication
 

On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 08:00:12 -0500, Leon wrote:

So penalize the wealthy for being wealthy. Not much of an incentive to
try to get ahead. Seems that penalizing the wealthy for being fruitful
would create a lower class that does not want to produce and rather wait
for hand outs.

Idon't remember many of the upper class turning to welfare when the
marginal tax rates were 90% or better.

And someone said long ago that no fortune was ever acquired in a manner
that would stand up to the light of day. IOW, you can't get rich by
working hard and acting in an ethical manner. And yes, I'm sure there
are a few exceptions to that rule, but not many.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

A Prognostication
 

On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:43:16 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

Well, half the people with earned income pay no income taxes at all, and
a whole boat load of them get paid to not pay any taxes at all, that
much we know.

We do? Show some proof please.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

A Prognostication
 

On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:38:58 -0500, Leon wrote:

The only fair taxation would be simply that "everyone" pay the exact
same taxes each year. Every one would pay, no deductions, and every one
would seriously expect much much more out of the elected. No victim,
and no privileged tax payers

There's a number called the poverty level. No one whose income is at or
below that should have to pay any taxes. All their income goes for the
necessities of life.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

A Prognostication
 

On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 00:14:38 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 08:00:12 -0500, Leon wrote:

So penalize the wealthy for being wealthy. Not much of an incentive to
try to get ahead. Seems that penalizing the wealthy for being fruitful
would create a lower class that does not want to produce and rather wait
for hand outs.

Idon't remember many of the upper class turning to welfare when the
marginal tax rates were 90% or better.

RR only did two films a year because of this. Why work harder? I'm sure he
wasn't the only one.


Let me tell you how it will be,
There’s one for you, nineteen for me,
‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don’t take it all.
‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.

(If you drive a car ), I’ll tax the street,
(If you try to sit ), I’ll tax your seat,
(If you get too cold ), I’ll tax the heat,
(If you take a walk ), I’ll tax your feet.
Taxman.

‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
Don’t ask me what I want it for
(Haha! Mister Wilson!)
If you don’t want to pay some more
(Haha! Mister Heath!),
‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.

Now my advice for those who die, (Taxman!)
Declare the pennies on your eyes, (Taxman!)
‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
And you’re working for no-one but me,
(Taxman).


And someone said long ago that no fortune was ever acquired in a manner
that would stand up to the light of day. IOW, you can't get rich by
working hard and acting in an ethical manner. And yes, I'm sure there
are a few exceptions to that rule, but not many.

Utter nonsense.

A Prognostication
 

On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 00:21:17 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:38:58 -0500, Leon wrote:

The only fair taxation would be simply that "everyone" pay the exact
same taxes each year. Every one would pay, no deductions, and every one
would seriously expect much much more out of the elected. No victim,
and no privileged tax payers

There's a number called the poverty level. No one whose income is at or
below that should have to pay any taxes. All their income goes for the
necessities of life.

Then they shouldn't have any vote to control other people's money, either.

A Prognostication
 

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in news:hY-
:

But in real life if the government is using your SS contributions to run
the government it is a tax. The past weeks threat of missed SS payment
checks would never have been a second thought if that fund was a
separate entity not mixed in with the general fund. Today the SS fund
is simply another Government liability account. Than you Prez Clinton.

LBJ started using the SS for the Vietnam war, I'm told. Thatwas before I
lived in the US, and certainly before I could vote.

I'm not sure who said SS wouldn't go out. Since it is officially a
separate kitty, it should have gone out. Now the debt ceiling is raised,
we'll never find out ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

A Prognostication
 

" wrote in
:

The point that hasn't been raised is that the
low-wage earners will get a higher percentage out of SS, as well. The
whole plane is shifted away from the makers to the takers.

I thought that payments were based upon your earnings, and the number of
quarters you were employed. At higher (retired) income levels, SS is
starting to be taxed, I believe.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

A Prognostication
 

On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 09:23:18 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Every time taxes have been cut, revenue has increased.

Statistics please. IIRC, OMB, or maybe CBO stated that revenues went
down for several years after the Bush tax cuts and then slowly increased
as the economy grew.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

A Prognostication
 

On 04 Aug 2011 00:37:04 GMT, Han wrote:

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in news:hY-
:

But in real life if the government is using your SS contributions to run
the government it is a tax. The past weeks threat of missed SS payment
checks would never have been a second thought if that fund was a
separate entity not mixed in with the general fund. Today the SS fund
is simply another Government liability account. Than you Prez Clinton.

LBJ started using the SS for the Vietnam war, I'm told. Thatwas before I
lived in the US, and certainly before I could vote.

I'm not sure who said SS wouldn't go out. Since it is officially a
separate kitty, it should have gone out. Now the debt ceiling is raised,
we'll never find out ...

SS is *NOT* a separate kitty. It's a tax and a liability, like any other.
That's the way it had to be to get SCOTUS to pass on it.

A Prognostication
 

On 04 Aug 2011 00:38:54 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

The point that hasn't been raised is that the
low-wage earners will get a higher percentage out of SS, as well. The
whole plane is shifted away from the makers to the takers.

I thought that payments were based upon your earnings, and the number of
quarters you were employed.

Based upon, yes. A linear function of, no way (either earnings or quarters).
I've made about 7x the income (paid 7x the SS tax), over my life, as has my
wife. Her SS income would be about 1/3 of mine. No, not linear at all.

At higher (retired) income levels, SS is starting to be taxed, I believe.

All income is the same. SS at low levels of income isn't taxed because the
bottom two-fifths don't pay income tax (there is no SS tax on SS, either).