|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 18 2016 03:23 Introvert wrote:
Keeping the second amendment intact is an excellent reason to exercise their right to refuse.
In other news, Graham fundraising for Cruz. Wonder what the weather is like in hell today.
Holy schneikes, I had no idea the 2nd amendment was about to be abolished by judicial decree! What will we do without the well-regulated militia it authorizes to bear firearms? 
|
I like the IRS. I just did my taxes and I only owe $400 bucks (retirement contribution, individual and standard exemption plus education credit are dank). That works out to a phat refund because my withholding is based on my yearly income, and I only worked half a year. My effective tax rate is like... 1% lmao.
Wouldn't be surprised if KwarK beat me though. 
|
On March 18 2016 03:43 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 03:40 Gorsameth wrote:On March 18 2016 03:36 Nyxisto wrote:
Apparently dismantling the IRS is viable now. Why again would someone dismantle one of the best working tax agencies on the planet? because they think all taxes are evil while forgetting what it does for them? Shouldn't be long now until someone in this thread argues why taxes are equivalent to being robbed at gunpoint.
Don't forget slavery!
|
United States43957 Posts
On March 18 2016 03:47 ticklishmusic wrote:I like the IRS. I just did my taxes and I only owe $400 bucks (retirement contribution, individual and standard exemption plus education credit are dank). That works out to a phat refund because my withholding is based on my yearly income, and I only worked half a year. My effective tax rate is like... 1% lmao. Wouldn't be surprised if KwarK beat me though.
Negative tax rate checking in. We grossed about 70k MFJ but we're in a low cost of living area. Between the Saver's Credit and the American Opportunity Tax Credit we came in at about -0.6% on gross or about -1% on AGI.
|
IRS works surprisingly well considering how often it gets its funds fucking gutted all the time. They're essentially the whipping boy for the conservatives and liberals alike.
|
United States43957 Posts
On March 18 2016 03:55 wei2coolman wrote:
IRS works surprisingly well considering how often it gets its funds fucking gutted all the time. They're essentially the whipping boy for the conservatives and liberals alike.
Which is kind of insane because if you give the IRS $100 then you don't have $100 less to spend on things you like, you have $700 more to spend on things you like. Giving money to the IRS is like getting paid to have all citizens be equal under the law.
|
On March 18 2016 03:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 03:36 Nyxisto wrote:
Apparently dismantling the IRS is viable now. Why again would someone dismantle one of the best working tax agencies on the planet? In fairness the American tax system in which individuals cock up their tax forms, overpay in tax all year and then pay a third party a lot of money to file routine documents in order to get the tax overpayment refunded is fucking retarded and a product mostly of lobbying by those third parties. I have a theory that it exists mostly to deceive low income America into thinking that they are big tax payers who are being robbed by foreign aid/the homeless/black people. After all, they pay taxes all year and what do they have to show for it (other than a check once a year giving all the money back). Nothing! (other than public services of which they are a net beneficiary) But that's a case for reforming the system. Abolishing the IRS is a very strange idea.
I happen to think that those third parties (e.g. The accountants I use) do a fine job and earn their money's worth for navigating a tax policy that is convoluted be necessity for good economic policy. And you are free not to withhold taxes if you prefer a tax bill at the end to a refund. Which I wouldn't recommend.
|
In a major concession to critics and animal welfare groups, SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment Inc. says it will stop breeding captive killer whales.
SeaWorld's treatment of its killer whales, or orcas, was put in the spotlight three years ago by Blackfish, a documentary that examined the death of SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau, who was killed by an orca named Tilikum. Since then, in a steady campaign on social media, critics have demanded SeaWorld end its orca breeding program.
In an agreement with the Humane Society of the United States, SeaWorld says it now will do so. In a news release, HSUS President and CEO Wayne Pacelle said, "Today's announcement signals that the era of captive display of orcas will end."
SeaWorld President and CEO Joel Manby said in the same news release, "As one of the largest rescue organizations in the world, we will increase our focus on rescue operations — so that the thousands of stranded marine mammals like dolphins and sea lions that cannot be released back to the wild will have a place to go."
The director of Blackfish, Gabriela Cowperthwaite, called it "a defining moment. The fact that SeaWorld is doing away with orca breeding marks truly meaningful change."
For SeaWorld, the agreement resolves an issue that has held up expansion of the company's San Diego theme park. Last year, the company announced it would phase out theatrical orca shows at SeaWorld, San Diego.
Plans for a new, expanded orca habitat were submitted for approval to a state regulatory body, the California Coastal Commission. The commission gave its approval, but only if the theme park agreed to end captive breeding of orcas. SeaWorld went to court, arguing in a lawsuit that the commission doesn't have the authority or the expertise to make such a demand.
But with today's announcement, SeaWorld is now agreeing to end captive breeding, not just in San Diego, but also at its two other SeaWorld parks, in San Antonio, Texas, and Orlando, Fla. It is a major concession that also signals a change in SeaWorld's business model.
Source
|
I'll let KwarK do the talking on this, but the idea that the current tax system is necessarily complicated because of good economic policy is simply not true. Yes, the credit system and way deductions work ends up benefitting those who understand the system or can afford to have their taxes prepared for them, but that hardly accounts for everyone filing taxes. Furthermore, there isn't any real basis for arguing that a simplified tax code would not, by virtue of its simplicity relative to the current system, provide for good economic policy. Simple can be just as good, if not better, given the hurdles currently in place.
|
On March 18 2016 03:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 03:47 ticklishmusic wrote:I like the IRS. I just did my taxes and I only owe $400 bucks (retirement contribution, individual and standard exemption plus education credit are dank). That works out to a phat refund because my withholding is based on my yearly income, and I only worked half a year. My effective tax rate is like... 1% lmao. Wouldn't be surprised if KwarK beat me though. Negative tax rate checking in. We grossed about 70k MFJ but we're in a low cost of living area. Between the Saver's Credit and the American Opportunity Tax Credit we came in at about -0.6% on gross or about -1% on AGI.
I bow to your skills. I don't qualify for Saver's because I was in school. On the other hand, I got the education credit which was nice.
America is a gr8 country.
|
Donald Trump wants to lead the Republican Party. The Republican Party still isn't sure what it wants to do with Donald Trump.
Trump has begun urging party officials to unite behind him as he moves closer to the GOP presidential nomination, promising to campaign for vulnerable Republican incumbents and expand the party's majorities in Congress. But the GOP's senators, instead of welcoming him with open arms, are furiously developing unique plans to pitch and maintain their own personal political appeal with blue-state voters, separate from the brash businessman and his 62 percent unfavorable rating, which many party strategists believe would poison down-ballot candidates' chances if Trump tops the Republican ticket.
In New Hampshire, GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte's campaign will rely on door-knocking and person-to-person interactions to maintain her independent brand, a strategy that other candidates in small states or districts may favor. Ohio Sen. Rob Portman and others will lean on hefty campaign bank accounts and TV ads to define themselves and their Democratic opponents separately from the presidential race. Sen. Ron Johnson could play up his own blunt manner in Wisconsin while avoiding Trump's sharper edges. And in Pennsylvania, Sen. Pat Toomey is banking on a moderate policy achievements and his state's historic proclivity for ticket-splitting.
"A grand strategy would require a one-size-fits-all approach, and there isn't one," said Josh Holmes, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's former chief of staff. "The grand strategy was to not have a [presidential] candidate who is trailing the Democrat by 12 points."
The patchwork, choose-your-own-adventure approach emerging is a marked departure from the GOP's cohesive messaging and national strategies of recent elections. But Trump would be a very different presidential nominee. Republicans believe their incumbents can use these customized approaches to motivate cross-party voters and ward off a Trump-led disaster. But presidential and congressional results have been converging for years as those voters became rarer around the country. Democrats believe they're watching a familiar scene develop — but this time from the other side.
Source
|
United States43957 Posts
On March 18 2016 04:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 03:42 KwarK wrote:On March 18 2016 03:36 Nyxisto wrote:
Apparently dismantling the IRS is viable now. Why again would someone dismantle one of the best working tax agencies on the planet? In fairness the American tax system in which individuals cock up their tax forms, overpay in tax all year and then pay a third party a lot of money to file routine documents in order to get the tax overpayment refunded is fucking retarded and a product mostly of lobbying by those third parties. I have a theory that it exists mostly to deceive low income America into thinking that they are big tax payers who are being robbed by foreign aid/the homeless/black people. After all, they pay taxes all year and what do they have to show for it (other than a check once a year giving all the money back). Nothing! (other than public services of which they are a net beneficiary) But that's a case for reforming the system. Abolishing the IRS is a very strange idea. I happen to think that those third parties (e.g. The accountants I use) do a fine job and earn their money's worth for navigating a tax policy that is convoluted be necessity for good economic policy. And you are free not to withhold taxes if you prefer a tax bill at the end to a refund. Which I wouldn't recommend.
Are you aware that pretty much every other first world country doesn't do individual tax accounting but instead simply calculates it for you and taxes you on a PAYE basis? This is a $10b industry that is funded primarily by leeching money from the tax refunds (because it's free money from the government so of course they can have some of it for getting it on my behalf) from people who need the money the most.
The American tax system is gloriously convoluted which makes it obscenely fun for people like me who enjoy learning about systems and then breaking them (for your information I didn't withhold taxes last year because I have a negative tax rate) and a nightmare for the average American. As a rule whenever anything is advocated for the good of the common man by his betters you can assume it will primarily be used by his betters at the expense of the common man. The convoluted American tax system is an excellent example of that, the idea is that the tax incentives will encourage the working man to make good decisions, to save for retirement, invest in education and so forth. But that assumes that the average man actually has a working understanding of the tax credits available, how they work, how to apply for them and so forth. And remember, this is a nation where most people will tell you that sometimes a pay raise isn't worth it because it'll move you up a tax bracket and you'll be taxed more than you were before (credits notwithstanding).
It is not convoluted out of economic need. America is the only country that does this and would be absolutely fine by hugely simplifying how individual taxes are calculated and collected. America could very easily have businesses report income directly to the IRS and then use PAYE rather than W4s so that the tax collected was actually the tax due and not the random layman's estimation of the tax due based upon a form he doesn't understand. It's convoluted because it's a pork industry created out of lobbying. And that's it.
You pay your accountant. That works for me. I am an accountant. But I'm telling you that no value is being created. You're paying them to untie a knot that the accountant lobbied to be tied.
|
On March 18 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:
I blow to your skills.
|
On March 18 2016 03:43 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 03:33 Mohdoo wrote:On March 18 2016 03:23 Introvert wrote:
Keeping the second amendment intact is an excellent reason to exercise their right to refuse.
In other news, Graham fundraising for Cruz. Wonder what the weather is like in hell today. In what world is Cruz less divisive than Trump? I honestly don't understand how the establishment can think Cruz is a viable candidate. Maybe they want him to run so that he will lose so that they will finally be rid of him? Use ruining Cruz' career to sink Trump's ship? Losing a general wouldn't ruin his career. I think they figure that A) they know what they get with Cruz. This seems similar to Graham's reasoning. B) they don't think losing with Cruz is bad for the party. C) while Cruz is not the easiest candidate to elect in a general, they figure odds are better than Trump. They look at the Trump numbers, see the riots, etc and go "no thanks."
Basically the establishment is hoping a Cruz loss in the general will undermine the "our nominees haven't been conservative enough" narrative and let them get an establishment candidate elected next time.
Trump terrifies them because they know that if he wins the nomination their donor class will revolt, and the rest of the party won't care. That's a problem for them because they like all the schmoozing and other benefits they get from buddying up to the donor class.
|
On March 18 2016 04:15 frazzle wrote:
rip me
if i ever run for public office this will come back to haunt me
|
On March 18 2016 03:40 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 03:36 Nyxisto wrote:
Apparently dismantling the IRS is viable now. Why again would someone dismantle one of the best working tax agencies on the planet? because they think all taxes are evil while forgetting what it does for them?
Conservatives don't think taxes are evil--they think taxes should be local.
Paying taxes so that someone they don't know gets medical care in some town they'll never go to makes no sense to them.
Paying local taxes so that the cop who keeps outsiders out of their town gets payed--they are okay with that. Paying taxes so that the roads they use, or the utilities they need keep running--they are okay with that.
The core of the conservative structure is that people should pay for the things they use, not the things they do not use.
As an example: GOP is fine with taxes being spent on the military. Since the military is there to protect them. its not fine with universal healthcare--because why would someone pay for someone else's healthcare? Which is usually why the argument is privatized healthcare, privatized education, etc...
|
United States43957 Posts
To put it simply. The way it works in the UK is as follows
Company plans to pay you $X. It reports this to Inland Revenue. Inland Revenue tells the company to take $Y from that. Company gives you $X-Y and gives the government $Y. At the end of the year the company sends the Inland Revenue a summary and they calculate if you've overpaid and if you have you get a check.
The way it works in the US is as follows
Company plans to pay you $X. They ask you how much of that you'd like to withhold for taxes. However you don't fucking know. They give you a worksheet. The worksheet asks you to enter 1 for your spouse and 1 if you have at least $2000 of child or dependent care expenses. You go through the worksheet which is designed to account for the various credits you may be eligible so you don't overwithhold too much. Then you call your dad and ask him what he did on his W4 and he says that he always puts 0 because he doesn't want to owe tax and he always gets a big refund. You take another look at the form, if your total income will be less than $70,000 ($100,000) if married enter 2 for each eligible child. You write 0 on it.
Company receives W4. The W4 tells them how much of your pay to give to the IRS. This is not the amount the IRS wants. This is the amount you told them to give the IRS because fuck it. Company gives $Y to the IRS, an arbitrary high number and you receive $X-Y. At the end of the year the IRS now have 12$Y but they only wanted $Z. You are therefore owed 12$Y-$Z. But you don't know how much $Z is because fuck all of this. A third party company approaches you and offers to calculate how much $Z is for you and then get the IRS to give back 12$Y-$Z if you give them 0.1*(12$Y-$Z). You agree.
You then bitch about how high your tax rate was and complain about immigrants while failing to understand that Z was always $0.
|
United States43957 Posts
On March 18 2016 04:08 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 03:54 KwarK wrote:On March 18 2016 03:47 ticklishmusic wrote:I like the IRS. I just did my taxes and I only owe $400 bucks (retirement contribution, individual and standard exemption plus education credit are dank). That works out to a phat refund because my withholding is based on my yearly income, and I only worked half a year. My effective tax rate is like... 1% lmao. Wouldn't be surprised if KwarK beat me though. Negative tax rate checking in. We grossed about 70k MFJ but we're in a low cost of living area. Between the Saver's Credit and the American Opportunity Tax Credit we came in at about -0.6% on gross or about -1% on AGI. I bow to your skills. I don't qualify for Saver's because I was in school. On the other hand, I got the education credit which was nice. America is a gr8 country.
Our AGI was $35,999. When my wife told her financial adviser he laughed. The cutoff point for the full $2000 on the Saver's Credit is $36,000. We both know people who desperately need things like the Saver's Credit but don't get it because the system is reactionary. You go to the H&R Block at the end of the year and tell them what you did and then they tell you what you get. What people need to do is go there at the start of the year and tell them what they want to get and then be told what they have to do. But that's not how the system is built. If you know the system well enough to pull a stunt like a $35,999 AGI the chances are incredibly low that you actually need the Saver's Credit.
Those most in need of help are almost always those least able of taking advantage of the systems put in place to help them. The primary design factor in creating these programs should always be accessibility because without that they're nothing but tax dodges for people who don't need them.
|
On March 18 2016 04:24 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 03:40 Gorsameth wrote:On March 18 2016 03:36 Nyxisto wrote:
Apparently dismantling the IRS is viable now. Why again would someone dismantle one of the best working tax agencies on the planet? because they think all taxes are evil while forgetting what it does for them? The core of the conservative structure is that people should pay for the things they use, not the things they do not use.
And this overly simplistic view of society is probably playing a role in the slow demise of the party.
|
On March 18 2016 04:24 Naracs_Duc wrote:
As an example: GOP is fine with taxes being spent on the military. Since the military is there to protect them. its not fine with universal healthcare--because why would someone pay for someone else's healthcare? Which is usually why the argument is privatized healthcare, privatized education, etc...
The military isn't protecting anybody on a personal and communal level, universal healthcare on the other hand has some direct communal impact. I'd argue you can make the conservative argument the other way around, the problem is that conservatism has somehow devolved to corporate jingoism to a degree that other forms of it in the US now don't seem to exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
