|
On June 29 2008 03:36 tiffany wrote:
after all the posts that have rebuked the nonsense you wrote in your OP, you are still putting some blame on obama? do you not possess an ounce of logic or what.
your "friends" and their parents hiding their money has nothing to do with obama, go whine to them.
actually it does
obama's "tax reform" doesn't target those areas at all
he increases estate tax exemption-which only serves to aid those people whom can hide their assets as its hard to hide property values
increases reported income brackets to 250k+ which only serves to slightly increase the amount of reported income these people can pay
he's barking up the wrong tree for funds
if he wants funds he needs to go after the tax cheaters, like the people that claim pets are dependents, et. al not tax a rapidly shrinking group more money
|
United States24497 Posts
The goal of Alternative Minimum Tax is to make sure rich people claiming lots of exemptions still owe their fair share. If you are not familiar with it, make sure you read up on it (and I wouldn't go just by wikipedia).
Edit: my coworker is going to hit 6 figures soon as a teacher, as will his wife, and they are starting to get screwed over by AMT even though they aren't wealthy at all after they pay off their house :p
|
On June 29 2008 03:55 micronesia wrote:The goal of Alternative Minimum Tax is to make sure rich people claiming lots of exemptions still owe their fair share. If you are not familiar with it, make sure you read up on it (and I wouldn't go just by wikipedia). Edit: my coworker is going to hit 6 figures soon as a teacher, as will his wife, and they are starting to get screwed over by AMT even though they aren't wealthy at all after they pay off their house :p
but isn't there going to be all that "AMT" reform nonesense that both Obama and Mccain are sprouting? granted probably everybody is being screwed over by AMT one way or another but still it doesn't prevent people from geting full financial aid from colleges or applying for "need-based" scholarships, which is bullshit b/c less fortunate people that could be applying are being shut out by asset hiders with "low income" and superior credentials due to more opportunity.
|
On June 29 2008 02:36 il0seonpurpose wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2008 01:57 DrainX wrote:You should come to Sweden  Here anyone with a good income pays around 50% taxes  yeah but then you all get free insurance and college fees?
Yes ofc. But so would the US if they had higher taxes.
|
On June 29 2008 04:11 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2008 02:36 il0seonpurpose wrote:On June 29 2008 01:57 DrainX wrote:You should come to Sweden Here anyone with a good income pays around 50% taxes yeah but then you all get free insurance and college fees? Yes ofc. But so would the US if they had higher taxes.
or we could fight more wars O.O
|
On June 29 2008 03:44 Caller wrote:
he's barking up the wrong tree for funds
if he wants funds he needs to go after the tax cheaters, like the people that claim pets are dependents, et. al not tax a rapidly shrinking group more money
Your logic is flawed.
1) As long as gov has enough dogs (sources for funds) it can bark up as many trees as possible as long as every barking brings the result.
2) The fact you can't hear barking at the tax-cheaters tree doesn't mean there is none.
3) USA economy is in trouble. Taxes are to rise, that's enevatable. The rich are the first ones. So far so fair.
|
On June 29 2008 04:17 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2008 03:44 Caller wrote:
he's barking up the wrong tree for funds
if he wants funds he needs to go after the tax cheaters, like the people that claim pets are dependents, et. al not tax a rapidly shrinking group more money Your logic is flawed. 1) As long as gov has enough dogs (sources for funds) it can bark up as many trees as possible as long as every barking brings the result. 2) The fact you can't hear barking at the tax-cheaters tree doesn't mean there is none. 3) USA economy is in trouble. Taxes are to rise, that's enevatable. The rich are the first ones. So far so fair.
1) not true, b/c of the way the progressive tax system works and b/c different trees give different results
2) the barking at the tax cheaters tree evidently isn't loud enough b/c there's a lot more stuff in that tree than in other trees that hasn't been tapped
3) the rich aren't being taxed, its mostly the nouveau riche/the upper middle class atm.
|
I think we should tax everyone at the same rate. 36% for all. That's fair to the man making minimum wage and the man making 250,000, right?
(/sarcasm)
|
For each new bracket, you're only taxed that much for income over that amount. Like if at <$60,000 it's 10% and >$60,000 it's 15%, you only pay 15% on income above and beyond $60,000, for everything below $60,000 it's 10%. Does this new system somehow work differently than that? Because income tax has always worked that way.
|
On June 29 2008 01:22 Caller wrote:
As we get closer to the elections of 2008, it is almost a foregone conclusion that Obama will win the election. Under his new tax policy, married couples making more than $250,000 will have to pay an additional 3% on their taxes, for a total of 36%. For families like mine, which are barely making over $250,000, that's 90,000$ going to Uncle Sam alone, not to mention our state's relatively high taxes and our town's high property tax, and you're looking at over $125,000 in taxes not including social security and medicare and all the other things the government pig takes from us. Now factor in the cost of a college/medical school tuition these days. $60,000 including tuition, room and board, fees, and expenses. Because of our "high" income, we get 0$ of financial aid, while other much wealthier families in our town can hide their assets and pay 15% tax and get financial aid. In other words, because I have to go to college next year, my family's monetary revenue per year after taxes and social security and whatnot is $50,000 to support a family of 4. Where the hell is the justice in the world? Not to mention that my family had planned to have kids 5 years from each other so they would only have to support one kid's college tuition at a time. Well apparently, having concurrent kids in college gives you financial aid. Bullocks.
For comparison, some of my friends' parents can hide their assets in privately owned companies and pay 15% on capital gains tax while hiding everything they spend under business expenses and reinvestment into their firm (bullocks) and they get financial aid and federal grants. Bullocks.
This is another reason why I hate the current system and Obama.
Maybe your parents should hide their money in privately owned companies...
EDIT: like, seriously.
|
On June 29 2008 05:24 UmmTheHobo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2008 01:22 Caller wrote:
As we get closer to the elections of 2008, it is almost a foregone conclusion that Obama will win the election. Under his new tax policy, married couples making more than $250,000 will have to pay an additional 3% on their taxes, for a total of 36%. For families like mine, which are barely making over $250,000, that's 90,000$ going to Uncle Sam alone, not to mention our state's relatively high taxes and our town's high property tax, and you're looking at over $125,000 in taxes not including social security and medicare and all the other things the government pig takes from us. Now factor in the cost of a college/medical school tuition these days. $60,000 including tuition, room and board, fees, and expenses. Because of our "high" income, we get 0$ of financial aid, while other much wealthier families in our town can hide their assets and pay 15% tax and get financial aid. In other words, because I have to go to college next year, my family's monetary revenue per year after taxes and social security and whatnot is $50,000 to support a family of 4. Where the hell is the justice in the world? Not to mention that my family had planned to have kids 5 years from each other so they would only have to support one kid's college tuition at a time. Well apparently, having concurrent kids in college gives you financial aid. Bullocks.
For comparison, some of my friends' parents can hide their assets in privately owned companies and pay 15% on capital gains tax while hiding everything they spend under business expenses and reinvestment into their firm (bullocks) and they get financial aid and federal grants. Bullocks.
This is another reason why I hate the current system and Obama. Maybe your parents should hide their money in privately owned companies... EDIT: like, seriously.
please read entire thread
namely part where i say we dont actually make that much
|
Korea (South)11568 Posts
steal from the rich, give to the poor. Fucking robbin hood shit.
My dad makes $450k a year and he has to support 4 kids through college next year, insurance, house payments, taxes, and all of that shit. All in all, he has to pay about $260,000 next year if Obama wins election... not including medicare etc...
|
On June 29 2008 05:54 CaucasianAsian wrote:
steal from the rich, give to the poor. Fucking robbin hood shit.
My dad makes $450k a year and he has to support 4 kids through college next year, insurance, house payments, taxes, and all of that shit. All in all, he has to pay about $260,000 next year if Obama wins election... not including medicare etc...
How much does he have to pay yearly for drug tests?
|
On June 29 2008 06:03 BuGzlToOnl wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2008 05:54 CaucasianAsian wrote:
steal from the rich, give to the poor. Fucking robbin hood shit.
My dad makes $450k a year and he has to support 4 kids through college next year, insurance, house payments, taxes, and all of that shit. All in all, he has to pay about $260,000 next year if Obama wins election... not including medicare etc... How much does he have to pay yearly for drug tests?
Probably 190k.
|
(450k-200k) = 250k*.03 = 7500$ more under obama.
So $260,000 instead of $252,500?
Not as bad as you'd think.
|
|
|
The problem is the loopholes people use to hide their income. All the taxrates can come down if no-one can dodge the system.
|
On June 29 2008 05:54 CaucasianAsian wrote:
steal from the rich, give to the poor. Fucking robbin hood shit.
My dad makes $450k a year and he has to support 4 kids through college next year, insurance, house payments, taxes, and all of that shit. All in all, he has to pay about $260,000 next year if Obama wins election... not including medicare etc...
Just out of curiosity, what does your dad do?
|
I fucking hate people who bitch about taxes. Would you rather everything were privately owned, and you had to pay ridiculous toll fees instead? Government doesn't make money off of building roads, they just use however much it costs to build and maintain them. If they were privately owned, you could sure as hell bet whoever owned it would milk it for all they could.
My dad makes $450k a year
Your poor fucking dad. Let's all have a moment of silence for the plight of the rich and powerful. For fucks sake.
|
Maybe taxes aren't done perfectly, and too much is spent, and they are too high, but really, do you think you should pay the same % as someone who makes 60k a year? That's hardly practical. They can't eat, go to school, have a car, have savings, and clothes, with 1 kid. What are you losing when u are making 400k a year? The same % won't effect you the same. Now i'm not even asking for the effect to be made equal, only that the effect on you isn't trivial while for others the effect is relatively devastating. To achieve that, don't you think we need the rich to pay more? Everyone always wants to say "well if only i got more of that money" but really if the government is going to take X$ from the population, what is your advice for distributing the burden? I dn't see how a flat % for instance would be fair at all for reasons stated above. If the gov needs more $ they can't take more from the people already being fucked. BTW the people being fucked generally their money is moving out of their hands and into yours (ppl making the most). Sure it's "their own fault" but the point is why screw them even more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
