Take the income tax quiz!!!

[Cold Fusion38]

Hey I can get behind ANY tax that removes then TAX CREDIT for BREEDING!!!

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I must admit I have a VERY hard time understanding why I have to subsidize OTHER PEOPLE'S desire to BREED!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Hey I can get behind ANY tax that removes then TAX CREDIT for BREEDING!!!

I'm not sure who you expect to provide the goods and services for your retirement, care to elaborate?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I am pretty sure there are PLENTY of people who will breed WITHOUT being PAID to do so.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I am pretty sure there are PLENTY of people who will breed WITHOUT being PAID to do so.

That's awesome, but what do we do with the kids born of parents who need help paying for them? Spend more money and make them wards of the state? or kill them?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Well gosh I am SURE if we raise the tax credit to $20,000 they will only have the number of kids they can AFFORD RIGHT!!!???

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I am quite sure that when people realize they will not get PAID to have children they will have LESS of them.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Maybe we could just limit the tax CREDIT to the first two children.

 

[Zander]

What is the point of this thread? The USA has the most progressive tax system in the world. The top 50% pay 96% of all income tax. What else is new?

 

[ReAmericaNow]

Are people seriously this stupid?

I think they are, this is sad.

I think I will use this thread as an example as to why most americans are in debt. They don't know algebra that I learned in the 5th F'ing Grade.

 

[Oldandtired]

You don't have to pay income taxes. It isn't in the constitution anywhere.

Ouch.
May want to retract.

 

[Oldandtired]

What you are saying is that poor TEMP workers fit those numbers.

what I am saying is that a majority of the able that are poor do not demonstrate drive to earn a living....IN NY....

OK?

Jeez...forget it. Whatever floats your boat.

Yeah, but you're saying it based on a sample of only one kind of worker - that makes no sense.

One kind of worker?

Accounting, clerical staff, warehouse, machinists, programmers, legal, customer service, retail....you name it, the temp industry offers it in NYC.

Truth is, our industry is at the heart of the NYC worker. We see what motivates them, we see what makes them complacent. We see their attitude, willingness to work...we see what deters them from working.

We hear them complain and we hear them compliment. We know what they like in an job and what they dont. We know what environment is appealing to the worker, and what environment is a turn off.

WE HEAR THEIR EXCUSES.....we see how they capitalize on unemployment...whether it be proper or not....WE ARE DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH UNEMPLOYMENT WITH ALL OF OUR TEMPS AS WE BECOME THE FIRST EMPLOYER OF RECORD OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS DEEMED AS UNEMPLOYED.

We see them abuse the programs set up to help them....and yes, we see them use the programs as springboards to future independence.

We need to observe and take note of these things on a regular basis as it allows us to ensure proper customer service to our clients.

All of that being said.....yes, I am using my industry as barometer as there is no better one out there.

I have found that there are three types of unemployed...those that find ways to become self sufficient, those that go with the flow and let the cards fall where they may, and those that find ways to make capitalize on things such as unemployment so they do not need to work at all.

Sadly, we find the 2nd and 3rd scenarios to be the most prominant.

Now, if you truly feel that you have better proof than I do that the system is actually NOT holding people back, please offer it to me. I am open to hearing it.

Likewise, if you dont, I ask that you consider the validity of what I have presented. We need to fix the system and as long as there are those that oppose doing so based on assumption, the system will not work properly.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I am quite sure that when people realize they will not get PAID to have children they will have LESS of them.

What makes you "quite sure" ? Actual factual evidence, or is this just your gut feeling?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Maybe we could just limit the tax CREDIT to the first two children.

The EIC is limited to the first 2.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

What is the point of this thread? The USA has the most progressive tax system in the world. The top 50% pay 96% of all income tax. What else is new?

I had no idea "progressivity" could be measured quantitatively with a 1d quantity. What is that single quantity? How mush the top 50% pays? Why not how much the top 75%? Or the top 25%?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

what I am saying is that a majority of the able that are poor do not demonstrate drive to earn a living....IN NY....

OK?

Jeez...forget it. Whatever floats your boat.

Yeah, but you're saying it based on a sample of only one kind of worker - that makes no sense.

One kind of worker?

Yeah - the UNEMPLOYED kind. Did it ever occur to you that people with long term permanent positions don't just up and decide to quit and go to a temp agency for work?

"Let's see, I've been washing dish's at this restaurant for 10 years now. The pays not too good but they treat me with respect and value me as a good employee. But I think I'll just quit and go to a temp agency for work instead. Because I'm poor and lazy."

 

[Immanuel]

The way I see it, when you eliminate all of those taxes the purchasing power of the poor goes up, not down.

You're adding a nearly 30% sales tax to goods. That REDUCES purchasing power.

Again, you know nothing of the Fair Tax nor do you seem to know anything about the free market.

Do you know what will happen when corporations no longer have to pay the taxes they already pay? Prices will come down. Every corporation has to pay taxes and they have to charge you the customer enough to cover those taxes.

From the Fair Tax Book:

An extensive study of tax costs was completed a few years ago by Dr. Dale Jorgenson, then chairman of the Harvard Economics Department. On average, Jorgenson concluded, 22 percent of the price paid for a consumer product represents embedded taxes. That means that for every dollar you spend on a loaf of bread, twenty-two cents ends up being passed on to the government somewhere along the line in the form of taxes.

The Fair Tax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS by Neal Boortz and John Linder Page 53-54 Copyright 2005

Now, you will say big deal remove the embedded tax and you will just increase the profits of the corporations. But, if you do, it proves you know absolutely zilch about Capitalism and the Free Markets because according to the book (take that for what you will) it has happened before when the Airlines were deregulated. Everyone thought just exactly what I wrote above would happen, but then one Airline, I believe it was Delta realized they could undercut the competition by reducing fares due to the lower tax costs and then ticket prices from the other airlines began to follow suit. Eventually, and quite quickly I understand, ticket prices had fallen by the amount of the taxes that had been embedded into the costs of the products.

Now, whether or not you believe that happened. Think about it. If you owned a bar and you were paying taxes on your income and other purchases, including the liquor you sell because Jack Daniels is going to charge you for the taxes that they have to pay, you have competition right across the street and on March 1 the Fair Tax takes effect. Being a shrewd business man you have always kept your prices slightly below the price charged by the bar across the street and you maintained more customers than the competition. You see this as a bonanza for you. You no longer have to pay 20% of your revenue to the government. You are going to be rich!

Two weeks later, you realize that business has slipped off all of a sudden and you can't understand why. You step out for a smoke and see three of your regulars drive in to the parking lot across the street. Your bar is empty and you wonder what the hell is going on. So, you holler across the street and ask those regulars where they have been.

They look at you and say, "Hey, beer here is $2. You sell them for $2.75. Where do you think we're going?" And what the hell do you think you are going to do that very night?

Please forgive me... it has been a long time since I have been to a corner bar. I have no idea what they sell beers for anymore. I do know on Carnival Ships they go for something like $5, but hell on ship there is no competition.

So you see, your scare tactics don't work. If you paid a dollar for an item the day before the Fair Tax took effect not long after it does you are going to be paying approximately 75 cents for that item before paying the Fair Tax for a total cost of approximately 93 cents. More likely it would end up costing right around a dollar again, but I was rounding. Now, I will grant you one stipulation. If this happened the states are going to lose money on their sales tax. Florida has a 6% sales tax. Hillsborough County where I live adds a 1.5% surcharge to that 6% so here I pay 7.5%. The reduction in Sales Tax revenue might cause the states to raise the sales tax rates slightly to make up for the difference. My guess is that they would and because of the free market, you will probably see that item right around one dollar again, including taxes, very soon.

Immie

 

[Oldandtired]

Yeah, but you're saying it based on a sample of only one kind of worker - that makes no sense.

One kind of worker?

Yeah - the UNEMPLOYED kind. Did it ever occur to you that people with long term permanent positions don't just up and decide to quit and go to a temp agency for work?

"Let's see, I've been washing dish's at this restaurant for 10 years now. The pays not too good but they treat me with respect and value me as a good employee. But I think I'll just quit and go to a temp agency for work instead. Because I'm poor and lazy."

Yes, I am talking about the unemployed.
So lets talk about the employed.
Your scenario:
"Let's see, I've been washing dish's at this restaurant for 10 years now. The pays not too good but they treat me with respect and value me as a good employee."

So what is his drive to leave and seek a better position? I mean, he is respected. He is valued. He is happy.

Really? HE CAN NOT PAY FOR HIS FAMILY TO EAT.....so sometimes you need to throw happiness to the wind and find a better way.

OR......

He is happy....and his family can eat becuase he gets welfare, food stamps, tax credits, free health insurance (speculative), etc.

So now he is happy AND his family eats...so where is the desire to take chances and get out of being poor?

You see...even in your scenario, you are arguing my side. That is my point all long. If we make it easy for them, they may do what all of us want to do, but know we cant as we have responsiibilites........do what makes us happiest....

Do you truly believe that being "happy" on the job should trump over being able to support your family?...

Or should responsibility come first...and then seek happiness on the job when you are able to?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The way I see it, when you eliminate all of those taxes the purchasing power of the poor goes up, not down.

You're adding a nearly 30% sales tax to goods. That REDUCES purchasing power.

Again, you know nothing of the Fair Tax nor do you seem to know anything about the free market.

Then why do you keep talking to me?

From the Fair Tax Book:

 

[Ravi]

100,001*.3-100,000*.15=Answer A.

Point being?

I know you are joking. At least I hope you are joking.

Under the U.S. Tax Code the answer would be .30

Taxpayer A taxes would equal 15,000 = 100,000 * .15

Taxpayer B taxes would equal 15,000.30 = (100,000 * .15) + (1*.30)

Of course that is assuming that the 100,000 and 100,001 are taxable wages and not gross or adjusted gross wages.

Under your tax theory one would be deeply penalized for making one extra dollar.

Immie

Re-read your comment. The way he's laid it out, the answer is a. You are correct, under the US tax code, which is a wonderful example of a piecewise defined function, the answer is $0.30.

I'm just curious what the point of the OP is. The hypothetical situation laid out in no way describes reality, so what is the point of getting worked up by it?

To showcase your stupidity.

I seriously can't believe that 6 people thought he'd pay 15,000 +