Good for Rumsfeld


rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,408
Wow how childish. What exactly is he implying? That reid doesn't pay taxes? Romneys are the definition of sore losers.
No. During the election, Reid said Romney paid no taxes for 10 years with nothing to back it up.
 

jrswizzle

macrumors 603
Aug 23, 2012
6,109
128
McKinney, TX
I was once at a Half Price Books and was looking in the "- for dummies" section, just for kicks. I've toyed with getting some of their books on writing code to read/learn in my spare time.

I was thumbing through the selection when I came across "Biology for Dummies". It was a rather large book, as one would expect. Biology is an extremely complex subject. I thought it was the biggest book there until I came across one that was roughly twice as thick.....

"The Tax Code for Dummies".

That was when I knew....we're all doomed.

But seriously, regardless of the complexity - I think a lot of rich people wouldn't mind paying taxes if they trusted the government to spend it correctly. Usually, one becomes rich because one knows how to make his/her money work for him/her. They also know which places to invest in and when/where to spend.

I know my Dad would have no problem paying his 40% or whatever ridiculous number it is if he had faith it would do some good. Unfortunately, debt continues to climb and we pour money into failing programs and the pockets of corrupt lifetime politicians.

Ahh well - I can tell you this. I have such a distrust of the government and how they spend my tax money that my goal is to get rich enough to live comfortably, but not too rich to where I'm giving the government any substantial amounts of money. I'd rather not make as much money as I can, just so the crooks don't have my money to throw around.

That's sad.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Original poster
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,365
UK
I was once at a Half Price Books and was looking in the "- for dummies" section, just for kicks. I've toyed with getting some of their books on writing code to read/learn in my spare time.

I was thumbing through the selection when I came across "Biology for Dummies". It was a rather large book, as one would expect. Biology is an extremely complex subject. I thought it was the biggest book there until I came across one that was roughly twice as thick.....

"The Tax Code for Dummies".

That was when I knew....we're all doomed.

But seriously, regardless of the complexity - I think a lot of rich people wouldn't mind paying taxes if they trusted the government to spend it correctly. Usually, one becomes rich because one knows how to make his/her money work for him/her. They also know which places to invest in and when/where to spend.

I know my Dad would have no problem paying his 40% or whatever ridiculous number it is if he had faith it would do some good. Unfortunately, debt continues to climb and we pour money into failing programs and the pockets of corrupt lifetime politicians.

Ahh well - I can tell you this. I have such a distrust of the government and how they spend my tax money that my goal is to get rich enough to live comfortably, but not too rich to where I'm giving the government any substantial amounts of money. I'd rather not make as much money as I can, just so the crooks don't have my money to throw around.

That's sad.
Which program's should be cut?
 

Peace

macrumors Core
Apr 1, 2005
19,466
3,831
Space--The ONLY Frontier
Any person as wealthy as Rumsfeld who uses an accounting firm would/should know that the accounting firm also signs the tax form as the designated tax preparer. The accounting firm is responsible for preparing the tax forms not rumsfeld as he implies in his letter. It is not his responsibility to know whether or not the tax forms were filled out properly. It is the responsibility of the corporation that did his taxes.

The ONLY thing rumsfeld is responsible for is giving the legal receipts and income documents to the accounting firm. ALL of them.

If he is unsure if his taxes were filled out properly all he has to do is ask the accounting firm not write some politically motivated letter.

Unless he feels guilty for something he "forgot" to give the accounting firm.

Rumsfeld should feel lucky he isn't in prison.
 

jrswizzle

macrumors 603
Aug 23, 2012
6,109
128
McKinney, TX
Which program's should be cut?
If I had those answers, perhaps I'd run for office.

Though I'm firmly in the camp that the departments of education, commerce and energy are over funded bureaucratic nightmares, and while abolishing them completely might be a little rash, I think throwing money at our problems hasn't solved any of them.

The IRS needs to go....but then who would we turn to to explain the tax code to us?

I also think medicare, ss and medicaid need to get with the times - raise the retirement age so the government isn't supporting people for a decade+ (when they were established, the avg life expectancy was only a few years more than the retirement age - now, avg life expectancy has increased by almost a decade, yet the retirement age is the same).

There are plenty of ways to save money (newly established CFPB has hundreds of employees making 6 figure salaries). But there isn't a politician in Washington that doesn't have some lobby or corporation in their pocket dictating terms. Add all that up over the last 230+ years, and you get an overbearing bureaucracy.

----------

Any person as wealthy as Rumsfeld who uses an accounting firm would/should know that the accounting firm also signs the tax form as the designated tax preparer. The accounting firm is responsible for preparing the tax forms not rumsfeld as he implies in his letter. It is not his responsibility to know whether or not the tax forms were filled out properly. It is the responsibility of the corporation that did his taxes.

The ONLY thing rumsfeld is responsible for is giving the legal receipts and income documents to the accounting firm. ALL of them.

If he is unsure if his taxes were filled out properly all he has to do is ask the accounting firm not write some politically motivated letter.

Unless he feels guilty for something he "forgot" to give the accounting firm.

Rumsfeld should feel lucky he isn't in prison.
Not the point. The point is that for any average American to understand how much of their hard earned cash goes to the government and why, you have to hire a team of accountants who have years experience reading through the most complex code that exists.

It really is ridiculous - but not all that surprising. Everything the government does, it does for control.

Would it be that hard to simplify the code? Cut out loopholes and breaks and just give everyone a flat tax rate? Oh, but then big corporations who rely on those loopholes would cut off the "gifts" to the corrupt blowhards in Wash.

Its not about the middle class. No matter what they say. People like you and I don't matter to them. Control and Power.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,832
Midlife, Midwest
You know, I really wish Rumsfeld had expressed just a tad of uncertainty back when he was telling us how gosh darn certain he was that Saddam Hussein had those pesky weapons of mass destruction.

But he didn't. He dodged reporters questions about evidence, talking about "known unknowns" and other corporate doublespeak. With the result that we went into a war with a legal and moral basis that was questionable, at best.

And so, ten years later, with almost four thousand dead American service people; tens of thousands more horribly wounded in body, mind, and spirit; close to three trillion dollars; and probably half a million dead Iraqis - he writes this grouchy letter to the IRS.

Leadership is about taking responsibility. Standing up and taking responsibility for the people that work for you. For the troops who serve you. Take responsibility for the mistakes you have made. And this sad old man can't even take responsibility for the accuracy of his personal tax return?

Count me unimpressed.
 

Peace

macrumors Core
Apr 1, 2005
19,466
3,831
Space--The ONLY Frontier
If I had those answers, perhaps I'd run for office.

Though I'm firmly in the camp that the departments of education, commerce and energy are over funded bureaucratic nightmares, and while abolishing them completely might be a little rash, I think throwing money at our problems hasn't solved any of them.

The IRS needs to go....but then who would we turn to to explain the tax code to us?

I also think medicare, ss and medicaid need to get with the times - raise the retirement age so the government isn't supporting people for a decade+ (when they were established, the avg life expectancy was only a few years more than the retirement age - now, avg life expectancy has increased by almost a decade, yet the retirement age is the same).

There are plenty of ways to save money (newly established CFPB has hundreds of employees making 6 figure salaries). But there isn't a politician in Washington that doesn't have some lobby or corporation in their pocket dictating terms. Add all that up over the last 230+ years, and you get an overbearing bureaucracy.

----------



Not the point. The point is that for any average American to understand how much of their hard earned cash goes to the government and why, you have to hire a team of accountants who have years experience reading through the most complex code that exists.

It really is ridiculous - but not all that surprising. Everything the government does, it does for control.

Would it be that hard to simplify the code? Cut out loopholes and breaks and just give everyone a flat tax rate? Oh, but then big corporations who rely on those loopholes would cut off the "gifts" to the corrupt blowhards in Wash.

Its not about the middle class. No matter what they say. People like you and I don't matter to them. Control and Power.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
If the "average american" needs an accounting firm to do their taxes I would guess there's more wrong with our society than just the IRS.

What do you consider the "average american" ? How much money do they make ?
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
I'd rather not make as much money as I can, just so the crooks don't have my money to throw around.

That's sad.
I'm going to take this statement at face value.

So what you're saying is you not going to improve your own financial situation ... your life and the lives of your family (if you have one) because the government might waste a portion of the portion that they take out in income tax.

That is sad.
 

jrswizzle

macrumors 603
Aug 23, 2012
6,109
128
McKinney, TX
If the "average american" needs an accounting firm to do their taxes I would guess there's more wrong with our society than just the IRS.

What do you consider the "average american" ? How much money do they make ?
*sigh*

They don't need an accounting firm to DO their taxes. But to understand how the code works? Ask the average American what their tax rate is? Maybe you catch a smart one who counters "effective tax rate or actual".....but most aren't going to have a clue.

You may not find anything wrong with that. I think its ludicrous not knowing what percentage of your income goes to the government. Just like I want to know how much I spend on food, etc....its called a budget.

The idea that the tax code NEEDS to be as complicated as it is, is pure crap. It is only that way because the powers that be want control.
 

jrswizzle

macrumors 603
Aug 23, 2012
6,109
128
McKinney, TX
I'm going to take this statement at face value.

So what you're saying is you not going to improve your own financial situation ... your life and the lives of your family (if you have one) because the government might waste a portion of the portion that they take out in income tax.

That is sad.
Right.

My dad makes roughly $600,000/year. I saw his tax check one year (what he pays) and I about threw up. To think that more than 30% of that is going to pay for God knows what makes me sick.

I'd rather build my way up to a respectable $250,000/year and just stay there. My family can live comfortably and I can save and leave something for my kids' kids.

If there was some transparency or some inkling the government had any basic money management skills, I wouldn't feel that way.

Hell - you run a family. You have a job and your wife has a job. Income. You know what that income looks like and you plan your expenses accordingly. Now, something occurs and your income drops - what do you do? You adjust your expenses accordingly. This is a normal, healthy model for managing money.

So tell me why the heck we think its ok for our government to, in the face of lower income or higher expenses, first look to see "how can we make more money"? It would be one thing if the government were in poverty and needed additional income for the basics. But I don't think anyone can argue that's true.

It could, and should be a very simple model.

(1) The tax code is simple. Flat tax rates across the board. Eliminate breaks and loopholes.

(2) The government knows how many people pay taxes and can relatively easily figure "income".

(3) The government budgets accordingly.

(4) The government actively works to make it as easy as possible for people to move "up" and therefore pay more taxes - think a raise in your own job.

(5) The "raises" are then used in new budgets, done every year.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
Right.

My dad makes roughly $600,000/year. I saw his tax check one year (what he pays) and I about threw up. To think that more than 30% of that is going to pay for God knows what makes me sick.

I'd rather build my way up to a respectable $250,000/year and just stay there. My family can live comfortably and I can save and leave something for my kids' kids.
That just doesn't make any sense.

Either way you keep 70% of your income.

I could understand not wanting to work so hard ... perhaps in order to spend more time with your family.

But if it's not about that, and your only reason is to deny the government more taxes, then I simply don't think that's a rational point of view.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Original poster
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,365
UK
Though I'm firmly in the camp that the departments of education, commerce and energy are over funded bureaucratic nightmares, and while abolishing them completely might be a little rash, I think throwing money at our problems hasn't solved any of them.
OK all of those departments are bigger than I thought. The Department for Education spends about $100 billion/year and I don't really understand what it does that should cost more than $1 billion/year or so.

The Department of Commerce spends about $10 billion/year, so it is pretty small. Obama wants to rationalise it though which should save $3 billion/year.

The Department of Energy spends about $30 billion/year, but it does a lot of research and has a lot to do with nuclear weapons.

I also think medicare, ss and medicaid need to get with the times - raise the retirement age so the government isn't supporting people for a decade+ (when they were established, the avg life expectancy was only a few years more than the retirement age - now, avg life expectancy has increased by almost a decade, yet the retirement age is the same).
Agreed.

There are plenty of ways to save money (newly established CFPB has hundreds of employees making 6 figure salaries).
You need good people, and good people are expensive ;).

Not the point. The point is that for any average American to understand how much of their hard earned cash goes to the government and why, you have to hire a team of accountants who have years experience reading through the most complex code that exists."
Agreed.
 

jrswizzle

macrumors 603
Aug 23, 2012
6,109
128
McKinney, TX
That just doesn't make any sense.

Either way you keep 70% of your income.

I could understand not wanting to work so hard ... perhaps in order to spend more time with your family.

But if it's not about that, and your only reason is to deny the government more taxes, then I simply don't think that's a rational point of view.
But there's where a lot of this falls apart - where people get all crazy when someone has the audacity to claim a flat tax across the board is "fair".

70% of 250,000 =/= 70% of 600,000. In the latter case, you are paying the government more than twice as much as the former.

So yeah, I think I could get by living off of $175,000 versus $520,000 because I'd rather not give the gov that extra $105,000.