How much more than you are legally required do you pay in federal income tax every year?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by TonyC28, Oct 4, 2016.

?

How much more than you are legally required do you pay in federal income tax every year?

  1. $0, that would be stupid

    41 vote(s)
    80.4%
  2. $1 - $9,999

    7 vote(s)
    13.7%
  3. $10,000 - $99,999

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. $100,000 or more

    3 vote(s)
    5.9%
  1. TonyC28 macrumors 65816

    TonyC28

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #1
    Lots of talk these days about tax loopholes and tax avoidance so a poll question seemed like a good idea.
     
  2. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #2
    Anyone saying more than zero needs their head examined.
     
  3. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #3
    How about this..

    I will expend no extra effort or go through more pages in turbo tax than are absolutely required to do my taxes, if it takes more than 20 minutes I'm not a happy camper.
     
  4. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #4
    Fair share would prevent anything above the legal requirement. So would a flat tax, as long as the savings were to trickle back down to workers (since that's not just a claim by the trickle down supporters, I also imagine most of America's working class would like to see their value of their labor go up to levels not seen since 1980... or since there is debate on that, at least obscene medical and college costs go back down since those are closer to necessities than keeping a consumer boat or video game company in business. Too many have suffered since the great recession began (2007).)

    Also,
    http://www.buyupside.com/calculators/purchasepowerjan08.htm
    https://tcf.org/content/commentary/...age-and-why-its-time-to-raise-it-permanently/
     
  5. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #5
    The thread is about taxes, not buying power or min. wage. No sure how either are relevant.
     
  6. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    It's not about the amount it's "do I offshore?"
     
  7. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
  8. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #8
    It is very relevant. And more complex than what the initial post allows because it seems obvious everyone would only pay what's mandatory so let's dig a little more into our societal paradigm as opposed to making oversimplified questions with obvious loaded answer that-- uh, wait, what does the original post state is the problem that the OP's oversimplistic question asks of us, again? Just about ponying up, not why or anything of substance. I couldn't see one so I tried to fill in the gap. The following is another attempt, and wider in scope but all with relevant issues that are intertwined (but not conclusive) regarding the concept of taxation and why it is done, huge multi-volume series could be written up...

    Since we are told that lowering taxes means a bigger paycheck, so it's very relevant - and related. We don't live in a vacuum or even in taxless utopias like Somalia where they're fleeing en masse because it's such a hole there.

    Except, people who say "less taxes = more take home pay" overlook so many other details that it ceased being funny by the mid-90s.

    That
    is why I brought it up.

    Because it is relevant, tangentially or indirectly as opposed to directly but it has been the GOP, since the 1980s, who keep saying "lower taxes brings home higher pay, trickle down economics works too". It is impossible to separate one aspect and think everything else won't all apart.

    It is all related. A symbiosis. Like "supply side economics" that pretends it can lower costs and wages and then think customers will still exist... all while customers and other non-supply side entities are still being blamed for all the ills in the universe, right down to the current excuse of "nobody can innovate anymore, which is why sales are down, waah" .

    So, yeah, all of us pay only as much as legally possible. But his isn't an episode of The Rush Limbaugh Show or Barney the Dinosaur since both cater to the same demographic, there's a hell of a lot more related to taxes, where that money goes, how little people are obligated to legally pay, where it goes, how it is used, how it all affects our lives, directly and indirectly, they still are relevant and intertwined. Especially as all the tax breaks and cuts and other entitlements given to the top that started with Reagan clearly have not trickled down the way Reagan sold it to people. His vision is wrong. Cherrypicking one aspect and thinking that's all that's going on doesn't cut it. Nobody cares because it's obvious that 100% of us would all pay only what's legally mandatory and nothing more. We know that. The original post is - forgive me - as loaded, narrow, and inconsequential as it gets unless detail and depth are added! Preaching to the choir is boring ego-stroking that feels good but accomplishes absolutely nothing!

    Bonus, which ties into the OP's (and your) post no less since Reagan's own comments imply how paying less is purportedly good and how cutting taxes and paying as little as possible would help all Americans (35 years later, a proven lie that makes any of Obama's lies seem insignificant by comparison):


    Reagan's vision was based on paying as little tax as possible and how it would ostensibly benefit, though whether or not he knew he was the biggest con artist of all time is truly irrelevant because nobody cares either way. I refuse to cherrypick. I will look at the whole of the issue. And we're $20T in the hole thanks to all the tax cuts, corporate welfare, crumbling infrastructure that Obama wished would have happened 3 years before him... but hell, the trickle downers got their tax cut but otherwise had no part in their responsibility.

    Maybe Donald Trump hates it and will hit a reset button to expunge the national debt. Not sure anyone would want that... but what other options exist, we don't give a **** about the wealth creators who will want to pay the same percentage of their diminishing incomes as taxes ($0 if possible, duh, we know).

    So I'm sorry. I answered the question, twice and in varying ways, since it seemed pretty loaded and/or rhetorical from the get-go so I stepped in to give it some relevance, you're welcome. Life just isn't that simple and repercussions of paying less tax are many. Would Reagan approve of the hole he helped create? How's that for a rhetorical and loaded question, because senile or not he would not approve of his plans if he really knew the end result. I suppose at least he tried, but where were subsequent presidents trying to undo what was called "voodoo economics" from the very beginning, even by VP candidate G HW Bush?
     
  9. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #9
    Well there are the $1 (minimum) options available in your state and federal taxes. I don't think it makes one insane to give to those specific causes if one is so inclined.

    Currently, in my state, you can give to any of the following ...
    • Alzheimer's Disease/Related Disorders Fund
    • California Breast Cancer Research Fun
    • California Firefighters' Memorial Fund
    • California Peace Officer Memorial Foundation Fund
    • California Sea Otter Fund
    • California Senior Legislature Fund
    • California Sexual Violence Victim Services Fund
    • Child Victims of Human Trafficking Fund
    • Emergency Food for Families Fund
    • Habitat for Humanity Fund
    • Keep Arts in Schools Fund
    • Prevention of Animal Homelessness and Cruelty Fund
    • Protect Our Coast and Oceans Fund
    • Rare and Endangered Species Preservation Program
    • School Supplies for Homeless Children Fund
    • State Children's Trust Fund for the Prevention of Child Abuse
    • State Parks Protection Fund/Parks Pass Purchase
     
  10. TonyC28 thread starter macrumors 65816

    TonyC28

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #10
    Wow that's a lot of words. Very nice response. Soooooo....what's your answer to the poll question?
     
  11. nfl46 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    #11
    This was a nice read. Thanks.
     
  12. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #12
    I go negative. I steal taxes from the IRS.
     
  13. A.Goldberg macrumors 68000

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #13
    Of course not. I mentioned this concept in a recent thread with a certain individual and was told it's immoral, unethical, "legal" (sarcastically given the quotes), and would make me a deadbeat.

    The only reason I could see doing such a thing would be if your deductions or whatever took more time to process than they are worth. That aside I think you're better off investing your money where you see fit. The government is OFFERING you that opportunity.
     
  14. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #14
    First of all, it was a good read; thank you for taking the time to write it down.
    Second, unfortunately that's how public finance works. Don't think for a second that more tax money = better usage of money and/or less expenses and/or increased revenue. It's often quite the opposite. The ONLY way in government, at ANY level from municipal to federal, to reduce budgetary bleeding is to not have money. There is not much else you can do when you work with a preset budget that you can't change, and it's based on the expenses of the previous years. That's what most people working in the private sector don't get.
    Remember, on August 2016 the Feds were spending what was decided in September 2015.
     
  15. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #15
    Well he did say this:

    And I agree. And I agree w/ @yaxomoxay that that whole post was a good read!
     
  16. TonyC28 thread starter macrumors 65816

    TonyC28

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #16
    I'll admit the poll is somewhat rhetorical, but to write an editorial about perceived failures in GOP policy really doesn't answer it at all. He could just as easily have written "Your question was rhetorical, now let me tell you why Christian Bale was a better Batman than Ben Affleck."
     
  17. MarkusL macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2014
    #17
    Does this go towards the federal debt that Reagan racked up?
     
  18. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #18
    I pay, as closely as I am able to determine, exactly what I am legally required to pay.

    I also favor changing the tax laws in two ways:

    1) Abolish sales and VAT taxes, which hit the poor most.
    2) Make up the difference by increasing marginal tax rates towards the top, and, property taxes. If that happened to increase my own taxes, I would happily pay more.

    I don't mind companies not paying taxes if they are not legally required to do so. I think the tax laws should be changed, though, to account for "rents" on "intellectual property" more equitably and consistently among countries. The current tax laws are based primarily on the idea that value results from labor. But, physical labor is not worth much any more, and, internationally, corporations are taxed very inconsistently depending on whether or not they are selling products whose value is determined by the intellectual property incorporated in the product.
     
  19. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #19
    LOL yeah but then I might not have been curious enough to read the whole thing.

    I forgot to say why I voted for the second category up there in the poll. I sometimes forget about some little charitable contribution. So I run into that receipt or acknowledgment in June,,, July... shrug. $25. Big deal.
     
  20. Plutonius macrumors 603

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #20
    No way would I trust our government to forward the money to the charities :D.
     
  21. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #21
    This.

    If it means I pay a bit more, tough nuts, I'd rather fund my country than not. I don't even bother to write off donations I make.
     
  22. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #22
    Do you donate more than the standard deductions?
    As for funding your country, don't be fooled. You fund some government program decided by a legislation and government bureaucrats such as myself. Some program is good, some program is bad, but you have practically no control on wether your dollars go to the "save the children account", the "how to attack Russia policy committee" account, or the "study on the life of depressed salmons science agency".
    "Funding the country" is a nice catchphrase, I give you that.
     
  23. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #23
    Yea yea yea, I know that most of my money goes to the military. I get that. The principle still stands, taxes are what fund the operations of the country. I wish that corporations would bother to pay (before Reagan corporate taxes payed 1/3rd of the tax base, now it's roughly 7%....guess who makes up the difference?).

    I'm just tired of the mentality that taxes are evil and theft. It's a mental shortcut.

    I don't donate much as I'm 25 and have only been gainfully employed for about a year and a half (previous jobs put me under the poverty line) but I don't bother to deduct any of it. I'm not hurting for cash so why should I try to claw back ~$500 for the year? I'd just spend it on cigarettes I shouldn't be smoking anyway.
     
  24. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #24
    Taxes are what fund the operations of the country... 100% spot on. And as with you, I agree that taxation is not theft... after all they pay for my salary!
    The problem is that the operations of the country do not fix themselves. Ever. If there is a surplus of money, bad programs will eat them. That's how the beast works, and there is no way around it except finding the country in a state of fiscal emergency. Then you'll see many bad programs shutting down.
    What the country would need is a fluctuation in tax revenue.

    EDIT: Stop smoking!!!
     
  25. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #25
    There's plenty of money in tax revenue, it's just being stolen for the military needlessly. If I could divert my tax payments to social programs to the exclusion of the Pentagon I would. I'd rather pay for breakfast for students than another ****ing bomb.
     

Share This Page