[MacinTommy]

I'm claiming myself as an independent (finally) from my parents this year. Just wondering, with my Dad not claiming me will it make much of a difference for his tax returns/payment? I know there are probably a lot of factors that go into this but I was just wanting a general idea.

[ghporter]

He'll lose a deduction; it's $3650 this year. That would come off of his total income in determining his taxable income. I'm experiencing the same issue, plus I finally finished school and got a job-and learned that I had too little withheld from one of my sources of income. My taxes this year will suck, your dad's will too, but only a bit.

[Big Mac]

Congratulations on your independence, MacinTommy.

For those who want real change in this country in the direction of greater liberty and economic prosperity, start demanding a Fair Tax.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Congratulations on your independence, MacinTommy.

For those who want real change in this country in the direction of greater liberty and economic prosperity, start demanding a Fair Tax.

Why would I want to reduce the tax burden for top 10% income earners controlling 80% of the wealth? They already pay disproportionately only 60% of the tax burden.

Removing income tax and moving to a national sales tax will move the burden of taxation to those who actually spend their income to make a living, which would be low and middle income.

[MacinTommy]

Interesting, thanks for the input. I really don't want my Dad to lose too much money but then again I need all the damn money I can get! Trying to pay off my credit cards (some Apple products, concert tickets and plane tickets included) and I just feel like if I can get my full return it will help me get out of this "quicksand" that I'm in with these CCs.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Why would I want to reduce the tax burden for top 10% income earners controlling 80% of the wealth? They already pay disproportionately only 60% of the tax burden.

Removing income tax and moving to a national sales tax will move the burden of taxation to those who actually spend their income to make a living, which would be low and middle income.

The important thing isn't how much the rich pay, it's how much the poor pay, which for many/most is 0%. For example, I pay about 2% in taxes, therefore I don't have any skin in the game when it comes to voting for huge national expenses. One thing the Fair Tax does have going for it is that it would stop the voters from being such pathological spendthrifts.

[kido331]

Steve Jobs pays himself $1 per year, as do both founders of Google. Our current tax system just encourages the hiding of income, which is rather easy. A better system would tax consumption, which is difficult to hide. I also agree that if everyone paid some tax, then everyone would care how their tax money is spent.

[dcmacdaddy]

I say NO to a national sales tax but YES to a flat-tax on income for individuals and corporations with absolutely NO deductions for any reason.

With a flat tax of 15%, every person and/or business would know that 15% of every dollar they take in during the year will go to the federal government and the rest is for them to keep (or to be taxed by their state government). This 15% tax rate would cover funding for ALL federal-level programs; There could be NO other federal level taxes assessed on the population. The rate could be changed up or down every year based on the needs of the country (raise rates during war to cover the extra spending and lower rates during economic downturn to put more money in the pockets of individuals and businesses).

So, John/Jane Doe gets 15% taken out of their paycheck every two weeks and the rest is theirs to keep. And everything a person takes in counts as income. So, if John/Jane Doe sells their old car, they would need to send 15% of the sale price to the federal government. And the wealthy folks don't get off easy under my plan; They don't get special filing options or exemptions/deductions for their complicated incomes. While Steve Jobs earned only $1 in salary this year he also was given millions of dollars worth of shares in Apple stock. He would pay 15% tax on his $1 income (all of 15¢) and then pay 15% tax on the value of his shares of Apple stock (valued at COB on the day they were granted to him). The same would go for Apple itself. If it had revenues of X Billion dollars in a given fiscal year, it would pay 15% of that X Billion dollars to the government with no deductions.


NOTE: I used 15% as a hypothetical figure only. I have NO idea what would be an appropriate rate for a flat-tax to cover all federal government spending.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The important thing isn't how much the rich pay, it's how much the poor pay, which for many/most is 0%. For example, I pay about 2% in taxes, therefore I don't have any skin in the game when it comes to voting for huge national expenses. One thing the Fair Tax does have going for it is that it would stop the voters from being such pathological spendthrifts.

Theoretically, the progressive tax system is supposed to even out the burden of taxation, so you could argue that someone with a lower income who pays a lower percentage of it in taxes has the same amount of "skin in the game" as someone with a larger income who pays a higher percentage of it in taxes. The net effect on their standard of living might be same. I see your point, though, that what we have now might be too extreme.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

...start demanding a Fair Tax.

I prefer Steve Forbes' Flat Tax plan. 17% for everyone (except low income folks). Fill it out on the back of an postcard.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Theoretically, the progressive tax system is supposed to even out the burden of taxation, so you could argue that someone with a lower income who pays a lower percentage of it in taxes has the same amount of "skin in the game" as someone with a larger income who pays a higher percentage of it in taxes. The net effect on their standard of living might be same. I see your point, though, that what we have now might be too extreme.

Unfortunately it's the people who stand to pay more taxes that have more representation (lobbyists, etc.) when decisions about what is deductible are made. And the higher income taxpayer also has a lot of options for where to put money to make it both earn interest and defer taxes. While, as you say "in theory," a progressive tax system should put more tax burden on more wealthy taxpayers, the wealthy don't pay the way that the system as it's described in general is supposed to work.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I prefer Steve Forbes' Flat Tax plan. 17% for everyone (except low income folks). Fill it out on the back of an postcard.

Absolutely. One flat rate with NO deductions. I am on board with this.

[Big Mac]

The IRS revenue code is far and away too complicated (how many thousands of pages?) because of decades of special interests writing narrow, arcane tax breaks into the code, and as evidenced by the fact that the new head of the IRS admitted he uses an outside accountant for his taxes. What a clear indictment of a horrendous tax system. The IRS is too intrusive and too powerful, which definitely hinders economic development. The system sucks royally. If the Founders could see how we've destroyed so much of the liberty they bequeathed to us through this ridiculous system of unequal, direct wealth confiscation, they would laugh in our faces and hold us in high contempt.

If Obama really wants to save his beleaguered presidency and go down in history as a true reformer and upholder of American ideals, he should lock that pathetic old fembot Pelosi and whoever succeeds Reid in a dungeon until they assent to the abolishment of the IRC as we know it and the implementation of a streamlined, comprehensible, general consumption tax. If he did that even I would strongly consider voting to reelect him. I'm not particularly wedded to the Fair Tax, by the way, just the general consumption tax idea.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The important thing isn't how much the rich pay, it's how much the poor pay, which for many/most is 0%. For example, I pay about 2% in taxes, therefore I don't have any skin in the game when it comes to voting for huge national expenses. One thing the Fair Tax does have going for it is that it would stop the voters from being such pathological spendthrifts.

Why don't you do an honest assessment of all taxes and taxes disguised as fees, including sales and property taxes. 2%? Really? And if it's still 2%, We need to raise your taxes. 17% flat tax? How do you feel about an 800% Tax increase to pay your fair share? That will smack the progressive out of you!

[Uncle Skeleton]

We're talking about federal taxes here. There's no point in talking about local taxes when no two of us are in the same locale.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The IRS revenue code is far and away too complicated (how many thousands of pages?) because of decades of special interests writing narrow, arcane tax breaks into the code, and as evidenced by the fact that the new head of the IRS admitted he uses an outside accountant for his taxes. What a clear indictment of a horrendous tax system. The IRS is too intrusive and too powerful, which definitely hinders economic development. The system sucks royally. If the Founders could see how we've destroyed so much of the liberty they bequeathed to us through this ridiculous system of unequal, direct wealth confiscation, they would laugh in our faces and hold us in high contempt.

Many of them would probably find the idea that they "bequeathed" us our liberty a little funny, too.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by kido331 

Steve Jobs pays himself $1 per year, as do both founders of Google. Our current tax system just encourages the hiding of income, which is rather easy. A better system would tax consumption, which is difficult to hide. I also agree that if everyone paid some tax, then everyone would care how their tax money is spent.

SJ does in fact receive $1 in salary, but he used to get stock options (not sure if he still does) and had insiders backdate those options to make them more valuable to him. Fred Anderson lost his job over it.

Just to clear things up.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Many of them would probably find the idea that they "bequeathed" us our liberty a little funny, too.

Fair enough, I should have said something similar to "the form of government they bequeathed to us that respected liberty." Inalienable rights may be endowed from our Creator, but if they're not recognized by the government one lives under they're largely unattainable and theoretical.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If Obama really wants to save his beleaguered presidency and go down in history as a true reformer and upholder of American ideals, he should lock that pathetic old fembot Pelosi and whoever succeeds Reid in a dungeon until they assent to the abolishment of the IRC as we know it and the implementation of a streamlined, comprehensible, general consumption tax. If he did that even I would strongly consider voting to reelect him. I'm not particularly wedded to the Fair Tax, by the way, just the general consumption tax idea.

What's up with this? Pelosi pursues the stuff she cares about and carries out her job and she is a "fembot" blinded by her gender?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Absolutely. One flat rate with NO deductions. I am on board with this.

Amen.

And that rate should be:
---> 0% <---

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by MacinTommy 

I'm claiming myself as an independent (finally) from my parents this year. Just wondering, with my Dad not claiming me will it make much of a difference for his tax returns/payment? I know there are probably a lot of factors that go into this but I was just wanting a general idea.

How are you getting your health insurance?

AFAIR, you need to be a dependent to be covered on your parents' insurance.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Fair enough, I should have said something similar to "the form of government they bequeathed to us that respected liberty." Inalienable rights may be endowed from our Creator, but if they're not recognized by the government one lives under they're largely unattainable and theoretical.

Well, the form of government they left for us made possible the 16th Amendment, so...

Sorry to be quibbling about this. The deification of the "founding fathers" just bugs the crap out of me.

[MacinTommy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

How are you getting your health insurance?

AFAIR, you need to be a dependent to be covered on your parents' insurance.

Through my employer.