main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Senate Taxation: All I Ever Wanted (now discussing: relative tax burdens)

Discussion in 'Community' started by Lowbacca_1977, Feb 27, 2021.

  1. Lordban

    Lordban Isildur's Bane star 7

    Registered:
    Nov 9, 2000
    They didn't actually intend to tax wealth. They intended to spend a lot of money to show to the French citizen they were taxing wealth, and reap side benefits.
     
  2. Pensivia

    Pensivia Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 24, 2013
    I'm trying this now (at 4:17 a.m.) but unfortunately it's not working:p

    (I'm actually interested in this thread but never feel I have time to get into it during a regular day...so here's to insomnia, I guess!)
     
    Coruscant, Darth Nerdling and Lordban like this.
  3. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Hard to believe in a French party.
     
  4. Lordban

    Lordban Isildur's Bane star 7

    Registered:
    Nov 9, 2000
    Eh, it's politics. If you believe in politicians, you're a fool, regardless of the country involved.
     
  5. Obi Anne

    Obi Anne Celebration Mistress of Ceremonies star 8 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Nov 4, 1998
    I have just done my taxes for the year. I pay the standard tax which comes out at 33,7%. This tax goes to my municipality and region, and it's the region that handles health care. I don't earn enough to pay any taxes to the state on my income. We do have VAT and other taxes that goes to the state though. I could say straight away that I got my money back though since I had to go to the pharmacy today and collect my insulin - and I paid nothing for that. It was also very easy to make my taxes, last week I got a notification through an app that my suggested taxes were done, I checked them and today I went in and just signed that everything was correct. Of course doing the taxes can be more complicated, especially if you are self-employed, but for most people it is simple as that. Since the taxes are withdrawn every month it's just a matter of checking that all was correct, it turns out I get a small amount back (less than $200), which is always nice. In April that sum will be sent to my bank account and then I'm done with having to think about taxes until next year.

    It is a lot more palatable to pay taxes when it's easy to do so.
     
  6. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Which is directly in contrast with the American conservative mindset that "taxes should hurt"
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2021
  7. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Each year now, my income - salary, dividends, distributions - is all pre-populated with the Australian Tax Office. Most recent tax year I just added any crystalised capital losses; just shy of $300 in unreceipted deductions, and then a Covid rate we applied here which I think was $0.80 a day in deductions. Punch them in, instant tax calculation, easy.
     
  8. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    In contrast, because of the weirdness of the last year, this will be the first year I get an accountant because while I worked one job all year, my wife didn't trying to ride out the ramifications of COVID. And it's complicated enough, and the government is vindictive enough, that it'll be spending a few hundred dollars to make sure that I don't do something wrong because the risks are too great if I make a mistake
     
  9. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    I wanted to bring this back up because this issue has actually been tackled, and I'm somewhat surprised I've not heard more of it in general flow of information:

    IRS has issued guidelines that anyone that made under $150,000 before counting unemployment payments does not have to pay any taxes on the first $10,200 in benefits that they received. So this looks like it'll remove much of the pressure for anyone that didn't have money withheld from their benefits (barring those making quite a bit to begin with), and people who had withholdings would, I presume, see a bigger return than they otherwise might have. This appears to be a one-off though?

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/23/10200-unemployment-tax-break-irs-makes-more-people-eligible.html
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2021
    blackmyron likes this.
  10. blackmyron

    blackmyron Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Oct 29, 2005
    It is a one-off. My hope is that it might open up the possibility of reversing yet another conservative "punishment law".
     
    Lowbacca_1977 likes this.
  11. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    A new article discussing some comments by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen about how people, particularly the rich, not paying the correct amount of taxes (through things like underreporting of income) may be resulting in a bit less than $1 trillion a year not being collected that should be. US federal income tax revenue appears to be around 3.5-4 trillion, so that's a giant amount we're missing out on.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/yel...ncollected-treasury-federal-government-2021-5

    It does suggest that if we were just collecting the taxes we should be (so more enforcement and reversing the trend of things like audits) we could have both more government spending at no increase in the deficit without changing any tax laws.
     
    Rew likes this.
  12. dp4m

    dp4m Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    I've made this point repeatedly in the other thread. Whereas things like mortgage, child credits, SALT, etc. are proper deductions -- there are still massive loopholes for people and corporations to get through. Shockingly, this is one of the things that Republicans are typically hypocritical on -- whereas they are in favor of closing loopholes, but when showing their politicians are exploiting said loopholes it's just them "playing by the rules as they are."

    I'm also in favor of limiting some of the existing deductions (mortgage for example) whilst restoring others back to full strength (SALT for instance).
     
  13. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Though If I'm reading this right, it seems like this isn't even an issue of loopholes (where it's done legally but should be reassessed) and seems more like straight up failing to report things which isn't a loophole issue, it's just noncompliance. As presumably an audit wouldn't be able to push back on loopholes, as that's done above board.
     
  14. dp4m

    dp4m Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    That's also correct, but largely -- I had thought -- due to loopholes. Where most of this would be caught in an audit -- and the richer you are, the more likely you are to need an audit -- and there's capability to do something like 5-10% of the audits necessary for personal income taxation and somewhat less for corporate.

    I haven't read the article yet, but usually that's also one of the arguments in favor of tax code simplification -- reducing the necessity of audits/IRS staffing.
     
    Lowbacca_1977 likes this.
  15. blackmyron

    blackmyron Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Oct 29, 2005
    The deeper hypocrisy is that Republicans - who routinely pass and benefits from legislation creating loopholes then turn around and rail against the system they created in order to push ******** 'reform' like a flat tax or consumption tax.... which just happen to punish the non-wealthy. Oh, and they still include loopholes.
     
  16. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    I note that there's a constant subtext of "who gets to define this" where the answer is always that QGM does

    If QGM thinks the tax is debilitating, then maybe he needs to stop "being terrible with money, buying things he cant afford, having bad priorities, not valuing education or understanding that you tend to get out things what you put into them".


    Also note he can't come up with what this 'better way' would be. So it's 'realistic' to say that the current method can't be used and not provide any alternative.
     
  17. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    well mike, centrism is essentially a position where ideology is replaced by outcomes; meaning, that you can agree with some parts of an agenda but not all of them. You put ideology first, which is why your claims to the political centre aren't accepted.
     
  18. Lordban

    Lordban Isildur's Bane star 7

    Registered:
    Nov 9, 2000
    I'm always a little tempted to reply about tax complaints "I'm French, tell me again about your fiscal woes"...
     
    TCF-1138 , Ender Sai, Rew and 4 others like this.
  19. Lordban

    Lordban Isildur's Bane star 7

    Registered:
    Nov 9, 2000
    So, to get beyond the quip...
    1. I live in a city where property tax is ~125% of what it is in NYS; it goes up to ~150% of the level of taxation of NYS in some of our cities. And remember our overall taxation level is nearly twice as high as yours to begin with, leaving a lot less margin to cover for property tax here - yet we manage.

    So no, you don't have a debilitating property tax in NYS, not unless you're living well above your means.

    2. I don't have to convince parents that pay higher taxes that their dollars will be going elsewhere - that's the USA's job. Your country clearly quite failed at teaching you and other parents that.

    3. Poor people don't actually get to choose to pay big tax bills for where they live, because they can't afford to live there in the first place. Richer people have that luxury.

    4. With leveled funding for schools, you'll find budgetary concerns about how they end up being funded aren't what's going to get parents to move in most cases. They'll still try and send their kids to what is regarded as the best schools; they'll just use different strategies to get there.
     
  20. QUIGONMIKE

    QUIGONMIKE Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Then the "how much" must be the problem. Well, someone has to try and fix it then.

    A debilitating property tax is totally subjective. Plenty of people do feel that way and look to escape to lower tax states for that reason. So, that statement isnt absolute nor is it a fact. Its up to each homeowner as to what they are wiling to pay. There is no law or moral guide in place to determine what me, you or anyone feels is "too much" of something. It doesnt work that way. I get that some here on this forum might be "down" with or "used to" certain levels of taxes and you are entitled to your opinion on the subject just as I am.

    Education as a whole needs plenty of work. It isnt just a money thing either. But, this is another topic where its gonna not really go anywhere so I'll let you guys carry it on.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2021
  21. Lordban

    Lordban Isildur's Bane star 7

    Registered:
    Nov 9, 2000
    It really isn't that subjective, as whether taxation is debilitating is a question of whether the level of taxation is forcing you to renounce necessities, a situation that is also largely dependent on other factors. By itself, property tax at NYS level absolutely isn't debilitating.

    Your level of willingness to share society's burdens at the detriment of your own comfort, on the other hand, is an entirely subjective matter. Clearly, your mild taxation levels are above your own subjective level of willingness to share society's burdens at the detriment of your own comfort.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2021
  22. QUIGONMIKE

    QUIGONMIKE Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Ok so, once a family has met the the very basic needs as in food, minimal shelter and water....we’re supposed to hand the rest of any extra monies over to some governing body so they can redistribute it as they see fit? Because that’s how that statement and idea comes across to me. It isn’t inconvenient. It’s that, well, when you work for something and put your time and energy into it one of the main reasons is that you then reap the benefit of said work/labor. It’s called varying levels of success. Most people have sacrificed a lot to have the "nice" things they have. They’ve earned it. I know around here that concept causes the fairness police to blow a valve. Sorry.

    So yeah, we all have to and do chip in for the community necessities. We pay a very good amount through the various tax levying systems in place. Property taxes are just one of many. I guess at some point people amazingly get tired of handing more and more over to the Govt. suit to watch them throw it at their pet projects and whatever. People amazingly like to keep as much of their money as they can to use for their families. Yes, that means we might "dare" to have some extras. Like larger homes, In ground pools, sports cars, big TVs. That’s how it works. We earned those items and I’m not feeling guilty for any of it.
     
  23. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Could this be redirected to the taxation thread if he's going to just want to talk about taxation in this thread? It seems rather distracting, and we do have a thread for this very topic if he wants to talk about it.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2021
  24. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Skywalker Saga/LFL/YJCC Manager star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    @Ender Sai you are only subsisting on basic food, minimal shelter and water, and handing over the rest of your salary to the Australian government, right? [face_laugh]

    Because that’s apparently what @QUIGONMIKE thinks happens in countries with more progressive tax systems and better social safety nets than the US.

    Because you are deliberately uneducated about how tax systems in actual first world developed countries work.

    Right. Because nobody in any actual first world developed country has any of that.

    ...I’m not buying that you actually think that but maybe you do. It looks like a strawman put forth for your own convenience because you don’t want to admit that your default guiding question when formulating tax policy is “How much money can I keep for myself?” as opposed to “How can we create a society in which everyone’s basic needs are met?”

    If you don’t feel guilty about that because you have contempt for poor people and think a measure of a person’s character is the size of their bank account, that is certainly on you, but we’re not going to pretend it’s an acceptable moral position because you think it is.

    But let me help you out with a taxation policy that helps build an actual good social safety net, not one that you think is “good enough” because you think poor people are morally inferior to you:

    Up to $15 million, same as the one that currently exists.

    $15 million and above, taxed at 70 cents on every dollar.

    Money hidden in off shore bank accounts is taxed at that rate when withdrawn.

    Companies moved overseas are hit with tariffs when they sell their products in the US. Exceptions are products that cannot be made in the US.

    Schools are not funded by property taxes and are equal across the nation.

    Military is funded only for actual defense and not for turning Palestinian kids into skeletons.


    Done.
     
  25. Mar17swgirl

    Mar17swgirl Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Dec 26, 2000
    No. Nobody here is advocating that. Stop putting ridiculous claims in people's mouths.
    Then your reading comprehension is very poor.

    Let me try and explain it in simpler terms:

    Let's say (for simplicity) that your total gross earnings are $2000 per month and that your basic necessities (rent, food, utilities, transportation, clothes, etc.) cost $1500 per month. In this case, "debilitating level of taxation", as defined by economics, would be anything above 25% of gross earnings, as that would equal more than $500, and therefore you would not have enough money to cover your basic necessities and would need to renounce some of those necessities (i.e. eat less, use less electricity/water, what have you).

    This is what Lordban was saying by defining "debilitating level of taxation". He was not saying that you should give all your disposable income to the Government (no sane person would suggest that). What he was saying is that if you have any disposable income (i.e. you can spend money above and beyond your basic necessities), then by definition your level of taxation is not debilitating. You can say you find it high, okay, but you can't say it's debilitating.

    You said "A debilitating property tax is totally subjective." We're saying this statement is false - debilitating taxation can be defined in a very precise and objective fashion. So it's not subjective at all.