Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The IRS is very unsecure


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#21 apollyon

apollyon

    SUP3R 31337 P1MP

  • Members
  • 285 posts

Posted 19 March 2005 - 06:03 PM

fact: kids are dumb
fact: politics makes people dumb
fact: politically motivated kids are 2X dumb.

;)

just part of growing up.

#22 tiocsti

tiocsti

    rekcah-rebÜ

  • Banned
  • 676 posts

Posted 19 March 2005 - 06:26 PM

the goal of most weathly people is to keep that wealth. taxes take away some of that wealth. if i was rich i'd make damn sure the majority of my wealth was not taxable(legally). just the way shit goes. this is a capitalist country, that's what happens. yes we need taxes to support our country, but a big goal of the upper class is to stay wealthy while shouldering the tax burden on the lower classes(lower class pays most of the tax right now anyway).

The goal of everyone paying taxes is to minimize their tax rate. The higher your tax rate, the more you can justify spending in terms of time and hiring experts to make maximal use of the tax law.

As for the lower class paying most of the taxes, the non-partison congressional budget office indicates that this is just not the case. The top 20% households in terms of income pay 78% of the taxes. You can argue that we aren't progressive enough, but arguing that the poor pay most of the taxes is simply a factually incorrect statement.

#23 Against Me!

Against Me!

    SUP3R 31337 P1MP

  • Members
  • 278 posts
  • Location:Durham NC

Posted 19 March 2005 - 07:05 PM

1. Anarchist kids: If they were truly anarchists, why would they care about a law saying they have to go? That should be even more reason for them not to go if they are truly for their case.

That's the dumbest fucking thing i've read today. A simple google search could tell you that breaking the law isn't an anarchists main goal.

#24 apollyon

apollyon

    SUP3R 31337 P1MP

  • Members
  • 285 posts

Posted 19 March 2005 - 07:31 PM

As for the lower class paying most of the taxes, the non-partison congressional budget office indicates that this is just not the case. The top 20% households in terms of income pay 78% of the taxes. You can argue that we aren't progressive enough, but arguing that the poor pay most of the taxes is simply a factually incorrect statement.

show me the stats.

#25 tiocsti

tiocsti

    rekcah-rebÜ

  • Banned
  • 676 posts

Posted 19 March 2005 - 07:44 PM

As for the lower class paying most of the taxes, the non-partison congressional budget office indicates that this is just not the case. The top 20% households in terms of income pay 78% of the taxes. You can argue that we aren't progressive enough, but arguing that the poor pay most of the taxes is simply a factually incorrect statement.

show me the stats.

http://www.cbo.gov/f...5746/Report.pdf

table's 2 and 3. 2 is an analysis of current law, and projections and 3 is the 2000 law. It is meant to show the anticipated impact of the law changes.

Read the entire thing though, to understand context.

Edited by tiocsti, 19 March 2005 - 07:51 PM.


#26 apollyon

apollyon

    SUP3R 31337 P1MP

  • Members
  • 285 posts

Posted 19 March 2005 - 08:16 PM

that's all good and well how the books are set up and how things work "in theory", but in practice there are many many ways to move money and assets into un-taxable areas. the majority of any wealthy person's wealth is not reported because it's in other areas and investments. i know millionares that pay taxes equivalent to $60k a year salary people, legally.

i'm not saying this is wrong, it's what i would do, it just so happens the way it works out the lower classes pay most because the majority of the wealthy's assets are not taxable.

#27 tiocsti

tiocsti

    rekcah-rebÜ

  • Banned
  • 676 posts

Posted 19 March 2005 - 08:48 PM

that's all good and well how the books are set up and how things work "in theory", but in practice there are many many ways to move money and assets into un-taxable areas. the majority of any wealthy person's wealth is not reported because it's in other areas and investments. i know millionares that pay taxes equivalent to $60k a year salary people, legally.

i'm not saying this is wrong, it's what i would do, it just so happens the way it works out the lower classes pay most because the majority of the wealthy's assets are not taxable.

It's not how things work 'in theory', but rather the actual results of the tax receipts. I suspect this is going nowhere though, so this will be my last post on the topic. No amount of factual evidence can combat the power of belief.

#28 apollyon

apollyon

    SUP3R 31337 P1MP

  • Members
  • 285 posts

Posted 19 March 2005 - 09:17 PM

:roll: that's a good way to straighten things out, run away.

perhaps i didn't explain clearly enough, the wealthy have far more potential taxable assets than are being taxed. of course the dollar amount is going to be more, but there is a HUGE chunk of missing tax revenue. a larger % of the lower classes' assets are taxed.

#29 tiocsti

tiocsti

    rekcah-rebÜ

  • Banned
  • 676 posts

Posted 19 March 2005 - 10:09 PM

:roll: that's a good way to straighten things out, run away.

perhaps i didn't explain clearly enough, the wealthy have far more potential taxable assets than are being taxed. of course the dollar amount is going to be more, but there is a HUGE chunk of missing tax revenue. a larger % of the lower classes' assets are taxed.

I'll try once more, as this post seemed more reasonable than the previous...

We don't, however, tax assets as a general rule. Taxation events tend to only be those events which create income. The fact that assets can not really be called missing revenue any more than the fact that we don't tax you for visiting binrev is causing missed revenue.

You seem to have switched your argument, though, and have now gone to the 'its not progressive enough', and it may not be. I don't know, that's a subjective matter, and I don't know how progressive is progressive enough. The statement that the poor pay most of the taxes is objectively untrue. You may, however, say that taxes, as a percentage of disposable income, are higher for the bottom 2 quintiles than for the upper 2 quintiles. That's certainly debatable, but it's an entirely different proposition than the one you originally made.

I, for one, am very grateful they don't tax assets generally. Taxing assets produces a disincentive to save and invest, which has severe negative consequences. As it stands now, we already have several disincentives towards saving and investing (the mortgage tax credit comes to mind), and this is the major cause of the balance of trade difference. It's bad enough they tax income (i'd much rather they tax consumption via something like the fairtax, but that's another matter entirely).

When thinking about potential tax changes, it's important to think about the economic impact of those changes, not just the income derived. This is true in all things, not just taxes. For example, if Stank has 200 people purchasing binrev magazine at 5$ that's 1000$. If he raised the price to 500$, does that mean his revenue will be 100k? No, of course not; there will be a decline in the people purchasing at 500$. The same is true of tax policy; taxes can impact behavior at certain rates and cause people to seek to lower their effective tax rate, either by changing behavior or moving to a location which doesnt tax their behavior as highly. This is all economics 101.

#30 apollyon

apollyon

    SUP3R 31337 P1MP

  • Members
  • 285 posts

Posted 19 March 2005 - 11:34 PM

what you are forgetting is that many of said assets do in fact generate revenue, and go untaxed.

i'm not trying to debate whether or not this is the right or correct way to do things, it's just a fact that the lower classes have a higher tax burden.

#31 tiocsti

tiocsti

    rekcah-rebÜ

  • Banned
  • 676 posts

Posted 19 March 2005 - 11:44 PM

what you are forgetting is that many of said assets do in fact generate revenue, and go untaxed.

i'm not trying to debate whether or not this is the right or correct way to do things, it's just a fact that the lower classes have a higher tax burden.

Again, when you look at objective numbers, they simply do not reflect this. Using the same cbo numbers, we see that the lowest quintile has an effective individual tax rate of -4.5% (yes, the standard deduction is > their total tax liability) while the top quintile has an effective tax rate of around 17% (see table 3).

I simply can't find any evidence to support your assertion. What is the source of data for your claims?

#32 apollyon

apollyon

    SUP3R 31337 P1MP

  • Members
  • 285 posts

Posted 20 March 2005 - 06:25 PM

you still do not get this. yes the rates differ, yes the rates are higher for upper class, BUT, if you look at how much someone in the upper class is worth counting investments and other things that generate income but go untaxed and look at how the poor are taxed, it doesn't work out that way. the poor pay more out of thier pockets(not in dollar amount) than rich.

this is an example of something that works great on paper, but not IRL.

again, i'm not trying to debate here, it's just the way shit is.

#33 tiocsti

tiocsti

    rekcah-rebÜ

  • Banned
  • 676 posts

Posted 20 March 2005 - 06:38 PM

you still do not get this. yes the rates differ, yes the rates are higher for upper class, BUT, if you look at how much someone in the upper class is worth counting investments and other things that generate income but go untaxed and look at how the poor are taxed, it doesn't work out that way. the poor pay more out of thier pockets(not in dollar amount) than rich.

this is an example of something that works great on paper, but not IRL.

again, i'm not trying to debate here, it's just the way shit is.

Fine, then produce hard research substantiating this. Until you do, it's just an opinion. The fact of the matter is that the lowest quintile have a negative effective tax rate. Their refund at the end of the year, as a group, is greater than the sum total of their tax contributions during the year.

You make it sound so matter-of-fact, but have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to support your hypothesis. If it's 'the way shit is', provide the evidence.

#34 apollyon

apollyon

    SUP3R 31337 P1MP

  • Members
  • 285 posts

Posted 20 March 2005 - 06:49 PM

well you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.

let me put this in simple terms, the po' folk be gettin hit harder on der taxes yo, fo rich folk it ain't no thang.

#35 nazareth2

nazareth2

    SUP3R 31337

  • Banned
  • 180 posts

Posted 21 March 2005 - 03:12 AM

1/3 of the IRS is only 35?

Just to clear this up... they were referring only to human employees not the army of monkeys that actually do the processing, come up with tax law, etc.

finally someone answered it.

thanks, i didnt know there were that few people in it.


The auditors called 100 IRS employees and managers, portraying themselves as


"We were able to convince 35 managers and employees to provide us their username and change their password," the report said.


Hence, 1/3rd...

Edited by nazareth2, 21 March 2005 - 03:12 AM.





BinRev is hosted by the great people at Lunarpages!