Diaries
Everything
Who's Online?
FAQ / Help

Print Story Happy Tax Day
Diary
By riceowlguy (Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:41:37 AM EST) (all tags)
Standard-issue rant inside.

No, not a rant about how taxes are too high, just about how they're too complicated.  If you've read Tom Clancy's novel Executive Orders you've already heard this, so you can just skip the next paragraph.

Now that I'm making a few extra bucks from singing, I have to do the full 1040 with schedules C and SE.  I still don't do a full itemized schedule A since it's not worth the trouble.  I'm single, no kids, no property, no s-corp investments, no interest income to speak of.  So really, I should be able to use the 1040EZ except for that damn 1099-MISC income which suddenly means I'm "self-employed".  My taxes still only take a couple of hours.  However, just being exposed to the full 1040, and barely the tip of the iceberg at that, is enough to make me an ardent flat-tax enthusiast.  I think about 90% of federal policy is made through the tax code.  A million (I might not be exaggerating) little special breaks and penalties for people we as a society have decided are more or less deserving.  Of course, the minute you start talking about a flat tax1, most politicians start shouting about how unfair it is to the poor and the middle class.  Me, personally, I don't think any of them actually care a whit about the poor and the middle class.  What they actually care about are a) all the CPAs and tax attorneys that would be put out of business if the tax code were radically simplified, and b) all the special tax-avoidance schemes that their wealthy supporters would no longer be able to take advantage of in order to avoid having to pay the high tax rate we supposedly make them pay.  That's the main thing.  Maybe abolishing the tax code and starting from scratch isn't the right thing to do, but I don't believe for a minute that the main reason politicians don't support the idea has anything to do with the poor and downtrodden, and can't stand the hypocrisy.

So, yesterday, first day at my new job.  I'm just getting settled in.  New job pluses: within walking distance of several nice restaurants, still a short commute, and I've got two brand-new wide-format 1680x1050 displays.  New job minuses: no real kitchen so bringing my lunch might be a bit of a hassle.  That's all I can think of at the moment.

I have an audition coming up on Friday that I somehow need to find time to prepare two pieces for, one in a foreign language.  I have no idea where I'm going to find the time.

1Let me be clear, I'm talking about a flat percentage income tax, not a truly flat tax.  I'm not that crazy.

< Well, we're finally clean. | Calling Gordon "Texture Like Sun" Brown... >

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:
Related Links
- husi
- riceowlguy's Diary
Google

Hit Counter
56 Husi users have viewed this.
Comment Controls
View: Display: Sort:
Happy Tax Day | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
the full 1040 by wiredog (4.00 / 1) #1 Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:45:35 AM EST
Did it in two hours back in January. Not that hard, as most of the lines are obviously not applicable to me.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)


flat tax by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #2 Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:03:56 AM EST
Actually, as long as the rate isn't punitive, a flat tax isn't bad for the poor or middle class. Getting caught on just the wrong side of a rate boundary is worse.



I'm rich! I get to pay an extra 4K! by greyrat (2.00 / 0) #3 Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:33:06 AM EST
Too bad we can't afford to fix the roof, or the garage door, or pull up and replace the 30 year old carpet, or fix the serious erosion problems in out very steep yard, etc, etc, etc.

On the plus side, Since our county was declared a flood disaster area this spring, we don't have to file until May 19, despite being a good two miles away from any significant flooding.
~
There is no correlation or causation amongst intelligence, power, talent and wealth.
Khanyou


Tax Freedom Day is still a few weeks off.. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #4 Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:08:51 AM EST
Tax Freedom Day

And people say the Stimulus Package didn't mean anything.

--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.


Looks like they are ignoring the by wumpus (2.00 / 0) #14 Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:13:07 PM EST
social security tax. The other side is that working stiffs don't have enough money to show up on these charts is to depressingly likely to be true.

Wumpus

[ Parent ]

Personal deduction limits by marvin (2.00 / 0) #5 Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:44:06 PM EST
Not sure about the USian tax system, but the Canadian tax system, while equally screwed up, has a basic personal exemption. The first $8k or so of income is tax free, with bracketed tax rates above that amount.

A flat percentage tax would work wonderfully for low income earners when combined with a high enough personal exemption (maybe $20k), and a lower bracket under $40k or so. It would be trivial to set it up so that the lowest income earners pay no income tax, and low income pay less tax than today.

You could even make it apply to corporations and business, which might be an improvement over the current situation, where they have purchased the best tax code that money can buy. If corporations are supposed to have the same legal status as people, why can't I write off vehicle depreciation?

Of course, accountants would still require several thousand pages of tax code to define allowable deductions, and to determine what exactly is considered income. Forget lawyers, accountants are the real problem.



Flat tax by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #6 Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:58:19 PM EST
You can get rid of the regressive bit pretty easily. Flat tax of 40% + everyone gets $1000 government check each month. Bingo. So simple it can all be done with paycheck deductions and no filing yet the poor don't get overburdened.
----
ウセーバラケダ


Speaking of tax day... by theboz (2.00 / 0) #7 Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:13:56 PM EST
I always like to use graphs like these to show all the great things our tax dollars go to.  For example, here's a pie chart of the federal budget:

As you can see, most of the money goes to military spending.  Isn't it nice to know that your singing has contributed to the destabilization of Iraq?  Actually though, I suspect the majority of that money just goes to make wealthy corporate heads richer, and doesn't actually serve to make our military any stronger or more efficient.  Our tax dollars are at work paying for bombs and paedophile ranches.

Oh, and for anyone that thinks our military spending is sane or necessary, I present another graph.  This one is military spending by nation:

- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n


The second graph is grossly misleading by miker2 (2.00 / 0) #8 Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:28:53 PM EST
It shows military spending in terms of raw dollars, not percentage of the GDP or percentage of the total budget, either of which places the US nowhere near the top.

By %GDP

Granted, it's still way too much, but the chart is misleading in that most countries don't have a GDP even close to the US.

Ah, sociopathy. How warm, how comforting, thy sweet embrace. - MNS
[ Parent ]

GDP shouldn't really matter by theboz (2.00 / 0) #9 Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:59:05 PM EST
I don't see the GDP as relevant to our defense needs.  It's not like if our GDP lowered we would have less to defend, or an increase in GDP would raise our risks in a calculable way.  You can argue that our size makes us a greater risk, but that should put nations like China and Russia in a similar ballpark to us (and I would counteract also that our military is not designed to protect the U.S., but rather as more of an interventionary force for overseas fighting.)  You could argue that it's based off of population, which again would bring up the argument about other nations like China and Russia.  I can't think of any valid metric that would demonstrate why we need to have such a large budget for the military.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]

The only positive spin by riceowlguy (4.00 / 1) #12 Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:32:07 PM EST
I can put on our large military budget is that the USA has always been willing to trade treasure for blood.  That is, we want our soldiers to be the best-equipped in the world, damn the cost, if it helps them survive.  You can argue that maybe we don't care so much about the lives of our soldiers as we do about making sure we retain our investment in them, or retaining the success of the mission, but I do think we care more about minimizing casualties than other cultures do.  Other countries like China and the old Soviet Union were more willing to spend the lives of their citizens/subjects. 

This is all ignoring the basic question of what we need to defend ourselves against or why we need that kind of military power in first place.

[ Parent ]

I keep reviewing the source for the comment above by greyrat (2.00 / 0) #15 Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:04:01 AM EST
looking for the sarcasm tags, and I keep missing them. Are they somehow hidden from my browser. Oh wait a moment, my neighbor is at the door. She's collecting donations for her sons body armor fund...
~
There is no correlation or causation amongst intelligence, power, talent and wealth.
Khanyou
[ Parent ]

I wish I could believe that by theboz (2.00 / 0) #16 Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:24:16 AM EST
That is, we want our soldiers to be the best-equipped in the world, damn the cost, if it helps them survive.

I don't believe this to be true, from a government standpoint.  Sure, we might protect our soldiers better than most (I don't really know how we stack up against other first world nations though), but the majority of our military spending is for pork barrel nonsense.  There are multiple contracts out for things that serve no purpose other than to allow some senator to say that they brought jobs to their state to get re-elected, or there are contracts signed to allow politicians to get bribes and kickbacks from companies like Haliburton.  From what I've seen, most military spending is on stuff like that.
Other countries like China and the old Soviet Union were more willing to spend the lives of their citizens/subjects.

I don't think it's a fair comparison.  How do we compare to the U.K., France, etc.?
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]

not misleading at all by MillMan (2.00 / 0) #10 Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:05:48 PM EST
it's a national disaster, and that chart shows it.

When I'm imprisoned as an enemy combatant, will you blog about it?
[ Parent ]

I agree it's a disaster, but... by miker2 (2.00 / 0) #11 Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:33:23 PM EST
the comparison with other countries isn't apples-to-apples.

It's like comparing the home costs of someone like Bill Gates with your average middle class: the average guy probably spends a larger portion of their income on housing while the rich guy spends more actual dollars, but a much smaller percentage of their income.

Also, most military's aren't as advanced as ours, so the upkeep is more expensive.  Keeping a rather large nuclear arsenal up to date is very expensive, which is why countries like Russia tend to not do it.

I'm not attempting to justify our military spending, just trying to put a frame of reference around it.

Ah, sociopathy. How warm, how comforting, thy sweet embrace. - MNS
[ Parent ]

I AM DEEPLY APPRECIATIVE OF COMMENT #12. by ammoniacal (4.00 / 1) #13 Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:33:49 PM EST
BINGO. WE HAVE A WINRAR AND HE IS RICEOWLGUY.

PMSbuddy.com -- Saving relationships, one month at a time!
[ Parent ]

Happy Tax Day | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

Powered by Scoop   
 
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments and Stories are owned by the Poster and Licensed to "Hulver's site". See our Copyright page for more information.
faq | help | accounts