Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Optional · 04-15-2003, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AdamSmith
Tax burden calculator.

34%

32% For me.

I'm a little puzzled, though.

I tried it under both married and single. Under single, it tells me I'm getting hit by the 'marriage penalty' for about $700.

But then under married, my actual taxes were about $4000 less than single.

So what is this 'marriage penalty' they speak of?

-me

Marduk · 04-15-2003, 04:23 PM

Fed. 28%
State 2.75%
Local 1.0%
property taxes approx. 9%

Kinross · 04-15-2003, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Optional
So what is this 'marriage penalty' they speak of?

-me

Due to the nature of a tiered tax system it depends on the wage gap between you and your spouse and your tax bracket. If both partners are at the low end of the same tax bracket they end up getting a marriage break. If one is at the low end of a higher tax bracket and one is at the high end of a lower tax bracket there is marriage penalty.

Loren Pechtel · 04-15-2003, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Melkor
About the same here... just a bit higher because of where I live (The Peoples' Republic of Minnesota).

I think the biggest tax reform that needs to take place is the way that taxes are collected.

They should NOT come out before people see the money. They should be paid at the end of the year by each individual, assessing the amount they need to pay based upon the income they earned during that year. That way people will actually SEE the tangible amount that the Federal and State governments are forcing people to pay.

I think that alone would be enough to make most people sit up and take notice.

Unfortunately, the average person doesn't handle their finances well enough for this.

Loren Pechtel · 04-15-2003, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by elwoodblues
Can someone explain quick what a value added tax is? Every explanation I hear is absolutely serpentine.

VAT = sales tax collected a piece at a time as the product moves through the production chain.

Loren Pechtel · 04-15-2003, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spurly

If we had these options, needless pork barrel spending would be gone very quickly.

Kevin

Wouldn't make much difference at all.

The pork would simply get stuck into other budgets so you couldn't vote against it but for the other stuff.

Loren Pechtel · 04-15-2003, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Melkor
That's not a problem at all. That's acknowledgement of the idiocy of taking money from one segment of society and spending it on another. A step in the right direction, in my opinion.

If nothing else, one main effect would come of it: a dramatic decrease in the size and influence of government.

"We elect a Republican president and government gets bigger. We elect a Democratic president and government gets bigger. We elect a Democratic Congress or a Republican Congress and government gets bigger. We are told 'the era of big government is over' and government gets bigger. Welfare is reformed and government gets bigger. We're told that Congress has made 'tough budget cuts' and government gets bigger. Whatever happens, government just gets bigger and bigger and bigger." -- Harry Browne

You miss the point. The city folk would vote against spending that benefits the country folk. However, the city folk are the majority--100% of spending would be for the city folk, 0% for the country folk. Very unfair.

Loren Pechtel · 04-15-2003, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Optional
32% For me.

I'm a little puzzled, though.

I tried it under both married and single. Under single, it tells me I'm getting hit by the 'marriage penalty' for about $700.

But then under married, my actual taxes were about $4000 less than single.

So what is this 'marriage penalty' they speak of?

-me

The marriage penalty bites couples that both earn a decent income. Look at the tax brackets and deductions--a married couple doesn't get twice what a single person gets.

theyeti · 04-15-2003, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Melkor

I think the biggest tax reform that needs to take place is the way that taxes are collected.

They should NOT come out before people see the money. They should be paid at the end of the year by each individual, assessing the amount they need to pay based upon the income they earned during that year. That way people will actually SEE the tangible amount that the Federal and State governments are forcing people to pay.

That would make perfect sense, just so long as employers paid people in one lump sum once a year. Other than that, it's the worst idea I've ever heard. Are people somehow unable to see the 1/3 of their paycheck taken out two dozen times a year?

theyeti

spurly · 04-15-2003, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theyeti
That would make perfect sense, just so long as employers paid people in one lump sum once a year. Other than that, it's the worst idea I've ever heard. Are people somehow unable to see the 1/3 of their paycheck taken out two dozen times a year?

theyeti

Why is the idea so bad. I personally had nothing held out of my check all year, and I had to save my tax burden until April 15th and write a big check today. It is actually a good way to do it.

Kevin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-15-2003, 04:23 PM	#32
Marduk Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the 10th planet Posts: 5,065	Fed. 28% State 2.75% Local 1.0% property taxes approx. 9%

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.