IRS and income tax are stupid...

[Green_Lantern]

The government takes money out of the pockets working people before they can even pay essential bills to survive. Often times they take too much money and the only way you can get it back is by filling out long, complicated forms and handing over personal information about yourself.

Instead we need some way to tax wealth or the amount you have left over after paying your essential bills. Tax system shouldn't be as intrusive as it is with the IRS monitoring the activities of citizens.

[NightWatcher]

1. but are you mad enough to fly a plane into an IRS building?

[ixion]

2. I agree

k/r

[villager]

I also agree, but apparently some phantom IRS accountants got to the unrec button first!

n/t

[Warpy]

3. The progressive income tax was seen as the most fair system

back when it was first designed. Working people paid little or nothing. The tax was assessed in such a way that it hit disposable income, only, never designed to touch subsistence income.

Unfortunately, it was tied to fixed dollar amounts and inflation caused "bracket creep," putting working people into higher tax brackets they couldn't afford. During the double digit inflation of the 70s, the burden became unbearable.

Reagan's "solution" was to tax subsistence income two ways: income tax rates assessed on the first penny of income and six increases in the payroll tax to give a back door tax increase on the poorest with no deductions and no way to get any of it back. He did the latter to try to mask the disaster his tax cuts to the rich cost.

What we have now is a terrible system of high taxes on the poorest and the lowest taxes on the richest. This is how we got here.

[BurtWorm]

11. Interesting post

Did it actually work as you describe it? That would seem to address OP's main complaint that tax bills steal sustenance from working families.

[Xithras]

34. Actually, I support eliminating ALL exemptions and deductions from the tax code.

Nothing, nada, zip. No child credits, no earned income credits, no business expense exemptions, no home office exemptions, etc.

The tax code should be progressive, but all income above a federally designated "survival line" should be subject to taxation. At a very low percentage for the poor, and a high percentage for the rich. Make it simple, make it understandable, make it consistent, scale it to income, and apply it to everyone. That's progressive. That's how NORMAL countries do it.

[Warpy]

63. The trouble with that is that the survival line is different

for a single guy in Podunk and a married couple with three kids in NYC.

That's why we have deductions.

[The Northerner]

4. Perhaps repealing the 16th Amendment would be a good campaign for the Dems to run on?

Who couldn't support it?

Although, there need to be plenty of spending reductions as well and we all know were those reductions could start.

[SidDithers]

5. "Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay ...

for the privileges of membership in an organized society."
~Franklin D. Roosevelt

Sid

[Green_Lantern]

9. I'm not anti-tax..

Just not the income tax.

[donco6]

13. Then you're anti-tax. Just own it, dude. n/t

[Green_Lantern]

15. reread the OP..

I support a wealth tax.

[donco6]

16. And you're not "wealthy" right?

Sorry, it isn't working.

[MercutioATC]

31. So you want to tax the fruits of my frugality while encouraging irresponsible consumption?

Good plan.

:eyes:

[Donnachaidh]

6. FDR said it --

Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle. ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt

[leftofcool]

21. But, they aren't

and that is the problem

[Donnachaidh]

57. yup -- that is KEY.

Now if we had a leader who would stop playing these silly assed bipartisan dance moves, and started taking back the tax cuts given to the ones who can and SHOULD be paying, we'd be started down the road to fixing the problem.

[DJ13]

7. One lump, or two?

[spanone]

8. but those folks like riding on the highways & bridges and will take social security & medicare

[Green_Lantern]

14. the IRS needs to be intrusive to fund..

Highways?

[uppityperson]

25. How do you find them intrusive?

[Green_Lantern]

56. removed

removed by poster

[uppityperson]

68. I didn't see before editing, not sure if insult or an answer, would like to know though

your reason for saying they are intrusive.

[Green_Lantern]

77. it wasn't an insult...

What I posted was inaccurate about IRS still using private collection agencies.

[sendero]

62. The IRS is only "intrusive"..

.... to people who don't think they should have to pay taxes they legally owe.

[Tejas]

64. the Fed does not pay for those highways & bridges,

they are paid for with money the states originally sent to the Fed.

[MercutioATC]

10. Define "essential bills".

[sui generis]

17. for a tea bagger or for one of us?

Teabagger:

Magnetic Flag and Ribbon budget
700 Club donations
RNC donations
Toupee budget
Toupee hairspray budget
Vegas Conference Prostitute Budget
Astronaut diaper budget
Ford Earth Destroyer 250000 budget
Bible School budget
200000 dollars worth of revolving credit card charges


One of us:

Mortgage & Utilities
Fuel, Vehicle, Insurance
Food
Kid
Kid's college fund
DU Donation
etc.

[MercutioATC]

23. The OP suggests calculating taxes AFTER "essential bills" are paid...

(which is just what the standardized and itemized deductions do, in a general sense)

If I make $100k/year and choose to live in a $300k house, drive new cars, eat out, send my kid to private colleges, etc...I could very well pay less taxes than somebody making $50k/year who chooses to live frugally.

Is that what the OP actually advocates?

[sui generis]

27. eh give 'im a break

he's on our side.

Yes, "essential" is subjective.

The theory behind deductions and exemptions is to "right size" the amount of money withheld from a paycheck so that the amount returned or owed each year should be nominal.

You can claim as many exemptions as you want in most cases, but if you do that and you end up owing at the end of the year the IRS will get you for that.

The bigger bellyache I have with the IRS is if they owe YOU money, they do not pay penalty and interest on it, not matter how long or bitterly they've fought to hold onto it.

I think the IRS needs to feel the legal and financial lash too when they misjudge and misappropriate.

[MercutioATC]

29. I would, but he's posting silly tripe.

1) As you mention, people can adjust their withholding. If they're grossly overpaying, it's a result of their actions.

2) Calculating taxes after "essential bills" have been paid has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. We already have a set standard deduction and defined itemized deductions. Calculating tax after exempting something as vague as "essential bills" is a better plan??

I'm no fan of the IRS, but the OP (the post, not the poster) is just childlike.

[Green_Lantern]

52. I'm just tossing out an idea..

Not writing legislation. I'm essentially just saying we need a tax on wealth and not labor.

[MercutioATC]

75. My issue is that a tax on wealth punishes the frugal.

...and rewards irresponsible consumption.

If you and I have the same income and you use your money to save and build a successful business, you'll pay higher taxes than the person who spends frivolously. I don't think that's either fair or smart.

[superduperfarleft]

58. You forgot posterboard, sharpies, glitter, and macaroni. n/t

[donco6]

12. Pfft. It's not that hard.

It takes me one solid afternoon to do my taxes. And the personal deduction is what is supposed to sub for your "essential bills" issue. Does it need fixing? Sure. But I'm wary of any system that's too simplistic. It sounds "flat tax"-y to me, and that's completely unfair.

[leftofcool]

22. A flat tax would be fantastic

[Spider Jerusalem]

30. Fantastically regressive, sure

ability to pay should count for something, no? A flat tax of 20% on an income of $25K vs 20% on $25M is a bit of a difference. Helpful hint: there are good social, economic and political reasons that NO advanced democracy has a flat-tax system rather than a progressive one, and those who support the idea of a flat tax are usually people who are ignorant of what it entails consequentially, or profoundly selfish, or immensely stupid...or some combination of those.

[leftofcool]

38. I should have added that

flat tax based on income. The less you make the less your percentage should be. 20k per year should be no more than about 3-4%

[Codeine]

41. Then that's not a Flat Tax. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. Yes, the flat taxes proposed levy the same percentage on everyone

What you are proposing is indeed a progressive tax.

[Codeine]

37. It amazes me to hear Democrats support Flat Tax.

Regressive nonsense.

[leftofcool]

39. It wouldn't be if the percentage was structured according to income

[Sebastian Doyle]

42. Depends on how you define "income"

Let's take someone like Senator Jay Rockefeller, for instance. Not because I want to pick on him specifically, but because he fits my example.

He earns an income from the Senate, and is no doubt taxed the same rate for that as any other Senator is. However, being a Rockefeller, he no doubt has a lot of other money coming in from interest, dividends, or whatever. Now the "flat tax" proposals, particularly the kind advocated by billionaire Steve Forbes, wouldn't consider that as "income". Which is why the legacy rich LOVE the idea. (Jay Rockefeller himself has said he doesn't pay enough taxes, so he might be the exception to that)

[leftofcool]

46. Flat tax should cover all sources of income, period

Of course the rich will never go for that

[donco6]

45. That's just a progressive tax with no deductions.

Not a flat tax.

[leftofcool]

48. Then progressive tax it is.

Flat is just a term for me with a different concept that what the rich think

[donco6]

49. Ok. Now I'm not so nervous. n/t

[Caliman73]

69. If it is structured according to income, then it is not a flat tax.

Flat means flat. It does not rise or fall, flat across the board. 20% for everyone, that is flat. If you adjust it according to anything, it is not a flat tax. Sales tax is a flat tax. The same percentage is taken out whether you purchase an iPod or a car. What you are proposing is changing the brackets and exemptions on the current taxation system.

[LeftishBrit]

47. Yes - for the rich, and for those who don't need public services.

Not saying that the present system is good (even in the UK, and it's evidently much worse in the USA); but a flat tax either means a disproportionate tax burden on low earners compared with high earners; or such a low tax for everyone that there is no money for public services.

[Zoeisright]

59. It certainly would NOT.

A flat tax is regressive. Learn about it before you post, please.

[WilliamPitt]

18. (facepalm)

[Salviati]

36. Nah, this really needs the (double facepalm)...

[DevonRex]

40. Is there a triple facepalm out there?

I don't know if that'd even describe it.

[Justitia]

19. No, this thread is stupid.

[leftofcool]

20. Taxes in and of themselves are not stupid

it is the unfair system that is stupid, the loopholes etc...

[sinkingfeeling]

24. Bull. I've been doing complex taxes since I was 16. Takes a few hours and a calculator to check math

[951-Riverside]

26. If it takes you "a few hours" imagine what its like for someone who has no clue. n/t

[SoCalDem]

28. Who gets to decide what is "essential"

People in Arkansas who pay $450 for rent would surely balk at people in San Francisco who pay $2500 a month for rent on a place the same size getting to deduct their "essentials"..

and people who have a $200 car payment for a used car might get irritated at people who have a $750 a month car payment, and plan to deduct that as well..

some people cook a lot at home, and spend $XX.XX for food, and yet others who have little or no access to easy-to-get-to supermarkets might have to rely on fast foods (junky but easy to find)..

In a country the size of ours, it's impossible to establish a "norm" that would be "acceptable" to everyone.

Income , inherited assets , and windfall profits are the only things that are easily taxed with any real parity...make more, pay more..

[Xithras]

32. The American tax system is the most horrifyingly obtuse in the world.

In most nations, it's simple. Take your income, find your bracket, pay your percentage.

I just did my taxes last week. It took three hours and cost me over $600 to have them prepared. Married, filing jointly, with a failed business and zero taxable income outside of my W-2's for the employment I found later. When I asked for a "standard form" printout of my tax papers after they were done, the stack was over 1/4 inch thick.

We made $73k last year, which is middle class in California, and hardly qualifies me as "wealthy" or "elite".

The problem is that we now have so many exemptions, alternate filing methods, differing tax rates for different "types" of income, etc., etc., that filing anything beyond a 1040EZ practically requires an accountant. And god forbid you get audited!

I have nothing against progressive income taxes (though I do advocate a national VAT as well, like every other civilized progressive nation on the planet), but object STRONGLY to the way we go about collecting and levying them in this country. It's stupid, and no other nation makes its citizens go through this crap.

[truebrit71]

33. That may be so, but it still doesn't justify trying to kill innocent people..

...

[Green_Lantern]

50. who said it did?

Murder is wrong.

[Swede Atlanta]

35. How would it work?

I agree it is better to get little or next to nothing back at tax time than to pay in more than needed during the year and get a refund bonus. But I'm not sure how a system would work that could anticipate tax deductions, credits, etc. in advance. There is no way to know if the taxpayer would only qualify for the standard deduction or based on her circumstances she would qualify to itemize deductions and/or qualify for tax credits.

A flat tax such as the so-called "Fair Tax" is inherently regressive. It taxes everyone on consumption at the same rate. That pre-supposes that it is fair that someone making $50K a year has $30K of it subject to the VAT to clothe, feed and house a family (tax on 3/5 of income) when at the same time someone making $200K a year and consumes only $100K pays tax on only 1/2 of income.

[Javaman]

43. Oy, here we go...

:popcorn:

[chowder66]

44. This disturbs me at another level...

My step-father works for the IRS and he tries to help people who are frustrated, angry and overwhelmed. He sympathizes with those that are having trouble and works very hard to find a solution. He does his job, he doesn't make the laws and yet when I see attacks on the IRS...buildings, etc I can't help but fret heavily. At times it just feels like people completely forget that there are hard working, nice people working these jobs. They are trying to make the pain of paying taxes a bit easier. Of course there are those that are crappy and not so nice in these jobs as well.... just like in any other workplace. When I see the rhetoric escalate during these incidents it just worries me to no end. The amount of threats these people receive are not anything to laugh at but it seems that if it is the IRS then it's not that big of a deal because it's the I.R.S. Not funny in my mind. I love my step-father deeply and he has good people around him where he works. Not everyone is some "Agent of Doom" trying to "get you" (..in "you"...I mean that generally speaking). He now works for another department at the IRS that is actually protecting tax payers from identity fraud which also helps to repair any damage to people that incur this threat. There are real people in these jobs. Good people. Buddists, Liberals, Hippies, Artists, Muscians, Environmentalists, etc. I've been lucky enought to meet a few and even luckier that they just happen to be made up of the list I mentioned above. These people needed jobs and so they work to try to help others that need help.

Just sayin'

[donco6]

51. I've been treated very well by any IRS agent I've ever called.

And I've had to call a lot in 15 years.

The only complaint I might have is that it's hard to get the same agent twice when you're dealing with a complicated payroll problem. So you end up explaining over and over again. But that's the way it's set up, and I doubt they have any input into that.

[Green_Lantern]

53. are you sure it wasn't outsourced?

to private companies?

[donco6]

55. Yes, I'm sure.

I've had to meet with quite a few as well. And send letters. And not to Bangalore.

Look, I can bash government agencies with the best of them (don't get me started on the Fed. Dept. of Education), but I give credit where credit is due. The IRS answers their phones, they give me good info and help me fix problems that I've created. For a huge organization, they seem to do pretty well.

[chowder66]

67. Believe me this is a frustration...

for the agents as well. I had the same complaint and my step-dad said it was really frustrating as well. He found a way to bypass this and was able to consistantly help this clients but it was not looked well upon by the higher ups. Unfortunately, I think changes that are welcome and encouraged internally are just painfully slow to enact and in just about any business those changes are constantly reprioritized as new suggestions and ideas come in. It's inefficient for the workers and the clients. Some things get better but other things suffer.

[donco6]

76. It's hard to pull that off in a call-center situation.

The idea is to keep everyone on a client at all times. But if you try to maintain relationships, that means someone's going to be sitting there waiting for a call from a client. Which probably means hiring more people. Which wouldn't be a BAD thing, but when everyone's bitching about how much government costs already . . . it's a hard sell.

Oh well, we usually get it figure out. Hang in there. I work in public ed. Everyone hates us too.

[flaminbats]

54. it would be great...

a world with no taxes, no government, no laws, and no problems.

sorry, but I think the tax and spend label isn't a problem. Republicans believe in no taxation and no representation, Communists..taxation without representation, Democrats..no taxation without Representation. We believe that one can't be had without the other.

but taxes have to be part of the solution. Obama doesn't have to raise taxes to balance the budget, just let those Bush tax cuts expire! Democrats don't have to slash Medicare or Social Security to bring back the surpluses..just enact a national sales tax.

If these measures were supported we could pay down the debt, slash yearly billion-dollar interest payments for government bonds, as well as keeping Social Security and Medicare solvent for baby-boomers and future generations!

[Vinca]

60. Yesterday I picked up our tax stuff and because we had a rather bad

year and didn't make adequate quarterly payments, we're on the hook for $5,000. I haven't a clue where it's coming from, but I figure you have to accept the fact the IRS is going to screw you over. If you don't accept it, you'll drive yourself nuts like Joe the Pilot.

[gleaner]

61. What is stupid ...

is not having enough revenue to run the country, provide food, shelter and health care for its citizens, disaster relief, and care of the nation's infrastructure. Your "necessary bills" might be for caviar and limos, we don't know. The tax forms provide for deductions and exemptions.

I used to work for IRS. I was an auditor. While I was working for them my office received repeated bomb threats, we were tear gassed by someone who introduced it into the air conditioning vents (it was a closed system; no windows opened) I was once sitting in a room where there was a live bomb and had to evacuate to avoid being blown up. We had to be careful how the mail was opened because people liked to put razor blades and strychnine into it. Occasionally someone would send in a dead animal. Freeze dried, but that did not lessen the impact. Right before I came to work at my office, the building where it had been housed had been demolished by a huge arson bomb set to go off while the employees were there. It malfunctioned and went off early or there would have been more burned than paperwork. A POD in another area had a car bomb parked in its parking lot which was so big it could have leveled a whole block. Fortunately it was discovered and the building was evacuated.

I can very well understand how people dislike paying taxes. The tax code is way slanted toward the rich and it is unfair and in many ways barely comprehensible. But it does fund the country and we all pay our taxes and our "essential bills," because we need the services the government provides and some safety nets which they do not, but could if they taxed the rich. The bills we pay because we want the goodies we buy, but who defines what is "necessary?" Is it you?

Do I get from your post that you approve of killing the employees who administer IRS functions? Because if you do, I think you need to examine yourself very carefully. What if you performed a job which people hated? Would it be OK for it to be open season all the time on members of your profession? Would you appreciate people who tried to justify it? What is human life worth to you? Is it worth as much as money? Define "intrusive." Does that mean that if someone asks you the information that is necessary for filing taxes that they deserve to die? Or did I misunderstand the thrust of what you are saying? I would be very interested to know. One of my greatest joys after I retired was not having to think about threats against my person. When I was working, I had one man who got my unlisted phone number and used to call me regularly at home with death threats. Fun, huh? Nothing like taking your work home with you even when you don't want to. They never did catch him. I wonder what he is doing now?

[Green_Lantern]

66. where do you get that I'm justifying attacking IRS agents?

People who question govt. policy always get linked to violent acts.

No, I'm not justifying violence, just think we need more reasonable tax policies than we have.

[gleaner]

74. I didn't get anything definite ...

which is why I asked you. The first statement of this post is not true. I think just about everyone who posts here question government policy. The only people who accuse us of violent acts are conservatives. The whole history of change in this country is based on the questioning of government policies, or nothing would ever have changed. It's called free speech and again the only people who don't seem to understand it are people like the tea baggers. They enjoy it, but they do not tolerate it from people who do not agree with them.

I don't think you read my post very carefully. What violent act did I accuse you of, because I don't see anything like that there. I asked you if you thought money was more important than people. You just said you do not justify violence, which is a relief. Too many people feel that violence will solve everything when it does not.

It may surprise you to know that most of the people who worked for IRS with me did not think the tax code was fair or reasonable. We did not make the laws. We enforced the laws that Congress made. Whenever someone would tell me that the tax code was unfair, I would agree and suggest that they contact their Congressman or Senator. I suggest that you do the same. For me the aspect that was most unfair was how many tax breaks the rich individuals and corporations enjoyed while the middle class and the working poor paid the bulk of the tax. The rich did get, and do get, tax breaks most of us only dream of. It was my experience, though, that the people who paid the least amount of tax due to the special tax treatments they got complained the loudest and most vociferously. Ironic isn't it? They got all the breaks and did most of the bitching while I paid their share of tax and couldn't even get an installment agreement if I had been unable to pay my entire tax due at once, because I had to "set an example" for other taxpayers.

You seem to be new here judging by your post count. Welcome to DU. It's a very good place to discuss political issues, and you can meet others here that you never thought you would find here. The only thing that still troubles me a little about your posts is that you did not express even one reservation about the use of violence against the individuals in that building the plane hit today. Neither the federal employees or the others. A lot of people worked in that building and from what I heard only five of them worked for the IRS. Discounting their lives, which people always seem to do with government workers, what about the others? I personally think it was a terrible thing for everyone exposed to it. You should be able to go to work and have the expectation that you will come home in one piece. You said you don't "justify" violence which is fine, but regretting that there are people who still find it to be a useful coping mechanism would be better.

[DailyGrind51]

65. Make utility payments, housing expense, insurance premiums fully deductible?

Not a bad idea!

[Socal31]

70. So you want less revenue to go to the government?

Sorry, your idea doesnt fly. People who dont make a lot of money dont pay any federal income tax anyway.

And all they need to file is a 1040EZ. This is not a long, complicated form, and Turbotax will file it for you for free.

The personal information you are giving is already provided to the government by your employer.

How do you think they would verify what your "essential bills" are under your plan? Honor system?

[tinrobot]

72. How about we just tax the rich people a lot more?

[Chemical Bill]

73. Tax wealth! Absofuckinlutely!

Then again, unless we get rid of local taxes such as sales and property taxes, we are still fucking the middle class and the poor.

Bill