Bush wasn't a conservative in practice. Obama did it for only people under $xx amount of money. But yeah, you're right.

Is Obama a liberal in practice...?

Amen, bro.

Few talking points:

When it comes to the first rebate bush sent out way back in '01, that was so misunderstood. What he did was say "you have been over taxed so we are going to give you back some of that money now". At the end of the year, you had to factor in that you already received a portion of your refund, the amount you were over taxed. Well, as this thread indicates, people didn't look at it like that. At the end of the year they felt screwed because their refund was smaller. Yeah, dumbass, because you were already returned the money. If I borrow $50 from you and give you back $25 this week and $25 next week, are you getting screwed next week when you have to deduct the $25 I already paid back? Morons.

In my tax situation this past year I had about $1145 withheld and my return was $5684 so I paid $-4539. I have paid a negative amount for the past seven years.

I'm hoping Obama doesn't roll back gWb's tax breaks for the poor. It's kind of nice getting money from rich Massassians such as Brian, Steven, and Darth Alran!

No, not entirely. Bush reduced rates for everyone but he reduced them more for those on the bottom which shifted the tax burden further to the high income wage earners.

I guess so. I didn't really do them personally, I let my dad handle it because they claim me as a dependent. But hey, he pays my tuition and god knows he needs the tax deductions and credits.

Edit: and thanks to this thread I am no longer blissfully ignorant of the fact that a significant number of people get more money back from the government than they pay in. To me, that is completely ridiculous.

That is important to note but also note the number of people that are paying taxes but perceive they are getting money back.

But there is a caveat to your opinion that there is a significant number of people getting more money back. Another insidious feature of our tax system obscured from view and sure to not be understood since it is obvious people can't even understand their personal income tax is our corporate tax. Any tax on a business ends up being passed along to the consumers as a cost of doing business therefore business don't really pay any taxes. They merely launder the money we give them and pass it on to the state. When you look at it that way, the lower income populace, ie the 47% of wage earners that pay no income tax, actually pay a fairly significant percentage of their income, since they spend basically everything they make, to the feds.

You can follow the same type of logic to dispel the myth that an employer pays any portion of an employee's SSI, Medicare, UI, etc. Typically people perceive that half of such deductions are contributed by the employer but the fact is that they are a cost to the employer of hiring an employee, therefore the money is money the employee never receives. Let's say an employee makes $25,000 and $5,000 of that is deducted for these split-type contributions. The employer ponies up another $5K so you basically cost the employer $30K. He budgets $30,000 for hiring you, sends $5K to the appropriate agencies, then shows you a statement for $25,000 that he then deducts another $5K from to send to the state for "your" contributions, then deducts all of the taxes required to give to the state for the privilege of working. So now you're receiving less than $20K from your $30K job. Smoke and mirrors.

Oh, and btw, the dependent thing is what put you in your tax situation.

We're ****ing poor dude.

Yeah, I think it's ridiculous, too. If you don't earn enough to be liable for any federal tax whatsoever, that's fine. But sending more than you paid throughout the year is absolutely nuts. It's just redistribution of wealth. Not by providing services or government-managed benefits (like roads and such), but actually taxing one person and turning around and giving that money to someone else.

I figured that. Still sucks that I had to pay taxes out of MY paycheck and the credits all go to my parents, but like I said, they pay my tuition so I guess I can't complain.


So what? I bet I drive a ****tier car than you, does that mean you should buy me a new one?

$76.00

Yes, so it's likely a net loss for your parents, as it should be. You paid taxes on your income. I have no idea what the standard deduction is for a dependent but you have little to nothing else to deduct or any expense you can claim a credit for. Your parents, hopefully, have an income that ensures they pay taxes and receive deductions and credits for valid expenditures. It's likely they paid far more in taxes than you did so you could say that they subsidized your low tax bill.

Not that I am in anyway defending our asinine tax system mind you.

0

Republic taxes on the other hand...

They paid far more in taxes than I've ever HAD.

HEHE, I figured. I know you weren't being too serious but there are some people that look at it like that. Some here will remember the member who was freaking out because his mom got all the credit for his college stuff. I don't remember who it was but I know someone here will. I bet somebody could find the thread.

What a bizarre response...

Actually, it was quite appropriate.

Perhaps, if you have a lack of understanding

I don't really understand what's wrong with it? Care to explain?

Because what I said had zip to do with wanting entitlements? It was simply explanatory.

I don't think he meant that towards you personally other than to illustrate the redistribution of property concept.

Deadman, I'm pretty confident that Wookie understands it better than you do.

In other words he disagrees that since he is "poor" he should get other people's money just like you would disagree that since he has a nicer car he should help you get a better one.

I think I see the problem. I wasn't saying it's ridiculous that you take it. I don't blame you at all for taking it, I would take it. I think it's a little ridiculous that it is given.

If that's not the issue, then I am still confused about what the problem is.

Sarn, Wookies posts (especially his last one) says otherwise.
The fact that you guys can't even tell how bizarre it is shows me that I could post and post and we'd end up at page 5 with walls of text and still be no further along then we are right now.
So, as I already said in the chat, I'm not going to bother, feel free to declare victory if you like =p

It wasn't some grand metaphor that held the meaning of a doctoral thesis within it. I was just pointing out that just because you have less stuff than someone doesn't mean that you should automatically get more stuff. I really don't see the problem, and so far your explanation has been "because! just because.....because!"

Considering that Bob's post basically says the same as mine except he admits he'd take it and not blame Free for taking it... He just thinks it's bad that the G-Man is taking other people's property.

Kind of like how most people have no problem buying hot property from a pawn shop. Afterall, they didn't steal it but they still don't condone theft.

And this phenomenon of discussing active threads in the chat instead of in the active thread... I guess that does explain the lack of idiotic posts, though.

I always feel like people are talking behind my back around here because of that damn chat.

They ARE talking behind your back. Mine too, for that matter. Nothing to care about, though. I just kind of look at it like one big Massassi circle jerk.

I paid roughly $2,950

Ok, granted, not knowing anything other than the one sentence you posted makes it kind of difficult to say that you don't know what you're talking about. I'll let it go since you don't seem to want to be bothered to discuss it.. But, really if you weren't prepared to back it up, you really shouldn't have claimed some higher level of knowledge in the first place.


In other words... WE WIN. :p

Yay, GO TEAM!

Woo!

The redistribution of wealth is necessary under a capitalist system. There's an endless amount of reasons why a society should strive for economic equality. If you don't agree w/ this I'll assume that either you're already wealthy or that you fantasize about being so which is unrealistic for the vast majority of us given the lack of upward mobility in this country. There are verifiable social issues that result from socioeconomic inequality & I can't fathom why anyone who isn't wealthy &/or delusional would want said things to occur more often than is necessary. It's almost a certainty that I'll never be wealthy but I know for certain that if I became wealthy after having been poor I wouldn't complain about having to pay higher taxes. If I have to live in a reasonable home instead of a mansion, if I have to drive my Yaris instead of a Lexus & if I have to to wear Wrangler instead of Armani then so be it. It's a small price to pay knowing that I may be helping to equalize things a fraction of a cent more for some poor ******* that had it even worse than I did. Supply-side economics is a farce.

If I had some assurance that the money they are taking from me actually goes to something worthwhile, I can somewhat see what you are getting at. However, I'm not only funding other people's well-being, I'm also funding abortions, condom drops on foreign countries that don't want them, war, government waste, wallstreet bailouts, etc.

If you take from people who have money and give it to those who don't, what motivation do people have to do anything? You're not motivated to get rich, they'll take it all away. You're not motivated to get a job, they just give you free money.

And no, I'm not rich. Yes, I do feel like I could become rich if I worked really hard at it. It's not a pipe dream. Don't talk to me about lack of upward mobility -- I went from nothing, a dude enlisted in the military at 18 getting $800/month to 14 years later I'm doing okay, probably considered upper-middle class, although I don't know what the exact cutoff is. That's upward enough and it was worth working for.

Yep, and our continual decline to a system more like one Mentat would prefer will ensure that fewer people will accomplish the sort of thing, and more, that Brian and others here have.

My dad was a dirt poor immigrant in the northeast when he was a little kid. He is now middle class somewhere..maybe upper-middle, I don't know exactly...but he sure isn't picking potatoes anymore.

It sure is noble of you to give away his money, though. If you think redistribution of wealth is good, then you know what? I agree...I think there are people who are genuinely in tough situations that need help to get out of them. So go find someone like that and give them your money. Just send them a check every month until they are not "poor" anymore. If you ever get "wealthy" (whatever your cutoff is for that definition, as it seems pretty relative to me) start a charity and give away all of your money.

Sometimes I wonder if the government would be able to spend such huge amounts of money on things if the vast majority of the money they were using didn't come from a tiny minority of its voters.

And finally, even if we all agreed to pool our money and split it up evenly (despite our differing jobs and levels of work ethic, our upbringings, educations, and all the other differences that make us individuals) it STILL wouldn't matter, because there would STILL be some people who are better off than others. He's smarter, she's prettier. Oh, well she was BORN pretty, she didn't have to spend her monthly allotment on plastic surgery like I did, so now she can afford a nicer car! That's not fair!

My family is far from wealthy. That hasn't stopped the taxes. If I ever become wealthy, I would give away money that I don't need to someone who needs it, and it wouldn't go through corrupt government bureaucracies to get there.

The trouble is, "equalize" doesn't mean getting the difference between eating and starving. It means the difference between having a 47" HDTV and having a 60" HDTV. The middle class has poor upward mobility because if they get a college education, they end up spending ten of thousands on a worthless degree that didn't impart any useful skill. You can't expect to make a lot of money if you don't do anything useful.

The reason that its hard to get truly wealthy is that it involves a lot risk and initiative. People don't like to get out of their comfort zone and make their own way. It's far easier to follow the path that a company lays out for you, and a lot less risky. Most people either don't want to or can't peruse an entrepreneurial career because of that.

If you don't want risk, that's fine, but there's no reason to believe that you deserve a cut from the people who do.