http://www.investorguide.com/taxtrackr/


Your taxes don't fund abortions except in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury. The funding of abortion varies state by state but I would encourage you to research the details of abortion as well as the arguments for & against before you decide that you don't want to fund it. I know it's difficult because the crackpot (religious) websites get the highest amount of hits but if you look a little deeper you'll find results.

http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/public-funding-abortion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Choice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Life

It's necessary for the civilized world to supply condoms to those countries that can't afford to supply their own. I honestly don't know if we do that in the U.S. or not but I'm going to assume you're correct (I only know that the Bush administration was much bigger on abstinence). However, we must acknowledge that religion (85% Christian & 42% Catholic (anti-condom) & 12% Islamic (anti-condom) & 4.6% Pentecostal (anti-condom)) is one of the many factors that prevent condom use in places such as Uganda, especially amongst married couples. In this particular country, 80% of the people claim that they see condoms as "affordable" yet only 25% consistently use them. If we can get the crackpot religious to stop preaching against the use of condoms & to stop asking people to ignore their biological needs by subscribing to the abstinence joke then these countries would probably be better off (AIDS as well as overpopulation are serious issues in these places).

I won't argue w/ you about war because most rational people subscribe to the notion of a "war on terror" being about as stupid as a "war on drugs".

You aren't going to find many people that are for government waste. All taxpayers should accept the fact that there will always be a certain amount of it. There's not much we can do as citizens to affect this issue other than voting for people that we believe will do something about it or by doing our small part by working for the government ourselves. This isn't a reason to not to want to pay your taxes. I won't pretend that waste is insignificant but it's certainly dwarfed by the amount of money that we waste on pointless, unjustifiable war.

If you don't want Wall Street bailouts then hopefully you'll support politicians that want to strengthen regulation.


There are various types of motivation but that alone isn't enough for many people if they have limited opportunity. I don't think that anyone is making the claim that the redistribution of wealth is the only means of creating opportunity.


It's quite possible to become wealthy in this country but for the vast majority of people, it's unlikely & it isn't always due to a lack of motivation.


I applaud you for utilizing the opportunities at your disposal. Do you sincerely think that you did it alone or are you willing to acknowledge that it had something to do w/ socioeconomic factors? Are your parents poor? Did you have 2 parents? Are they uneducated? Are they addicted to drugs? Did you go to a decent school? Were the teachers good? The list goes on. There will always be cases where people persevere but there are always be many more where people's hopes & dreams were crushed (assuming they had the opportunity to have hopes & dreams).

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html


That would work in a world where our need to be charitable was stronger than our feelings of greed. However, we don't live in that world. If we depended entirely on charity we'd be in a world of hurt. Maybe in this Utopia we wouldn't even need a government? Maybe we could call it Charitable Anarchy? Never gonna happen.

I'll get to the rest later...this is taking too much time.

It doesn't involve risk for the wealthiest of the wealthy.

http://www.phenomenologycenter.org/course/rich.htm



This concept of risk is only partially accurate. If you're born w/ more opportunity there's much less risk involved. For instance, my wife & I are attempting to open our own restaurant. We have to raise the collateral & will ultimately have to get a small business loan, assuming that we'll qualify. My wife's current employer was born in to a wealthy family (they owned & eventually sold a popular regional fast food chain). Where did she get the money to open her own restaurant? Her parents. That's not risky. She'll probably also inherit their wealth as well as their homes in North Carolina & Florida. Her children will probably go to private schools & meet other wealthy children that may or may not eventually become business partners. Oh, & they'll probably inherit their grandparents 2 homes as well as their parents home & so on...


There are always going to be people that would rather follow than lead. However, there are also people that have little opportunity to do otherwise, whether or not they would like to. They're also less likely to be educated enough to succeed even if by some miracle they're able to get a small business loan or a few decent investors.


Do they deserve a cut from the people that didn't take a risk (the people that inherited their wealth)? Maybe the Walton family can give up some of their money to provide healthcare for their workers so that we don't have to w/ our taxes.

No they don't. You're starting down the slippery slope of entitlement. Where do you draw the line. Does the single mother who's trying to work and go to school so she can get a good job to make a better life for her child deserve a cut? Is she entitled? How about the mother who's in her early 20's and has 4 kids with different fathers, and she's pregnant with the 5th and she's living on child support and food stamps. Is she entitled? How about the druggie who can't beat his heroin addiction, even though he says he wants to. He moves from working at one fast food place to the next every time he gets fired, and spends most of his paycheck on the heroin. He says he's genuinely trying to get off the drugs and make a better life for himself, but he keeps getting in his own way. Is he entitled?

The fact is, I can paint picture after picture of people's lives, and some of those people would legitimately benefit from a redistribution of wealth. Most though, would squander that money the same way they've squandered any other money they've gotten in the past, which is why they're in the situation where they need it anyway.

How about instead of handing out money to people that are just going to throw it away, we take that money and put it into government sponsored classes on financial responsibility and living within ones means?

He's using the Forbes 400 to justify his rationale. That's like using only $250K plus cars in a general discussion about cars. Even then, his source only goes as accurate to say that at least 69% had some edge, which includes parents who simply cared enough to put their kids through private school. So, I guess we can infer that out of the 400 richest people in America, it's possible that, because the figure that follows, at most 124 of them are self-made. Well, that's pretty impressive and when you keep in mind what a tiny percentage of America's rich the Forbes 400 are and that 80% of America's rich are first generation rich, I'd prefer a system that allows those to succeed rather than ensure nobody does.

It's not up to me to decide who is or isn't "entitled". I won't comment on the specific examples you gave because it's clear that reform is needed when said situations occur on a large scale.


There's no study that I'm aware of that shows that the majority of people receiving "entitlements" are abusing the system. It doesn't make sense to end a reasonable program that people depend on because a minority of those people abuse it unless you have a better system to replace it. You can't say w/ any certainty why all of these people need entitlements. I'm fairly certain that you're making a generalization.



I'll answer this w/ a quote from myself.



In other words, there's a lot of work ahead of us, in various areas.


I'm using the Forbes 400 for my rationale in explaining to Obi_Kwiet that he's wrong about his risk hypothesis. You're going to have a difficult time proving that wealthy people that inherited their wealth had to take risks to become wealthy.


I suppose that if you only measure success by how wealthy you are then maybe you'd be correct. I don't personally subscribe to that notion.

Yes, but if your are talking about people who are already wealthy, you aren't talking about upward mobility then are you?



Or maybe, you know, we can take personal responsibility for our own lives as much as possible. The less we do this the less freedom we have.

So what you're saying is that YOUR need to be charitable is weaker than YOUR feelings of greed? I didn't say this should be the system, I said that if it was what YOU believed then YOU should do that with YOUR money.

Oh, well isn't that novel. Since we are talking about taxes, money, and finances and that I was pointing out that a large number of the Forbes 400 and the majority of rich Americans are self made, it's not much of a stretch to infer that they were successful in whatever venture they were engaged in. So, if it makes you happy, I will state that I prefer a system that allows individuals to attain financial success rather than preclude it. I would also add that if someone (here after referred to as "you") lives in America and you do not strive for financial success, you aren't a responsible American unless, of course, you're disabled or some such thing. Then I hope that your family consists of responsible Americans so that unrelated Americans aren't forced to provide for you.

There are various stages of wealth. My example was of someone that'll be wealthier than their parents due to the wealth of their parents.


I think that most people take personal responsibility when they're personally responsible. However, if you take socioeconomics in to consideration you're going to discover that people are often not personally responsible.

I don't see the connection w/ your freedom hypothesis. Please explain.


I'm saying that we all have a biological predisposition to "greed" (outside of our immediate family or tribe) & not charity (except for inside of our immediate family or tribe). We counter this by forcing people to be charitable in the form of taxation.


That makes me much happier. If you're going to insinuate that your system (capitalism) is superior to mine (socialism) on the grounds of "success" then it's important to establish your definition. Since we're stating our preferences, I would like to add that I prefer a system where the wealthy aren't permitted to **** over the rest of the population & where said population controls production/resources.


I personally strive for financial success but it's certainly not my primary goal in life. However, I disagree w/ your opinion on that being a goal that all Americans should embrace. The system that you like so much makes that impossible for a lot of people. There must be uneducated & poor people to clean your toilets unless you're planning to start a volunteer army of after-work janitors.

Taxation should be for the benefit of all, not for the benefit of some to the detriment of others. Forced charity is not charity, it is robbery. The man who steals a wallet in the back alley to give to provide for his poor family and his poor self is little different. Understandable? Yes. Is it right? No.

You pointed out that you agree that wealth is relative...that there are stages of wealth. Well, practice what you preach: find a man who has less than you and give your OWN to him until he is equal with you. Are you not willing to do that, right now? Why not?

I think it's pretty disingenuous of the rich to complain about their tax rates. In the United States, the tax burden relative to income is fairly proportionate.

The following graph compares groups' total tax burden--income taxes, payroll taxes, state and local taxes, capital gains taxes, etc--with the groups' respective share of total income (LINK).

I think you missed my point. I did not say anything about tax rates. In fact, that particular statement you are referring to was not supposed to be a "point" at all. It was a musing (hence the "sometimes I wonder"). Your graph completely supports the basis of that musing, too. What I see there is that (roughly) 65% of the total amount of tax money comes from 20% of the people. So, essentially, 80% of the population is a huge majority and therefore has significant control over what is done with the totality of the taxes. 80% control, 35% contribution vs. 20% control and 65% contribution.

Now, again, I am not making any judgments, statements, or any real points. I simply think that it may help to explain why so much is spent, and what it is spent on.

But in your link, I noticed this:


This is interesting to me. Almost half of americans receive money from just over half of the rest of america through the federal tax system? Another eye opener, to be sure. The fact that it seems to be balanced based on that graph is interesting as well, of course. Balanced by what, though? The explanation in the link shows just how ridiculously convoluted the tax system apparently is...it sure is tricky, isn't it? I'm inclined to withhold judgement on that particular graph because it clearly is beyond my knowledge at this time, and it is a very distilled comment on a very complicated subject.

I see what you are getting at, but I would counter that by pointing out that the upper echelon of income receivers have political influence far beyond their physical numbers.

It's balanced by the fact even though many Americans don't pay federal income tax, they still pay payroll taxes, state and local sales tax, etc, and those taxes affect the middle class and the poor more than the rich.

I ****ed up my W-4 and claimed 2 instead of 1 (I'm told I should put 0) so I ended up owing $490 combined to state and IRS.

I need to learn the art of the Write-Off.

What saved my ass is that I'm contributing...well contributed to a 401 (k). Now I'm contributing to a Roth IRA.

Lot of people arguing at Mentat, but I agree with him. But then again, what do I know? My family is completely dependent on wealth redistribution, since none of us can find jobs...

On a side note, my taxes this year total $433. And with what I've already paid and the Making Work Pay credit, I get a $467 refund. I have to give AZ $180 of it, but that may just get me caught up on my car payments.

Maybe for the tiny number of ultra-rich, but I'd bet that everybody but the top 1% or so have about the same political influence, which is to say: very little. I know a quite a few people who according to that link would be considered top 10% (but not top 5%) that despite what you may imagine, are not on TV pushing their agendas and talking to lobbyists...they're running their business, or doing their job, and living their lives. I'll bet you know a few too.



It was a rhetorical question, addressed by the sentence that followed. (The explanation in the link shows just how ridiculously convoluted the tax system apparently is.)

That graph is ****. If you are splitting it up by 20%, split it up by 20%. If you do that, then you'll have to stack the 4 right bars on top of each other to get a realistic view. I can't believe anyone falls for that crap.

To get further to the point of my musing, I guess what I'm noticing is that it's basically an inherent flaw in the equality system we have: Some equality of imperfect humans seems to demand full equality, which, being imperfect humans, is impossible.

You say that the tax is not progressive because based on that graph, people pay a roughly equal percentage of their income in taxes regardless of their LEVEL of income. Well, sure, that makes sense, as far as the definition of "progressive tax" goes.

But it doesn't really make sense, because money is not relative. 30% of my income or my money couldn't fund a decent motorcycle, and 30% of Bill Gates' income could fund almost half of the Georgian military. And yet I get just as much say in where it goes as he does. In fact, the number of people like me that it would take to contribute as much to our government as he does is more than 20,000. That's quite the preponderance of power.

So the point there is that the rich people of the country, from an absolute perspective, contribute an immense amount more to the government as individuals than the poor people do as individuals, but get the exact same say in how it is spent. You could say that rich people don't feel the impact of that expenditure as much as the poor people do, and that is fully true...but that's why they're called "rich" and it's really kind of sidestepping the issue: the fact is: they pay more and do not get any more in return. Is this acceptable? Is it effective? Maybe. Is it fair? No...fair is the wrong word, and citing fairness as a reason to subscribe to this system is a poor foundation.

So, the two perfect answers are that everyone gets an equal vote as long as their lives are exactly equal in every other way as well (the kind of system you're suggesting) OR those that pay more get more powerful votes. Obviously, the second option is a recipe for enslavement of the masses by the powerful few, so I can see why you (and others) would prefer the first option. But to me, the first option is just as ridiculous, if for different reasons.

You see, I've used the word "perfect" a couple of times here. I offered two "perfect" solutions (based on definitions of fairness). I also referred to humans as "imperfect". And there's the problem: BOTH option 1 and option 2 are impractical because humans are not perfect. We can't graduate power with contribution because it would be taken advantage of, and we can't all be equal because true equality is impossible. As is usual, the answer has to lie in the balance between.

For sure, fairness can be taken into account to some degree, I'm sure, but it cannot be the foundation of your adherence to a philosophy, because it is a flawed concept. Life isn't completely fair and never can be. There have to be other criteria. I, personally, function on ideals of what is right, sometimes at the expense of what is smart. So, the questions I ask myself are these:
If I was in need, and no one would give to me, would I take from them? Yes, I would. Would it be smart? Maybe. Would it be right? Definitely not.

Brian, the point they are trying to make with the graph is that the yellow bars are roughly equal to the blue bars, and that wouldn't change significantly even if you used even 20% divisions. However, if you did that, people would notice what I mentioned in the post immediately before this one, which is that the top 20% DO pay a huge amount more in taxes than the other 80% of the population...which should be completely obvious to anyone who knows how percentages work.

I'm not sure what your critique is, Brian. The graph is meant to compare total percentage of income earned versus percentage of taxes paid, and if you were to add up the separated groups in the Top 20% as you suggest, the point still stands.

Top 20% :
60.6% of total income earned
64.2% of total taxes paid


If anything, the graph would then demonstrate what a huge disparity of income there is between America's Top 20% the rest of us 80%ers. I can make a new graph adding together the Top 20%, as you suggest--but not tonight, maybe tomorrow.

I remember when Bush cut taxes the argument against it was that the top earners were going to get a tax cut equivalent to purchasing a Lexus and how unfair it was. People, of course, bought it but the actual stat was that they were paying enough taxes to buy seven lexus cars but that after the tax cut they would only be paying the equivalent of six in taxes.

Sorry, I misunderstood what the graph was trying to say. I don't quite get it, though, the more money I make, the higher % of taxes I pay. So are they basically saying people under report their income? That's the whole point of a graduated tax. Go look at the tax table: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

If you scroll to the bottom, you can see the way the table is calculated. The percentage goes up the more you make. And it goes up significantly -- anywhere from 10% up to 35%.

If people are paying less in taxes, it's because they have deductions that lower their tax burden (things like mortgage interest, charitable donations, business expenses, etc.) -- so does the graph you posted take that into consideration?

But what if I don't support abortion in those cases?

side note: that was not necessarily a **** up. You're better off at the end of the year getting no refund or owing, then you are getting a huge refund. Because remember, a refund is exactly that; a REFUND. It's money that you've already given to the government, which they're now giving back to you because you gave them too much. Imagine you wanted to buy a pair of shoes. You go into the shoe store, and see a pair of shoes worth $40. The sales person comes up to you and says "Yeah these shoes are worth $40, but to buy them, you have to give me $100. Then at the end of the year, we'll send you a check for the extra $60." How would that sit with you? Why should you give out your money for free? It might be ok, if the sales person said they'd pay you back the $60 plus interest, but the government doesn't pay us interest. So in conclusion, you're better claiming 2, and taking the money that you saved and which is not deducted throughout the year and putting it into some kind of investment that pays you interest (at the very least a savings account). Then when the end of the year comes, you pay whatever else you still owe from that money you've put away, and you've got whatever interest you made on it left over.

Don't feel bad because you didn't give the government a free loan last year.

I think you're overlooking the possibility of specific programs that you don't support having a positive effect on society in general which ultimately does benefit you. The right consistently attempts to make the argument that just because a program doesn't work properly under its current iteration that it's impossible for it to work at all. You won't hear many people on either side stating that no reform is needed (except for those politicians that are wining & dining w/ lobbyists in some form or fashion).


That was my point. Humans are not charitable by nature to anyone other than those that are w/in their tribe. Taxation of some sort is forced upon all citizens as it should be.


Why would you assume that I don't do this? I give to a multitude of charities & non-profits each year. I'm not willing to give up all of my money & no one is being asked to so your analogy isn't realistic. Why wouldn't I give up all of my money & just be homeless? I've already answered this question by stating that I don't think that humans are charitable by nature. This is exactly why neither of us are willing to do so. We're mostly only interested in the well-being of our tribe. However, if this random person was a member of your tribe, you may actually be willing to do just that. If my brother came up to me tomorrow & appeared to be starving to death, I'd give him a place to stay, I'd feed him, I'd cloth him & I'd do everything w/in my power to get him back on his feet.


I suppose that the poor should instead pay taxes that they can't afford to pay for their own entitlement programs? I think that you're being naive in thinking that the 80% has more "control" than the 20% because of their population size. I would argue that the people w/ the money are the people that are in control. We see this in the form of lobbyists on a daily basis. What you actually have is the appearance that your vote actually matters. In reality it doesn't really mean that much. The difference between the 2 parties that you're voting for is barely noticeable to those of us who don't belong to either.


Exactly. The wealthy can throw money in a particular direction to influence politicians (from the school board to the president) & the people that vote for them (campaign finance) while the rest of us simply get to vote (unless you're a black guy in certain states).


1% &/or 5% is all it takes. You must also take corporations in to consideration. Just ask Tom Delay.


No one is claiming that all wealthy people are out there fraternizing w/ lobbyists & throwing money across the country to finance Texas elections but some of them do. Even these 10% could afford to buy votes on a local level & that's quite scary when you consider just how important local elections are.


If we're to assume that all people that receive funding from programs that you don't support are someone inferior to those that support them then you still wouldn't have a point because of the socioeconomic factors that led them there. Please excuse me if I misinterpreted your meaning (that statement was either over my head or too cryptic for someone w/ a massive hangover to translate).


They also contribute an immense amount more to their agendas thus getting more of a say. Money is power. I find it difficult to believe that you sincerely believe that wealth doesn't give you more influence than non-wealth.


You're currently living under the second option. What are these different reasons? No one is making the claim that we're all going to somehow end up 100% equal. We're simply making the claim that we should be striving, as a society, to make things as equal & as fair as is reasonably possible. The problem w/ capitalism is that there's no incentive in doing such a thing. This is why progressives are constantly & possibly pointlessly attempting to push in entitlement programs.


Exactly. That balance is what you're arguing against (entitlements & social policies).


No one is making the argument that life can be completely fair. However, there are people making the argument that we need to strive for fairness & equality. Capitalism w/o entitlements or other social programs is the opposite of this. There can be no fairness or equality in a system that encourages something entirely different.


No one is stealing anything from anyone. The wealthy are paying higher taxes in order to live in this country. They're perfectly welcome to move elsewhere (e.g. Monaco) & some of them do. Are you making the claim that all forms of taxation are robbery or only those that go to benefit the less fortunate & ultimately all of society?


I fail to see how this is unreasonable.


Tough luck. You can either vote for change (assuming that you have faith in your system of government) or move to another country where they don't support abortion w/ taxes (e.g. random backward middle-eastern country where people have the same "belief"). I don't support the invasion, occupation & murder of Arabs but I still pay my taxes. I would recommend that you simply join the rest of the civilized world & accept that a government shouldn't have the right to tell a woman what to do w/ her body & its contents.

Hey, Mentat, don't take this the wrong way; I mean no offense by it, but maybe you should reread my post later and respond again. I want to respond to your comments but you've completely misunderstood at least half of the things I said, and I'd rather comment on your thoughts than nitpick your errors in interpretation.

I'll do that. Thanks for the heads up.

I think what JM has said before is that a woman doesn't have a right to decide what to do with an infant's body.

He has the right to that opinion but he also lives in a country where the government has decided that taxes will go to fund such a procedure in such cases. This is similar to how I don't want my taxes going to pay for a war on drugs or terror. I don't think that this is justification for not paying my taxes. If he's saying that we should pick & choose how our individual contributions are allocated then that's something that we can debate.

Why so hostile?

Seriously, what's got under your skin? Calm down.

Don't feel bad because you did, either. You helped our country. Way to go.

I work in NJ, and live in NY, and completely forgot to withhold for the NY/NYC taxes or pay the estimated quarterly.

I can deduct the NJ taxes paid from my NY/NYC tax liability, so I only pay NY/NYC whatever I owe them beyond what I've already payed NJ, and thought that'd be fine. I didn't realize how much more NY/NYC taxes are, and wound up having to pay the interest and penalty for not withholding.

That sounds like a nightmare. I didn't realize you could get taxed by a state that you didn't even live in. Here in WA we have no income tax, which probably makes things a bit simpler -- but we do have property tax (dictated by the government, so no action required on my part unless I want to contest their valuation of my house/land), sales tax (just a % of what you buy), gas tax (I think it's now the highest in the nation, not totally sure, though), yearly car registration taxes, and all hard liquor sales go through government-run stores (regular stores can't sell any alcohol other than beer and wine). There are probably more I'm forgetting. I'd almost trade it all for an income tax (if a constitutional amendment was passed barring every other type of taxes/fees imposed by any local government [state, county, city, etc.]). But not if it ended up all complicated like you are clearly going through.

here is my problem with the whole fairness/equality thing. life is not fair. in america we are all afforded EQUAL rights under the law, that does not mean that everything is going to be or should be "fair". I actually do not think that a society should strive for "fairness" to me that just seems like a breeding ground for mediocrity. take away an incentive to succeed and everyone becomes content to do as little as possible for their handout. i dont mind paying taxes to help out people who truely need a boost to get back on their feet. but... well, it often does not work like that.

That is essentially my point, give or take a bit. To me, striving for "fairness" (as in true full equality) should take a backseat to striving for "fairness" (as in protecting rights), at least as far as government is concerned. Let it be government's job to protect us from those that would harm or take advantage of us. In other words: protection != provision. Not that it can't do both to some degree, I do not believe such absolutes can really exist, but the priority to me should be for protection. I'm at school, I can't go further into it, but maybe that will put a little more of the proper perspective on my last post.

Edit: And Mentat, may I assume that your argument boils down to two main points: wealth redistribution makes things fairer, and it's good for society?

Then you agree, that when you put it in context, a tax cut equivalent to a Lexus is not unreasonable which was my point. The media was telling us how evil it was that gWb was giving the rich a Lexus, essentially. Although, I should state that gWb's tax cuts were really not all that reasonable for the top and bottom tax payers. He didn't give the top enough and he gave the bottom far too much. It really is the greatest "secret" to his tax cuts, he further shifted the burden to the top wage earners while putting more of the bottom feeders on the dole. That's why I've been getting several thousand dollars more back each year than is withheld.

I got $20 back.

It's not really that much of a nightmare. I think the interest and penalty worked out to maybe $80, which was a drop in the bucket compared to what the tax was, so it didn't bother me except in principle.
And again, I only wind up paying as much as NY/NYC (same tax return) would have charged me anyway, NJ just gets a cut, essentially.

It does bother me how much the NY state and city taxes are, with respect to what I see back from it. And they have what I consider extremely high sales taxes (8.875%), all the other taxes you described, and outrageous tolls on the bridges and tunnels (and yet the MTA keeps going bankrupt). NJ at least maintains their roads. The answer is to move to NJ and be taxed a little less, but I'm putting it off.

Massachusetts supposedly has it worse.

The cost of living in a blue state.