Taxes, My son gets it!

skidoo

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
987
Location
Montana
Display Name

Display name:
skidoo
I am finally making some decent earnings and along with this pay some sizable checks go to the IRS.

So, my son wants to get an idea how much refund he can expect this year. He made roughly $12K and $5K unemployment. So, I show him the forms, and deductions. Then, add the $400 make working pay credit. Comes out to a refund of about $1300. He says what the ;?/>, that is about all that was taken out. How does the government get any money? I say, well they take it from me so you and all your friends don't have to pay... He says "That Crazy, I know how hard you work!"

I wonder who will fund the government when I (and everyone else like me) decide that I've had enough, and reduce my earnings (and tax obligation) to the minimum.
 
I wonder who will fund the government when I (and everyone else like me) decide that I've had enough, and reduce my earnings (and tax obligation) to the minimum.
I've found that reducing my income doesn't do a whole lot to improve my take-home pay.
-harry
 
I don't understand why people are happy to get a refund.

Granted, it's better than overpaying and _not_ getting that money back, but why is it good to overpay to begin with? It's wasted interest for a year, and so you're not actually getting it all back at the end.

Better not to overpay at all.
 
I wonder who will fund the government when I (and everyone else like me) decide that I've had enough, and reduce my earnings (and tax obligation) to the minimum.
It's called 'retirement' and by then, your son will have picked up your work ethic and be filling the gap.

Congratulations.
 
Being a workaholic and a 14 hour a day business owner for nigh onto 50 years, the guvmint of the hew hess hay has bent me over every year for big money...
Well, the end is in sight - besides the one they have been abusing... My business is going to change hands, I will continue to work for a short while to 'teach em the ropes', but then I am gone... The politicians get one more pop off the "profits" from selling the business and then they are done..

Everything we have saved is after tax dollars (other than a very small 401K and social security) and so as we draw that money down for living expenses there will be almost no new tax revenues from me... That is a five figure check every year for many decades that the IRS has slurped down, and the scum bag politicians can now go whistle for more money to give away to people who don't work and won't work...

The new owners will not have a profit to report (tax exempt entity), not one red cent in taxes will be collected from now on... The sense of revenge is immensely satisfying...

Are you folks aware that less than half of adults of working age in the USA pay taxes?

denny-o
 
I don't understand why people are happy to get a refund.

Granted, it's better than overpaying and _not_ getting that money back, but why is it good to overpay to begin with? It's wasted interest for a year, and so you're not actually getting it all back at the end.

Better not to overpay at all.

Yeah, cause that .05% I'm making really adds up on the $1000 I overpay.
 
How Taxes Work . . .(not an origianal work, author unknown)

This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on -- it does make you think!!

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men, the poorest, would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man, the richest. would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too . . . It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!
 
...aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand off to the spin zone we go.
 
Lot's of folks will be stopping at 249K.

And if they do, they prove that they don't understand taxes. Our taxes phase in and out so there is no point at which you make more for earning less. Crossing over the magical 250K line to hit a top bracket only affects whatever you make OVER that 250K line.
 
And if they do, they prove that they don't understand taxes. Our taxes phase in and out so there is no point at which you make more for earning less. Crossing over the magical 250K line to hit a top bracket only affects whatever you make OVER that 250K line.

From a strictly mathematical sense you are absolutely correct. There is an argument that on an incremental basis, your return per unit of effort expended (take home pay) does decrease. The point where it becomes a situation that your "extra" effort results in taxes rather than take home pay is a personal decision.

I'm not saying that progressive taxation is necessarily bad, just that the way it's set up is very important.

Gary
 
From a strictly mathematical sense you are absolutely correct. There is an argument that on an incremental basis, your return per unit of effort expended (take home pay) does decrease. The point where it becomes a situation that your "extra" effort results in taxes rather than take home pay is a personal decision.

I'm not saying that progressive taxation is necessarily bad, just that the way it's set up is very important.

Gary

And yet there's also a point where your take home pay increases. You hit $106,800 and the SS portion of FICA disappears. That's 6.2% (12.4 if you're self employed) that your extra effort nets you.

In all honesty, if 'return per unit of effort expended' was a reasonable standard, then I know a lot of people who would be millionaires, and none of them currently make anywhere near six figures, let alone seven.
 
I am finally making some decent earnings and along with this pay some sizable checks go to the IRS.

So, my son wants to get an idea how much refund he can expect this year. He made roughly $12K and $5K unemployment. So, I show him the forms, and deductions. Then, add the $400 make working pay credit. Comes out to a refund of about $1300. He says what the ;?/>, that is about all that was taken out. How does the government get any money? I say, well they take it from me so you and all your friends don't have to pay... He says "That Crazy, I know how hard you work!"

I wonder who will fund the government when I (and everyone else like me) decide that I've had enough, and reduce my earnings (and tax obligation) to the minimum.

Back to the original post for a minute:

There's nothing like a teenager getting a real-live paying job and having them figure out their hours, and pay-per-hour, then seeing the look on their faces when they find out how much gets taken out in taxes.

Welcome to the real world.
 
Back to the original post for a minute:

There's nothing like a teenager getting a real-live paying job and having them figure out their hours, and pay-per-hour, then seeing the look on their faces when they find out how much gets taken out in taxes.

Welcome to the real world.

1666.66 pre-tax
1310.22 post-tax

Eh. Doesn't bother me. Bothered me less as a teenager when those numbers were less than half that. I was happy to just have money that I earned and could spend however I wanted.
 
Off shore accounts???

"The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!"

The implication from the story is that the rich people can and will just leave. Sure people like to hide their money in offshore accounts. The IRS is also getting a lot better are getting to that money. Illegal acts don't prove the point. This is like saying that because Wesley Snipes didn't pay taxes, it proves that the wealthy can just walk away from the table. In the meantime, Snipes has a 14 million dollar debt to settle with Uncle Sam.
 
Back to the original post for a minute:

There's nothing like a teenager getting a real-live paying job and having them figure out their hours, and pay-per-hour, then seeing the look on their faces when they find out how much gets taken out in taxes.

Welcome to the real world.
Yep no more free ride, they actually have to pay to be a member of society. The term 'productive member of society' also means having to pay for that infrastructure that gets you too work.

Time to grow up and realize that we all have responsibilities to not only ourselves, but to family and the society we reside in.
 
Yep no more free ride, they actually have to pay to be a member of society. The term 'productive member of society' also means having to pay for that infrastructure that gets you too work.

Time to grow up and realize that we all have responsibilities to not only ourselves, but to family and the society we reside in.

Exactly. And if you live within your means, you'll do just fine even with the taxes you do pay.
 
"The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!"

The implication from the story is that the rich people can and will just leave. Sure people like to hide their money in offshore accounts. The IRS is also getting a lot better are getting to that money. Illegal acts don't prove the point. This is like saying that because Wesley Snipes didn't pay taxes, it proves that the wealthy can just walk away from the table. In the meantime, Snipes has a 14 million dollar debt to settle with Uncle Sam.

And if he hides that money away, and jaunts off to a country with non-extradition treaties, he did just that. Got up and left. If I had enough money, I would be gone. Buy an island somewhere, and form my own country.
 
And if he hides that money away, and jaunts off to a country with non-extradition treaties, he did just that. Got up and left. If I had enough money, I would be gone. Buy an island somewhere, and form my own country.

But there is no evidence of that happening. Maybe a handful of tax evaders are out there, but it is by no means a mass exodus 'John Galt' type event, and never will be. That's why the 'logic' in that story is so bad.

In the meantime, I've still never gotten a response as to what the 'ideal' tax rate is for the wealthy. I mean we want to talk about the Laffer Curve and how reducing taxes can bring in more revenue, but there is a peak on that curve, and no one has managed to come up with any type of number as to what that peak is. Always "lower".
 
Someone explain to me how they got away with this:

When you pay your taxes this year, you will use taxable income to do so. (Taxes are not deductible, so the money you write that check with is not going to be protected from taxation.)

Then, April 2011, you will pay taxes on 2010 income. That tax money you sent them this April is taxable and said tax is collected next year. Then in April 2012, you will pay your 2011 taxes AND that includes paying tax on the taxable income you paid your 2010 taxes with!

It is confusing, but the bottom line is you are paying tax on tax payments, and again on each subsequent tax payment residual.
I think they rely on most people not understanding it, in order to slip this by.
 
But there is no evidence of that happening. Maybe a handful of tax evaders are out there, but it is by no means a mass exodus 'John Galt' type event, and never will be. That's why the 'logic' in that story is so bad.

In the meantime, I've still never gotten a response as to what the 'ideal' tax rate is for the wealthy. I mean we want to talk about the Laffer Curve and how reducing taxes can bring in more revenue, but there is a peak on that curve, and no one has managed to come up with any type of number as to what that peak is. Always "lower".

15% with no deductions allowed after the first 2xthe local poverty rate.
 
Someone explain to me how they got away with this:

When you pay your taxes this year, you will use taxable income to do so. (Taxes are not deductible, so the money you write that check with is not going to be protected from taxation.)

Then, April 2011, you will pay taxes on 2010 income. That tax money you sent them this April is taxable and said tax is collected next year. Then in April 2012, you will pay your 2011 taxes AND that includes paying tax on the taxable income you paid your 2010 taxes with!

It is confusing, but the bottom line is you are paying tax on tax payments, and again on each subsequent tax payment residual.
I think they rely on most people not understanding it, in order to slip this by.

I have no clue what you are saying Dave.
 
15% with no deductions allowed after the first 2xthe local poverty rate.

So...for math simplicity, if the local poverty rate were $20,000.

If you make $50,000
(50,000-(2*20,000)) * 0.15 = 1,500

If you make $100,000
(100,000-(2*20,000)) * 0.15 = 9,000

If you make $1m
(1,000,000-(2*20,000)) * 0.15 = 144,000

Works for me.
 
So...for math simplicity, if the local poverty rate were $20,000.

If you make $50,000
(50,000-(2*20,000)) * 0.15 = 1,500

If you make $100,000
(100,000-(2*20,000)) * 0.15 = 9,000

If you make $1m
(1,000,000-(2*20,000)) * 0.15 = 144,000

Works for me.

Exactly. No deduct for kids, spouses, or anything else.
 
Someone explain to me how they got away with this:

When you pay your taxes this year, you will use taxable income to do so. (Taxes are not deductible, so the money you write that check with is not going to be protected from taxation.)

Then, April 2011, you will pay taxes on 2010 income. That tax money you sent them this April is taxable and said tax is collected next year. Then in April 2012, you will pay your 2011 taxes AND that includes paying tax on the taxable income you paid your 2010 taxes with!

It is confusing, but the bottom line is you are paying tax on tax payments, and again on each subsequent tax payment residual.
I think they rely on most people not understanding it, in order to slip this by.
I am not sure what you are saying Dave.

First some taxes are tax deductible. For instance property and state taxes can be deducted from your federal tax payments. Property taxes are easy to figure out and enter onto your itemized forms. State taxes, something I do not think you need to worry about in Texas, are little weirder. I deduct what was withheld from my pay for state taxes.

Later when I do my state taxes I may find that I am due a refund. I will get that check back from the state and it is then reported on next years federal taxes as income on a 1099-G. I have not paid taxes on that twice. I simply over deducted and not have to undeduct it.
 
I really don't mind paying taxes. But, I do not like the overhead that the IRS creates and the complication that the system is right now. I'm also not convinced that differing incomes should be taxed a different percentage.

The mess that is deductions, credits, etc, is rather annoying.

Do I have a solution? Not really.
 
15% with no deductions allowed after the first 2xthe local poverty rate.

Ok, now do you have any evidence that increasing the rate higher than that would result in less tax revenue? That's what the Laffer Curve is all about.

I mean we all have our own views on what taxes should be (I've said before that I could do a flat tax, but there'd have to be other considerations like funding the military and such), but I was hitting on a specific idea that many conservatives use as their reasoning for lowering taxes.
 
Someone explain to me how they got away with this:

When you pay your taxes this year, you will use taxable income to do so. (Taxes are not deductible, so the money you write that check with is not going to be protected from taxation.)

Then, April 2011, you will pay taxes on 2010 income. That tax money you sent them this April is taxable and said tax is collected next year. Then in April 2012, you will pay your 2011 taxes AND that includes paying tax on the taxable income you paid your 2010 taxes with!

It is confusing, but the bottom line is you are paying tax on tax payments, and again on each subsequent tax payment residual.
I think they rely on most people not understanding it, in order to slip this by.

I think you're overthinking it...

Let's look at my stub again. I get 1666 per paycheck, and about 350 of that goes to taxes. I never see that money. At the end of the year I get a W2 with all the information regarding how much I made and how much I paid in taxes. I ended up over paying so I get a refund.

I think the problem is you're saying that you pay taxes the following year with money you earned the following year. (For instance, paying 2009 taxes with 2010 earnings). If that's the case, then the first year you got earnings, you didn't pay taxes for the previous year. So you got extra.

In most instances, you're paying as you go along out of your paychecks for that tax year, and you get a refund or may have to pay a small amount the next year, but it's all based on what you made that tax year, there's not double taxation going on.
 
Ok, now do you have any evidence that increasing the rate higher than that would result in less tax revenue? That's what the Laffer Curve is all about.

I mean we all have our own views on what taxes should be (I've said before that I could do a flat tax, but there'd have to be other considerations like funding the military and such), but I was hitting on a specific idea that many conservatives use as their reasoning for lowering taxes.

I know, I was just picking a number out of the air instead of just saying "lower" :D
 
It is confusing, but the bottom line is you are paying tax on tax payments...
You don't pay taxes on "payments", that concept really has no meaning. You pay taxes on income.

There are some things you can do with your money for which you are rewarded with lowered taxes. Paying federal taxes is not one of these things, nor are most things you do with your money. For federal tax payments to be tax deductible wouldn't have much meaning, it would just have the effect of changing the percentages in that tax bracket chart.
-harry
 
Back
Top