I think a lot of people see point number two nowadays and balk, but they don't realize how it was back when the top marginal tax rate was 90%. The people who actually get taxed this much were...
I think a lot of people see point number two nowadays and balk, but they don't realize how it was back when the top marginal tax rate was 90%. The people who actually get taxed this much were still extremely wealthy, they just shifted the burden of their costs from the self to the companies they owned and ran.
The company paid for all of their living expenses - housing, food, etc. Nowadays you just see a huge check and are expected to pay for everything yourself.
The upside of a company taking on significant financial burden for well paid individuals is that it creates a culture where the company supports the individual. This means more company events, better (or existing in the first place) pensions, an emphasis on employee health and well-being, stronger ties to other companies that they contract with to provide services, and many more. Unlike wages "trickling down", these tangible benefits actually do trickle down - just talk with anyone who worked for a large company in the 50s.
I think you're entirely right. America might be ready for social democracy. Democratic socialism on the other hand? No way. European countries with state-run health care and university education,...
I think you're entirely right.
America might be ready for social democracy. Democratic socialism on the other hand? No way.
European countries with state-run health care and university education, and much stronger jobs rights aren't ready for the US brand of democratic socialism.
The US already spends incredible amounts of healthcare and defense compared to the rest of the West.
Why does the answer have to be more money and a larger public sector overall than a shift in political priorities and therefore spending?
Well, it's a simple equation really. USA can pretend to be the country of freedom and opportunities and stay like it is now, with people that start their life in the right social class and social...
Well, it's a simple equation really.
USA can pretend to be the country of freedom and opportunities and stay like it is now, with people that start their life in the right social class and social environment having an actual shot at living a decent life and everyone else struggling.
Or it can grow up like the rest of the centuries old countries in europe and realise that a country that truly tries to do its best for all of its citizens cannot be led by jungle's rule aka "market's law". Everyone pays something, even when they don't get a service in return immediately, to be sure that if/when something happens, there is a safety net. And also, you know, knowing that you're helping who got a bad hand of cards in its life.
Honestly I doubt that the change will happens. I lost lot of faith in the people common sense since the brexit, but I'd be glad to be surprised if it actually happens.
That's pretty interesting. I really feel like that when it comes to taxes and being single in general. I am single and I don't get any breaks tax wise and I pay more in insurance and other fees...
Everyone pays something, even when they don't get a service in return immediately, to be sure that if/when something happens, there is a safety net.
That's pretty interesting. I really feel like that when it comes to taxes and being single in general. I am single and I don't get any breaks tax wise and I pay more in insurance and other fees than I would if I were married. As a single person, a lot of my tax dollars go to things that don't benefit me / I don't use period. That doesn't mean none of my taxes don't go to things that benefit me or that I use.. It's just, the majority of my taxes go to things I don't use, and then services you would think would be taxed based, I pay for out of pocket. I feel like my property taxes and vehicle taxes are what cover the things I actually use, not the state and federal I pay every year.
I feel like people and institutions isolate taxes. The will talk just about Federal and say, "Well that's not so bad." Or just talk about state and say the same thing. They don't like to lump it all together and add up federal, state, title fees, property taxes, etc. And then compare that number to your annual salary.
And I don't feel the IRS is entitled to every form of my "income." Like if my dad died and left me money or I won money betting on a ball game, IRS shouldn't get a cut of that. But that's another topic.
Yeah, but the majority going to others isn't right, especially when you're getting no breaks and everything costs more. I mean when the majority of my taxes are benefiting others it goes beyond...
Yeah, but the majority going to others isn't right, especially when you're getting no breaks and everything costs more. I mean when the majority of my taxes are benefiting others it goes beyond the feel good mentality of, "But we have to look out for others." in a lot of people's minds because it makes them think, "But what about me?" and cause resentment.
This is something I find interesting. I think about this a quite a bit as someone who pays more than a third of my income in taxes (I'm in Canada, btw), and don't really get any tax breaks. It's...
As a single person, a lot of my tax dollars go to things that don't benefit me / I don't use period.
This is something I find interesting. I think about this a quite a bit as someone who pays more than a third of my income in taxes (I'm in Canada, btw), and don't really get any tax breaks. It's easy to see things that benefit me directly, but there's a lot that still indirectly benefit me, such as schools. And I sort of bounce about on how I feel for that portion.
And I don't feel the IRS is entitled to every form of my "income." Like if my dad died and left me money or I won money betting on a ball game, IRS shouldn't get a cut of that. But that's another topic.
I'm totally with you on this one. If I gift or receive money, I don't see why that should be taxed.
That's very hard to judge. The majority of our Federal taxes in the US go to Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security and the Military. The majority of us will use medicare and social security at some...
It's just, the majority of my taxes go to things I don't use, and then services you would think would be taxed based, I pay for out of pocket.
That's very hard to judge. The majority of our Federal taxes in the US go to Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security and the Military. The majority of us will use medicare and social security at some point, even if you don't currently use it. We all indirectly use the military.
Social security will probably be dried up when I retire in 35-40 years. So I am going to probably need to rely 100% on what I save by then. If a huge chunk of my income goes to taxes, I'll never...
Social security will probably be dried up when I retire in 35-40 years. So I am going to probably need to rely 100% on what I save by then. If a huge chunk of my income goes to taxes, I'll never get there. I pay more in taxes collectively annually than goes into my retirement account.
As far as the taxing gifts or gambling, that was implemented because people used that as a way around other tax requirements - gifts and gambling winnings do need to be reported but they aren't...
As far as the taxing gifts or gambling, that was implemented because people used that as a way around other tax requirements - gifts and gambling winnings do need to be reported but they aren't necessarily taxed unless they are over a certain amount.
Example, my parents wanted to give their children some of what they put aside for an inheritance now so they could enjoy us using it to do things we wouldn't otherwise normally be able to do (like more trips - particularly with other family members being very distant). In order to do this without a tax burden, they can distribute a specific amount each year as a gift without requiring a tax. It has to be reported, but there isn't a tax on it (particularly since it was already taxed previously as income or dividend or whatever).
Generally there is a rule of thumb that if dollars have been taxed once already, they can't be taxed again - but, there are usually restrictions on it because of closing loop-holes.
I know several instances where money gets taxed twice. Sometimes people unexpectedly die and you inherit their assets. Then you have to pay taxes on income that was already taxed. The best way...
Generally there is a rule of thumb that if dollars have been taxed once already, they can't be taxed again - but, there are usually restrictions on it because of closing loop-holes.
I know several instances where money gets taxed twice. Sometimes people unexpectedly die and you inherit their assets. Then you have to pay taxes on income that was already taxed.
The best way around it is to just put someone's name on the account so when you die, they just pull your name off and no taxes. Same with a house. Just put your kid's name on the title with yours.
As far as gambling. I won 10k on a couple ball games late last year then I abruptly quit gambling forever. IRS took a huge chunk. They didn't share the risk with me, but I had to share the profits. I just look at stuff like that as them getting something for nothing, so they aren't entitled to it. I feel like them taxing me should end on my actually employment income, vehicle, and property taxes. Taxes on things I use and taxes on my job so I am putting money into the collective pot are one thing. But saying they get a cut of any and all money I come into isn't right.
I agree entirely. I think that's a big argument for changes in the tax codes because of those examples you provided. I still think most of those come from people abusing the loop holes. I thought,...
I agree entirely. I think that's a big argument for changes in the tax codes because of those examples you provided. I still think most of those come from people abusing the loop holes.
I thought, at least with gambling, you could claim some losses though too? I thought that was how the "no risk but all gain" for the IRS aspect was handled.
And the "death tax" ... I think some of that was because it was being used to avoid paying any taxes on certain types of income. Another closing of a loophole that kinda messes up (but that has dollar value rules like the gifting).
I think a lot of people see point number two nowadays and balk, but they don't realize how it was back when the top marginal tax rate was 90%. The people who actually get taxed this much were still extremely wealthy, they just shifted the burden of their costs from the self to the companies they owned and ran.
The company paid for all of their living expenses - housing, food, etc. Nowadays you just see a huge check and are expected to pay for everything yourself.
The upside of a company taking on significant financial burden for well paid individuals is that it creates a culture where the company supports the individual. This means more company events, better (or existing in the first place) pensions, an emphasis on employee health and well-being, stronger ties to other companies that they contract with to provide services, and many more. Unlike wages "trickling down", these tangible benefits actually do trickle down - just talk with anyone who worked for a large company in the 50s.
I think you're entirely right.
America might be ready for social democracy. Democratic socialism on the other hand? No way.
European countries with state-run health care and university education, and much stronger jobs rights aren't ready for the US brand of democratic socialism.
The US already spends incredible amounts of healthcare and defense compared to the rest of the West.
Why does the answer have to be more money and a larger public sector overall than a shift in political priorities and therefore spending?
Well, it's a simple equation really.
USA can pretend to be the country of freedom and opportunities and stay like it is now, with people that start their life in the right social class and social environment having an actual shot at living a decent life and everyone else struggling.
Or it can grow up like the rest of the centuries old countries in europe and realise that a country that truly tries to do its best for all of its citizens cannot be led by jungle's rule aka "market's law". Everyone pays something, even when they don't get a service in return immediately, to be sure that if/when something happens, there is a safety net. And also, you know, knowing that you're helping who got a bad hand of cards in its life.
Honestly I doubt that the change will happens. I lost lot of faith in the people common sense since the brexit, but I'd be glad to be surprised if it actually happens.
That's pretty interesting. I really feel like that when it comes to taxes and being single in general. I am single and I don't get any breaks tax wise and I pay more in insurance and other fees than I would if I were married. As a single person, a lot of my tax dollars go to things that don't benefit me / I don't use period. That doesn't mean none of my taxes don't go to things that benefit me or that I use.. It's just, the majority of my taxes go to things I don't use, and then services you would think would be taxed based, I pay for out of pocket. I feel like my property taxes and vehicle taxes are what cover the things I actually use, not the state and federal I pay every year.
I feel like people and institutions isolate taxes. The will talk just about Federal and say, "Well that's not so bad." Or just talk about state and say the same thing. They don't like to lump it all together and add up federal, state, title fees, property taxes, etc. And then compare that number to your annual salary.
And I don't feel the IRS is entitled to every form of my "income." Like if my dad died and left me money or I won money betting on a ball game, IRS shouldn't get a cut of that. But that's another topic.
Yeah, but the majority going to others isn't right, especially when you're getting no breaks and everything costs more. I mean when the majority of my taxes are benefiting others it goes beyond the feel good mentality of, "But we have to look out for others." in a lot of people's minds because it makes them think, "But what about me?" and cause resentment.
This is something I find interesting. I think about this a quite a bit as someone who pays more than a third of my income in taxes (I'm in Canada, btw), and don't really get any tax breaks. It's easy to see things that benefit me directly, but there's a lot that still indirectly benefit me, such as schools. And I sort of bounce about on how I feel for that portion.
I'm totally with you on this one. If I gift or receive money, I don't see why that should be taxed.
That's very hard to judge. The majority of our Federal taxes in the US go to Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security and the Military. The majority of us will use medicare and social security at some point, even if you don't currently use it. We all indirectly use the military.
Social security will probably be dried up when I retire in 35-40 years. So I am going to probably need to rely 100% on what I save by then. If a huge chunk of my income goes to taxes, I'll never get there. I pay more in taxes collectively annually than goes into my retirement account.
As far as the taxing gifts or gambling, that was implemented because people used that as a way around other tax requirements - gifts and gambling winnings do need to be reported but they aren't necessarily taxed unless they are over a certain amount.
Example, my parents wanted to give their children some of what they put aside for an inheritance now so they could enjoy us using it to do things we wouldn't otherwise normally be able to do (like more trips - particularly with other family members being very distant). In order to do this without a tax burden, they can distribute a specific amount each year as a gift without requiring a tax. It has to be reported, but there isn't a tax on it (particularly since it was already taxed previously as income or dividend or whatever).
Generally there is a rule of thumb that if dollars have been taxed once already, they can't be taxed again - but, there are usually restrictions on it because of closing loop-holes.
I know several instances where money gets taxed twice. Sometimes people unexpectedly die and you inherit their assets. Then you have to pay taxes on income that was already taxed.
The best way around it is to just put someone's name on the account so when you die, they just pull your name off and no taxes. Same with a house. Just put your kid's name on the title with yours.
As far as gambling. I won 10k on a couple ball games late last year then I abruptly quit gambling forever. IRS took a huge chunk. They didn't share the risk with me, but I had to share the profits. I just look at stuff like that as them getting something for nothing, so they aren't entitled to it. I feel like them taxing me should end on my actually employment income, vehicle, and property taxes. Taxes on things I use and taxes on my job so I am putting money into the collective pot are one thing. But saying they get a cut of any and all money I come into isn't right.
I agree entirely. I think that's a big argument for changes in the tax codes because of those examples you provided. I still think most of those come from people abusing the loop holes.
I thought, at least with gambling, you could claim some losses though too? I thought that was how the "no risk but all gain" for the IRS aspect was handled.
And the "death tax" ... I think some of that was because it was being used to avoid paying any taxes on certain types of income. Another closing of a loophole that kinda messes up (but that has dollar value rules like the gifting).