How about those property taxes?

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by jeffk

(Snip). Since 1980 the Amount of taxes paid by the top 1% of highest earners has gone from 19% to 37% of the total paid while the lowest 50% of earners has dropped from 7% of the total in 1980 to 3.3% in 2004. (Snip)

Jeffk,
I sometimes get the crazy thought that if the top 50% raised their tax burden by 3.3% and told the bottom 50% they don't have to pay a cent, if the reality of the current situation would have a chance of sinking in.

[tis]

Some people believe everything they hear. "The rich don't pay their fair share." How many times have you heard that?

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

Jeffk,
I sometimes get the crazy thought that if the top 50% raised their tax burden by 3.3% and told the bottom 50% they don't have to pay a cent, if the reality of the current situation would have a chance of sinking in.

There are people who know exactly how the system works and don’t care because pontificating on how the “rich pay no taxes” is how they get elected. It’s a power game. They want power and this is how they get it. Since there are more mid to low earners than high earners they can build a winning vote this way. They create the impression that an inequity exists and they are going to “fix” the problem. People who are struggling to make ends meet see the inequity as cruelly unfair and strongly support such a person, even though the basis for that support is untrue.

Other people are socialists in their world view and believe that everyone should be afforded equal financial positions and look at the tax system as a way to “fairly” redistribute equal income to all. The person making a 6 figure salary has no right to it in the first place and so we will tax it right out of him.

It seems to me I read somewhere that the founders of this country did not want too strong of a money generating capability for the central government because the temptation to use money to buy favor with the voters would prove too sore a temptation for most. How tempting to turn to the “common man” and say “Look here. I’ll provide this benefit for you and it will cost you nothing. I will take the funds from the wealthy. Simply vote for me and I will provide this for you.” Since the Income Tax was established in 1913, only because the “common man” thought it was to be only a “rich man’s” tax , this is exactly what has happened. The only problem is that the “common man” has been taken along for the rich man’s tax ride because all the rich man’s money in the country is not enough to satiate the longing for money and power in the federal government.

[tis]

jeff. Are you running for president? I want to vote for you!

[tis]

At first I thought this was funny...then I realized the awful truth of it.
Be sure to read all the way to the end!

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries, then
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his a..

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He 's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin ,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.

Put these words
upon his tomb,
" Taxes drove me to my doom..."

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax

Flush Tax (in MD.)
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marr iage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago,
and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What the hell happened? Can you spell "politicians!"

And I still have to "press 1" for English.

I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100 time

(For those of you who may not have seen this before!)

[wifi]

"...And I still have to "press 1" for English...."


Be glad its still "1"


-Rich

[vrrooom]

Not at the Miami Airport, where all announcments are first made in the Majority Language then English.

We should not allow any other language or signs or whatever in anything but english. My grandparents were immigrants, who spoke no english when they came to he US in the late 1800's, they learned english and forced their 8 children to do the same. English was produly spoken at home by the old folks for their entire lives. So why have we incurred the costs of Bi Lingual everything here, you won't see that in Europe by the by.

[Little Bear]

Sometimes politicians, journalists and others exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact, without questioning it. But what does that really mean?

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and 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 would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

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

They 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 each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar 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, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," (5% discount) declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10 out of the $20" (50% discount)

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

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? 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 the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our 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 anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas.

Nicely put, Professor!

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Heard a statistic yesterday that the cost per person for health care in north east is $6400. This is with it being controlled by private industry in a competitive environment. Lets say 300 million Americans go onto the Government system being proposed, that is almost 2 trillion dollars per year. I am trying to imagine a 2 trillion dollar Washington program that is anything like the VA system they run now. Please don't save us money we can't afford in many ways.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Little Bear

Sometimes politicians, journalists and others exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact, without questioning it. But what does that really mean?

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and 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 would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

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

They 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 each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar 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, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," (5% discount) declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10 out of the $20" (50% discount)

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

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? 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 the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our 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 anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas.

Nicely put, Professor!

Great example, the only problem I have with it is it doesn't take in account the "Earned Income Credit" which gives money to the first four people that they never paid in, it's welfare and vote buying. Figure that one out.

Also I can't agree with the premise of the statement "The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.".
Sure they get a bigger amount returned to them, but they pay in a much larger amount to begin with. This attempt to redistribute wealth is why many high income people never become "rich". Not complaining here, but it really erks me to hear these liberal whiners cry class warfare when many of them have never had a real job in their whole life.

[fatlazyless]

It's anyone's guess but it's my hunch that the falling home selling prices will not translate into falling assessed values and lower property taxes.

In the past three years Meredith has built a new large police station and community center. In the past three years my property taxes have gone from 2800 to 8200 dollars.


At least I have something big to show for my increased taxes, indirectly or something! It's better for the community to benefit than for the individual! ...say what?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

It's anyone's guess but it's my hunch that the falling home selling prices will not translate into falling assessed values and lower property taxes.

In the past three years Meredith has built a new large police station and community center. In the past three years my property taxes have gone from 2800 to 8200 dollars.


At least I have something big to show for my increased taxes, indirectly or something! It's better for the community to benefit than for the individual! ...say what?

Nope, your taxes won't go down Less, the assessment may go down but the rate will go up to compensate, just as when everyones assessment goes up the rate goes down to keep the levy the same. The problem isn't property values rising or falling, it's the spending.

[Irish mist]

The spending will never stop......the special interests have found a home in the school systems & municipal offices in the towns & villages all over the region. We have 50 million dollar schools going up, new police stations, new fire stations.....new this & that & everything.

Back in the day......folks in this region knew how to milk a buck.....now it's a free-for-all ! The political "Left" has figured out how to position themselves in money generating areas of our small towns & cities and gather enough votes to create small kingdoms where they drain the taxpayers to fund pensions & benefits that would make even the best paid managers in the private sector green with envy !
________
SUZUKI BOULEVARD C109R HISTORY

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Question:
I keep getting conflicting answers to this question. I am hoping for a decisive answer here.

These are fictitious numbers for my example.

If Mass has an 8 percent income tax and NH has a 6 percent income tax, which of these is true if I work in Mass and live in NH.

A) Mass gets 8% and NH gets 0%
B) NH Gets 6% and Mass gets 2%
C) Other

Thanks

[JayDV]

I believe that None of the above is correct. The employee will fill out W-9 or the equivalent, to identify the withholding rate for each state. At the tax filing time all numbers will true up.

The math would be:

Employer state collects tax and resident state collects tax. However, if there is a reciprocity between the states then the resident state would allow a credit for tax "X" paid to other "non-res" state(s) for "Y" dollars of income.

In the event of non-reciprocity (I'm not positive here) I think you would allocate earnings by state so therefore, employer state would have earnings and the tax would be collected and subsequently reported via non-resident calculation. Resident state would have no income allocated and therefore no tax liability.

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by vrrooom

Not at the Miami Airport, where all announcments are first made in the Majority Language then English.

We should not allow any other language or signs or whatever in anything but english. My grandparents were immigrants, who spoke no english when they came to he US in the late 1800's, they learned english and forced their 8 children to do the same. English was produly spoken at home by the old folks for their entire lives. So why have we incurred the costs of Bi Lingual everything here, you won't see that in Europe by the by.

While I agree wholeheartedly with you, I look at it this way. As long as rich white men are in charge then English will be our language. As long as my kids speak-a-da-english and more and more of other peoples kids speak Spanish, or ebonics, or whatever, the rich white men in charge will hire my kids to work for them!