dear IRS
Dear IRS,Enclosed is my 2005 tax return showing that I owe $3,407.00 in taxes.
Please note the attached article from USA Today, wherein you will
see the Pentagon is paying $171.50 for hammers and NASA has paid
$600.00 for a toilet seat.
I am enclosing four toilet seats (value $2400) and six hammers
(value $1029), bringing my total remitted to $3429.00.
Please apply the overpayment of $22.00 to the "Presidential
Election Fund," as noted on my return. You can do this
inexpensively by sending them one 1.5" Phillips Head screw
(article from USA Today detailing how HUD pays $22.00 each for
1.5" Phillips Head Screws is enclosed for your convenience.)
It has been a pleasure to pay my tax bill this year, and I look
forward to paying it again next year.
Sincerely,
A Satisfied Taxpayer
TODAYS TAXES
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit TaxCDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes)
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon) Hunting License Tax Inheritance
Tax Interest Expense (tax on the money THEY paid tax on
already)
Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax) IRS
Penalties (tax on top of tax) Liquor Tax Local Income Tax Luxury
Taxes Marriage License Tax Medicare Tax Property Tax Real Estate
Tax Septic Permit Tax Service Charge Taxes Social Security Tax
Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
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 Toll Bridge Taxes
Toll Tunnel Taxes
Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
Trailer Registration Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
COMMENTS:
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was
the most prosperous in the world, had absolutely no national debt,
had the largest middle class in the world and Mom stayed home to
raise the kids. What happened?
posted by Evil Genius @ 9:46 AM
14 comments
14 Comments:
I don't believe that Moms need to stay home to raise the kids necessarily and I have no problem paying taxes, the thing that bothers me is that out government refuses to buy anything on sale. Maybe they should check out the dollar store once in a while and we could all pay fewer taxes.
This is why we need Congress to get on the ball and pass President Bush's Tax Reform bill. It moves this country away from an unsustainable progressive income tax system to a more fair flat tax.
read more about the flat tax debate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax
How about Fair Tax?
Thoughts?
The fair tax is a national consumption tax. this is also another option to our current system.
You forgot the Alternative Minimum Tax. This is ass-raping alot of Americans. The following link is a good article explaining why we should move towards a flat tax and why we should abolish the AMT.
here's the link:
link
Pass Fair Tax.
Abolish Sixteenth Amendment.
Of course, both the "flat tax" and "fair tax" are still progressive in that people at the low end of the income scale would still pay a smaller percentage, but it wouldn't be quite so pronounced.
Why are we in this situation with out-of-control taxation? It's easy to collect a little bit from a lot of people and get only minor irritation, but the recipient of the redistributed wealth is hugely enthusiastic. The Kelo eminent domain case is just another example.
If I came to your house and took your money at gunpoint (what our government would do if you held out long enough,) I would go to jail.
First of all, this stuff about $600 toilet seats is from the Reagan administration. Do you read any articles about this happening today? (Not that there isn't government waste.)
Second of all, a progressive tax is simply fairer than a flat tax. "Flat" sounds fairer because it sounds the same for everyone, but really it isn't. First of all, the rich still pay more than the poor (and if you're ok with that, I don't know why taxing everyone at the same percentage -- as opposed to the same logorithm or the same exponent -- is fair). But more importantly, it is more of a burden on the lives of the poor to pay X% than it is on the lives of the rich to pay X%. Therefore, the pain inflicted by taxation is disproportionately on the poor, and everyone overall is happier with a progressive tax. (And, whatever your opinion, there is absolutely no way you can call a progressive tax "unsustainable". Countries have been sustaining it for centuries.)
While the tax system is needlessly complicated -- a product of a compromise of 545 different members of Congress each with her own idea of what should be taxed -- the amount of taxes we pay is not out of control. It is more than it was 100 years ago, but our roads are a lot better than then too, and our schools, and our army, and our parks, and so on. We do get what we pay for. 100 years ago children were working 16 hours a day in sweatshops. I see progress. We pay less than a lot of other countries.
(The AMT is an artefact of the Republicans' disasterous tax cuts. It was meant to keep a tiny number of rich people from gaming the system, but the Republicans have inflicted it on everyone because they wanted to give a massive rate cut without dealing with the consequences. I worked for the Senate Finance Committee at the time. Now, to get rid of the AMT, you'd have to raise other taxes, and no one is willing to do that, so we're screwed.)
Also factually untrue: 100 years ago we did have national debt and we were not the most prosperous in the world. I don't know about the middle class, but I'm guessing that factoid was also pulled out of somebody's, er, donkey.
Some level of progressive tax is acceptable to me, but the progression now is just too steep. The majority of taxes are paid by a minority of voters. It leaves us in a situation where the majority simply takes what they want from those that have more.
I don't have a problem with spending money on better roads, border enforcement, defense, and so on. I have a serious problem with the extensive redistribution of wealth from those who earn to those who don't. I also have a problem with all the ways our federal government spends money (legends of $600 toilet seats aside) that are beyond its constitutional authority. (That leads to a discussion of the phrase "general welfare," doesn't it?)
Just to be clear, I think the Bush administration has made the situation worse, not better, and I've been very disappointed. I voted for the guy in large part because I thought he'd cut spending and reform some programs in bad need of an overhaul. He hasn't, and that makes me glad he can't run again.
Of course a minority of voters pay a majority of taxes because they make a majority of the income. The top 1% of Americans own 40% of the wealth; the top 5% own 60%. (The bottom 60% own just 5%!) Even a flat tax would have most of our taxes coming from these people. Our progressive tax is way less steep than other developed nations, and I don't exactly see the wealthy people of America suffering under the burden.
And anyway, when was the last time Republicans reined in the size of government? Not Bush W, not Bush Sr., not Reagan, and that's already going back a quarter-century. Democrats have pretty consistently been much better at this than Republicans. Clinton tamed spending and brought us a surplus. You want progress on this, vote Dem.
damn. why ur brother gotta be so smart!? wat the heck
i like pandas. and kitties. meooow
PS - i hate the bullshit assumptions that poor folks (who don't work) are taking so much damn money from the goverment. the biggest amout of welfare goes to the freakin corporations who refuse to pay people a living wage and if they push for that too much then they fucking go build some shit in Jamaica where they dont have to pay US taxes and can hire chinese women at like 30 cents a day. any program for the poor is called just that - a program. while things for the rich are "incentives" or "subsidies" and all kinda other bullshit to make it sound better. same thing with housing - people who own a home get massive tax breaks, but folks that cant afford to own one get subsidies - i.e. section 8, public housing, etc.. its all the same tho - the government pays for us to live in a home. and yet its ok to get a tax "break" but fuck those lazy ass poor folk who only take the governments money and run? please.
oh, and by the way the majority of the poor in this country are children (about 1 in 5 children lives in poverty. add to that all of those kids that live in low income families). i guess maybe we send those lazy sons of b*tches to work, huh. how dare they slack and waste time going to school!
I think the problem started when women started working and stopped raising their children. That began the downfall of society. I don't have a problem with women working, as long as they don't have young kids at home.
How can you say such a thing? Men can stay at home while women work. Genitals should not determine your place in society -- your abilities, character, and preferences should, and these are different from person to person, not adhering to some rigid gender stereotype.
Post a Comment
<< Home