Before you spend your tax-relief check from the IRS...

[vsp]

...you might want to take a look at this article.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...754516,00.html

What's the old saying about "If something looks too good to be true...?"

jeff. just for reference, and so I don't have to hear 4,182 people every day saying "So, how are YOU spending your refund check?"

[elSicomoro]

But they're basing this (the refund) on 2000 info, and it's supposed to be a "relief" backed to the beginning of this year.

And furthermore, according to this IRS letter I got, this is only the beginning of the tax relief!

[tw]

Originally posted by sycamore
And furthermore, according to this IRS letter I got, this is only the beginning of the tax relief!

We pay some of the world's lowest taxes. And yet spin doctors call it relief? It's bribery. When they control the purse strings and can raid the treasury to buy votes - good idea? We haven't even paid off the debt yet. The military is screaming for money. This week, the Bush administration is claiming that Social Security is in trouble - but he has plenty of money to buy popularity? Does he think we are as intelligent as him?

[Griff]

You know you're driving me nuts here!

You are correct about the debt but that should be solved from the spending side. Republicans bribe us with our own money, while Democrats bribe us with our neighbors money, which is more cynical? Remember that every tax dollar is taken under the threat of violence. I understand that my view is definitely in the minority in this age where the upper and middle classes hide assetts so their parents can go on medicare, where middle class kids look to the state for their education, where businesses look to the government to control competition and subsidize their every move, where state governments build ballparks and where the Federal government "invests" retirement money in government debt while spending the tax receipts... even Paddy Moynihan knows SS is screwed even if state radi...or rather NPR and its listeners haven't figured that out yet. As always, one mans emotional response. Good to hear from you again, Griff

[russotto]

As I understand it, the refund is supposed to cover the additional tax paid from Jan 1, 2001 to July 1, 2001 (when the withholding tables were adjusted). Hiding this fact on the 1040 is of course a PR move.

And Tom may be paying some of the world's lowest taxes, but if he is he's not in my demographic group (upper-middle-class single renters).

[vsp]

Well, there's a basic truth here that bears repeating: not all taxes are bad, not all government programs are wastes of money, and not all political decisions are made specifically to screw the little people. (The charges are accurate in some cases, but some would have you believe that every tax dollar the government receives is a criminal violation of our human rights and that the IRS should be bombed from orbit. Some would also have you believe in Black Helicopters and Tin Foil Anti-Mind-Control-Ray Hats.)

This "rebate" doesn't do much of anything, besides distributing tax refunds to taxpayers many months ahead of time. The ideal tax return should end up as a zero-sum; you don't owe anything, and you don't get a big refund that's essentially an interest-free loan to the government for months. They should be drawing the appropriate amount from each paycheck all along.

So, let's assume that I'm a zero-sum taxpayer, shall we? I make over $6K per year, so I'd normally pay $900 on the first $6K in taxes. Under this "rebate", I'm treated as if I'd now be paying $600 in taxes and receive a $300 check in the mail. So far, so good.

However, in April, I'm taxed at the _actual_ 15% for that $6K. (As the article states, this advance-refund policy is "in LIEU of" actually reducing the $6K rate to 10% this year.) Therefore, I owe the full $900 after all, and my balance due will be zero MINUS that $300 credit, so that I'll now OWE the government that $300.

It all comes out to zero, and I had the opportunity to use that $300 and gain, oh, maybe a buck or two in interest over that time. But a whole lot of people are going to be surprised in April when they find out that for all practical purposes, this isn't a refund we're getting, it's a LOAN, albeit an interest-free one.

Now, as far as the tax cuts affecting your income OVER the first $6,000, that's a different issue entirely and is best taken up with your accountants.

So let me get this straight. Bush is doing all of this so he can say "Look! I'm stimulating the economy! Here, have some money!" What happens in a year's time, when Americans' refund checks (which many people depend upon) are all $300 lower than usual, and half of them spent their advanced-refund checks thinking they were some kind of bonus or rebate?

jeff. long-winded, as usual

[serge]

What black choppers?

;)

[elSicomoro]

Actually, this got me thinking:

I think the city of Philadelphia should RAISE its sales tax--to 9% from 7%. It sounds a bit high, but given that New Orleans and Chicago have sales taxes of at least 10%, we wouldn't be the highest. (I don't know if counties here in the Commonwealth have the right to raise their taxes about the state minimum, but it's a thought.)

Take that extra money, and give it back in the form of discounting the wage tax, for both residents and non-residents that work in the city.

Now then...as a whole, there HAS to be some sort of healthy balance between the amount of taxes we are levied, and what we get for those dollars. If we tax too high (like Sweden and Canada), then our social welfare programs could fall into financial problems. But given what we're being taxed now, there is talk again of Social Security running out of money within this generation. (Of course, it doesn't help that when the Social Security Act was passed, few people lived to 65.)

So...what exactly is a fair tax? I'm not sure, but I know it's not the whole "flat tax" concept.

[jaguar]

I"ve always wondered hwo you taxpayers (argh ill be one soon - i'm now running an import business) feel about your moeny going into so called *black* military and research applications?

[russotto]

Originally posted by serge
What black choppers?

There was one flying around near the Ben Franklin Bridge around 8:00pm last night. Either black or very dark green.

[russotto]

Originally posted by jaguar
I"ve always wondered hwo you taxpayers (argh ill be one soon - i'm now running an import business) feel about your moeny going into so called *black* military and research applications?

Well, unfortunately, black projects are probably quite necessary to a large power in a world with hostile nations in it.

[vsp]

And, simply put, whether I admire or dislike "black ops," can I do anything about them? Not really. Will there ever be a true and accurate public accounting of government funds that doesn't cover up something? Not likely. So I don't lose sleep over it.

[Griff]

Jaguar asks a key question here if we generalize it a little. How do we feel about paying for government actions which violate our personal code of ethics? The civics class answer is that we hire, through government, experts for programs with specific knowlege to allow them to make the necessary tradeoffs between competing factions. The reality is the gov employees you get are more likely some combination of fanatics and self-serving bureaucrats than disinterested experts, whether we're talking military leaders or social workers, who represent either their fellow fanatics or themselves more than "societies will". All you need to do is listen to the excuses of the Ollie Norths and John Kerrys of the world or sit down with somebody from the Dept of Agriculture to know these people are willing to make choices most of us would not.

What kind of tax is least unfair? Maybe consumption taxes so you can limit your tax payments, if you don't believe in many of the governments missions? When appropriate, use taxes, gas taxes or tolls for highways. Many difficulties would arise, how do we bill ITT for black ops? How does George Soros pay for opening the Balkans up, oops... outside of campaign contributions? Dang, lost that address for the tin foil hat. My brain waves are seeping out.

If you still need help seeing my view of government, it is simply that government is legalized organized crime. Through government we can justify using force to get what we want. You would never take a gun to your neighbors house and demand money to send your kid to school, but its just fine if the sheriff nails an eviction notice to his front door for the crime of being unable to pay his school tax.

So what can we do about it? Hold government employees to the same standard we hold up for individuals. The Horiuchis and Conditts of the world must suffer the same scrutiny as Joe Schmoe. We need to look to voluntary action first and leave government action as the last resort. Every time you want a new law ask yourself, is this rule important enough for authorities to enforce with a gun? Object lesson http://dailypress.com/news/middlepen...s/86057sy0.htm

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by jaguar
I"ve always wondered hwo you taxpayers (argh ill be one soon - i'm now running an import business) feel about your moeny going into so called *black* military and research applications?

Will Rogers said it best--"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

In a government such as ours, there is bound to be some spending that doesn't sit well with everyone. That's why the United States is a republic and not a democracy. If I don't like it, I could move...but why? The benefits of being a United States citizen far outweigh the negatives.

As much as we bitch about our government, those 537 elected officials are willing to do most of the dirty work for the other 275 million of us.

[jaguar]

I have to say i like griffs answer =)
interestng answers all round..