Rumsfeld Writes the IRS:

[Bann]

I was surprised I didn't see this posted - I looked and couldn't find it.

I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE Donald Rumsfeld - almost as much - no probably as much as I love Dick Cheney. I would watch his daily news conferences during the Iraqi war without fail, looked forward to them - OH, how he would toy with the press. It was almost the highlight of my day. :-D

From an article written by Dan Calabrese:

Donald Rumsfeld writes the IRS: I have no idea if my tax returns are accurate.

Sigh. There are many things I miss about the Bush Administration. And very high on the list is Donald Rumsfeld, who suffers fools not at all but employs a wonderful sense of humor in the process. Yesterday he released a letter he wrote to the IRS on tax day to let the Lerner Brigades know that he has no idea whatsoever if the returns he's filing are accurate.


http://www.caintv.com/donald-rumsfeld-writes-the-irs

Click the link to read the letter, I couldn't cut and paste it.

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

I wish this letter was written by every taxpayer who filed returns.

Now I want to see Letterman write a letter to those who paid no taxes but get big $$$$ when filing their return for being a leech on society.

 

[Hijinx]

Each year I pay a tax consultant, each year I take the Standard deduction. It's about the simplest form there is and I still do not have the confidence to do it myself.

Certainly the Government should make the tax system easier, but if they did that perhaps the people in Government, such as Congressmen an senators would have to pay more. Anyone see that happening?

By the way what are the kids today taught in school about taxes, about insurance, about real things they will have to face after leaving school?

 

[Bann]

Each year I pay a tax consultant, each year I take the Standard deduction. It's about the simplest form there is and I still do not have the confidence to do it myself.

Certainly the Government should make the tax system easier, but if they did that perhaps the people in Government, such as Congressmen an senators would have to pay more. Anyone see that happening?

By the way what are the kids today taught in school about taxes, about insurance, about real things they will have to face after leaving school?

As far as I know - Thing2 has not learned that in school. * I * have been teaching him these finer points of life. He's had a checking account/debit card for over a year. He does not use it like a Credit Card! It is, however, very convenient for ME to help him manage money. My name is on the account and I can check on it online (still, even though he is now 18--we have an agreement so that I can help him until he's completely on his own) I use this method to give him money for field trips and he has to budget on that trip using this card. He has been doing very well with that. He gets paid for doing odd jobs on the side for a friend who owns a business and puts that in the account so he can spend it. He also gets money for Christmas, birthdays, etc. and he puts THAT money in there. He has been very good at keeping the money "straight" i.e., which money I give him vs. "his money".

It's baby steps, but he is budgeting and managing money. He's done pretty well, so far. As for taxes and insurance - that's upcoming. I just put him on my auto insurance and we discussed the total cost of that for 6 months (a "gift" from me for graduation - but with plenty of stipulations!!)He is already 18, and with a pretty good head on his shoulders, so we just need to finish up HS. I set up a filing system "for him" - so that he can get used to keeping important receipts and papers each month, so that if he needs it at tax season or for other reasons, he'll know where it is. ALSO, since my sister passed away unexpectedly (in less than 6 months) and he saw my nieces going through a host of issues with that - I have had to unfortunately prepare him ahead of time for these types of matters. He also has a disabled brother and we've got plans in place for that, as well, so he has learned a lot of these types of things so much sooner than most of us do.

I haven't left this up to the school system, NOR would I. It's my job. :shrug:

 

[SamSpade]

Aside from a progressive tax rate structure - which I basically agree with (not so much because the rich should pay more, but that the poor have so little to work with after taxes, while the rich do not have to worry if a high tax rate will make it hard to pay the rent or the heating bill) - what's the minimum rate at which we could all be taxed without regard to so many exemptions, credits and deductions? It seems to me that part of the complications of taxation is precisely determining WHAT is and isn't taxable income, and what is and isn't deductible. I kind of find it interesting that the ONE tax not subjected to this kind of contortion - the FICA taxes - raise enormous revenue, even though they're not high, at least for individuals.

Even Einstein once said "This is too difficult for a mathematician. It takes a philosopher." He was the greatest mind this world has ever known, and it baffled HIM. It's not a good thing that several accounting firms could look at the same person's finances and come up with different answers - because if it was just MATH, it is impossible for there to be more than ONE answer.

Fundamentally, I have one overriding objection to the income tax - and that is that it basically discourages the creation of income. It may not be that much, but intuitively we all know that if you tax something, you will get less of that something.

We've had an income tax for over 100 years. Perhaps it is time we found another way to raise federal revenue. I used to work with a guy who believed we could just go back to the days before the income tax, when we got all our money from tariffs and fees. I think in our modern world, there would be far too many ways to get around that, and we live in a world where products ship everywhere in days and hours, rather than months and weeks. Imposing fees at our borders wouldn't be enough.

What's left? A consumption tax. A tax based on what we spend rather than what we make. NO returns to ever file. At least not for individuals.

Would our Congress ever go for it? Are they ready for an economy that won't be driven by constant spending?

 

[Bann]

Aside from a progressive tax rate structure - which I basically agree with (not so much because the rich should pay more, but that the poor have so little to work with after taxes, while the rich do not have to worry if a high tax rate will make it hard to pay the rent or the heating bill) - what's the minimum rate at which we could all be taxed without regard to so many exemptions, credits and deductions? It seems to me that part of the complications of taxation is precisely determining WHAT is and isn't taxable income, and what is and isn't deductible. I kind of find it interesting that the ONE tax not subjected to this kind of contortion - the FICA taxes - raise enormous revenue, even though they're not high, at least for individuals.

Even Einstein once said "This is too difficult for a mathematician. It takes a philosopher." He was the greatest mind this world has ever known, and it baffled HIM. It's not a good thing that several accounting firms could look at the same person's finances and come up with different answers - because if it was just MATH, it is impossible for there to be more than ONE answer.

Fundamentally, I have one overriding objection to the income tax - and that is that it basically discourages the creation of income. It may not be that much, but intuitively we all know that if you tax something, you will get less of that something.

We've had an income tax for over 100 years. Perhaps it is time we found another way to raise federal revenue. I used to work with a guy who believed we could just go back to the days before the income tax, when we got all our money from tariffs and fees. I think in our modern world, there would be far too many ways to get around that, and we live in a world where products ship everywhere in days and hours, rather than months and weeks. Imposing fees at our borders wouldn't be enough.

What's left? A consumption tax. A tax based on what we spend rather than what we make. NO returns to ever file. At least not for individuals.

Would our Congress ever go for it? Are they ready for an economy that won't be driven by constant spending?

Three words: The Fair Tax.

Www.fairtax.org

 

[Larry Gude]

Well, maybe if Rumsfeld had gone on to be SecTreas, instead of Defense, we wouldn't have gotten mired in two miserable wars and our tax code would be understandable.

That would have been a nice legacy.

 

[Larry Gude]

Aside from a progressive tax rate structure - which I basically agree with (not so much because the rich should pay more, but that the poor have so little to work with after taxes, while the rich do not have to worry if a high tax rate will make it hard to pay the rent or the heating bill) - what's the minimum rate at which we could all be taxed without regard to so many exemptions, credits and deductions?

THAT is THE question.

If we want fair taxation, we, the people, paying for OUR government, then, we simply divide the budget each year by the number of citizens and send everyone their bill. THEN we'll see and end to people voting themselves other peoples stuff. Plus, we'll see the end of corporations and the rich trying to buy as much influence and power as they can.

So, $3.5 trillion by, what, 300 million = that's $11,700 per man, woman and child.

 

[SamSpade]

Three words: The Fair Tax.

Www.fairtax.org

My biggest beef with the Fair Tax is the prebate. I just don't see how it could ever be responsibly run by our government.
Everything else seems to work, but the prebate looks to be something that will be massively exploited.

 

[Bann]

Well, maybe if Rumsfeld had gone on to be SecTreas, instead of Defense, we wouldn't have gotten mired in two miserable wars and our tax code would be understandable.

That would have been a nice legacy.

 

[SamSpade]

THAT is THE question.

If we want fair taxation, we, the people, paying for OUR government, then, we simply divide the budget each year by the number of citizens and send everyone their bill. THEN we'll see and end to people voting themselves other peoples stuff. Plus, we'll see the end of corporations and the rich trying to buy as much influence and power as they can.

So, $3.5 trillion by, what, 300 million = that's $11,700 per man, woman and child.

Every time I see this solution written elsewhere, I'm always guessing that it's you. We have half the country essentially paying either no taxes or very few, most of our student debt is delinquent, we have a nation deeply in debt and overspending - and you really, really think that our citizens will make the SLIGHTEST effort to set their money aside for a year to pay Uncle Sam? I know the IDEA behind this, but we have huge bits of our population paying minimum payments on credit cards, spending money they don't have, buying with these absurd "rent to own" things. They won't do it. And I know good responsible adults who can't do this - they start out a Christmas club, and by summer, it's either empty or spent. They go on a diet - and in two weeks, they're off.

Now multiply that by the number of taxpayers - easily half will NOT have the money, but I'm betting all but a few will. The rest will piss and moan that they just couldn't do it, and will ask for relief.

(Also, your math isn't close - you think that a small family with two or three children will be able to foot a tax bill that exceeds the median household income of this country? There's no way dividing it up equally will ever get most of it paid.)

I mean, it SOUNDS nice. So does communism. But it won't happen. I get the idea - when people realize how much they give Uncle Sam, they'll wonder about forking over the dough. But maybe not. When people realize how much they spend per year on their house, on heat, on food, on health care - they still have to do it. They don't have the luxury of realizable, affordable alternatives. If you paid ANY of those things in one lump sum at the end of the year, you'd definitely scream "Uncle". But so what? It's not like anything you do will make any difference. And any company that relied on yearly payments for a service they render daily would find itself out of business in a hurry.

 

[SamSpade]

Here's what I do think works - everyone pays. Everyone. I do think it's a joke for any citizen who essentially pays no income tax to have the unmitigated gall to call themselves a taxpayer, or to make the comment "you work for us". If you're not paying taxes, they don't work for you. You're like a guy who sneaks into a theater and complains that he was ripped off by a bad performance.

Everyone should pay. As Obama says, they need to all have "skin in the game".

Now it's true even the poorest pay FICA. Amazing, isn't it, that the one tax that is not subject to deductions, credits and exemptions manages to fund a third of the federal government. But as long as Social Security and Medicare do not get axed, the poor will always get more out of it than they ever paid in. And the lowest quintile receives more in credits and payments than even they pay in FICA taxes. They have a net GAIN.

Everyone should work, unless they are physically unable to. And I'd hazard a guess that even that most unable to work can still get on their computer and do SOMETHING of value to others. They can still do something useful at home.

But as Rumsfeld observed - the tax code is ridiculously complex, and they add to it every year. You really need to beware of the IRS, because in any given year, you probably did SOMETHING wrong.
The best way to approach THAT problem is to replace the income tax. Replace it with something that encourages work.

The Fair Tax is a good start.

 

[Larry Gude]

Every time I see this solution written elsewhere, I'm always guessing that it's you. We have half the country essentially paying either no taxes or very few, most of our student debt is delinquent, we have a nation deeply in debt and overspending - and you really, really think that our citizens will make the SLIGHTEST effort to set their money aside for a year to pay Uncle Sam? I know the IDEA behind this, but we have huge bits of our population paying minimum payments on credit cards, spending money they don't have, buying with these absurd "rent to own" things. They won't do it. And I know good responsible adults who can't do this - they start out a Christmas club, and by summer, it's either empty or spent. They go on a diet - and in two weeks, they're off.

Now multiply that by the number of taxpayers - easily half will NOT have the money, but I'm betting all but a few will. The rest will piss and moan that they just couldn't do it, and will ask for relief.

(Also, your math isn't close - you think that a small family with two or three children will be able to foot a tax bill that exceeds the median household income of this country? There's no way dividing it up equally will ever get most of it paid.)

I mean, it SOUNDS nice. So does communism. But it won't happen. I get the idea - when people realize how much they give Uncle Sam, they'll wonder about forking over the dough. But maybe not. When people realize how much they spend per year on their house, on heat, on food, on health care - they still have to do it. They don't have the luxury of realizable, affordable alternatives. If you paid ANY of those things in one lump sum at the end of the year, you'd definitely scream "Uncle". But so what? It's not like anything you do will make any difference. And any company that relied on yearly payments for a service they render daily would find itself out of business in a hurry.

My math isn't off. I fully realize what we're talking about in terms of a family of four. As long as we have a system where you can vote yourself more than you pay, fair tax, flat tax, whatever, we WILL have this mess and corporations and the rich will fight back the only way they can' corrupting the system by buying off parts of the government.

Bill everyone once a month. Let that be what the IRS does; go collect. No more tax returns. No more indecipherable law. No more fear and loathing.

There would certainly need to be a 'reset' of the federal budget, a fresh starting point where everyone understood that all the great stuff their representative was talking about was NO longer bacon they were going to bring home BUT bacon they we're gonna pledge YOU to to pay for.

There is, in fact, over $11,000 for every man, woman and child in this nation that IS being taken out of the economy and being spent in all of our names. So, to varying degrees, there is that much money and credit out there to pay the bills.

As long as we ain't paying for it, there will always be the motivation to vote you to pay for my lunch. THAT is the issue.

 

[SamSpade]

My math isn't off.

Well, it would be if everyone made a lot more money.

Bear in mind that median household income in this country is in the 50,000 range. That's not "average", that's median, meaning, half are below and half are above.
Assuming that typical household is two or more people, and you're asking families to pay more than they make every month. It's not just difficult, it is mathematically impossible.


It is why we have a progressive tax structure - most of those in the lower three or four quintiles can't possibly pay that much. Heck, it would raise MY tax bill by a factor of five.
I wouldn't have enough left each month to pay a single bill, except maybe cable.

Billing everyone the same per person regardless of income is absurd. It may seem "fair" to you, but giving most of the people in this country a bill they can't - and won't - pay is just silly.

 

[Larry Gude]

Well, it would be if everyone made a lot more money.

Bear in mind that median household income in this country is in the 50,000 range. That's not "average", that's median, meaning, half are below and half are above.
Assuming that typical household is two or more people, and you're asking families to pay more than they make every month. It's not just difficult, it is mathematically impossible.


It is why we have a progressive tax structure - most of those in the lower three or four quintiles can't possibly pay that much. Heck, it would raise MY tax bill by a factor of five.
I wouldn't have enough left each month to pay a single bill, except maybe cable.

Billing everyone the same per person regardless of income is absurd. It may seem "fair" to you, but giving most of the people in this country a bill they can't - and won't - pay is just silly.

You're looking at this in a static model and you are, of course, correct if we look at it as a static thing.

However, it is not static. If we simply bill ourselves for what we vote for, we do three things;

1. We will vote for less because we're no longer voting for Sam to pay for Larry's stuff. We're voting for Larry to pay for Larry's stuff. My motivation is gone. My interest goes sky high.
2. ALL that money, the vast majority of what used to be a $3.5 tril budget, now goes through the economy and is not handed out politically.
3. We end the corruption and manipulation brought about by a progressive system.

 

[SamSpade]

You're looking at this in a static model and you are, of course, correct if we look at it as a static thing.

I really have no idea what that means. If you ask someone to pay 50,000 dollars and he makes 30,000, it doesn't matter how irate he will get. He can't pay it.

If we restrict the budget only to what everyone can pay equally per person, we can't do anything. And it puts an extreme burden on those who can least afford it.
You must have progressive structure, or there's no federal government.

 

[GURPS]

It seems to me that part of the complications of taxation is precisely determining WHAT is and isn't taxable income, and what is and isn't deductible.

the problem Sam is all of the 'special' exemptions add in over the years ....


http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2007/02/05/original-income-tax-form-from-1913/

 

[GURPS]

Now it's true even the poorest pay FICA. Amazing, isn't it, that the one tax that is not subject to deductions, credits and exemptions manages to fund a third of the federal government.

my understanding is 'Earned Income Credit' - pays this back for people below X dollars of income

 

[SamSpade]

my understanding is 'Earned Income Credit' - pays this back for people below X dollars of income

Well, there's that - and for many of the poor, they continue to get other benefits that far exceed any tax dollars paid. It's not altogether honest to say that someone paid a zero tax bill,
and completely overlook the numerous cash benefits the government gives them outright.

I mean, I *did* taxes for lots of people who took home thousands - thousands - in EITC and paid NO federal taxes, but I think it's important to include as part of the total tax bill any
assistance they receive that is not part of the tax return.

Maybe it's just the way I see things - if I pay 10 bucks a month in union dues, and six times a year they give me a "free turkey" (that I might otherwise BUY), I'm getting back more than I put in.

 

[GURPS]

There is, in fact, over $11,000 for every man, woman and child in this nation that IS being taken out of the economy and being spent in all of our names.

right my gross salary was about $ 65,000 last yr

Wife - 11,000
Daughter - 11,000
me - 11,000



so before anything else 33,000 in TAXES ... leaving 32,000 to live on

and people making minimum wage ? starve to death