2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

[Handyman]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Handyman made some joke in political context about getting on our knees. Pio, no doubt drunkenly mistaking him for 5mn_major (they are both MN fans), posted, "I imagine you spend a lot of time on your knees". His post was deleted, and thinking he had deleted it, I called him out for being chickensheet. I'm guessing he unloaded on me and the discussion devolved from there, as I did not get a chance to view the fireworks before it was canned.

Man and to think I missed that intellectual gem

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Here’s the latest from the IRS on how bad it could get if the U.S. goes over the fiscal cliff: a big mess during the coming tax filing season.

If Congress doesn’t act to extend relief from the alternative minimum tax by the end of 2012 – an important element of the fiscal cliff – the IRS said Tuesday that it would have to enforce the AMT against about 33 million households, the vast majority of which likely have no idea yet that they owe the tax.

from today's Wall St. Journal.

Reminds me of an old joke. Someone complaining about income tax is told to look on the "bright side" -- "at least you make enough income so that you have to pay the tax."


If you've never dealt with the AMT before, basically, you have to calculate your taxes twice merely to find out whether you owe it or not, once under normal rules and a second time under AMT rules. Even if you wind up not owing any AMT, it's still a good idea to perform the calculation anyway and submit the forms showing $0 in AMT due, if only to forestall the IRS calculating it for you and perhaps making a mistake.

I have a copy of the IRS Form 1040 from 1913. It is one page (!) long and the same for everyone.


I only have it in PDF format and the picture uploan application on this website doesn't recognize PDFs. If some tech geek can tell me how to translate it into a recognizable format I can share it with y'all.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

from today's Wall St. Journal.

Reminds me of an old joke. Someone complaining about income tax is told to look on the "bright side" -- "at least you make enough income so that you have to pay the tax."


If you've never dealt with the AMT before, basically, you have to calculate your taxes twice merely to find out whether you owe it or not, once under normal rules and a second time under AMT rules. Even if you wind up not owing any AMT, it's still a good idea to perform the calculation anyway and submit the forms showing $0 in AMT due, if only to forestall the IRS calculating it for you and perhaps making a mistake.

I have a copy of the IRS Form 1040 from 1913. It is one page (!) long and the same for everyone.


I only have it in PDF format and the picture uploan application on this website doesn't recognize PDFs. If some tech geek can tell me how to translate it into a recognizable format I can share it with y'all.

It looks like it's 4 pages, including instructions and worksheets. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/1913.pdf

The marriage-and-live-together tax at the time was $2000. If you were married, but lived in separate locations, there was no penalty. You also had to have the return confirmed by a notary public.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

It looks like it's 4 pages, including instructions and worksheets. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/1913.pdf

Thanks.

Notice that the threshold for a person to pay income tax in 1913 is a minimum income of $20,000.

So, for the statistically inclined, if we adjust 1913 dollars for Labor Department's Consumer Price Index, that means that in today's dollars, you needed a minimum income of $450,000 before any income tax would be due.

To me this indicates how massively government spending has increased relative to revenue. For 2011, the tax tables for single filers start at $8,500. That's 1.9% of $450,000; nearly mind-boggling.

Also, notice that the lowest rate in 2013 is 1%; the lowest rate in 2011 is 10%.

98% lower income threshold, 900% higher minimum rate. yet the voracious money-sucking vampires are still not satisfied.

What happens to a parasite when it kills its host, folks?

 

[LynahFan]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Thanks.

Notice that the threshold for a person to pay income tax in 1913 is a minimum income of $20,000.

So, for the statistically inclined, if we adjust 1913 dollars for Labor Department's Consumer Price Index, that means that in today's dollars, you needed a minimum income of $450,000 before any income tax would be due.

To me this indicates how massively government spending has increased relative to revenue. For 2011, the tax tables for single filers start at $8,500. That's 1.9% of $450,000; nearly mind-boggling.

Also, notice that the lowest rate in 2013 is 1%; the lowest rate in 2011 is 10%.

98% lower income threshold, 900% higher minimum rate. yet the voracious money-sucking vampires are still not satisfied.

What happens to a parasite when it kills its host, folks?

What % of federal revenue came from the income tax in 1913, though? I believe the majority of federal revenue at that time came from things like sale of federal land, sale of federal mineral rights, etc. Those revenue streams are gone forever and have been replaced with additional income tax revenue, so it's not surprising (nor unjustified) that the tax rates have gone up and the thresholds for paying tax have gone down.

As always, the first question to answer is "What size federal government do we want, in % of GDP?" Only after we answer that question can we think about what an equitable (I won't say "fair") tax structure might look like. If we want a government that is 25% of GDP, then we're going to have a high tax burden on the majority of the population. If we only want 15%, then we can exempt a whole lot more people and reduce the rates for those who do pay.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Thanks.

Notice that the threshold for a person to pay income tax in 1913 is a minimum income of $20,000.

So, for the statistically inclined, if we adjust 1913 dollars for Labor Department's Consumer Price Index, that means that in today's dollars, you needed a minimum income of $450,000 before any income tax would be due.

To me this indicates how massively government spending has increased relative to revenue. For 2011, the tax tables for single filers start at $8,500. That's 1.9% of $450,000; nearly mind-boggling.

Also, notice that the lowest rate in 2013 is 1%; the lowest rate in 2011 is 10%.

98% lower income threshold, 900% higher minimum rate. yet the voracious money-sucking vampires are still not satisfied.

What happens to a parasite when it kills its host, folks?

A couple other things to note: you deduct income that has already had tax withheld by your employer. Today, you are not able to that. Also, there is no standard deduction. I don't know if there is a refund process on this, though; I don't think so...

As to your last question, it was Margaret Thatcher who lamented that the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

I find discussions like this to be amusing as I'm a big fan of history, but it needs repeating sometimes that the world is far different than it was in 1913. For starters, we had yet to see even the First let alone the Second World War, two conflicts that at the cost of some 70M lives from 1914-1945 saw the United States assume world leadership thus jacking up defense spending considerably. I also believe tariffs may have been a big source of govt revenue back then.

But moving on, there's a hard truth that few conservatives, be it the dominant neo-conartists of today or the traditional conservatives everybody claims to be, want to admit. That truth is this: The voting public whether they admit it or not has demonstrated time and time again they they will not tolerate a significant cut in the social spending they've come to expect. Like that or hate it, but that's the facts. Reagan didn't cut spending. Neither did Gingrich. Or Bush II. Or The Boner. There's a reason for that, and its called "electability". Start canning people's Social Security and they'll be seeing you at the ballot box real soon, and they won't be there to thank you.

So, what must happen is taxes have to raise the requisite amount of revenue to cover the spending the public demands. This was done in the Clinton administration, and should be done again. Otherwise say hello to Deficit City from now until the end of time.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

I find discussions like this to be amusing as I'm a big fan of history, but it needs repeating sometimes that the world is far different than it was in 1913. For starters, we had yet to see even the First let alone the Second World War, two conflicts that at the cost of some 70M lives from 1914-1945 saw the United States assume world leadership thus jacking up defense spending considerably. I also believe tariffs may have been a big source of govt revenue back then.

But moving on, there's a hard truth that few conservatives, be it the dominant neo-conartists of today or the traditional conservatives everybody claims to be, want to admit. That truth is this: The voting public whether they admit it or not has demonstrated time and time again they they will not tolerate a significant cut in the social spending they've come to expect. Like that or hate it, but that's the facts. Reagan didn't cut spending. Neither did Gingrich. Or Bush II. Or The Boner. There's a reason for that, and its called "electability". Start canning people's Social Security and they'll be seeing you at the ballot box real soon, and they won't be there to thank you.

So, what must happen is taxes have to raise the requisite amount of revenue to cover the spending the public demands. This was done in the Clinton administration, and should be done again. Otherwise say hello to Deficit City from now until the end of time.

Or, what you do is give the finger to likeability contests and govern. I know no one has the guts to do that at this point (aside from maybe Chris Christie), but it'd be the true leadership this country needs. Use Chile as a model when it comes to social security. Give people options when it comes to how their medical expenses are paid when they're over 65. If the government wants to get involved in social programs, make it competitive instead of monopolistic.

Here's one idea I heard, and I think it was from Kevin O'Leary: For every dollar of true surplus that is generated, take a percentage of it and split it amongst Congress as a commission. You'd be surprised to see how many deficits we have then.

 

[jmh]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Not looking good for The Next Great Hope, Marco Rubio after he fumbled a question regarding how old the Earth is. Even Jeb Bush in on his case. I don't understand how righties have so much trouble with questions like this and evolution, when religion and science on these subjects are compatable. One could theorize that the Earth is in fact 4.5B years old, but was created by a higher power. Same thing with what set evolution in motion. Is Rubio really going to get primaried over something like this?

STOP THE PRESSES! A POLITICIAN GAVE A DELIBERATE NON-ANSWER TO A QUESTION IN ORDER NOT TO OFFEND ANYBODY!

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-rubio-evolution-earth-20121120,0,285153.story

 

[Foxton]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Not looking good for The Next Great Hope, Marco Rubio after he fumbled a question regarding how old the Earth is. Even Jeb Bush in on his case. I don't understand how righties have so much trouble with questions like this and evolution, when religion and science on these subjects are compatable. One could theorize that the Earth is in fact 4.5B years old, but was created by a higher power. Same thing with what set evolution in motion. Is Rubio really going to get primaried over something like this?

At least he's honest about what his sacred religious text says.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

As always, the first question to answer is "What size federal government do we want, in % of GDP?" Only after we answer that question can we think about what an equitable (I won't say "fair") tax structure might look like. If we want a government that is 25% of GDP, then we're going to have a high tax burden on the majority of the population. If we only want 15%, then we can exempt a whole lot more people and reduce the rates for those who do pay.

Actually, before I even ask that question, which is a very good one by the way, I have an even more fundamental question: what is the role and purpose of government in our daily lives?

In my experience, we have the federal government involved in matters that can be far better administered soley by states and municipalities, for one example.

We also have the government involved in matters that are none of its business at all, which are far better handled by other societal avenues entirely.


Still, given the way you posed your question, it does seem to be that the 20% figure is a kind of balance point. Stay on the lower side and we can figure out how to muddle through somehow; stray on the higher side for very long however and things seem to begin to unravel at the seams....sort of like when you have already punched a few new holes in your belt, and now you need to get a new belt entirely, except with the rest of your clothes you cannot replace them, and they all start to come apart. Better not to go there in the first place!


PS youi also bring up another very good point, which is "why are we not bringing in more revenue from existing Federal assets?" The Federal government still owns plenty of resources, how are they being managed both for sustainability (if applicable) and for revenue maximization (how many ranchers / timber companies et al get sweetheart below-market deals to use federal land for grazing or harvesting lumber?)

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

A couple other things to note: you deduct income that has already had tax withheld by your employer. Today, you are not able to that.

um, You subtract the tax already withheld by your employer when you calculate how much tax you need to send in on April 15.

 

[Rover]

Or, what you do is give the finger to likeability contests and govern. I know no one has the guts to do that at this point (aside from maybe Chris Christie), but it'd be the true leadership this country needs. Use Chile as a model when it comes to social security. Give people options when it comes to how their medical expenses are paid when they're over 65. If the government wants to get involved in social programs, make it competitive instead of monopolistic.

Here's one idea I heard, and I think it was from Kevin O'Leary: For every dollar of true surplus that is generated, take a percentage of it and split it amongst Congress as a commission. You'd be surprised to see how many deficits we have then.

Flaggy for once I'm not unsympathetic to your cause, but you're imagining some sort of nirvana state where people will gleefully give up something they expect and count on for a noble but abstract concept like deficit reduction. It would be better off to deal in reality instead of dreaming of the world you'd like to live in. By all means tell people that you need to take 1 billion dollars out of Social Security and Medicare every year to balance the budget. Your preferred candidates who do so will be politically dead in the next election. Bottom line is people want these programs, no matter their level of liberal or conservative leanings. For example, while I haven't researched this I'm guessing anti-govt Ron Paul happily accepts his govt funded health care and pension.

People will not give up their goodies on a large scale basis, so get taxation back to where it was when these goodies were paid for.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

I find discussions like this to be amusing as I'm a big fan of history, but it needs repeating sometimes that the world is far different than it was in 1913. For starters, we had yet to see even the First let alone the Second World War, two conflicts that at the cost of some 70M lives from 1914-1945 saw the United States assume world leadership thus jacking up defense spending considerably. I also believe tariffs may have been a big source of govt revenue back then.

But moving on, there's a hard truth that few conservatives, be it the dominant neo-conartists of today or the traditional conservatives everybody claims to be, want to admit. That truth is this: The voting public whether they admit it or not has demonstrated time and time again they they will not tolerate a significant cut in the social spending they've come to expect. Like that or hate it, but that's the facts.

So I said there has been a massive expansion in government spending relative to revenues since 2013 and you not only agree, you even point out several prime examples!

Charles Dickens I believe was the one who said, "expenses, 20 pounds; income 20 pounds sixpence: happiness. Expenses, 20 pounds, income, 19 pounds sixpence: misery"

the public will gladly take a significant cut in social spending once we replace it with better opportunity. Not enough emphasis on growth and opportunity. You really think people collecting unemployment wouldn't in the big picture greatly prefer to have a satisfying, well-paying job instead?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

um, You subtract the tax already withheld by your employer when you calculate how much tax you need to send in on April 15.

This is true, but with the way the 1913 form is worded, you deduct the entire paycheck, because tax has already been collected on that.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Flaggy for once I'm not unsympathetic to your cause, but you're imagining some sort of nirvana state where people will gleefully give up something they expect and count on for a noble but abstract concept like deficit reduction. It would be better off to deal in reality instead of dreaming of the world you'd like to live in. By all means tell people that you need to take 1 billion dollars out of Social Security and Medicare every year to balance the budget. Your preferred candidates who do so will be politically dead in the next election. Bottom line is people want these programs, no matter their level of liberal or conservative leanings. For example, while I haven't researched this I'm guessing anti-govt Ron Paul happily accepts his govt funded health care and pension.

People will not give up their goodies on a large scale basis, so get taxation back to where it was when these goodies were paid for.

Once again, you have proven that you did not read what I said. Instead, you have resorted to the loony left "Oh, I think he's a republican, therefore he must want to completely cut social programs" mentality. Did Chile get rid of a retirement savings program? No! they instead gave OPTIONS to the citizens.

Remember that the average American will not see their entire social security payments returned to them, even without including interest.

 

[pirate]

I find discussions like this to be amusing as I'm a big fan of history, but it needs repeating sometimes that the world is far different than it was in 1913. For starters, we had yet to see even the First let alone the Second World War, two conflicts that at the cost of some 70M lives from 1914-1945 saw the United States assume world leadership thus jacking up defense spending considerably. I also believe tariffs may have been a big source of govt revenue back then.

But moving on, there's a hard truth that few conservatives, be it the dominant neo-conartists of today or the traditional conservatives everybody claims to be, want to admit. That truth is this: The voting public whether they admit it or not has demonstrated time and time again they they will not tolerate a significant cut in the social spending they've come to expect. Like that or hate it, but that's the facts. Reagan didn't cut spending. Neither did Gingrich. Or Bush II. Or The Boner. There's a reason for that, and its called "electability". Start canning people's Social Security and they'll be seeing you at the ballot box real soon, and they won't be there to thank you.

So, what must happen is taxes have to raise the requisite amount of revenue to cover the spending the public demands. This was done in the Clinton administration, and should be done again. Otherwise say hello to Deficit City from now until the end of time.

I've asked this question 20 times in the last year..."where does it end?" Do we keep raising taxes forever as the majority demands more spending? Does it ever stop? And what is cause and effect at that point?

It isn't some selfish desire that raises these questions...I'd ask the same thing if it was within my household...is the model you described the best way to run the country?

 

[joecct]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

So I said there has been a massive expansion in government spending relative to revenues since 2013 and you not only agree, you even point out several prime examples!

Charles Dickens I believe was the one who said, "expenses, 20 pounds; income 20 pounds sixpence: happiness. Expenses, 20 pounds, income, 19 pounds sixpence: misery"

the public will gladly take a significant cut in social spending once we replace it with better opportunity. Not enough emphasis on growth and opportunity. You really think people collecting unemployment wouldn't in the big picture greatly prefer to have a satisfying, well-paying job instead?

Pat Buchanan opines au contraire: http://buchanan.org/blog/mitt-wasnt-all-wrong-about-gifts-5394

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Do we keep raising taxes forever as the majority demands more spending? Does it ever stop?

No. The libtards want to tax you at 100%. Obvi.

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Handyman made some joke in political context about getting on our knees. Pio, no doubt drunkenly mistaking him for 5mn_major (they are both MN fans), posted, "I imagine you spend a lot of time on your knees". His post was deleted, and thinking he had deleted it, I called him out for being chickensheet. I'm guessing he unloaded on me and the discussion devolved from there, as I did not get a chance to view the fireworks before it was canned.

He made the "knees" comment to someone else and board deleted it. He didn't respond to you because he was already enjoying a two-week vacation. Don't insult other members and you probably won't get suspended. It isn't that difficult.