Conference back40::soapbox

    
    As well as Taxes, we now have a new money generating device....
    
    The National Lottery
    
    Andy

	The lottery is a good way to raise money. It's done a lot of good for
Massachusetts. Don't know how it would work on the hill, I mean, with the
repubs in power, it would all get spent on defense and the peoplezz will
suffer.

    
    
    Yeah, we don't need no steenkin defense, right Glen?  Anyone see the
    report about certain forces that are at a level that's seen as unready
    because of the budget cuts?

Lotteries -- a wonderful thing.  A tax on the stupid.

	Mike, defense is important, but what about the people who live in the
country now? Why can't they be helped?

    
    
    Well, the way I see it Glen, spending money on defense does help people
    in this country.  I know that we (Digital) do quite a bit of work for
    DOD.  Then deccies go out and spend their hard earned money at various
    places which keep a lot of other people employed.  Whereas I don't like
    the fact of depending on government to keep the economy moving, this is
    one of the few areas where they belong.
    
    
    Mike

	But Mike, there is a limit that we should spend, and start putting more
into things FOR the people. 

    
    
    It's not the government's responsibility (at least on a federal level)
    to do things for the people (social programs and all).
    
    
    Mike

                    <<< Note 53.8 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER >>>

>    It's not the government's responsibility (at least on a federal level)
>    to do things for the people (social programs and all).

Why not?

    Sales tax, 5.5%...two different city taxes at 1% each, the feds taking
    half of my paycheck with SS tax, medicade tax, federal tax (which is
    redundant, all three are federal taxes), state tax of...er..I forget
    the %.  I must go consult my paystub.

	Gee, let's not do anything for the people socially, like make sure they
have food before we send it out to other countries, or a place to stay,
healthcare, but lets arm ourselves to the hilt during a time when the cold war
isn't around.... makes perfect sense to me Mike.

    Steve Leech, as the SOAPBOX's official FF, will you set these guys
    straight on the responsibility of the federal government?
    
    It is not the responsibility of the federal government to insure that
    each and every individual has what is considered "necessary". That is a
    personal responsibility. The federal government is responsible for
    insuring the protection of it's citizens from unwanted force and to
    insure individual and property rights for every individual. Anything
    more than this is an abuse of power and helps no one except those who
    force it on us.
    
    ...Tom

re: .10

Now you know one of the reasons I moved to Texas.

Bob

    
    
    
    Well, when I contribute to those less fortunate I either go directly to
    the source or to a source which operates with a lot more efficiency
    than the government.  Bottom line is, it's not the governmnets job to
    provide such support.  

    	dump the income tax and institute a federal sales tax.

 >   The federal government is responsible for
 >   insuring the protection of it's citizens from unwanted force and to
 >   insure individual and property rights for every individual.
 >   Anything more than this is an abuse of power and helps no one except those
 >   who force it on us.
    
    Thanks Tom...this is perfect in the abortion topic for the slavery 
    argument...how the emancipation proclamation interfered with whiteys
    property rights.
    
    Like...situational ethics stands for alot more than what's right...as
    long as it is politically correct.
    
    -Jack

    Why shouldn't it be the governments responsibility to do something
    for the people. If they're not going to do anything for me, why
    should I give them money, and what are they doing there in the
    first place?
    
    Mary-Michael

    .14
    
    > Bottom line is, it's not the governmnets job to
    >   provide such support
    
    More of that elitist, the-people-be-damned, heres-what's-good-for-you
    swill, eh, Mike?
    
    Fact is, the "government's job", within the constitution, is whatever
    the people want it to be, as determined by their elected
    representatives. 
    
    Kit
    

re:     <<< Note 53.17 by MKOTS3::SCANLON "oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye." >>>

Points to ponder, eh?

    "According to the Tax Foundation, the typical American family must
     allocate 40.4% of its annual expenses to taxes... you spend more on
     taxes each year than you do on clothing, transportation,
     recreation, food, and medical care -- combined. 

    "And yet there are still masochists and liberals who wish taxes
     were -- I kid you not -- higher.  ...[there is] a chorus moaning 
     that Americans are undertaxed.  That there are programs yet to
     fund, services yet to provide, needs yet to fulfill.  Yet ask them
     just how high taxes should go -- if 40.4% isn't enough, what
     percent would be? -- and you won't get an answer.  You'll get a
     lecture instead. About the Twelve Years of Republican Greed.  About
     $600 Pentagon hammers.  About the threat of AIDS. 

    "I once told Michael Dukakis, when he was on one of his tax-hike
     jihads, how much was withheld from my paycheck each week.  If 
     that's too little, I asked, how much should it be?  His answer, I 
     recall, was about the B-2 bomber."

    "Our mammoth national tax payment doesn't buy us more civilization,
     just more government.  Americans today are compelled to pay so much
     of what we have worked for; perhaps it is inevitable that in return
     we now expect government to soothe our aches and make our dreams come
     true. 
     Government can't do that for us.  We have to do it for ourselves, and 
     for each other."
          -- Jeff Jacoby, columnist, _The Boston Globe_

    I think the Globe should be ashamed of itself. I realized recently that
    they put Jacoby on the payroll as a sneaky ploy to maintain their
    liberal image. He's so laughably off the wall, so frequently completely
    wrong about elementary facts that he discredits the conservative view.
    If they regularly published someone like George Will or William Safire
    they'd have a knowledgable and articulate conservative they'd have to
    deal with.
    
    Kit

re: Note 53.18 by CLUSTA::BINNS
    
>    Fact is, the "government's job", within the constitution, is whatever
>    the people want it to be, as determined by their elected
>    representatives. 

BS.  The gov'ts limitations are specifically spelled out in the Constitution.
If the Constitution DOESN'T specify said activity, it shouldn't be done.
Today, said activity is done, and no one has the balls to challenge the
activity.  They either can't afford to challenge it, or the supreme Court
won't hear it or you're written off as a looney.

What you specify above is "MOB RULE".  Democracy/mob rule is what Congress is.
Now you must look to Congresses jurisdiction to see how mod rule is
supposed to be avoided within this country and where we've gone wrong.

Think about it.  If 99, or even 51% of my neighbors wanted to do something
"stupid", would you condone such action?  You seem to come across that way
with your above statement.  It ain't supposed to work that way.

    .22
    
    You're wrong. While you're welcome to offer an opinion as to the
    meaning of the constitution in every nook and cranny of this complex
    society, you do not have the right to force that interpretation. Only
    the Supreme Court has that right. If you do not agree, you are welcome
    challenge that law in court, to change the law through legislative
    means, or to set in motion the constitutional amendment mechanism.
    
    It is precisely the constitution which is the chief bulwark *against*
    the tyranny of the majority and for the protection of individual
    rights.
    
    Kit 

    Thanks.  That's what I said.  And since were in the tax topic, you 
    know the courts upheld several popular "tax dodging" strategies,
    don't you.
    
    PS: It's supreme Court...  humility.

RE: Note 53.16, Jack 
    
    >Thanks Tom...this is perfect in the abortion topic for the slavery 
    >argument...how the emancipation proclamation interfered with whiteys
    >property rights.
    
   I guess in my mind, the slaves would be in the individual category, not
    the property category. Slavery wasn't illegal under the constitution,
    but reasonable, moral thinking individuals, would not make judgements
    based on race or national origin, making slavery, immoral.
    
    By the way I still don't see the connection between abortion and
    slavery. Slaves were conscious human beings, fetuses are not. But we
    should keep that in the abortion topic.
    
    ...Tom

    As Tom requested a few notes back...
    
    It is not the federal government's job to care for all the personal
    needs of each citizen.  It is the job of the individual to feed, house,
    clothe, and support himself.  There are strict limitations to what the
    federal government is supposed to tax for, as outlined in article 1,
    section 8 of the Constitution.  Feeding, clothing, housing, etc. is
    conspicuously absent from that list (this does not mean that the states
    cannot have their own programs, BTW).
    
    The problem lies in a certain ideology of false compassion.  We keep
    hearing things like "what about the poor"  "what about the elderly" 
    "what about <insert cause of choice>"...fact is, that's not the
    government's problem, it is ours.  This is why charities exist.
    
    "What about the taxpayers?", I say! 
    
    I have no inalienable responsibility to to poor.  I do have an
    inalienable right to life, liberty and property.  What about MY rights? 
    I guess they don't count now, do they?  My property can be confiscated,
    my inalienable rights stripped away, as long is it is for a good cause,
    eh?  What hypocrisy!
    
    If I want to be greedy with my money, I have that God-given right (let
    God deal with me and stay the hell out of my pockets!).  If I want to
    help the poor and the needy, by God I WILL- and I'll do it a hell of a
    lot better and more efficiently than the federal government can, to
    boot!
    
    I find it nauseating that many of those who sit on the pro-choice side
    of the fence (not all, but many) are anti-choice in regards to personal
    income.  You don't trust people to take care of their own families and
    communities, so you force money out of our hands- our hard earned
    money- to give away as you deem fit.   Ironically, those who espouse
    "fairness" also seem to have this little hypocrisy problem, as well.
    
    The FF would be aghast at what we call Constitutional these days.
    I know I am.
    
    
    -steve        

    re :.26
    
    Thanks Steve, nobody could have said it better.
    
    ...Tom

                       <<< Note 53.23 by CLUSTA::BINNS >>>

Kit,	You may want to read the EXACT wording of the 10th Amendment.

Jim 

    Re: .26
    
    You claim to be a student of history.  So study some societies which
    left the care of the poor to charities, and see how they fared.

I make no such claim. Can you be a bit more specific and indicate what
you're getting at?

    Raffel off the president! And the first lady......

    Who'd pay?

     <<< Note 53.32 by MPGS::MARKEY "Worse!! How could it be worse!?!?" >>>

>    Who'd pay?

	Tyson Foods.

Jim

    
    
    Who'd want them????
    

    re: .29
    
    Non-sequitur...but you knew that already.

    Re: .30
    
    >Can you be a bit more specific and indicate what you're getting at?
    
    Charities couldn't handle the problem; they were overwhelmed. 
    Conditions in many charitable institutions were extremely repulsive, to
    the point where people would rather live on the streets.  Some
    institutions ran what were essentially sweat shops.  The poor were easy
    targets for exploitation.  If you want to make the poor work for their
    "handouts," fine.  But give them decent working conditions, reasonable
    work requirements and just compensation.

    	Okay, let's see how many people I can outrage with this proposal.
    
    	A lot of people have been tossing the Idea of a "flat tax" around
    for a while. Basically a tax with one rate no matter what your income.
    The Main opposition to this seems to be that it is unfair to the
    working poor, in that if you have say a 10% tax and you make $10,000 a
    year, the $1000 that you would owe would be far maore harmful to you
    than the $10,000 you would owe if you were making $100,000. Even though
    the amount of tax would be more the hundred grand person is still
    netting ninety grand, and would be unlikely to have to worry about the
    morgage or where his next meal is comming from. I was discussing this
    idea (from my liberal viewpoint) with an independent who leans
    conservative. (and from N.H. to boot) Togather, we came up with this
    idea. What about a flat tax, drop all the funny deductions and all
    that, (I know this wouldn't work for buisness) and allow exemptions
    only per person in the family. Say for example, exempt the first
    $15,000 from taxes, plus maybe $5000 per additional family member. I
    don't have a clue as to what the tax rate would need to be to support
    all government functions, whatever the may still be in the comming
    years, but the idea is to protect an amount nessasary for a minimul
    living and apply equal taxes to the amount above that. Under this
    system, the two examples that were given above, the one making $10,000
    would not be taxed (and he probably needs every dime, My liberlism is
    showing through) and the $100,000 earner would pay (if single) 10%
    times (100,000 - 15,000) or 8,500. I deon't have sufficient knowlegde
    of the budget to know if this would reduce our tax rate or not, but at
    least it seems like it might be a little fairer. 
    
    
    
    
    							S.R

    	The poor guy doesn't spend as much.  The rich person spends
    	magnitudes more.
    
    	Replace the income tax with a spending tax (sales tax).  Exempt
    	certain essentials as most state sales taxes do, and the poor
    	man is even less affected.
    
    	Currently much of our spending is done on credit.  Did you know
    	that consumer debt is larger than the federal debt?  This nation
    	(world) is awash in debt, and that is a ticking time bomb just
    	waiting to explode (or collapse, if you will.)
    
    	A consumer tax would reduce consumption, (reducing the growth
    	of the credit pile) and encourage savings.

    Re: .37
    
    I like it, but I don't it would ever pass.  A huge percentage of wealth
    is concentrated in very few hands.  Eliminate all deductions except
    family exemptions, and they pay humongous tax bills.  They don't wanna. 
    They've got the clout to keep such a thing from happening.
    
    
    Re: .38
    
    I'd agree to a consumption tax, too, but the implementation is very
    different than the tax system we have now.  Everyone who sells anything
    has to have methods for reporting sales.

    	I don't have a problem with a sales tax either, but I do agree
    implimentation might be difficult. Plus even if you are really poor you
    are still going to consume goods and services, so you would still be
    taxed. By exempting a certain amount, the really poor would pay no tax.
    Probably better what we got though. If it was proposed I might support
    it.
    	 And .39 is probably right, it wouldmeet enourmous resistence.
     I thought that was what the rich had been screaming about for years though,
     fair taxation and it certainly is fair.
    
    
    
    								S.R.
                                       
    

>    I'd agree to a consumption tax, too, but the implementation is very
>    different than the tax system we have now.  Everyone who sells anything
>    has to have methods for reporting sales.
    
    	Why not use what's already in place in most states?  (The reporting
    	method for state sales tax.)  Only a few states don't have this.

    
    I dispute .39's assertion that all the wealth is concentrated
    in very few hands.
    
    The distribution in the US is actually quite broad. Perhaps
    the assertion is based on articles in the Daily Worker.

                   <<< Note 53.37 by DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE >>>
>                              -< How about this? >-

	I could agree to it, but PLEASE don't call it "fair". Giving 	
	a free ride to those with lower incomes may be practical, it may
	even be the "right" thing to do, but it is NOT "fair".

Jim

              <<< Note 53.41 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>

>    	Why not use what's already in place in most states?  (The reporting
>    	method for state sales tax.)  Only a few states don't have this.

	The problem comes when you try to define "sales". Look at how the
	VAT tax structure operates in Europe. EVERY transaction is taxed.
	It becomes impossible to actually calculate the real tax burden
	that an individual ends up paying. Sure, the tax sounds good, it's
	only a couple of percent. But that small percentage is attached to 
	every step in the process and the number ends up in double digits
	by the time a product gets to the consumer.

Jim

    I object to any national sales/vat tax.  As .44 mentioned, a very small
    percentage rate becomes very large at the retail level and is hidden. 
    This makes it very easy for the government to raise large sums of money
    while fooling the people into thinking it's only a little bit.  I want
    my taxes to be out in the open.  I see my taxes every week as they are
    taken out of my paycheck.
    
    I would support a flat tax rate, with a fixed amount of everyone's
    income exempt from tax, and a per person exemption.  No, mortgage
    interest, IRA, capital gains, etc. exemptions.  ALL the rates,
    exemptions, etc. MUST be tied to the inflation rate to avoid giving the
    govt. automatic tax increases.
    
    Bob

    Re: .42
    
    >I dispute .39's assertion that all the wealth is concentrated
    >in very few hands.
    
    I dispute that .39 made any such assertion.  So perhaps you should
    provide the quote.

    	re .44, .45
    
    	There is a big difference between SALES tax and VAT tax.
    
    	Jim, do you consider the Colorado state sales tax to be a
    	value added tax?

re: .47

Yep.  But there is nothing to prevent a Sales tax from being worse than a VAT.
How do you do that?  Simple.  Apply the sales tax at each transaction, rather
than at the final retail level.  This would generate more revenue than a VAT
since the VAT only taxes the supposed value added at each transaction.

Bob

              <<< Note 53.47 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>

>    	There is a big difference between SALES tax and VAT tax.
 
	Thats why I pointed out the problem comes when you define
	"sales".

	In order to generate enough revenue as a staight sales tax
	on end users, I think you'll find the rate excessive.

>    	Jim, do you consider the Colorado state sales tax to be a
>    	value added tax?

	No. But the Colorado sales tax does not support the current
	Colorado budget. Nor would a Federal sales tax at this rate
	support the Federal government.

	As you define "sales" (based on your Colorado analogy) noone
	other than end users would pay any tax. That plan won't fly.

Jim

	.49
    
>	In order to generate enough revenue as a staight sales tax
>	on end users, I think you'll find the rate excessive.
    
    	I want it to be.

>	As you define "sales" (based on your Colorado analogy) noone
>	other than end users would pay any tax. 

    	I thought I had explained my position here in this topic, but
    	a look back shows otherwise.  
    
    	It is my position that the end user winds up supporting the 
    	full tax burden anyway.  Business taxes are structured into the 
    	prices of goods and services, so the consumer pays it through that 
    	vector.  A national sales tax lands squarely on the shoulders of 
    	the consumer (as would the elimination of corporate income taxes,
    	but the sales tax also serves other purposes, such as the 
    	elimination of the IRS) and then the consumer gets to see what 
    	he REALLY pays in taxes without the farce of having it hidden in 
    	consumer costs.

              <<< Note 53.50 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>

>    	It is my position that the end user winds up supporting the 
>    	full tax burden anyway.  Business taxes are structured into the 
>    	prices of goods and services, so the consumer pays it through that 
>    	vector. 

	True enough, but changing the tax structure in such a radical
	way would likely not be accepted by the general populace. What
	the average consumer would see is a massive increase in the price
	of the goods they buy. That increase would be far more than they
	are paying in taxes today. Now, we could hope that corporations
	would adjust payrolls to make up for this change, but that would
	make the legislation more instrusive, not less.

> A national sales tax lands squarely on the shoulders of 
>    	the consumer (as would the elimination of corporate income taxes,
>    	but the sales tax also serves other purposes, such as the 
>    	elimination of the IRS)

	I don't see the IRS "going away" with such a tax proposal, I don't
	even see it getting much smaller. Keeping track of all those billions
	of sales receipts is going to require quite a bureacracy.

> and then the consumer gets to see what 
>    	he REALLY pays in taxes without the farce of having it hidden in 
>    	consumer costs.

	A flat tax rate for everyone, including corporations, accomplishes
	nearly the same thing and it would be FAR easier to administer.

	Imagine a 1040 form with only a half dozen lines. Imagine the Tax
	Code written on a single piece of paper.


Jim

>	True enough, but changing the tax structure in such a radical
>	way would likely not be accepted by the general populace. 
    
    	I don't pretend that it will be popular, nor do I place much
    	hope that it would ever be enacted as I would want it to be.
    
    	It's just an idea.
    
>	the average consumer would see is a massive increase in the price
>	of the goods they buy. That increase would be far more than they
>	are paying in taxes today. 
    
    	Prices would remain the same (or actually go down since corporate
    	taxes will no longer be rolled into them) but the TAX might be
    	horrendous!  But then the consumer would see it as a separate
    	item, distince, and "attackable."  And that's why I'd like to
    	see it this way.
    
>	I don't see the IRS "going away" with such a tax proposal, I don't
>	even see it getting much smaller. Keeping track of all those billions
>	of sales receipts is going to require quite a bureacracy.
    
    	The tax-return-processing portion of the IRS and all that supports 
    	it can be eliminated.  The (most) states already have a 
    	collection/reporting mechanism in place.  No matter WHAT they
    	do (flat tax, as is, sales tax) will require some sort of
    	bureacracy.

>> and then the consumer gets to see what 
>>    	he REALLY pays in taxes without the farce of having it hidden in 
>>    	consumer costs.
>
>	A flat tax rate for everyone, including corporations, accomplishes
>	nearly the same thing and it would be FAR easier to administer.
    
    	As long as corporations pay taxes, the consumer has hidden from
    	him some of the tax burden that he ultimately bears.

>	Imagine a 1040 form with only a half dozen lines. Imagine the Tax
>	Code written on a single piece of paper.
    
    	See?  You like to dream too.
    
    	My dream means that we have no 1040s at all.
    
    	Probably we're both destined for disappointment.

================================================================================
Note 53.42                            Taxes                             42 of 52
CALDEC::RAH "the truth is out there."                 6 lines  19-NOV-1994 00:50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
>    I dispute .39's assertion that all the wealth is concentrated
>    in very few hands.
>    
>    The distribution in the US is actually quite broad. Perhaps
>    the assertion is based on articles in the Daily Worker.

     The figure in my ECO 101 textbook (I'm currently taking this course)
     is that 50% of the wealth in this country is controlled by the the top
     20% of the wealthiest individuals. This spread is certainlly better
     than Hati or Egypt for example, but is hardly anything to brag about.
    
    
Note 53.43                            Taxes                             43 of 52
SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO"     8 lines  19-NOV-1994 12:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   <<< Note 53.37 by DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE >>>
>>                              -< How about this? >-

>	I could agree to it, but PLEASE don't call it "fair". Giving 	
>	a free ride to those with lower incomes may be practical, it may
>	even be the "right" thing to do, but it is NOT "fair".

        I can live with that, although I think it's fair since the amount
        exempted is equal for everybody.
    
   RE .45
    
 >   interest, IRA, capital gains, etc. exemptions.  ALL the rates,
 >   exemptions, etc. MUST be tied to the inflation rate to avoid giving the
 >   govt. automatic tax increases.
    
     Didn't think about the inflation part. Good idea.
    
    
    
     								
                                                                S.R.

    this tax season has seen some real eye-openers for me
    
    * a good number of people sacrifice their lifestyles 11 months a year
    by having enormous amounts withheld in order to produce tremendously
    high, imho, refunds...I've seen refunds in the 3,4,5K range...divide
    that by 12 and you have significant cash flow!
    
    * small businesses continue to restict new expenditures and
    hiring...Only 12% of the business returns I've done so far have had new
    hires during 1994; capital expenditures are almost non-existant.
    
    * for both personal and businesses returns, the overwhelming majority
    of the unsolicited comment I've heard is anti-democrat and
    pro-republican

>    high, imho, refunds...I've seen refunds in the 3,4,5K range...divide
>    that by 12 and you have significant cash flow!

Cash flow aside, letting the government hang on to that much of my money
interest free for that long would burn my gourd something fierce. I'd
change my W4 out of spite, if nothing else, and give the interest earned
away, as a charitable deduction.

FWIW

* America's Future, Inc. * Behind The Headlines * March 1995 *


                      LET TAXPAYERS CUT NATIONAL DEBT
                      ===============================

  One of the least noted provisions in the Republicans' "Contract with 
America" may be the most provocative. It would give taxpayers the right 
to directly force cuts in federal spending.

  A few years ago, Representative Bob Walker, (R-PA), introduced the 
Taxpayer Debt Buy-Down Act. The idea was to give taxpayers the option 
to earmark some of their tax money directly to reducing the country's 
enormous national debt. The proposal quickly gained popular support. 
After President Bush endorsed it at the 1992 Republican National 
Convention, polls showed two-thirds of the American people supported 
the idea. A more recent poll by the National Federation of Independent 
Business found that more than three-quarters of its members favored the 
plan.
  
  The plan's popularity is understandable. Each year, annual federal 
deficits add to the country's national debt. Currently, the federal debt 
is more than $4.5 trillion, or nearly equal to the entire U.S. economy. 
If current trends continue, in 20 years the debt will be more than $12 
trillion! Interest payments on that debt represent a large and growing 
burden on taxpayers. Today, those payments exceed $200 billion a year. 
This means that for every tax dollar sent to Washington, 16 cents goes 
to pay interest on the debt.
  
  Congressman Walker believes his proposal can get Washington off this 
road to fiscal disaster. He says that: "The Taxpayer Debt Buy-Down Act 
is more than a debt and deficit reduction plan. It is a revolutionary 
attempt to bring the American taxpayer directly into the budget process. 
In fact, if passed, this legislation would be a referendum every April 15 
on federal expenditures."
  
  According to Walker, independent studies of his plan show it would 
balance the budget in six years and zero out the debt by fiscal year 2008. 
And how would it work? Under the proposal, taxpayers would be allowed to 
devote up to 10% of their taxes to reducing the national debt. Say you 
owe $5,000 in federal income taxes. The Walker proposal would allow you 
to earmark up to $500 of those taxes to help reduce the national debt. 
By doing so, taxpayers would force Congress to cut spending by $500 rather 
than to simply borrow the money. Only Social Security, interest payments 
and other contractual federal obligations would be exempt from the spending 
cuts. After April 15th, the Treasury Department would add up all the money 
taxpayers said they wanted to go for paying down the debt. Congress would 
have a year to make an equal amount of spending cuts. And, if Congress 
failed to make the cuts ordered by taxpayers, an across-the-board cut 
would kick in, slashing spending equally on all programs, except for 
so-called entitlements, like Social Security.
  
  The beauty of the plan, according to supporters, is that the tax money 
can go only towards reducing the debt. That is a dramatic shift from 
politics as usual, where so-called deficit reduction packages typically 
end up doing little to cut red ink. According to Paul Merski, budget 
policy director at Citizens for a Sound Economy, "in the current budget 
situation, tax revenues intended to go toward deficit reduction can simply 
be spent on other things."
  
  In fact, despite all past "deficit reduction" plans, the annual budget 
shortfall remains large and growing. According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, at the present rate federal red ink will reach nearly $400 billion 
10 years from now. Under the Walker plan, that couldn't happen, because 
every dollar devoted to debt reduction must be matched by an equal amount 
in spending cuts.
  
  Critics complain that the plan would result in draconian budget cuts for 
vital federal programs. They also argue that the proposal is undemocratic. 
It would, after all, only allow those with tax liabilities to vote for 
spending cuts. In response, Walker says "it is the opposite of undemocratic. 
It would give the middle-class worker, who pays most of the taxes in this 
country, a corresponding say over how his money is spent." To most taxpayers, 
this can only sound like a sound idea!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Behind the Headlines, written by Philip C. Clarke, is a syndicated column 
distributed by America's Future. It is available to interested newspapers 
and other publications on a gratis basis as a service of this non-profit 
educational organization. For more information, please write or call Mr. 
John Wetzel, c/o America's Future Inc., P.O. Box 1625, Milford, Pa. 18337 
(717) 296-2800.

     ===================================================================
        The above text comes from The BIRCH BARK BBS / 414-242-5070
     (long distance callers require manual upgrade, usually within hours)
     ===================================================================

    Also FWIW - one of the newcasts I watched this week noted that the
    Republican plan for a tax cut is being ripped by *Republicans*, too. 
    Something about too many cuts at the higher income levels, not enough
    for middle and lower classes (gee, who'd have thought that could
    happen?! -:) ).  Also, *no one* seems to be in support of eliminating
    the mortgage/homeowner deductions.
    
    Anyway, according to this report "Washington insiders" say that a Flat
    Tax plan is "gaining momentum on Capitol Hill".
    
    Support Flat Tax!  One rate for every individual taxpayer, no 
    deductions for anything.  That way, Palmer pays the same percentage of 
    his big salary that I pay from my miniature one.
    
    If you believe in a Flat Tax, write your Congress-critter and Senators 
    today and say so!  Who knows?  Maybe some *real* change is afoot in DC!
    I doubt it, but, hey, (like the Mickey D's commercial says...) It could
    happen?!
    
    M.
    

	Sounds like the most fair thing to do.

	But should we also tax carnivals as well? :-)

ME

    A flat tax is gross over simplification. Sure, it _may_ be easier
    for many taxpayers, but creates many more problems elsewhere.
    For one thing, there is the assumption that the rate of a flat
    tax would be lower... but who trusts the government enough to
    actually expect that to happen? And now you have no deductions...
    Also, many small businesses are organized as companies, not
    corporations... one of my businesses is... and it goes on
    my personal income tax returns. The inability to deduct
    business expenses would spell the end of my business. Not
    to mention the effect no deductions would have on the real
    estate market, the financial markets (stocks, mutual funds),
    etc. etc.

    And, while you are taking a whack at Bob Palmer and the taxes
    he pays... I'm sure you must be aware then of exactly how
    much taxes he pays. What a nice guy Bob must be to share
    his tax returns with you...

    -b

I'd support a flat tax if ...

By flat tax, I mean you write down how much you make and then pay a fixed
percentage of that amount.

Eliminate all deductions, not for your house, not for your children.
Elimnate all tax credits.

Capital gains is income. Interest is income. No matter how, when you make
a buck, you pay the flat rate on it.

Corporations pay just like us. They pay the same rate as us.

I don't think it's fair, being a believer in progressive tax rates. But's
it'd sure be easy. 

The major drawback would be the drastic increase in umemployment among
C.P.A.s and tax lawyers.

TTom

>The major drawback would be the drastic increase in umemployment among
>C.P.A.s and tax lawyers.

And don't forget the IRS, which would hate for this to happen...

But it would also save a bundle of money, since the IRS could be cut back.

/scott

    	A consumption tax would be better.
    
    	But a flat tax is better than what we have now.
    
    	I wonder what they plan to do about determining exactly what
    	is income.  
    
    	Gross receipts for a sales operation?  Shouldn't the cost of 
    	doing business be deductible?  
    
    	Gross wages for a computer contractor?  Shouldn't he be able to 
    	deduct the cost of the computer equipment he bought to be able 
    	to do his business?  
    
    	Gross rents collected by a landlord?  Shouldn't the costs of
    	running the rental property be deductible?
    
    	Etc.
    
    	I don't see CPAs or the IRS going out of business because
    	of a flat tax.
    
    	A consumption-based tax (sales tax) would eliminate most of 
    	these questions.

I can handle a consumption tax but that would only barely reduce the
complexities of all the other tax laws and we're still at square one.

In reply to the previous what abouts, I'd say run your business like a
business and place the cost of doing business into the price of your
products and services.

TTom

            <<< Note 53.63 by HBAHBA::HAAS "recurring recusancy" >>>

>I can handle a consumption tax but that would only barely reduce the
>complexities of all the other tax laws and we're still at square one.
    
    	Why?
    
    	I'm suggesting a sales tax to totally and completely replace 
    	income taxes.  It seems to me that that would not only reduce
    	the other tax laws, but totally eliminate a whole class (and
    	one of the more complex classes) of them.

    Forget the 20% flat tax; I just tried it and instead of getting
    a refund of approx $1,022 I would wind up paying $1,615 to the
    IRS.
    
    

    	Don't be so sure it'll be 20%, and don't be so sure that there
    	won;t be SOME initial level of income that won't be expmpted from
    	the tax.

    
    
    		I think the premise behind the flat rate is to make
    	the pukes that earn big bucks start paying thier share of
    	taxes.  Eliminate loop holes and such and take the burden
    	off of the middle class.  Yhea I'm for it when I know a few
    	doctor and lawyer friends that pay less in taxes that I do
    	yet they net out 10X my take home.  Personally don't think it
    	will ever fly since those with the power or $$$$$$$$ would hate
    	to part with thier nasty dirty money anyway.
    
    							Sharkski
    
    

    
    
    
    Yup, anyone successful has got to be scum.  Man, the friggin socialists
    are coming out in force.......
    
    

    
    
    tax snarf
    

    RE: .59...
    
    Who's whacking BP?!  I haven't got the slightest idea (specifically)
    how well or poorly BP makes out on his tax return each year.  He was just
    an example of someone who makes a whole heck of a lot more money than I 
    (something like 25x), and by virtue of that, can *afford* to shelter his 
    monies from tax liability in ways that are completely unavailable to me.  
    There are plenty of loopholes in the current tax system, but I haven't 
    the money to take advantage of even the most simplistic ones, like an 
    IRA or homeownership.
    
    If one objects to an all-encompassing flat tax rate, how about limiting
    it to those of us (like me) who have no significant non-wage income
    (say, less than $1000 in interest/business income per year)?  As a
    two-wage earner family with no appreciable non-wage income, I find it
    objectionable to pay into the tax fund all year long and still wind up
    with a crushing tax debt each April.  
    
    Another solution to .59's objections might be to create a separate 
    non-corporate return for sole proprietorships, still based on a flat tax, 
    but on PROFIT, not revenue.
    
    I never claimed to be an expert on the subject; I simply believe in a
    system which does *not* require tremendous bookkeeping on the part of
    taxpayers; does *not* result in massive debt to certain classes of
    the taxpaying public (like us middle-class non-homeowners); does not
    necessitate the purchase of an overpriced and under-informative manual 
    or software each year, in order that the non-CPA/bookkeeper can
    survive the experience.  I believe that the IRS and its tax system have
    outlived their usefullness.
    
    Flat tax with no deductions and no exemptions may be considered an
    oversimplification as it stands, but it beats the convoluted mess we
    now have by a major longshot.  And, as much as lawyers, CPAs and the
    IRS may object to such a plan, its day will come, no matter what. 
    Many years ago, people objected to computers, 'cause they'd put too
    many people out of work.  All of us are here to prove that the
    objections didn't stop the progress.
    
    IMHO...
    
    M.
    

    
    Gephardt has issued a tax proposal that would have 4 tiers to the tax
    system, 10%, 20%, 26% and 34%.  All exemptions except for interest paid
    on home mortgage would be eliminated.  3/4 of Americans would pay the
    10% tax on all income.  Exemptions would be set at $8350 for married
    couples, $7350 for head of household, and $5000 for single workers.  An
    additional exemption of $2750 could be taken for each additional family
    member.  
    
    
    

The way I understand Gephardt's proposal, mortgage interest would be a
deduction, as it is today.  The $8350/$7350/$5000 numbers would be the
standard deduction.  That means that mortgage interest would make a
difference only if it exceeded the standard deduction.

I think this plan doesn't stand a chance.  It gores too many people's oxen.
Lots of people will object to eliminating the deduction for charitable
contributions.  Americans are pretty miserly with their charity currently.
If it wasn't deductable, they would be more so.  People in high-tax states
will object to the elimination of the deductability of state and local taxes.
The business and investment communities will object to the demonization of
capital formation.

    Mike,
    
    The article I saw showed a breakout indicating single people earning
    above $24,600 would be hit by the 20% tax.  IMO, $24,600 is barely
    middle income; in some areas of the country that amount would be
    perilously close to bare existance.  I think his plan would have
    married couples with combined incomes above $42,000 also being hit 20%.
    
    IMHO, Gephardt's tables are woefully flawed.
    
    

    
    The percentage of people who would pay the 10% (3/4 of Americans) are
    his figures, Karen.  It didn't have the breakout of the ranges in
    dollars of where the cutoffs would be.  From your figures, I agree that
    the 3/4 paying the 10% is a load of hogwash.
    
    Mike

> Americans are pretty miserly with their charity currently.

Where do you get this stuff?  During the greedy 80's, charitable
contributions from individuals and corporations rose at record rates.
Now, it may be true that contributions to PPL and other charitable
institutions considered by BWLs to be really cool declined, but if
so, I would attribute that to society's general repugnance over PPL's
role in diminishing the parent's role in raising their children.

/mtp

>> Americans are pretty miserly with their charity currently.
>
>Where do you get this stuff?

"Pretty miserly" is totally subjective.  I've seen (and forgotten) the
actual numbers.  They struck me as pretty miserly.  If you want to dispute
this, you have to dig up the numbers and argue that they're not miserly.

Whassa BWL?

Bleeding heart liberal.  Oh, it's a W.  Bleeding wart liberal.

    
    Bed Wetting Liberal...
    
    -b

You wrote:
>"Pretty miserly" is totally subjective.  I've seen (and forgotten) the
>actual numbers.  They struck me as pretty miserly.  

Ah! I get it.  You would persuade me that Gephardt's plan doesn't stand a
chance because your "totally subjective" view is that Americans are pretty
miserly.  Gehhardt's plan won't make it because the economic assumptions on
which it is based is flawed, not because I don't contribute to charity at a
level consistent with your expectations, or that the rich are unable to support
any plan that does away with their pet deductions.

Also, you claimed:
>If you want to dispute this, you have to dig up the numbers and argue that
>they're not miserly.

Bzzzzzzzt! Can you take it Brandeis? 

You made the assertion, not me.  I'm calling you on it.

/mtp

Max, I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

I think Gephardt's plan doesn't stand a chance for a number of reasons,
one of which is its elimination of the deductability of charitable
contributions.  Every non-profit from the Salvation Army to the Sierra Club
will object to it for this reason.

    	Sales tax is the only way to go.<

Top 1% Bears Over a Quarter of Income Taxes

THE RICH ARE PAYING THEIR SHARE
-------------------------------------------
According to preliminary data released by the Internal Revenue Service,
the top 5% of U.S. income earners paid almost half the federal individual
income taxes - 47.3% - in 1993 (the latest year such data is available).
This compares with a share of 37.3% in 1983.

"Americans at the upper end of the income scale are continuing to see
their portion of the total federal individual income tax burden steadily
increase," observed Tax Foundation Economist Patrick Fleenor.

As Chart 1 shows, the top 1% of U.S. income earners - earning over
$185,791 a year - paid 28.7% of federal individual income taxes in 1993,
up from 20.3% a decade ago.  Meanwhile, the top 50% of income earners
now pay about 95% of these taxes, up from 93% in 1983.

-------
CHART 1        Percent of Federal Individual
             Income Taxes Paid by Income Group
             ---------------------------------
             1993       1983
           --------   -------- 
Top 1%       28.7%      20.3% 

Top 5%       47.3%      37.3%

Top 10%      58.8%      49.7%

Top 25%      79.2%      73.1%

Top 50%      95.2%      92.8%

Bottom 50%    4.8%       7.2%

(Source: Preliminary IRS data)
-------------

Chart 2 contrasts income shares (that is, adjusted gross income) and
tax shares for different income groups.  While high-income earners claim
a large share of the nation's total income, they pay an even greater
share of the total federal individual income tax burden.

-------------

CHART 2     Income Share v. Tax Share, 1993
           ---------------------------------    
            Tax Share    Income Share
            ---------    ------------

Top 1%        28.7%         13.8%

Top 5%        47.3%         27.8%

Top 10%       58.8%         39.1%

Top 25%       79.2%         62.5%

Top 50%       95.2%         85.1%

Bottom 50%     4.8%         14.9%

(Source: Preliminary IRS data)
-------------

For example, the top 10% of earners (those making above $66,196) earned
39.1% of all income but paid 58.8% of all federal individual income
taxes.  The bottom 50% (those making less than $21,158) earn 14.9% of
all income but pay only 4.8% of personal income taxes at the federal
level.

Chart 3 below is an overview of all taxpayers by income group.  As the
last column shows, the top 1% of income earners pay an average rate of
27.65% of adjusted gross income (AGI) in taxes.  That percentage paid
declines through the income groups, reaching 4.28% of AGI for the
bottom 50%, those earning below $21,158.

---------------

CHART 3         Who Pays Federal Individual Income Taxes, 1993
              -------------------------------------------------
                 All        Top     Top     Top      Top      Top     Bottom
                Taxpayers    1%      5%     10%      25%      50%      50%
                ---------  -----   -----   ------   ------   ------   ------

Number of       113,681    1,137   5,684   11,368   28,420   56,841   56,841
Returns (000)
____________________________________________________________________________

AGI ($000,000) 3,775,578         1,048,173         2,357,956        563,280
                         520,640          1,474,838         3,212,298
____________________________________________________________________________

Income Taxes    500,733           236,976           396,596          24,132
Paid ($000,000)          143,939           294,386           476,601
____________________________________________________________________________

Group's Share    100.00%  13.79%   27.76%   39.06%   62.45%   85.08%  14.92%
of Total AGI
____________________________________________________________________________

Group's Share    100.00%  28.75%   47.32%   58.79%   79.20%   95.18%   4.82%
of Total Taxes
____________________________________________________________________________

Income Split       --  >$185,791  >87,154  >66,196  >41,192  >21,158 <21,158
  Point
____________________________________________________________________________

Average Tax rate   13.26%  27.65    22.61    19.96    16.82    14.84    4.28

(Source: Preliminary IRS data)
-----------------

>From 1983 to 1993, the AGI for all taxpayers rose 92%, while overall
federal income taxes rose 84%.  (In contrast, federal social insurance
payroll taxes rose faster than incomes over the same period, up 105%.)

[end]

Tax Foundation Economist Patrick Fleenor compiled the data in this
article, which is from the Tax Foundation.

Source: Human Events
	November 3, 1995, p.9

    That must be a lie. I just saw a democratic congressman on TV saying
    that we're "balancing the budget on the backs of the poor."

I'd be interested to know if the bottom 50% includes babies whose only income
is interest on a savings account.

>    <<< Note 53.83 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "RIP Amos, you will be missed" >>>
>
>Top 1% Bears Over a Quarter of Income Taxes
>
>THE RICH ARE PAYING THEIR SHARE
>-------------------------------------------
>According to preliminary data released by the Internal Revenue Service,
>the top 5% of U.S. income earners paid almost half the federal individual
>income taxes - 47.3% - in 1993 (the latest year such data is available).
>This compares with a share of 37.3% in 1983.

    Unless I missed it, notice that no where in this article does
    it say what percentage of the total income is MADE by the top
    1% or 5% of the taxpayers.

    The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and
    this article only supports that.  It says nothing about who's
    paying their share.
    bob

    
      Bob - you missed it.  See end of Mike's posting.
    
      I've seen these numbers before, and it is true enough that the
     income tax is just about all a tax of those with income, mostly
     lots of income.
    
      The justification is that Social Security is regressive.  In poor
     working families, income tax may be little compared to FICA.
    
      ANY income tax cut will thus go to the better-off, whether it were
     Clinton's proposal or the GOP one.  Economically, you get the best
     result giving ALL the tax cut to Bill Gates - much better multiplier
     that way.  The problem would be equity.
    
      bb

    
    I did a rough pass at my federal taxes tonight.
    
    I'm looking at owing about 9% of my total income (including salary,
    interest, dividends, capital gains) this year.  Itemizing my
    deductions, now that I own a house, made a big difference over last
    year.
    
    I still have to send them a check this year, tho 8^p.  And I haven't
    done my state taxes yet 8^pp.
    
    
    

    Deb,
    
    I'm so glad I don't have to fill out the forms you do.
    
    I get the short form, fill out page 1 and 2, sign it, send it in and
    keep my fingers crossed.
    
    With any luck I won't owe the Provincial or the Federal goverments
    anything.
    
    
    joan

    
    With all the forms I have to fill out, it usually takes me about $5 to
    mail the darn thing 8^).
    
    I'm doing well this year, though; usually I stand at a counter in the
    post office on April 15th at 11:45 filling in my forms with a stubby
    pencil 8^).
    
    

  I have mine all done...I just have to mail them.  If I'd quit procrastinating,
 I'm sure I'd get them in the mail.



 Jim

I think I'll do mine in about three or four weeks.

I have this thing about avoiding unpleasant tasks.

Then there's this feeling of dislike for the government in general and the
IRS in particular ....

	A simple formula: If they owe you, file early. If you owe them,
	file late.

	Thankfully this year we filed early. THis was unintentional,
	the the CSABR deductions made a difference this year. Normally
	I file late.

Jim

    
    	I hope to spend some time on our taxes this weekend.  With the
    	new house, we may actually get a small refund this year, at
    	least from the federal government.  We always owe Massachusetts.
    
    	Karen
    

    Mz_Deb, you get the Covert Award of Proper Tax Planning.  Please feel
    free bask in the smug satisfaction which this award affords you by 
    knowing that your government did not keep anymore of your money than 
    they are legally entitled to.  Congratulations.  :-)

    Think I'll have to hire someone to do my taxes for the first time -
    having the house, and the tenant, and the use of some of my RRSP's under
    a special government program to use as downpayment, and the new job
    situation means that they are going to be much more complicated than
    usual.  I know the fact that I have tenant means that I can claim
    things like part of the interest on my mortgage and part of the hydro
    and electricity bills - having someone who knows what they're doing
    will be a relief and then hopefully I can just follow the same format
    in future years.  

    
    <------
    
    Make sure all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed. Look it over
    carefully and question any blank spaces..
    
     My accountant forgot a Social Security Number and they mailed it back
    to me, just at the time I was waiting for the check...
    
     No fun...
    

    We did our taxes at the beginning of February - we usually wait until
    just after the first week in April, but I decided it would be nice to
    get an early start this year.  Both IRS and the state owed us this
    year, it turned out, which was a nice surprise. :)

    I'm having an accountant do ours this year. I usually do them myself,
    but with the sale of a condo, purchase of a house and multiple stock
    transactions, I'd rather be safe and make sure I take every possible
    deduction we are entitled to.

    I knew I was up the perverbial creek this year.  The question I had was
    whether or not I had a paddle.
    
    I owed about $1600 which I expected.
    
    -Jack

    
    	Try it yourself first, doc.  
    
    	Sale of condo - there's one form that you need to include.  It's
    	not too long, and is fairly straight-forward if your house
    	cost more than your condo's selling price.
    
    	Sale of stock - easy.
    
    	Purchase of new house - easy.
    
    	

    don;t forget to deduct all of the improvements you made to your house. 
    Essentially any maintenance items can be used to lower your basis on
    the sale of the condo, reducing your gain or increasing your loss, on
    paper.

    	
    	yabbut, the basis really only matters if you had a gain...
    
    	The smallest number that can go on line (final) is zero.
    

Sale of condo in New England == capital loss.

    You can use your loss to offset subsequent real estate purchases when
    you go to sell those.  I believe this to be true anyway.  You cannot
    take a los on your taxes where it would have a benefit to you at this
    point in time however.

    
    	I've got the publication at home.  According the gentlemen
    	at the IRS that I spoke to last year, he said that that
    	loss was never recoverable/applicable to future sales.
    
    	I didn't check the publication to be sure.  I've got my
    	copy of the form that I filed if that turns out to be the
    	case umpty-ump years from now when we sell.
    
    

Assuming it's your own residence, if you have a loss you're out of luck.
If it's rental property, it's a business loss or some such.

Maybe I'll just skip the entire thing this year.  :)

 How to get a million dollars, tax free...first, get a million dollars..then, 
 when the IRS stops by and asks why  you haven't paid the tax, say "I forgot"..

           Steve Martin

    
      Didja see the lottery winner and his tax preparer who got
     caught faking "offsetting gambling losses" ?  Bwahahaha...
    
      bb

  Well, I've been to Dallas and Houston..and took a train that went from Houston
  through Dallas and...oh, *taxes*..mailed mine today.




 Jim

    I thought you were supposed to mail your return.

    .112
    
    Jim,
    
    What ? You didn't contact us lowly hayseeds to show you a nice dinner
    out in Dallas ?
    
    You goofed. Yes you did.
    
    --- Barry
    

 'twas several years ago when I was in Dallas

    
    I have OBVIOUSLY missed something while doing my Mass State Return, or
    I have the wrong form, or something.
    
    I paid excise taxes on two cars, and property taxes on one house, in
    the year of 1995.  I simply cannot find any spot on my Mass return to
    deduct these large sums.  We're talking a few thousand dollars here. 
    I'm missing something, right?  It's not possible that Massachusetts
    would tax me on money that I already paid to them as tax, right? 
    Right?  ...Right?  Who's that I hear laughing?
    
    If someone would just point out to me exactly where I deduct these
    numbers, I'll go merrily along my way.
    
    
    

    hi deb!  i don't play an h&r block tax preparer on tv, nor 
    do i pretend to know a lot about tax stuff, but i don't 
    think one can claim auto excise tax in mass.  chances are
    i'm wrong on this.  sorry i couldn't be more helpful.  

    >I paid excise taxes on two cars, and property taxes on one house, in
    >the year of 1995.  I simply cannot find any spot on my Mass return to
    >deduct these large sums.  
    
     You don't think you get to pay excise taxes with untaxed income, do
    ya?

    
    
    	Oh shoot, you mean I can't deduct those from my 401K plan? ;*)
    
    
    jim

    
    
    	speaking of taxes and making more money to be taxed upon...:*)
    
    	Yahoo! stock will be hitting the market this week...it will open up
    about $18-20~, but it'll cost you $30~ a share to buy it. BUT, if this
    stock pulls a NetScape on us (which quite a few analysts are
    predicting), one could stand to make some serious taxable income. :) I
    believe NetScape jumped 300% in one day.
    
    	happy investing!
    
    	jim

    
    How can they collect tax on money I already paid as tax?  That befuddles 
    me.
    
    I mean, I know they can and do, but it ticks me off 8^p.
    
    If I were renting, I'd get a chunk of change deducted from my taxable
    income - why not give the same little benefit to owners?
     
    

In New Hampshire, pretty much all of our income is deductible for state
income taxation.

Welcome to Taxachusetts, Deb.

Actually what it is, you're a homeowner.  Therefore you're one of those evil
bourgeoisie.  Therefore you are opressive so it's only right that you PAY.

Now if you were one of the oppressed proletariat you could deduct part of
your rent.

>    If I were renting, I'd get a chunk of change deducted from my taxable
>    income - why not give the same little benefit to owners?

The MA rental deduction came into being when prop 2.5 was passed.  As a
property owner, you get the benefit of lower property taxes (than they
otherwise would have been).

    
    I'd have even lower property taxes if I weren't paying to educate other
    peoples' little runny-nosed curtain climbers 8^).
             

Deb, who paid for your education?

    
    My parents.  I went to private school abroad.
    

     Z   I'd have even lower property taxes if I weren't paying to educate other
     Z   peoples' little runny-nosed curtain climbers 8^).
    
    I would say AMEN to this with a condition.  Keep in mind that these
    little curtain climbers are the future taxpayers of tomorrow.  This
    means they will ultimately be kicking in for your medicare, social
    security, and other goodies on the endangered species list.
    
    Other than that I agree.  Death to the public school beurocracies and
    death to the Mass. Teachers Association.  An honorable occupation with
    a blue collar mentality.
    
    -Jack

    
    >My parents.  I went to private school abroad.
    
    
    	And you came back awoman?
    

    
    <-- <smack>
    

    I am about to write a check for over $600 to the federal government for
    my taxes.
    
    Never again.  Next year I'm going to have my very own mortgage
    deduction so that all the scumbait renters can subsidize my interest
    payments.  I've figured that should nothing else change other than my
    renter status, I'll be getting back about $3000 from the federal
    govenment, more than enough to cover the extra property taxes from
    actually owning a place.  Sure beats the $125 I get back from Mass.
    state taxes for taking the maximum renter deduction.
    
    Lisa

    
    	Makes sense to me.
    
    	Put down $16,000, borrow $144,000, pay roughly $1000 a month,
    	and get back $3000 at the end of the year.
    
    	A bargain!
    

    
    I guess it depends on how you look at it.
    
    I pay almost $900 in rent for the place I'm in now.  I could downgrade
    to a one bedroom and still pay $750 + utilities.  Or I could move
    farther out of town into a two bedroom house about the size of my
    apartment and pay less than my current rent for monthly mortgage
    payment, and pay over $3000 less in taxes.
    
    It's still expensive, but it just takes all the money out of the hands
    of my landlord and the tax collector and puts a little bit into my
    hands in the form of about $1500 equity and $1500 tax savings per year. 
    
    Even if I had to unload the house more quickly than I want to and lose
    $10000, I still lose that by renting for 3 more years.
    
    It's not a question of "gain" it's a question of losing money at a
    slower rate.
    
    Lisa

    Lisa,
    
    I think you show somewhat of an unfeeling attitude toward what our
    government is trying to do.  Those taxes that you so disdain keep our
    environment clean, pay for the Mass Teachers Association which in turn
    fund your presidents campaign.  They pay for state funded medicaid
    abortions, and all kinds of other goodies.
    
    I'm glad Hillary and I aren't the only Reaganites in this world!
    
    -Jack

    After visiting the tax lady, I found out that I made an error on my 
    tax return.  I don't owe $500, I owe $1,700.  ???  How is this 
    possible?  Help!  8(

    Actually Steve, I don't mind my tax dollars going towards cleaning the
    enviroment, education, or even abortions.
    
    I just thought it was pretty cool that by simply buying a house I could
    increase my measly $3500 standard deduction to a whopping $13000
    deduction.
    
    Lisa

Boy, you people pay BIG rent!

What I want to know is, why aren't food, clothing, and shelter 100%
deductable?

>    Mass also does not allow you to deduct the portion of your income that
>    is paid to the Feds for income tax, FICA, and medicare contributions.
>    This is absurd, but what do you expect from the PRM?

I don't think any state does.

>    I could never understand why towns assess a property value and then
>    tax you based on the value of your property. Theoretically, every
>    resident recieves exactly the same services from cities and towns, 
>    and in my mind everyone should pay the same amount. It doesn't matter
>    if you own a 2-bedroom house with 1/4 acre of land, or a 50 room
>    mansion with 100 acres, you still receive police, fire, educational,
>    and other services. Where I live (Worcester) we pay separately for
>    water, sewerage, and garbage collection. Most towns in Mass operate
>    the same in this regard. 

Hey Mark, it's even better than that...

The so-called private streets in Worcester pay exactly the same taxes
everyone else does. You'd think they'd get the same services, yes? Nope - the
city will not maintain the pavement on a private street. We didn't get plowed
until 2 PM during the storm last week, sometimes don't get plowed at all
unless somebody with a pickup makes a run up the street.

It's truly hilarious to listen to Mayor Mariano on the radio, telling people
how he'd like them to move to and stay in Worcester. For this crap?

    
    My income tax, feds and state, equalled ~11% of my income (earned and
    unearned) this year.
    
    Gawd knows how much I paid in sales tax, excise tax, property tax, meal
    tax, gas tax, bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla .
                                                   

    it gets so taxing sometimes.

    
    Especially when the gov't puts you on the defensive...
    

    soon they'll tax enemas, whoops, i meant animus.

    
    
    >soon they'll tax enemas
    
    
    If they could, they would...

RE: 53.144 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "tumble to remove burrs"

> Especially when the gov't puts you on the defensive...

Making you the King would fix that,  correct?  Or did you have something
else in mind?


Phil

    Re .141:
    
    > It doesn't matter if you own a 2-bedroom house with 1/4 acre of land,
    > or a 50 room mansion with 100 acres, you still receive police, fire,
    > educational, and other services.
    
    Not that I support taxation as a method of funding these services, but
    your assertion simply is not true.  Bigger houses present more
    opportunity for fire and take more work to put out, they are likely to
    hold more valuables and so present more opportunity for theft, and they
    hold more people (rough correlation, but still positive) -- including
    kids that get educated.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>    Not that I support taxation as a method of funding these services, but
>    your assertion simply is not true.  Bigger houses present more
>    opportunity for fire and take more work to put out, they are likely to
>    hold more valuables and so present more opportunity for theft, and they
>    hold more people (rough correlation, but still positive) -- including
>    kids that get educated.

1.  Big brick houses present less opportunity for fire than small ramshackle
wood houses.

2.  Police costs involved in investigating burglaries are small compared
to the costs involved in investigating violent crimes.  Violent crimes
are more likely to be committed by and against poor people who live in
small houses.

3.  People with lots of kids can't afford big houses.

    
    
    re: .147
    
    >Making you the King would fix that,  correct?
    
    
    You really don't have a conception of a pun and/or joke string do you??
    
    Why don't you just go back to the "Global Warming" note and stay where
    you're most comfortable, Phil... it makes you look less of a jerk...

RE: 53.150 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "tumble to remove burrs"

You DO really think you are funny.  


Phil