PDA

View Full Version : Income Tax



Abaratican
01-27-2011, 23:34
I've heard a lot of "frivolous arguments" that fail in court (though, some of those failed in spite of being logically sound because juries are not bound by logic)... but I've never heard the following argument before.

http://www.truthattack.org/jml/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6:why-is-our-liability-omitted&catid=4:faq&Itemid=16

I'm interested in what commentary forumfall has to provide on that argument.

Makestro
01-27-2011, 23:49
this is going to get uglier than a theists/atheists thread

xpiher
01-27-2011, 23:53
since when does the Gov tax 100% income?

SphereOfDeath
01-28-2011, 00:01
The moment he mentioned god I closed the page.

Abaratican
01-28-2011, 00:02
since when does the Gov tax 100% income?

In general, all of your income is subject to income tax, is how I read it. Of course, deductions may add on to that... but I still think that was what he was claiming.

As in, it's a certain percentage of tax(say, 30%.. I don't know the real number), applied to a certain percentage of your earnings (100% of your earnings).

"We have a 30% tax on income, which applies to ALL of your income of any form, rather than part of it"


I could have misread that, though.


The moment he mentioned god I closed the page.

He claimed the supreme court held that bit with "God" in it... maybe they have? He should substantiate that claim though, but in his context he isn't making that assertion, he's claiming the supreme court has...

xpiher
01-28-2011, 00:11
In general, all of your income is subject to income tax, is how I read it. Of course, deductions may add on to that... but I still think that was what he was claiming.

But all your income isn't subject to the tax

Abaratican
01-28-2011, 00:15
But all your income isn't subject to the tax

How do you figure? I don't claim to know tax laws fully, but I've never heard income tax expressed as anything other than:

"If your income range is between $X and $Y, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is Z%."

Even with deductions and exemptions, those deductions and exemptions are applying to the whole. You don't start with 50% of your income being relevant to the tax, you start with 100% and add on deductions... And those deductions/exemptions are tacked on, not part of income tax in its general form... are they not?

Also note what value they use for "income" when they refer to an income range...it's all of it.

EDIT: though, this does highlight a potential weakness of his argument. :)

Tenebrion
01-28-2011, 00:51
How do you figure?

Because he's actually read a W2 form? Maybe?

Silverhandorder
01-28-2011, 01:01
I don't think fighting this in courts will ever bear fruit. What stops the population from simply demanding that these loop holes are taken out?

Abaratican
01-28-2011, 01:04
Because he's actually read a W2 form? Maybe?

Unfortunately that's actually a fair argument, as I've historically crutched on my family for getting my taxes done (as several of them used to be tax practitioners).

I'm taking the reigns this year though.

StainlessSteelRat
01-28-2011, 15:12
But all your income isn't subject to the tax


Because he's actually read a W2 form? Maybe?


Unfortunately that's actually a fair argument, as I've historically crutched on my family for getting my taxes done (as several of them used to be tax practitioners).

I'm taking the reigns this year though.

It's an excuse but not exactly a rebuttal of the claim in the link. Deductions are arbitrary and require that certain criteria be met; none of which has anything to do w/ the actual value of the 'basis' or 'expense' incurred by the individual to earn his 'gross revenue'.

Most deductions, in fact, have little if nothing to do w/ an individual's 'cost of goods sold' although they might cover some 'administrative costs' to use equivalent corporate terminology where true income only is taxed and not gross revenue.

Rokstarr
01-28-2011, 15:23
The moment he mentioned god I closed the page.

why?

the gov takes 30 percent, god only wants 10

more service for less cost, imo

88Chaz88
01-28-2011, 15:32
Am I right in thinking that Americans need to fill out tax forms themselves?

Over here it's all handled by employers.

Edit: And Xipher is right, not all your income is subject to tax. Only what's over some arbitary amount that the government decides and some special cases.

Rachsucht
01-28-2011, 15:36
Am I right in thinking that Americans need to fill out tax forms themselves?

You are correct.

88Chaz88
01-28-2011, 15:46
You are correct.

Why?

Here it's easily done via your employer. I do it sometimes for my company. You just take the tax out according to the tax band the employee is on, keep it back for the quarter, and pay the employee minus tax.

You don't confuse the layman with making him/her do it themselves (I work in accounts and wouldn't expect others to do the job I'm paid for), and they don't have to personally send the government a big cheque for a service that you can't really see in the physcal sense.

No wonder you guys are unhappy if you're made to give away your pay every so often. I just see my pay as being what it is after tax is taken out, not before.

Abaratican
01-28-2011, 16:03
Why?

Here it's easily done via your employer. I do it sometimes for my company. You just take the tax out according to the tax band the employee is on, keep it back for the quarter, and pay the employee minus tax.

You don't confuse the layman with making him/her do it themselves (I work in accounts and wouldn't expect others to do the job I'm paid for), and they don't have to personally send the government a big cheque for a service that you can't really see in the physcal sense.

No wonder you guys are unhappy if you're made to give away your pay every so often. I just see my pay as being what it is after tax is taken out, not before.

We manually tell our employer how much to deduct from our checks, and at the end of the year we file our taxes and if we paid too much (common, as most people contribute the maximum to make sure they don't owe at the end of the year) then we get a check for the difference (our tax refund), if we paid too little, we get a bill.

However, when you look at your paystub and see the fucking ridiculous quantity of your check that the government takes, it's still stupid. Whenever the government starts coming to my job and helping me write software, fix bugs, and engineer new features... that's when they are entitled to some of my money. Not before.

88Chaz88
01-28-2011, 16:11
We manually tell our employer how much to deduct from our checks, and at the end of the year we file our taxes and if we paid too much (common, as most people contribute the maximum to make sure they don't owe at the end of the year) then we get a check for the difference (our tax refund), if we paid too little, we get a bill.

Still sounds a bit primitive to me. We all get a tax code which our employer works out the tax from. We don't tell them how much to deduct. If your employer got it wrong, they're liable for it. Although if the Inland Revenue got your tax code wrong, you're liable (although you just get a higher code than you should 'till the difference is made up) but hey, I never said our system was perfect.

Abaratican
01-28-2011, 16:26
Still sounds a bit primitive to me.

Taxation itself is primitive. However, I don't see much difference in our systems other than transferral of liability.

88Chaz88
01-28-2011, 16:42
Taxation itself is primitive. However, I don't see much difference in our systems other than transferral of liability.

I do and I think it's in the way the tax is worked out. You said that most people contribute the maximum, therefore this implies that the job of working out your tax is on you. Over here it's done by whoever pays you. You don't have to work out anything yourself.

It may sound like the government treat us like idiots, but why should you have to work out how much you get paid when the person who pays you should be more qualified to do so?

Also I wouldn't call income tax primitive, the system exists for a good reason and is why you're able to be paid an American wage. Whether it's too much or not going to the right places are good arguments.

Death's Chill
01-28-2011, 17:09
Because he's actually read a W2 form? Maybe?

Like anyone is able to read a tax or legal document.

Seriously though, they need to make them more complicated.

Oh FYI, does anyone know if I, as a dual citizen, have to file a US income tax return form too, even though I didn't earn anything in the US and am now staying in Canada?

I'm of the mind that we should cut stuff from the budget we don't need (overseas military deployment and bases for one). Then, completely remove income tax. Finally, increase sales tax by a bit.

No more income tax draining our souls, but we still pay plenty of taxes, only through stuff we actually buy. That means that if I live frugal I will pay less in taxes than other people. It shouldn't be about how much you make, it should be about your choices as to what you spend that money on. It also would help people buy more food, as that is not taxed yet you'd be making more money overall.

Since I don't make a whole lot of money to begin with, my personal issue with income tax is simply having to file the forms in. It's complicated. I'm no genius but it pisses me off. It takes forever, you're never sure if you got everything right, and you have the added stress of maybe being audited.

doomahx
01-28-2011, 17:10
Like anyone is able to read a tax or legal document.

Seriously though, they need to make them more complicated.

Oh FYI, does anyone know if I, as a dual citizen, have to file a US income tax return form too, even though I didn't earn anything in the US and am now staying in Canada? (I'm a dual citizen).

Pretty sure you do. My father is a dual residing overseas and I remember him mentioning having to still pay taxes to the US.

Rachsucht
01-28-2011, 17:22
Oh FYI, does anyone know if I, as a dual citizen, have to file a US income tax return form too, even though I didn't earn anything in the US and am now staying in Canada? (I'm a dual citizen).

Don't listen to Doomhax, he doesn't know what he's talking about. You only have to file a US tax return if you've had income in the USA.

doomahx
01-28-2011, 17:29
Don't listen to Doomhax, he doesn't know what he's talking about. You only have to file a US tax return if you've had income in the USA.

Hence why I said "pretty sure" and not "yes you must".

Death's Chill
01-28-2011, 17:33
Excellent. I'll probably still look into it. Do you know how much income would matter? I think I might have worked 1-2 months into the year but I was only working part time at minimum wage. I know at that level I think all taxes are refunded, so it would be pointless to file a return wouldn't it?

I only know that I don't want to end up like Wesley Snipes, going to prison because I didn't fill out a piece of paper.

It's a bit silly when you think about it. The government legally steals from you under penalty of jailtime, then under the same penalty forces you to undergo an arduous process to file and document everything you've earned that year. They make it ridiculously complicated so that only well-educated lawyers truly understand what the hell it all means (even some lawyers really don't know). I mean really come on.

I'm not crazy. I fully understand the need for a tax system. I just don't see a need for this specific type of tax. Plenty of other ways to tax people that are either passive or completely painless and don't encumber the common folk who can't afford to hire lawyers or other private professionals to file your taxes for you.

So what I am saying is simple, taxes are necessary, but the least the government can do is make it as simple and easy for us as possible to pay them. The other thing they could do is actually do a good job at using our money efficiently. You know, instead of spending a fourth of it provoking world war 3.

Rachsucht
01-28-2011, 17:51
Hence why I said "pretty sure" and not "yes you must".

Apologies, I should have put that differently, I was not trying to be a dick.


To DC:

If you were regularly employed you should ask your employer for the W2, as would probably get a refund.

PirateGlen
01-28-2011, 23:19
I've seen this argument before. There's an initial part that's blatantly contradicted by the 16th amendment.

The general idea of this is that if you were a robot you would be able to deduct the cost of maintaining the robot as a deductible business expense. The trouble here would be in defining to what extent the things you spend for yourself are an investment. Education, for example, is tax deductible because you're investing in yourself. Food is a similar investment in oneself but there are many types of food with varying costs. I think for practical purposes you can place this under the broad category of standard deduction. But there are many "self-investments" that are tax deductible.