Tax Day - How big is your tax burden?

robwbright

Member
Apr 8, 2005
2,283
0
Some states are worse than others - in West Virginia, you pay property tax on pretty much EVERYTHING you own EVERY year - inlcuding dogs, cats, trees, dirt bike, property tax on the value of your car each year, etc. . .

http://www.townhall.com/print/print...on/columns/JohnStossel/2006/04/19/194213.html

Your tax burden is bigger than Tax Day
By John Stossel
Apr 19, 2006

How was your Monday? Did you file your tax return with a smile, looking forward to the refund check from Washington and forgetting that it was your money in the first place? Even if you wrote a big check, I bet you don't recognize just how heavy your tax burden is.

In 1904, government, federal and state, cost every citizen $20 per year, according to a 1999 Tax Foundation study. Don't blame inflation --that only brought it to $340. For more than 150 years after we declared independence, we spent less than $1,000 each on government. Yet by 1999, government cost every man, woman and child an average of more than $10,000 per year -- more than housing and health care combined. The price went down a little after that, but then it started climbing again.

You probably don't know how much you pay, because the government is sneaky about how it taxes you. Paying withholding taxes each pay period dulls the pain of the income tax -- it's money you earned, but it's never in your hands -- and a hundred other taxes are hidden. For my TV special "John Stossel Goes to Washington," we followed St. Louis construction worker Bill Thurston and totaled the little-known taxes he paid daily. It started with the tax on the electricity that powered the alarm clock that woke him. Bill paid two taxes on his toothpaste. He paid a tax on water to get it into his home, and a sewer fee so it would go out. Daring to drive to work cost him more: He paid personal property tax on his truck; he had to pay sales tax when he bought it. And when he bought the gas, there was a county gas tax, a state gas tax and a federal gas tax.

At work, Bill gets stuck with local income tax, state income tax, federal income tax, Social Security tax and Medicare tax. Bill's boss needs two employees just to calculate how much to withhold from paychecks, and while their salaries don't go to the government (except for local income tax, state income tax, and so on), that's money Bill's employer can't spend on developing his business or giving Bill a raise.

Because Bill's wife works, the Thurstons pay a marriage tax of $1,000 a year. Then there's the grocery tax, property tax, utility tax, FCC tax and a county tax on the cable TV, and a whole bunch of different taxes on the phone. And if after paying all these taxes Bill and his wife want to relax with beer or cigarettes, there are sin taxes on those.

Why should government cost us more than shelter? Political scientist James L. Payne examined the record of 14 congressional appropriations hearings and found that of 1,060 witnesses who testified, only seven spoke against spending money, while more than a thousand testified that the spending -- whatever it was -- was necessary. Even a politician who believes in limited government has a tough time resisting a constant onslaught of "needy" people saying, "This program is crucial!"

The testimony is lopsided because of the "concentrated benefits-diffuse costs" problem: The benefits of any given government program go to a few, but the costs are spread among many. If sheep and goat ranchers get $200 million in handouts, it costs each of us less than $1. What are you going to do about that? Go to Washington and protest? For a buck, you probably won't even write your congressman, let alone take him out to dinner or give him a $2,000 campaign contribution. Yet the sheep ranchers have an incentive to spend $199 million lobbying if it gets them a $200 million subsidy back. Economists call it rent-seeking.

Of course, even the sheep ranchers would be better off if the government stuck to its basic purposes. But it makes no sense for them to pay for everyone else's programs and not demand their own.

The big bill came Monday. But see if you can catch all the taxes you paid today.

Award-winning news correspondent John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News "20/20" and author of "Give Me a Break."
 

Okiewan

Admin
Dec 31, 1969
29,555
2,237
Texas
So, there's the feel good post of the day.
 

bsmith

Wise master of the mistic
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Jun 28, 2001
1,782
0
Washington State taxpayers had to work until May 4th to pay their total tax bill, ranking it 4th highest in the nation.

:(
 

robwbright

Member
Apr 8, 2005
2,283
0
What truly amazes me is that the Fed Gov still has to borrow several hundred BILLION dollars per year on top of the taxes they take from us. And they devalue the dollar by printing more of them to cover the rest of the spending.

Of course, the big question is:

Which progams should be cut to decrease the tax burden?

Social Security? Military? Welfare? Politician's Salaries? Student loans and grants? Law enforcement? Transportation? Health?

Tough Choices. It is hard to get enough people to support cutting something in order to overcome the special interest groups who push for the spending. You're going to make someone mad.

More info

http://www.mises.org/story/2116

How much is 87 billion dollars? Agree or disagree with the political views of the authors of the page - and they are apparently dems - it is certainly an interesting illustration of the overwhelming amounts of money we're talking about on government spending.

http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion/
 

HajiWasAPunk

Member
Aug 5, 2005
807
0
Okiewan said:
That being said, I FRIGGIN HATE being taxed to the extent we are. The waste is incredible.

Amen Brutha!

How is it that McDonalds can have someone crank out 1000 cheesburgers during lunch hour and sell them for under a dollar, yet the our government (I'm talking local, state and federal) needs 4 ppl to change a light bulb who are all overpaid? I could do an economic dissertation in the dysfunction of our lack of operational efficacy.

As a side note, gotta love DRN. I mean where else can I learn how to change a top end, navigate a rythm section AND discuss political science? :)
 

ellandoh

dismount art student
~SPONSOR~
Mi. Trail Riders
Aug 29, 2004
2,958
0
we actually changed light bulbs for the govt(outside contractors) for about 7 hours today and there was 4 of us :yikes: being way overpaid. we were at a HUD house in Michigan , and got to witness all the residents being way overpaid also , except they were watching The Jeffersons, and waiting for their checks to come in the mail.
 

MrLuckey

Fire Marshall Ed
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Feb 9, 2000
3,718
0
I don't hate the taxes we pay and I have reservations about carte blanche statements of overpaid workers etc. I think some fail to understand that this also drives the economy. Imagine no taxes, all government employees of any kind being out of work, no military or military spending....you get the idea.
 

AssistSuper

Member
Apr 4, 2005
287
0
I don't make enough money to have to pay taxes. That's about the only nice thing about being a broke college student, I get excited for taxes to come cause I get a nice check.

Ask me again in 3 years and my opinion will probably be much different.
 

robwbright

Member
Apr 8, 2005
2,283
0
MrLuckey said:
I think some fail to understand that this also drives the economy. .

Sorry, but taxation and government spending does NOT drive the economy nearly as efficiently as if that oney was spent in the private sector. I hope you don't acutally believe that.

When they take it from you and use it inefficiently, you can't spend it for something else that you actually need. Imagine if people had even 50% of that money back and they spent it in the private sector. . . Would it create more jobs? Yep - and those new jobs would employ the government workers who would lose theirs.

Do you think more people would be employed if:

1: The $10,000.00 were spent by the government on wasteful, counterproductive and evil government programs;

OR

2: The $10,000.00 were spent by YOU on the items/products that your family needs to live or spent by YOU on other people's needs . . .?

MrLuckey said:
Imagine no taxes, all government employees of any kind being out of work, no military or military spending....you get the idea.

Exactly! The country existed just fine for quite some time with no federal taxes whatsoever, and people were much more free than they are now.

All those government employees would be employed in jobs where they actually had to do something productive, and there would be accountability and standards - just like in my job or yours.

BTW, as to the military, like it or not, the Constitution provided for a Navy and no standing army without direct congressional authorization, and then only for a period of two years - and then it had to be renewed. The founders considered a standing army to be one of the first steps towards tyranny.

Why do you suppose they thought that way?

Were they right?
 

HajiWasAPunk

Member
Aug 5, 2005
807
0
MrLuckey said:
I don't hate the taxes we pay and I have reservations about carte blanche statements of overpaid workers etc. I think some fail to understand that this also drives the economy. Imagine no taxes, all government employees of any kind being out of work, no military or military spending....you get the idea.

I have no problem with paying taxes and certainly am happy to see anyone working in that sector earn a fair wage. And my comment was a gross generalization; there are plenty of government employees that take pride in what they do [and I don't mean any disrespect to them]. I can only offer this as an anectdote. But basic government services seem to have both processes that are inefficient and in many cases workers that are too. Take for instance the number of cashiers at a tag agency versus a fast food restaurant. And ususally the fast food restaurant is employing a part-timer with no benefits.

Ok, I'm done venting now... :)
 

Okiewan

Admin
Dec 31, 1969
29,555
2,237
Texas
BTW, as to the military, like it or not, the Constitution provided for a Navy and no standing army without direct congressional authorization, and then only for a period of two years - and then it had to be renewed. The founders considered a standing army to be one of the first steps towards tyranny.

Why do you suppose they thought that way?

Were they right?

Please, put down the bong and step away from the keyboard.
The most notable founding fathers (save Ben Franklin) also favored slavery / owned slaves.

Where they right?
 

380EXCman

Sponsoring Member
Sep 15, 1999
721
1
robwbright said:
Of course, the big question is:

Which progams should be cut to decrease the tax burden?

Social Security? Military? Welfare? Politician's Salaries? Student loans and grants? Law enforcement? Transportation? Health?

All of them!

Who do these people think they are? How is it they can just spend our money completely and totally irresponsibly? Think about all the taxes/fees you pay, it can add up to a huge number that is ever increasing. We basically work 4 months of the year to pay our taxes. What will the tax burden of our children or grandchildren be? We claim to be concerned about our freedoms in this country. We are fighting a war for our freedom. What about the freedoms of our posterity? This country as we know it cannot continue if our government size and spending is not put in check. Our state and federal governments should be taken to task on their spending……..
 

AssistSuper

Member
Apr 4, 2005
287
0
380EXCman said:
All of them!

Don't decrease student money, increase it!

Student loans are more or less a joke IMO. Don't get me wrong, I take all the nice loans I can get....but Uncle Sam doesn't throw much money in my direction

I take out the maximum loan that I'm entitled to, and it adds up to a measily amount if you think about the big picture. I can take out $3500 next year in loans. That won't even cover my tuition for the year. Let alone my transportation costs, books, rent, bills, food, that expensive dirt biking hobby I pay for....it adds up to a hefty total. I spend a lot of time worrying if I'm going to even going to be able to afford to finish college.

It makes things hard when I'm putting myself through college. Uncle Sam thinks I should contribute $14,000 next year to my education according to my student aid report. Sorry Uncle Sam, I'm just a shy under 20 years old. I don't have that money.
 

robwbright

Member
Apr 8, 2005
2,283
0
Okiewan said:
Please, put down the bong and step away from the keyboard.
The most notable founding fathers (save Ben Franklin) also favored slavery / owned slaves.

Where they right?

Lunch time!

Okie, apparently you consider my factual statement (and the founder's position) ridiculous. It is certain that your argument is.

Nevertheless, I'm going to answer yours. How about an attempt at a reasonable answer to mine?

You used a straw man argument - not an effective way to have a debate or to prove your point. Of course the Founders (and the multitudes of other slaveowners - both North and South - were wrong about slavery. That does not mean they were wrong (or right) about other things. If you or I lived in that time, it is likely that we would have owned slaves - if we could have afforded it.

Note: You might want to check your facts - Franklin owned two slaves and then came to the conclusion that slavery was wrong and freed them.

BTW, did I actually say here that they were right about the standing military, or did I make a factual statement about their position and the content of the constitution. Perhaps you should put your glasses on. The Constitution was intended to be a check on government taxation/spending/expansion. If people want a standing army, then they are supposed to amend the Constitution to allow for it.

Any complaints about high taxes (expansion of government power) go directly towards a refusal by Congress (and the people) to honor the Constitution as written. If you're not going to support the whole thing as written, then throw it all out. Otherwise, there's no point in complaining about taxes because without the Rule of law based on the Constitution, there is no check on the government - as we have seen.

Anyway,below is a more complete answer to your straw man argument cut from a couple webpages.

These people (such as Okiewan :p ) paint a false picture of the Founding Fathers and the issue of slavery. The historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by the Founders; slavery was introduced in America nearly two centuries before the Founders. In fact, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay noted that there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery prior to the Founding Fathers.

"Prior to the great Revolution, the great majority . . . of our people had been so long accustomed to the practice and convenience of having slaves that very few among them even doubted the propriety and rectitude of it."

Benjamin Franklin explained that this separation from Britain was necessary since every attempt among the Colonies to end slavery had been thwarted or reversed by the British Crown.

Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. Franklin explained that . . .

". . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed."

Further confirmation that even the Virginia Founders were not responsible for slavery, but actually tried to dismantle the institution, was provided by John Quincy Adams (known as the "hell-hound of abolition" for his extensive efforts against that evil). Adams explained:

"The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself [Jefferson]. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge.

Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country [Great Britain] and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves."

While Jefferson himself had introduced a bill designed to end slavery, 6 not all of the southern Founders were opposed to slavery. According to the testimony of Virginians James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Rutledge, it was the Founders from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia who most strongly favored slavery.

In fact, in the years following America's separation from Great Britain, many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves released them (e.g., John Dickinson, Ceasar Rodney, William Livingston, George Washington, George Wythe, John Randolph, and others).

. . . the clear majority of the Founders was opposed to this evil--and their support went beyond words.

Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more.

In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804. Furthermore, the reason that the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a federal act authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington which prohibited slavery in those territories.

"Many of the white people [who] have been instruments in the hands of God for our good, even such as have held us in captivity, are now pleading our cause with earnestness and zeal."
-Former slave Richard Allen

Are we (you) going to continue to condemn the Founders over slavery?
 

robwbright

Member
Apr 8, 2005
2,283
0
380EXCman said:
All of them!

Who do these people think they are? How is it they can just spend our money completely and totally irresponsibly? Think about all the taxes/fees you pay, it can add up to a huge number that is ever increasing. We basically work 4 months of the year to pay our taxes. What will the tax burden of our children or grandchildren be? We claim to be concerned about our freedoms in this country. We are fighting a war for our freedom. What about the freedoms of our posterity? This country as we know it cannot continue if our government size and spending is not put in check. Our state and federal governments should be taken to task on their spending……..

By jove, I think he's got it! :laugh:
 

robwbright

Member
Apr 8, 2005
2,283
0
Might there be room "trim a little fat" off the military budget . . .?

Before anyone gets mad at my even proposing this, please consider the following - it would appear that we spend a bit more proportionately than is necessary to "defend" our country:

The United States has over 700 bases in 130 countries (of the 192 on earth).

(Note: the below are "on budget" spending items - not including black ops and special congressional authorizations such as extra money for Iraq).

As of 2002:

United States military spending currently makes up 47% of world military spending. The U.S. budget is also more than 8 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.

As of 2005:

The US military spending was more than 7 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.

The US military budget was almost 29 times as large as the combined spending of the six “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.65 billion.

The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)

The six potential "rogue" enemies listed above, Russia, and China together spent $139 billion, or 30% of the U.S. military budget.
 

Lew

LIFETIME SPONSOR
Aug 27, 2001
605
0
As a business owner and employer. I paid out over $75,000.00 last year towards such items as Workers comp., employee health ins., social security, Medicare, unemployment, employee development tax, payroll 941 tax, employee disability, and others I am sure I am forgetting. Add on the salaries for one full time and one part time employee, my cost was over $125,000.00. $75,000.00 of which neither employee nor employer saw any benefit from..

This year I have scaled back my operation, figuring I don't have to work as hard, as I can earn $125,000.00 less and still have my same level of personal earning. Unfortunately, there is an unemployed part time worker and a full time worker who is now commuting longer distances earning less of a wage.

My business is in home construction, speculation building. The above statements do not reflect all the local taxes, fees, and permits required to build in my area, which are about $25,000.00 plus depending on geographical area, for a 1500 square foot home. The great state of California also nabs 3 1/3 percent of the selling price of my homes in escrow. California states it is a loan and will be refunded at the end of the tax year. But, California, every year seems to find a way to only refund maybe 1/3 of my monies taken.

I don't know if this was relevant, but it seemed a good place for my government rant....
 

robwbright

Member
Apr 8, 2005
2,283
0

380EXCman

Sponsoring Member
Sep 15, 1999
721
1
Lew said:
I don't know if this was relevant, but it seemed a good place for my government rant....
Its totally relevant. When you think about all the fees and taxes you pay it becomes mind blowing.

As our governments take more money from us they have to justify the benifits or services. This trend will continue until either our country has evolved into some sort of socialist democracy similar to those in europe. Or the American people get sick of it and we have revolution.

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere." – Thomas Jefferson (1743-1846),

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." – Ronald Reagan (1986)
 
Last edited:

MrLuckey

Fire Marshall Ed
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Feb 9, 2000
3,718
0
Rob do you actually think it's better for the economy to have a few private sector millionaires and billionaires where that money just sits around or 1,000's of people making less and spending most of their money? Thats what would happen if you privatized everything. You should really study the entire complex nature of our CURRENT economy.

As to your statement about the long gone past and no taxes, if you believe for a millisecond that this country would be here NOW without taxes (and lots of them) then.......LMAO
 
Top Bottom