Where will inflation stop?

In reply to Opti :

That's true you said no federal income tax, I was saying I'm not thinking $12k more in income equals $12k more in federal income taxes. 

I just included the other ones as an example of the insane amount of payroll tax paid.

The article you shared brings up all kinds of contingencies such as kids, COVID money (don't know didn't get any), etc. 

I was just sharing as someone who doesn't make that much more than $75k as a non-married guy with no children, I pay plenty of Federal Income Tax.

frenchyd said:

GIRTHQUAKE said:

Opti said:

You talk about the rich avoiding paying taxes, but in reality they pay the majority of taxes. Sure you can find examples of people paying low taxes but in the aggregate the top 1% of earners have 20% of the income share but pay over 40% of all income taxes. In fact most people making under 75K pay no federal income tax and about half of Americans pay no federal income tax. The reason there is no political capital for actually raising taxes (unless you specifically go after a group and demonize them or just outright lie "we wont raise taxes on anyone earning under 400K") is because most serious people realize there is a point where taxes hurt  the economy  and the American people are already taxed into oblivion. Even though half of Americans dont pay federal income taxes, think about all the money that is double or triple taxed and all the other taxes besides income taxes, Sales tax, gas tax, vehicle registration, property tax, estate tax, gift tax, corporate tax, payroll taxes, capital gains tax, gross receipts tax, excise tax, TPP taxes, etc. Most people only think about income tax, thats why so many of the proposed tax increases now are hidden taxes, "we only tax one cent on these specific trades" or people are buying EVs to save on gas but we get a cut on gas sales so we want a tax on miles you drive (in that case think about the people driving ICE, they get to pay for the same thing twice, which isnt exactly unprecedented in the tax code) Next time you go out try and do ANYTHING and not be taxed in some way.

Yeah it's a big joke of a system, but what you get with no accountability. Turbotax et. al. have lobbied to keep the tax code complex, same with... well, every other totally not a monopoly corporation nowadays. I mostly made this comment to point out that the bolded comment is likely only "true" because of COVID Relief, becuase you can easily see your bracket on the IRS's site apropos whatever breaks you get.

You know what everyone getting a pay raise to deal with inflation causes? More inflation.

And yet corpos have no choice but to keep up with rising costs of living, or to just get workers in the door. Pay for labor is still rising. How is that different?

Some of the rich pay a lot of taxes.  For example the guy who won 2 Billion dollar lottery probably paid 50% of his winnings in state and federal taxes.   Hollywood movie stars and major sports figures who's pay is in the millions pay a lot of taxes.

    Yet " investors" CEO's of major corporations,  and other 1% ers. Are fully aware of legal ways to avoid tax liability's.
      Warren Buffet  explained a few years back how to legally evade Capitol gains taxes.    
   Shifting your tax base to Ireland or other tax friendly countries is relatively simple to do as well. ( just pay the expensive lawyers to do it for you). 
   So if the 1% ers mostly evade taxes and people as low as the 10%. Are also busy evading those same taxes.  That means most of the taxes really aren't being paid by Elon Musk etc.  In fact didn't we recently have a president who bragged about not paying any taxes?  
  So it sounds good. The richest tax filers pay most of the taxes. But that doesn't mean what it sounds like.   
       Billionaires may be able to avoid paying taxes.

  But millionaires, well off farmers with a good crop, or successful medium sized businessman. Etc wind up paying the most. 
     

Everyone should legally avoid paying as much tax as possible because the federal government has shown they are not a good steward of YOUR money.

Id like to see you sources on this information. Its hard to find the data stratified beyond the top 1 percent. Years ago I saw the top 1, .01, and .001% but I cant find it now. Up to the top 1% tax burden increases, Id be curious if you separate that group if the trend reverses.

I will say Elon Musk is supposed to pay the largest federal income tax bill this year at an estimated 8.3B dollars. I dont care if its only .000000000001% if hes literally the largest tax payer (person). Id rather have a small chunk of something huge than a big chunk of something small. If you say its "unfair" because the tax code is supposed to be progressive, its just proof that everything the government does is garbage, so quit giving them so much of your money. 

I dont want to hear you talk about rates because its useless and its just framing to make your argument sound better.

Show me your sources so I dont have to keep defending people I dont like.

In reply to z31maniac :

Yah I understand, thats why I made sure I didnt say everyone under 75K. For a long time I was single with no kids, making decent money and not doing anything to reduce my tax burden, and while all my friends where getting huge refunds Id end the year owing the government a large chunk of money.

Also keep in mind how stupid and convoluted our tax code is on an individual basis, its rarely a uniform sliding scale that as you make more money you owe more money. People making more than you will owe less because of some ridiculous credit. So even if you were under 75K you probably would still pay federal income taxes.

They took a third of your income on the taxes on your W2 alone (which is far from all of them), whatd you get for that money? Paying into social security which will be insolvent before you can utilize it? Bad roads? Terrible energy infrastructure? Would you have made better use of that money if you had it?

I highly recommend you get a good accountant and try and lower your tax burden.

In reply to Opti :

I've already been using a CPA for a decade. We've discussed this multiple times over the years, there isn't really anything else I can do that we don't already.

Opti said:

 

Everyone should legally avoid paying as much tax as possible because the federal government has shown they are not a good steward of YOUR money.

Or I could stop whining, accept taxes as being necessary for upkeep of a society, and fix the problem of why they're so inefficiently done. I think those founding fathers intended me to do that.

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

No, they didn't intend for you to pay any federal income tax. That didn't happen until 1913, or about 100 years after the founding father were dead. 

z31maniac said:

In reply to Opti :

I've already been using a CPA for a decade. We've discussed this multiple times over the years, there isn't really anything else I can do that we don't already.

I'm sure your CPA is very professional. That doesn't make him a "good accountant", if a good accountant is one who helps you position to minimize your taxes. 
 

There are a lot of very conservative accountants. They are more concerned with steering clear of an audit than with maximizing the deductions you are legally eligible for. 
 

I've had a conservative accountant for years. Didn't realize how much he was costing me by "playing it safe". I'm getting a new accountant this year. 

Opti said:

In reply to z31maniac :

Yah I understand, thats why I made sure I didnt say everyone under 75K. For a long time I was single with no kids, making decent money and not doing anything to reduce my tax burden, and while all my friends where getting huge refunds Id end the year owing the government a large chunk of money.

Also keep in mind how stupid and convoluted our tax code is on an individual basis, its rarely a uniform sliding scale that as you make more money you owe more money. People making more than you will owe less because of some ridiculous credit. So even if you were under 75K you probably would still pay federal income taxes.

They took a third of your income on the taxes on your W2 alone (which is far from all of them), whatd you get for that money? Paying into social security which will be insolvent before you can utilize it? Bad roads? Terrible energy infrastructure? Would you have made better use of that money if you had it?

I highly recommend you get a good accountant and try and lower your tax burden.

If you believe social security is going to be insolvent. Then you must really believe insurance companies won't honor your claims.   They don't have an unlimited printing press like the federal government has. 
   I don't worry since one of the mechanisms of inflation is an increase in social security. 
     If insurance companies fail they simply declare bankruptcy and go home with their pockets full.  

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

Whining and accepting are BOTH lazy excuses. 
 

There is a lot of WORK involved in managing personal finances and tax liabilities to minimize your exposure.  THAT'S how it's designed. We are supposed to be engaged and working at it  if we want to minimize what we owe. 
 

In reply to frenchyd :

How the heck did you get to insurance??  He didn't say a single word about insurance. 
 

Sometimes you say really bizarre E36 M3. 

SV reX said:

z31maniac said:

In reply to Opti :

I've already been using a CPA for a decade. We've discussed this multiple times over the years, there isn't really anything else I can do that we don't already.

I'm sure your CPA is very professional. That doesn't make him a "good accountant", if a good accountant is one who helps you position to minimize your taxes. 
 

There are a lot of very conservative accountants. They are more concerned with steering clear of an audit than with maximizing the deductions you are legally eligible for. 
 

I've had a conservative accountant for years. Didn't realize how much he was costing me by "playing it safe". I'm getting a new accountant this year. 

I used former IRS people to do my taxes. They understand the real meaning of the tax code as they enforce it.   In addition the guidance they provided really did help keep my taxes down while achieving my personal goals.   
       Previously accountants and tax preparers had me paying much more taxes than I actually owed. 

In reply to frenchyd :

First I trust insurance companies that I choose to do business with more than the federal government, which is a very low bar.

The problem with SS is its a political third rail and its also the single biggest item in the federal budget. If we don't change anything the trust fund will be out of money by 2035, and payment will drop to about 75%, doubling the poverty rate of people on SS.

The reason I doubt anything will get done is because anytime someone bring up reforming SS to prevent this, the other side just says "you want to cut SS" and there isn't actually a debate on policy, and people like you believe them, so we stick our head in the sand and keep not fixing it.

SV reX said:

There is a lot of WORK involved in managing personal finances and tax liabilities to minimize your exposure.  THAT'S how it's designed. We are supposed to be engaged and working at it  if we want to minimize what we owe. 
 

Is that the purpose of its design?  Seems to me a lot of the rules are not considered "loopholes" because they do not work as intended.  

I'm in the camp that the tax code is bullE36 M3.  It should be an equation, written on a note card, understandable in its entirety in a matter of minutes by anyone who has taken Pre-Algebra.  Requiring people to jump through hoops or pay others to help them jump through hoops to minimize their burden, then using that tax money to pay auditors to make sure certain people didn't jump through any of the wrong hoops is a stupid system.  We could politically debate the parameters of the system until the end of time - but those could be easily adjusted.  The core math behind the system should brutally simple and efficient though.

I also agree with Opti RE: SS.

I'm definitely on the opposite end of the political spectrum from Opti, etc. but you will find a lot of agreement from me regarding major financial reform.  Many of our systems are too bloated and needlessly bureaucratic and need well designed reset.

frenchyd said:

SV reX said:

In reply to frenchyd :

How the heck did you get to insurance??  He didn't say a single word about insurance. 
 

Sometimes you say really bizarre E36 M3. 

It's social security insurance.   Really you need to read a little history.   

Thanks for the condescending insult. 

In reply to ProDarwin :

I agree. It SHOULD be simple. 
 

It's NOT. It's designed to be complicated. Yes, it is purposefully designed that way. 
 

We can whine about what it SHOULD be, or we can WORK at using it in the way it was designed for our own benefit. 

SV reX said:

We can whine about what it SHOULD be, or we can WORK at using it in the way it was designed for our benefit. 

No need for the "or".  I can do both.

I will work within the current system, but I will continue to advocate for a better one.

I've watched people argue about what the tax code should be for over 40 years. Bottom line?  It won't change.  Because it is politically useful to be complicated.

So, I'm getting a different accountant, and working harder at using it to my benefit. 
 

I think everyone should do the same. 

ProDarwin said:

SV reX said:

We can whine about what it SHOULD be, or we can WORK at using it in the way it was designed for our benefit. 

No need for the "or".  I can do both.

I will work within the current system, but I will continue to advocate for a better one.

I will also advocate for a better system, but am absolutely confident that I will go to my grave seeing no significant improvements. 
 

My comment was about "whining vs accepting". I find neither of those acceptable. 

Inflation will continue as long as the government keeps devaluing the currency and bailing out failed banks.  And this US government will continue to do that. 

There are plenty of examples of this happening to the point of bankrupting countries.  Zimbabwe is the poster child for this but Venezuela and Argentina come to mind.   A friend of mind has to buy groceries with American dollars for her family in Venezuela because the stores don't want worthless Bolivars. She does this over then internet - (somehow Maduro hasn't started taxing these electronic transfers.)

Historically Rome got over extended in its Pax Romana policies and started changing the gold and silver content of coins, which made it worth less, back when people weighed their gold and silver to make sure they were receiving the pure stuff or an alloy with lead, copper, tin, etc.  

Opti said:

In reply to frenchyd :

First I trust insurance companies that I choose to do business with more than the federal government, which is a very low bar.

The problem with SS is its a political third rail and its also the single biggest item in the federal budget. If we don't change anything the trust fund will be out of money by 2035, and payment will drop to about 75%, doubling the poverty rate of people on SS.

The reason I doubt anything will get done is because anytime someone bring up reforming SS to prevent this, the other side just says "you want to cut SS" and there isn't actually a debate on policy, and people like you believe them, so we stick our head in the sand and keep not fixing it.

I've lost track of the number of times I've heard about the Social  security going broke.  
  The last compromise led to an increase in the retirement age and a reduction of social security as a way to financially survive  to a supplement  to retirement.   
    This is all due to politicians unable to keep their hands off money.   
Baby boomers put plenty of money to cover our retirement  but it was dealt with as the Social security surplus.  
and used to help balance budgets. 
     Political pressure means there are a lot more people counting on social security  than those determined to destroy it.  So yes it is the third rail.  
    The more finically conservative  ones of us screamed our heads off but it went down along party lines.   
  The party that created social security  has been most vocal about protecting it. While the other party has done an extremely good job of undermining it.
        I look at countries that have privatized their versions of social security and see the chaos created. 
      One day I went over to my mothers house and she was on the floor trying to figure out how to live on her former husbands social security.   He'd provided her with 19 million dollars worth of assets on his death. In a little over 4 years it's was all gone and the lights on Las Vegas were brighter. 
     I see people who evaded paying into social security by"investing".  Moving into assisted living.  
     

ProDarwin said:

I'm definitely on the opposite end of the political spectrum from Opti, etc. but you will find a lot of agreement from me regarding major financial reform.  Many of our systems are too bloated and needlessly bureaucratic and need well designed rereset.

You might be surprised. My group of friends is wildly diverse politically. We debate politics quite a bit, and we pretty much all agree on the problems, and that everything the government touches turns to E36 M3 and the two parties are largely the same on things that matter. Most of our differences in policy stem from wether individually we belive the government ruining everything is inherent so we should shrink it or wether we can actually fix it.

About the only people politically I can't find common ground with are people who don't actually pay attention, and just follow and believe whatever smoke and mirrors the legacy media tells them to be upset about while behing the scenes the government continues fleecing regular Americans. 

I'f i can agree with someone left of AOC and also agree with someone right of Ron paul, I consider myself a centrist.

Opti said:

ProDarwin said:

I'm definitely on the opposite end of the political spectrum from Opti, etc. but you will find a lot of agreement from me regarding major financial reform.  Many of our systems are too bloated and needlessly bureaucratic and need well designed rereset.

You might be surprised. My group of friends is wildly diverse politically. We debate politics quite a bit, and we pretty much all agree on the problems, and that everything the government touches turns to E36 M3 and the two parties are largely the same on things that matter. Most of our differences in policy stem from wether individually we belive the government ruining everything is inherent so we should shrink it or wether we can actually fix it.

About the only people politically I can't find common ground with are people who don't actually pay attention, and just follow and believe whatever smoke and mirrors the legacy media tells them to be upset about while behing the scenes the government continues fleecing regular Americans. 

I'f i can agree with someone left of AOC and also agree with someone right of Ron paul, I consider myself a centrist.

I've been saying this for a long time. Outside of a few social issues, they want never ending war, more surveillance, reduced rights, larger government, etc. 

frenchyd said:

Opti said:

In reply to frenchyd :

First I trust insurance companies that I choose to do business with more than the federal government, which is a very low bar.

The problem with SS is its a political third rail and its also the single biggest item in the federal budget. If we don't change anything the trust fund will be out of money by 2035, and payment will drop to about 75%, doubling the poverty rate of people on SS.

The reason I doubt anything will get done is because anytime someone bring up reforming SS to prevent this, the other side just says "you want to cut SS" and there isn't actually a debate on policy, and people like you believe them, so we stick our head in the sand and keep not fixing it.

I've lost track of the number of times I've heard about the Social  security going broke.  
  The last compromise led to an increase in the retirement age and a reduction of social security as a way to financially survive  to a supplement  to retirement.   
    This is all due to politicians unable to keep their hands off money.   
Baby boomers put plenty of money to cover our retirement  but it was dealt with as the Social security surplus.  
and used to help balance budgets. 
     Political pressure means there are a lot more people counting on social security  than those determined to destroy it.  So yes it is the third rail.  
    The more finically conservative  ones of us screamed our heads off but it went down along party lines.   
  The party that created social security  has been most vocal about protecting it. While the other party has done an extremely good job of undermining it.
        I look at countries that have privatized their versions of social security and see the chaos created. 
      One day I went over to my mothers house and she was on the floor trying to figure out how to live on her former husbands social security.   He'd provided her with 19 million dollars worth of assets on his death. In a little over 4 years it's was all gone and the lights on Las Vegas were brighter. 
     I see people who evaded paying into social security by"investing".  Moving into assisted living.  
     

Frenchy you are right. Boomers paid enough into social security.....if it wasn't for inflation. The surplus is put into a Trust fund, which to keep up with inflation, is loaned out and they collect interest on it. If people like you would quit advocating for wild spending and running up inflation we wouldn't have this situation.

I might get my dates wrong because I don't care to look it up, and I've written off social security as a political issue so I'm not completely up to date, but I think in 2011 we had to start using the interest payment to the trust to make social security payments and in 2021 we had to start using the actual assets in the trust to make payments. The year the trust will run out of money moves around a little but last I saw was 2035.

Toyman! said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

No, they didn't intend for you to pay any federal income tax. That didn't happen until 1913, or about 100 years after the founding father were dead. 

Quoted for Truth. I'm sick of how people have retconned the political titans in our history, to the point that people actually think the founding fathers would have been at all okay with a 33% tax on your lifetime earnings or pretty much anything else going on in our government today.