Republicans Fair Tax Act

[baddog]

16 hours ago, bullets13 said:

It's well into the thousands.  I've seen signs around beaumont from tax places advertising these returns as well.  "Come to us and we'll get you a tax return up to $9500", or something like that.  I try not to go to beaumont, so I haven't seen one in awhile.

Yes, my wife works with a woman who gets back $8500+ each year. She works but doesn’t make enough. I think she is satisfied with that. Not sure where they draw the line for poverty.  I’m sure some get less/more. It’s the reason I said $1000s. 

[Big girl]

22 hours ago, bullets13 said:

One would think, but this isn't the case.  You can get it the same way that you can get free food, housing, phones, etc. without working... by the government using money from people who actually pay taxes to give it to you.  

You cannot receive an income tax refund if you did not work the previous year

 

[bullets13]

2 hours ago, Big girl said:

You cannot receive an income tax refund if you did not work the previous year

 

You can call it whatever you want, but families who pay little to nothing in get $8-10k every year during tax refunds.  

[CardinalBacker]

On 1/27/2023 at 11:19 PM, Reagan said:

Quick point:  Even with a flat tax, say 10%, the more you make the more you pay.  This can be done without the tax rate being progressive.  

I understand the difference between flat and progressive taxation… and i think our progressive system is ideal, other than the fact that tax policy is too extreme on both ends of the spectrum. I like the idea that rich guys pay as much in income taxes on their income as i do, but pay higher rates on the additional wages. Think about it… if you make $50k a year, Bill Gates pays the same amount of taxes on his first $50k that you do. The problem with the system is that people are paying 50% on their top earning while being chided as “not paying their fair share.” The other problem is that you have people who not only don’t pay taxes, but instead receive generous gifts from the treasury involved in the decision making process. It’s like a grown family letting their kids make the final decisions on spending matters.  Kids want a Ferrari? You’d better figure out how to pay for it. Kids don’t want hamburger helper-they’d rather Saltgrass tonight? Get in the Ferrari. People want free College for all, but don’t plan on THEIR taxes increasing to make it happen. That’s somebody else’s responsibility. 
 

EVERYBODY should be contributing. Nobody should be receiving gifts from the rest of us. 
 

They should also start imposing long sentences on corrupt tax preparers. Like 100% forfeit of all assets and a 20 year sentence. I know a kid that was able to bump his refund last year by $2k by plugging somebody else’s SSN into his return as a dependent. The sickening part is that he did it on the advice and instruction of a tax preparer from Buna. She should be in federal prison. 

[CardinalBacker]

20 hours ago, Big girl said:

You cannot receive an income tax refund if you did not work the previous year

 

You might be right about that. I think you have to show SOME income to qualify for the Earned Income Credit. That used to be the case anyways. 
 

But people absolutely do receive “refunds”  every year for much more money than was withheld from their checks. 
 

Example: a person only works two months out of the year at job. They earned $5k at that job, but have four kids and claim head of household. They had $400 withheld from their earnings for income taxes. They would receive an $11,000 “refund” when they file their taxes.  
 

It’s been about ten years ago when I was married and we claimed three dependent children that lived with us. Not making a ton of money, but doing pretty decent. That year I financed two secondhand tractors for the ranch and was eligible to claim 100% of the depreciation on those units in the first year. Long story made short, my “losses” out there at the ranch were so large that we were entitled to receive a larger refund than we’d had withheld. I decided to spread out my depreciation over several years because I refused to accept a “gift” like that. The tax code is messed up. 

[LumRaiderFan]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

From the article:

If you had very low or no income last year and are not required to file, you may wish to file anyway to claim certain refundable tax credits. Refundable tax credits can provide you with a tax refund even when you do not work.

[tvc184]

A flat sales tax, ending all other federal taxes, would have to be 50% or more. 

[DonTheCon2024]

11 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

You might be right about that. I think you have to show SOME income to qualify for the Earned Income Credit. That used to be the case anyways. 
 

But people absolutely do receive “refunds”  every year for much more money than was withheld from their checks. 
 

Example: a person only works two months out of the year at job. They earned $5k at that job, but have four kids and claim head of household. They had $400 withheld from their earnings for income taxes. They would receive an $11,000 “refund” when they file their taxes.  
 

It’s been about ten years ago when I was married and we claimed three dependent children that lived with us. Not making a ton of money, but doing pretty decent. That year I financed two secondhand tractors for the ranch and was eligible to claim 100% of the depreciation on those units in the first year. Long story made short, my “losses” out there at the ranch were so large that we were entitled to receive a larger refund than we’d had withheld. I decided to spread out my depreciation over several years because I refused to accept a “gift” like that. The tax code is messed up. 

This income refund fraud isn’t right, but ultimately not that big a deal. We’re talking about poor people getting a few thousand.
 

They’re already poor, and their lives probably suck if they’re at the point of juicing income tax refunds, so why are you all so bent out of shape about it? Would you trade places with them? Hell no.

Barely anyone bats an eye with government handing out literal free trillions of dollars to corporates, but ready to grab the pitchforks if their neighbor gets a lil chump change 

[Reagan]

11 hours ago, tvc184 said:

A flat sales tax, ending all other federal taxes, would have to be 50% or more. 

Or -- cut spending 50%!    

[tvc184]

29 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Or -- cut spending 50%!    

They wouldn’t even have to cut it that much. 

[CardinalBacker]

11 hours ago, DonTheCon2024 said:

This income refund fraud isn’t right, but ultimately not that big a deal. We’re talking about poor people getting a few thousand.
 

They’re already poor, and their lives probably suck if they’re at the point of juicing income tax refunds, so why are you all so bent out of shape about it? Would you trade places with them? Hell no.

Barely anyone bats an eye with government handing out literal free trillions of dollars to corporates, but ready to grab the pitchforks if their neighbor gets a lil chump change 

And that, my friend, is the reason that I'm not a liberal.  

First off, that "chump change" is going to come due one day... and we're probably already past the tipping point.  But who cares, as long as I get mine, right?  And I'd be interested in where these "trillions of dollars given to corporate" exist.  Because they don't.  It's a lie told to simple-minded people to earn their support.  "Oh, yeah?  Big oil gets TRILLIONS given to them."  No, they don't.  There are a ton of places where we spend wastefully (social security, the military, etc....) and both sides act like their cash cows are sacred.  I can freely admit that the military spends wastefully.  I can safely argue that every single government entity blows through piles of cash that they shouldn't.  That's the problem that we need to fix.  Our healthcare system is corrupt with fraudulent billing, people on benefits that don't deserve them, etc... and our solution was to make sure that everybody has a spot at the trough instead of attacking the costs.  

The bigger problem is this... now that people realize that they can vote for generous gifts from the treasury, they'll continue to do so until the whole thing falls apart.  And by "people" I mean those that believe that they deserve "a little chump change," as you put it, but also the people who fight to protect military spending without reservation, those who want free college education for everybody, those who refuse to look at waste in Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security, etc.... Our spending is going to be the end of us, and we can't tax our way out of it, or cut taxes to get ourselves out of it.   It's about spending. 

[Big girl]

24 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

And that, my friend, is the reason that I'm not a liberal.  

First off, that "chump change" is going to come due one day... and we're probably already past the tipping point.  But who cares, as long as I get mine, right?  And I'd be interested in where these "trillions of dollars given to corporate" exist.  Because they don't.  It's a lie told to simple-minded people to earn their support.  "Oh, yeah?  Big oil gets TRILLIONS given to them."  No, they don't.  There are a ton of places where we spend wastefully (social security, the military, etc....) and both sides act like their cash cows are sacred.  I can freely admit that the military spends wastefully.  I can safely argue that every single government entity blows through piles of cash that they shouldn't.  That's the problem that we need to fix.  Our healthcare system is corrupt with fraudulent billing, people on benefits that don't deserve them, etc... and our solution was to make sure that everybody has a spot at the trough instead of attacking the costs.  

The bigger problem is this... now that people realize that they can vote for generous gifts from the treasury, they'll continue to do so until the whole thing falls apart.  And by "people" I mean those that believe that they deserve "a little chump change," as you put it, but also the people who fight to protect military spending without reservation, those who want free college education for everybody, those who refuse to look at waste in Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security, etc.... Our spending is going to be the end of us, and we can't tax our way out of it, or cut taxes to get ourselves out of it.   It's about spending. 

Do you want them to abolish Medicare, Medicaid, and SS?

[LumRaiderFan]

41 minutes ago, Big girl said:

Do you want them to abolish Medicare, Medicaid, and SS?

I would absolutely love it if all three were phased out at the federal level.  

[UT alum]

On 1/28/2023 at 2:38 PM, bullets13 said:

You can call it whatever you want, but families who pay little to nothing in get $8-10k every year during tax refunds.  

They pay little to nothing because they earn little to nothing.  

[DonTheCon2024]

3 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

And that, my friend, is the reason that I'm not a liberal.  

First off, that "chump change" is going to come due one day... and we're probably already past the tipping point.  But who cares, as long as I get mine, right?  And I'd be interested in where these "trillions of dollars given to corporate" exist.  Because they don't.  It's a lie told to simple-minded people to earn their support.  "Oh, yeah?  Big oil gets TRILLIONS given to them."  No, they don't.  There are a ton of places where we spend wastefully (social security, the military, etc....) and both sides act like their cash cows are sacred.  I can freely admit that the military spends wastefully.  I can safely argue that every single government entity blows through piles of cash that they shouldn't.  That's the problem that we need to fix.  Our healthcare system is corrupt with fraudulent billing, people on benefits that don't deserve them, etc... and our solution was to make sure that everybody has a spot at the trough instead of attacking the costs.  

The bigger problem is this... now that people realize that they can vote for generous gifts from the treasury, they'll continue to do so until the whole thing falls apart.  And by "people" I mean those that believe that they deserve "a little chump change," as you put it, but also the people who fight to protect military spending without reservation, those who want free college education for everybody, those who refuse to look at waste in Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security, etc.... Our spending is going to be the end of us, and we can't tax our way out of it, or cut taxes to get ourselves out of it.   It's about spending. 

It is chump change. If getting an extra $5k a year is that life changing, then you’re probably poor. I’m Definitely not trading places with these people

 

I paid 6 figures in all taxes this year so I paid more than my fair share and probably paid more than anyone on here. I have better things to do than worry about what stupid crap my neighbor is going to buy with his chump change tax refund, and bigger issues with corporate bailouts and subsidies.

 

Most recent example was PPP program. Literally free money with zero oversight. All pocketed by corporates and business owners, many who didn’t even need the money as their businesses were hardly interrupted and many in fact who did even better during Covid.

 

But it requires less brain power to be mad at your neighbor.. so be it 

[DonTheCon2024]

2 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I would absolutely love it if all three were phased out at the federal level.  

Especially social security.

Tired of paying into a system that funds current retirees.. the same boomers who try to pull up the ladder after them at every step. And the stupid thing won’t even be around by the time I retire

[bullets13]

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

They pay little to nothing because they earn little to nothing.  

I get it.  But if they're not involved in paying into it because they make little to nothing, there's absolutely zero reason for them to be receiving huge refunds from it.

[tvc184]

2 hours ago, DonTheCon2024 said:

Especially social security.

Tired of paying into a system that funds current retirees.. the same boomers who try to pull up the ladder after them at every step. And the stupid thing won’t even be around by the time I retire

That is because G W Bush in his first term pushed for private retirement accounts just like a 401(k) with the SS funding but the Democrats squashed it like a bug. They did not want people controlling their own money.

The Democrats did not want your money, to be your money

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, UT alum said:

They pay little to nothing because they earn little to nothing.  

And they should get back little to nothing. 

[UT alum]

2 hours ago, bullets13 said:

I get it.  But if they're not involved in paying into it because they make little to nothing, there's absolutely zero reason for them to be receiving huge refunds from it.

It’s a back door minimum wage increase.  Congress won’t mandate a liveable wage, so they do it this way to make the recipients look like deadbeats instead of workers who can’t live on $10/hr. 

[CardinalBacker]

2 hours ago, UT alum said:

It’s a back door minimum wage increase.  Congress won’t mandate a liveable wage, so they do it this way to make the recipients look like deadbeats instead of workers who can’t live on $10/hr. 

So... they take from earners and give to non-earners with zero utility recovered for the expenditure?  Give me a break.  

Today's "poor" aren't poor.  They just don't have everything that they want.  There are too many "broke" fatties. 

[LumRaiderFan]

2 hours ago, UT alum said:

It’s a back door minimum wage increase.  Congress won’t mandate a liveable wage, so they do it this way to make the recipients look like deadbeats instead of workers who can’t live on $10/hr. 

Congress shouldn’t mandate a living wage.  Minimum wage was never supposed to provide a livable wage.

[bullets13]

3 hours ago, UT alum said:

It’s a back door minimum wage increase.  Congress won’t mandate a liveable wage, so they do it this way to make the recipients look like deadbeats instead of workers who can’t live on $10/hr. 

I’d feel a lot better if they were working 40 hours a week at minimum wage.  Many work part time or not at all.  To me the free housing, food stamps, WIC, free phones, free health care, etc. etc. etc. is more than enough for your back door minimum wage increase.  I think it’s obvious that I’m not your typical extreme conservative that you see on the board, but I’ve had enough up close exposure to the obscene amount of handouts given to able bodied people who refuse to work that I do have a very conservative view on this particular issue.  

[UT alum]

13 hours ago, bullets13 said:

I’d feel a lot better if they were working 40 hours a week at minimum wage.  Many work part time or not at all.  To me the free housing, food stamps, WIC, free phones, free health care, etc. etc. etc. is more than enough for your back door minimum wage increase.  I think it’s obvious that I’m not your typical extreme conservative that you see on the board, but I’ve had enough up close exposure to the obscene amount of handouts given to able bodied people who refuse to work that I do have a very conservative view on this particular issue.  

I respect your position.

[UT alum]

15 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

So... they take from earners and give to non-earners with zero utility recovered for the expenditure?  Give me a break.  

Today's "poor" aren't poor.  They just don't have everything that they want.  There are too many "broke" fatties. 

Broke fatties? That’s pretty condescending. The cheapest food is also the unhealthiest.