So you would admit that paying a federal income tax bill at the end of the year would be “psychological suffering”? If so, why do you support the tax?
Or, since you support it, we should hide it in withholding so that the people will be good little boys and girls and actually be HAPPY about it at the end of the year?
It seems that we agree that the withholding ruse has worked, but that only your side supports the continuing payments and opposes my “truth in advertising”
Because the alternatives are worse.
:rolleyes: They aren’t. But making it more unpleasant won’t make paying taxes less of a necessity.
Of course taxes are a necessity, but there is nothing saying that the current level or even the method of taxation is a necessity.
If a family of four has to write a check to the Treasury on April 15 for $7500, $1000, or $20000 then that simply opens a debate as to whether that tax should be more, less, the same, or collected on other activities.
But what it DOES do is say that you had to pay the government $X under the current law. There is no hidden charge somewhere. We didn’t take $7800 and write you a $300 “refund” check.
On the contrary; we’re undertaxed. Especially the wealthy. We’ve cut taxes beyond what we can sustain and as a result have constantly increasing debt despite a government that provides limited & inferior service compared to that of many other governments.
And the point of opposing the income tax is to crush the common people and to ensure more of the tax burden falls on them. It’s not some drive for fairness and social justice, it’s the opposite.
Speaking as someone who at several times in her life paid taxes quarterly instead of via employer withholding, having to write that quarterly check in no way made me anti-tax or upset or opposed to the government, which seems to be jtgain’s hope. It made me more educated, yes, but I agree with Der Trih’s post immediately above this one.
No, it was $600. And they called it a rebate.
Hmm, on form 1040EZ:
If people don’t know how much they paid, it sounds like it’s just a consequence of committing perjury.
Why don’t you address the many non-political reasons why your idea makes no sense?
Two off the top of my head:
It increases the amount of tax delinquency since it is hard for some, especially those with low incomes, to save.
2. It hurts government cash flow, increasing borrowing costs and increasing the deficit.
And of course calling your idea “truth in advertising” is bull since the amount of tax people pay is very, very obvious.
Increase the deficit and make it more likely for people to get into trouble because you hate the government? Not a chance.
Here’s a “truth in advertising” proposal for tax reform. Make the amount of federal taxes everyone pays a matter of public record. I bet that would spark some interesting debate.
There’s something wrong with a tax system where Warren Buffett is paying a lower rate than his secretary. And there’s something really wrong with proposals that Buffett’s taxes should be lower.
This is a non sequitur. Many things are good things, but can be implemented in a way that causes greater or lesser psychological suffering.
It’s a good thing for a person to get a vaccine. Nurses often tell a patient to look away as they inject the vaccine, because they know looking away will reduce the suffering. Your proposal is the equivalent of requiring nurses to shout, “LOOK AT THE NEEDLE! IT’S GOING INTO YOUR FLESH! LOOK AT IT AND SCREAM!”
Yes, it’s going to make people more aware of what’s happening on a visceral level. Yes, it’s going to reduce the level of vaccinations. But no, it does not address whether getting a vaccine is good.
It’s not being hidden in the withholding, ferchrissakes. I see it in every paycheck. But it’s being taken out of my paycheck to assist with budgeting: it makes it very clear to me that I ought not spend that money, because it’s the money I pay for public goods.
Again, however, I think your proposal is fantastic, and that the Republican party ought to make it a centerpiece of their campaign. Everyone wants to hear that you think they’re “good little boys and girls” who are only okay with taxes at their current level because they’re too stupid to understand things, and that you plan to make them suffer until they agree with you. Winning!
I like this, but instead of the wasteful mailing to everyone, just make a simple web service they could access to see where their taxes go.
Why do you think people would “feel the pain” more acutely if it was 4 times a year, rather than with every paycheck?
Every paycheck, I mentally calculate about what I expect to be paid, based on the hours I worked or jobs I did (depending on the employer) and then have to stop and think, “Shit, and, minus 1/4 of that for taxes and crap.” So if I’ve done $2000 of work, I know my paycheck will be around $1500. I don’t wonder where in the hell that other $500 went, I know perfectly well it went to Taxes and Crap. Could I detail down to the penny for you which agency took what? Well, no…but if I want to know, it’s right there on my paystub.
So I get psychologically tortured every two weeks under our current system. Why do you want to reduce that to four times a year?
Yeah, so what? If it was at all possible to withhold expected taxes on a business at the source given the fact that the withholding agent would be every customer they have and would require each customer to have some idea of the businesses profitability in any given quarter, I’m pretty sure we would do it.
If its so minimal then why do you think it would have so much more anti-tax effect that getting a biweekly reminder that the government is taking a chunk of your money? People don’t need more clarity that they are paying taxes, they need more clarity that TANSTAAFL. Whey they demand more cops, they are also demanding higher taxes, etc. The way to achieve that is to require that taxes be automatically increased to balance the budget every year (unless you can get a super majority to vote otherwise).
You want more clarity, increase our taxes to close the budget and see if people twiddle around with saving money by furloughing federal employees for a week here and there. Thats were the real deception in our system lies. Taxing and spending might be burdensome but there are real political consequences to having to raise taxes to spend money. You want to shrink government, make people pay for it and see if people STILL think that the JSF is as critical to our national security as everyone seems to think. If you just want to reduce your tax burden then you are really just shifting that tax burden to other people or other times.
You seem to be operating on the premise that people only have some vague notion that they are paying taxes because they are withheld at the source and its only numbers on a piece of paper. That there is some sort of transformative effect when you have to write a check to the IRS. It is a LOT easier to forget about taxes when you only have to deal with them every 3 months. Its a lot harder to do when the first line in your bi-weekly paystub is your gross pay and the last line is a much smaller net pay number.
I have had to make payroll for most of my adult life. I have paid self employment taxes for all of my adult life. There are all sorts of labor expenses that the employee never sees. I pay for 401K administration, they never see those costs, I subsidize health care premiums, I think most of them know that the health care is subsidized but so what, every employer subsidizes those costs its a cost of doing business, how is the employer side of payroll taxes any different? Hell, I even pay someone to administer my payroll.
Are you proposing that we make people pay their social security and medicare taxes by check too?
And social welfare programs are a pittance compared to defense.
Obamaphones?
So now we should write thousands of checks so we can see exactly how much we are paying to support the WIC program and the food stamp program?:dubious:
Every year people consistently say they are less bothered by paying taxes than they are filling out the forms and filing taxes and you think the answer is to give them more of the stuff they hate so that you can generate more hatred of some associated thing that they don’t really hate that much? Because you think what they should really be hating is the taxes and not the PITA of filing taxes?
Yeah, thats not the purpose of withholding. The withholding tax system was put into place by Milton Friedman, I doubt his purpose was to numb the minds of the masses to how much they are being fleeced.
Because its unecessary, it reveals nothing that we don’t already know, the withholding system has a real and important function.
The level of taxation is not driven by how much you want to pay, it is driven by what you want the government to provide. When all you focus on is reducing taxes, all you do is camouflage the cost of government. Increase taxes to balance the budget and you will see people take a long hard look at what they are paying for.
And how or why is that deceptive?
I think jtgain doesn’t understand why people are as up in arms about taxes as he is. He thinks that if people only understood what he understood, then they would feel the way he feels. So he searches for reasons that would explain why people aren’t storming the gates of congress demanding lower taxes and in the OP he seems to imply that its (at least in part) because the withholding system has tricked people into thinking of taxes in terms of getting a big refund check every year instead of writing a tax check every 3 months (and possibly getting a refund check once a year)
Of course you don’t want people understanding too much either. You need a certain amount of ignorance among your supporters as well.
For example, it’s one thing to tell people you’re against big “social welfare” programs. Just don’t explain that the names for these big federal government social welfare programs are Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. That might be a little more knowledge than your supporters need.
You mean JTGAIN doesn’t want people understanding too much either, right? I want the whole fucking world to know that when tea partiers talk about how much of our government is for welfare, they understand that the tea partiers are talking mostly about social security and medicare.
In most areas (except gun control), more information leads to more liberal results.
Saddo that I am, I was thinking about this as I was drifting off to sleep last night. And I realised this proposal is even dumber than it sounds, regardless of whether it would have the effect the OP wants (which it wouldn’t).
Why, you ask?
Because to implement it Congress would have to pass laws mandating that
And why would they do that? The object of this measure is to increase pressure to reduce taxes! Pressure on who? Why, on Congress of course!
IOW OP wants Congress to pass laws to increase pressure on Congress to pass laws to reduce taxes. But if Congress felt like that, had the numbers to pass the OP’s law, they’d just pass laws to reduce taxes first off and skip this whole measure. Clearly they don’t have the numbers to do that or they’d have done it already.
So this whole thread is a waste of good electrons.
I hadn’t thought of that. That’s kind of awesome.
I was sort of aiming for the impersonal “you” - it wasn’t aimed at anyone in particular (and I understand from your post that these wouldn’t be your views).
I recently read a good quote: Any idea that can be destroyed by the truth, should be.