![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 1 to 24 of 24. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by no rose garden on April 9, 2014, at 22:00:58
omg... i owe so much in taxes...almost 20% of my income! what's even the point of working. I understand all these people who are tax evaders now. Ugh!
Posted by gadchik on April 10, 2014, at 8:02:26
In reply to taxes, posted by no rose garden on April 9, 2014, at 22:00:58
I hate tax season. We always owe money, and all of our employees are getting back thousands! They could buy a car with what they get back. ugghh
Posted by Phillipa on April 10, 2014, at 9:41:33
In reply to Re: taxes » no rose garden, posted by gadchik on April 10, 2014, at 8:02:26
G how do they get so much money back? High mortgages? Take a lot of deductions out? I don't understand P
Posted by gadchik on April 10, 2014, at 11:06:40
In reply to Re: taxes » gadchik, posted by Phillipa on April 10, 2014, at 9:41:33
I wish I knew,many of them pay a lot of child support, and they don't make a lot of $, so I guess they get many deductions, etc.
Posted by Phillipa on April 10, 2014, at 20:16:21
In reply to Re: taxes » Phillipa, posted by gadchik on April 10, 2014, at 11:06:40
G don't know tax laws. No idea either? P
Posted by baseball55 on April 10, 2014, at 20:23:41
In reply to Re: taxes » Phillipa, posted by gadchik on April 10, 2014, at 11:06:40
> I wish I knew,many of them pay a lot of child support, and they don't make a lot of $, so I guess they get many deductions, etc.
A lot of people over-withhold because they like that lump sum refund. It's a kind of forced savings.
Also, 20% isn't much, when you think about it. Gets you defense, highways, medical research and product safety, health insurance for the old, the poor, the disabled and, now with Obamacare, people with low to moderate incomes - etc., etc.
In many European coutries, people pay up to half their incomes in taxes. Of course, they get a lot in return - free higher ed, free health care, free transportation, free childcare, etc, etc.
What's frustrating about paying taxes in the US is that a lot of the programs that taxes fund are available only to the poor, the disabled or the elderly.
Posted by Phillipa on April 10, 2014, at 20:43:00
In reply to Re: taxes, posted by baseball55 on April 10, 2014, at 20:23:41
I understand about withholding more of your money but why give the government money of yours that you could invest in the meantime? Phillipa
Posted by alexandra_k on April 11, 2014, at 2:16:08
In reply to Re: taxes, posted by baseball55 on April 10, 2014, at 20:23:41
> What's frustrating about paying taxes in the US is that a lot of the programs that taxes fund are available only to the poor, the disabled or the elderly.
yes.
also a lot go to war -- uh 'defence'.
and still, there are people (even people who have never done a worthwhile thing in their whole lives) living in multi-million dollar mansions while there are also illegal immigrant workers (on which the economy supposedly relies)... To the best of my knowledge illegal immigrant workers do not pay tax.
a huge imbalance in the distribution of wealth, in other words. and (moreover) NOT in a way that tracks individual just deserts (on any reasonable way of quantifying that).
it IS (genuinely) a Very Hard thing. I think. If only... I could be supported on disability indefinately... I would love the time (and a little leeway) to trek through economics, international policy, law, and... of course... the inevitable math...
not that i suppose i could make much of a difference. *sigh*. *especially* in a country where the civil service is having difficulty hiring *even at the masters degree level* on the grounds that *the minister will never understand the report*.
the imbalance thing is hard...
i find myself railing at universities that continually restructure to take money away from lecturing staff, researching staff, laboratory equipment (so each student doesn't need to wrestle others for lab equipment needed for compulsory laboratory activities), in order to hire *more managers and 'support staff'" (most of whom can't follow the simplest of instructions)... But, uh, what is the alternative? Giving more to some and less to others? restricting entry? restricting graduation?
Trade-offs...
The situation *IS* hard.
I'm sure nobody wants to talk about this...
I wonder how much increased equality (not there yet but getting closer) for women... Has resulted in the current oversaturation of (especially skilled) employment. Getting women back into the workforce... Uh... Doubles? The workforce. Lots of jobs traditionally weren't paid. They were 'women's work' (traditionally unpaid). Child care. Aged care. Etc. Childhood education. Now we pay (sometimes) people for such things... *True Cost*. Expensive - ain't it. And now we have quality concerns...
Boarding school... Traditional English... Upper class? Not entirely sure on that. Certainly is the wealthy in NZ society...
Think what it could do for the poor?
Wait...
Centralised quality childcare...
?
Wait...
?
Equal opportunity for all
?
Posted by alexandra_k on April 11, 2014, at 2:19:06
In reply to Re: taxes, posted by alexandra_k on April 11, 2014, at 2:16:08
hey... i know...
maybe instead of 'man support woman and family'
there needs to be 'half the wage for 'job share''
and autonomy was had. by 2x the population...
Posted by alexandra_k on April 11, 2014, at 2:19:59
In reply to Re: taxes, posted by alexandra_k on April 11, 2014, at 2:19:06
and 'half the post' buys you '1/3 the work' - by all accounts.
increased efficiency for same cost: win-win.
Posted by gadchik on April 11, 2014, at 6:27:49
In reply to Re: taxes, posted by baseball55 on April 10, 2014, at 20:23:41
"What's frustrating about paying taxes in the US is that a lot of the programs that taxes fund are available only to the poor, the disabled or the elderly"
I hear ya, baseball, exactly. and as Alexandra said-defense-aggravating. The more you make, the more goes to taxes too.
Posted by baseball55 on April 11, 2014, at 20:11:29
In reply to Re: taxes » baseball55, posted by Phillipa on April 10, 2014, at 20:43:00
> I understand about withholding more of your money but why give the government money of yours that you could invest in the meantime? Phillipa
(1) A lot of people simply have a hard time saving. They plan to, but don't. So having the IRS "save" for you makes sense. (2) The rate of return on safe, liquid investments right now is about 1% - money market funds and bank accounts for example. So, add that to the difficulty of forcing oneself to save...let the IRS do it. (3) Higher returns can be made in more risky assets, like stocks, but people who need the money to spend within a year or two can not and should not tie money up in risky, less liquid assets.
Posted by Phillipa on April 11, 2014, at 21:37:29
In reply to Re: taxes » Phillipa, posted by baseball55 on April 11, 2014, at 20:11:29
Since my husband is doing the taxes today found out that a Interest Earned Statement as was less than $10. There was a time when I took $40,000 out of my Money Market, put in a fire safe the small ones and hid it in the house. I may as well do the same now. The banks are a joke!!! Phillipa
Posted by SLS on April 11, 2014, at 23:52:36
In reply to Re: taxes » baseball55, posted by Phillipa on April 11, 2014, at 21:37:29
> Since my husband is doing the taxes today found out that a Interest Earned Statement as was less than $10. There was a time when I took $40,000 out of my Money Market, put in a fire safe the small ones and hid it in the house. I may as well do the same now. The banks are a joke!!! Phillipa
Blame it on the Fed's forcing interest rates down artificially for the last 15 years. In an attempt to stimulate big business, the middle class has been sacrificed. This is especially true of the elderly, who rely on the interest generated by investment instruments.
- Scott
Posted by baseball55 on April 12, 2014, at 20:11:29
In reply to Re: taxes » Phillipa, posted by SLS on April 11, 2014, at 23:52:36
> Blame it on the Fed's forcing interest rates down artificially for the last 15 years. In an attempt to stimulate big business, the middle class has been sacrificed. This is especially true of the elderly, who rely on the interest generated by investment instruments.
>
>
It's actually only been the last five and it's not just the Fed. Interest rates in Europe and Japan are also close to zero. Here's the issue.While it's nice to earn interest on wealth, high interest makes it costly to borrow. And people who borrow, spend. New factories, new office buildings, new homes, new cars, new shopping malls, new computer systems, etc, etc. Businesses, especially, spend more when they can borrow cheaply. They look at the cost of borrowing, compare it to the profit rate they can earn by expanding and, hopefully, decide to borrow and expand.
More borrowing means more spending. More spending means more jobs. More jobs means more people earning and spending and out of poverty and a more dynamic economy.
So yes, the small number of people who survive on returns to wealth (40% of all financial assets are owned by 1% wealthiest; 85% of American households have negative net worth - i.e, no financial wealth) lose out. But the economy as a whole, workers as a whole and, importantly, net debtors as a whole (85% of the population) can benefit greatly.
The only problem is that low interest rates don't always stimulate borrowing. In recent years, businesses have been skittish about
borrowing because they don't foresee profits at all. So even low borrowing costs don't induce them to borrow. Also, banks are reluctant to lend, even when people are trying to borrow, because they worry about another round of defaults.As for the Fed keeping interest rates "artificially low" - what is artificial about it? Is there some natural rate of interest? Central banks control interest rates. That's what they do. Why they exist. The Fed is required, by law, to try to pursue full employment.
Posted by Phillipa on April 12, 2014, at 20:51:38
In reply to Re: taxes » SLS, posted by baseball55 on April 12, 2014, at 20:11:29
One minor illness not covered by insurance would wipe my meager savings out and take the house. I think my money even though not much is safer with me. I never have trusted banks. Phillipa
Posted by SLS on April 13, 2014, at 9:09:30
In reply to Re: taxes » SLS, posted by baseball55 on April 12, 2014, at 20:11:29
Even though I vehemently disagree with just about everything you have to say, I am not disposed to debate you. I simply don't know enough to feel confident in my arguments. Plus, it would take far too much time to address each of your points one by one.
https://www.google.com/#q=federal+reserve+artificially+low+interest+rates
- Scott
Posted by SLS on April 13, 2014, at 13:40:21
In reply to Re: taxes » baseball55, posted by Phillipa on April 12, 2014, at 20:51:38
> One minor illness not covered by insurance would wipe my meager savings out and take the house. I think my money even though not much is safer with me. I never have trusted banks. Phillipa
I remember when I worked for a bank in the early 1980s. A certificate of deposit (CD) would yield over 12%. A lousy savings account was 5%. People bought houses. Businesses didn't fail. There were no sweeping layoffs. The stock market didn't crash. It wasn't until the actions of Reagan and Volker and their "voodoo" false economy took hold that the market crashed in 1987 and led to a major recession. It took Clinton a few years to dig us out of that hole. It is no coincidence that the same thing occurred in 2007 under Bush's watch that Greenspan's Fed artificial interest rate policies caused us so dearly:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html
- Scott
Posted by baseball55 on April 13, 2014, at 19:31:33
In reply to Re: taxes » baseball55, posted by SLS on April 13, 2014, at 9:09:30
> Even though I vehemently disagree with just about everything you have to say, I am not disposed to debate you. I simply don't know enough to feel confident in my arguments. Plus, it would take far too much time to address each of your points one by one.
>
I don't know how you can vehemently disagree with factual information. You may disagree with Fed policy, but my post was not endorsing Fed policy. Simply explaining the economic rationale. And by the way - early 80s? Housing prices collapsed because mortgage interest rates were approaching 18%. Unemployment went to 12% in 1981 and stayed over 6% for the decade. Just facts.
Posted by Phillipa on April 13, 2014, at 20:03:45
In reply to Re: taxes » Phillipa, posted by SLS on April 13, 2014, at 13:40:21
I remember the time well as sold home in CT for a whole lot of money. I didn't mortgage my next one if the payment was more than $700. At the time percent on mortgage was 10%. But since I was advised to get an adjustable rate. I found my payments went down over the years owned that home. This home is mortgage free and glad of this. But I also remember when a Money Market yielded higher rates. Not so now. My next door neighbor was on Clinton's cabinet appointed by him . Before this he head the Labor Unions. Phillipa
Posted by SLS on April 14, 2014, at 0:18:21
In reply to Re: taxes, posted by baseball55 on April 13, 2014, at 19:31:33
Like I said, I won't debate, partly because I don't trust your contentions of what is fact, and partly because I don't really care to prove anything.
> I don't know how you can vehemently disagree with factual information. You may disagree with Fed policy, but my post was not endorsing Fed policy. Simply explaining the economic rationale.
Since when is a rationale a fact? I mean, really?
> And by the way - early 80s?
There was a small price dip in 1982, but a major drop in sales of existing houses, possibly due to a lack of inventory. I think people were afraid to move and sell their houses during that recession.
> Housing prices collapsed because mortgage interest rates were approaching 18%...
You have not established "because" as being a fact.
I bought a house in 1986. My family sold one in 1987. Housing prices were at a zenith at a point. I was paying at least 16% on my mortgage. Everything was peachy-keen until the price slump of 1990. So, housing prices increased over the 1980s despite high interest rates.
Didn't the catastrophic housing price collapse of 2007 occur while (because?) interest rates were at their nadir? Your "rationale" fails.
This might be a valid chronicle:
http://www.rntl.net/history_of_a_housing_bubble.htm
I remain unconvinced by you that what I wrote to Phillipa is without merit.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20140312/msgs/1064103.html
That's all. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. It was just another one of my unsubstantiated opinions.
I have already written here more than I had intended to. I am indeed fortunate that you like me enough to challenge me every now and then.
- Scott
Posted by jane d on April 14, 2014, at 19:18:26
In reply to taxes, posted by no rose garden on April 9, 2014, at 22:00:58
> omg... i owe so much in taxes...almost 20% of my income! what's even the point of working. I understand all these people who are tax evaders now. Ugh!
Hi Rose,
Ugh is right. It's always awful when you end up owing. Are you going to be able to pay it? If not you should be able to set up a payment plan. I believe it's probably better to file even if you don't have the money right now. I think this is one of those areas it doesn't pay to bury your head in the sand. (Not that you would but it's always been one of my favorite not so good ways of coping).
Jane
Posted by gadchik on April 15, 2014, at 5:37:42
In reply to Re: taxes » no rose garden, posted by jane d on April 14, 2014, at 19:18:26
Good news! My accountant emailed me yesterday, I know, a little close to 4/15, and said he was gonna efile and we were getting a refund! We always owe, but maybe college tuition, health ins etc helped out. I didn't ask how much because I want to be surprised. It probably is not much so I wont get too excited.
Posted by Lamdage22 on May 28, 2014, at 12:01:42
In reply to taxes, posted by no rose garden on April 9, 2014, at 22:00:58
I paid all of them and take pride in doing so exactly as i am supposed to. (Ok i got an extension from IRS lol).
Im waiting for a refund:)
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.