yet again: taxes suck

[lummox]

and the forms make me feel stupid.

[Peter_Puget]

Link

 

PP

[badvoodoo]

Wow, and the person who put that together probably considers that an "executive summary". People say computer geeks are weird, but damn, finance geeks are just plain disturbing.

[Peter_Puget]

See attached summary.

[Peter_Puget]

Piece of %$#@ Article

 

In today's Seattle Times. Note that the report I linked above is not referenced at all. Seems as tho the progresssive nature of our tax system has in fact increased. See attachment on the post directly above.

[lummox]

i am so fukin lost in forms and publications and schedules. i hate it. fuk the man

[rbw1966]

See attached summary.

 

Where did that come from?

[lummox]

a 'quintile'? aint that one of them multi twin girls from canada?

[Peter_Puget]

See attached summary.

 

Where did that come from?

 

Summary from data presented two posts above.

[J_Fisher]

There's nothing inconsistent about the Seattle Times article and PP's figures. The wealthiest pay greater amounts in taxes in absolute terms and relative to those in lower tax brackets, despite reductions in the tax rates in the highest brackets, because incomes for the wealthiest have risen exponentially faster for those in the upper brackets than for everyone else.

[ryland_moore]

Used to hate doing taxes. Would take me multiple days and many draft forms until I would get it right. Until this year a friend turned me on to on-line forms. I used H and R Block, but you can use any of them. Cost me $20 for both fed. and state. I was done in 45 minutes - no bs. I will never fill out a paper form again. I didn't once need a calculator. The computer does everything for you, carries your answers onto different schedules and even over to the state form. It also mails everything in for you. Plus, filing online, I got my refunds back within 1 week for state and 9 days from the feds.

[Peter_Puget]

Ah selective analysis. Look at my original link: it shows effective tax rates!

 

Quote form my comments on the Seattle Times article:

In today's Seattle Times. Note that the report I linked above is not referenced at all. Seems as tho the progresssive nature of our tax system has in fact increased.

Edited April 7, 2004 by Peter_Puget

[J_Fisher]

Huh? The data in CBO report you linked to had data through 2001, which was before the Bush tax cuts even took effect. The article was about the effects of the Bush tax cuts. The CBO report is irrelevant to the topic.

[j_b]

cutting through the rhetoric of tax "relief"

[AlpineK]

I'm actually getting money back this year.

 

I suppose I should thank GW, but I want to be taxed if it pays for public education and cleaning up the environment. A basic health care plan would be good too.

 

Too bad PP is against a clean environment and public education.

[lummox]

I'm actually getting money back this year.

due to the nature of my work i pay all at once. due to my nature i spend my money and dont save too well. april is painful.

[AlpineK]

I'm actually getting money back this year.

due to the nature of my work i pay all at once. due to my nature i spend my money and dont save too well. april is painful.

 

April 15 hurt me last year.

[Fairweather]

I'm actually getting money back this year.

 

I suppose I should thank GW, but I want to be taxed if it pays for public education and cleaning up the environment. A basic health care plan would be good too.

 

Too bad PP is against a clean environment and public education.

 

I see you still manage to demagogue issues, if not well. Tell me, AK - exactly how has PP demonstrated that he is 'against' public education?

 

Federal education spending has increased 118% since FY 1996. Why don't you tell us all, Alpine K; how much $$ is enough?

 

I have recently toured several Washington State college campuses with my university-bound daughter. At each there were major construction/expansion projects underway. One in particular was very impressive: At WWU the new english dept. building is clad in brilliant, shining copper ($$$! wow!), the new non varsity gym has a state-of-the-art rock climbing wall, elevated track, and latest high-tech workout equipment. The new campus security building, with its massive timber beams, looks like a giant alpine chalet. I'm having a really hard time understanding the "underfunding education" argument.

 

http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/108th/education/funding/budgetfactsheet020403.htm

[cracked]

I like how all the schools are spending money on rock gyms or football stadiums or other frivolity, yet they are all losing money. Hmmm.....

[willstrickland]

I have conflicting views on the education bit. Clearly the fancy shit they put in colleges (copper facade ex) these days is wasteful. My alma mater, a state school, is included (although they do sell out to corporate interest in many ways to get extra loot...the new Ford, as in Ford motor com, Mech Eng Bldg for example) But I don't think post-secondary is what's at issue here, it's K-12.

 

118% Increase at the Federal level. Let's break it down: What is the increase in sheer numbers of kids in the system in that time? 118% in eight years time is around 10% annual growth. I don't know the answer, I'm just suggesting that it's not as simple as saying "well we doubled the spending since '96". Are those numbers adjusted to a constant year or just raw increases?

 

Without knowing the population growth among K-12, the inflation rate, and whether the "118% increase" is in raw dollars or consant year dollars, the stats are completely meaningless.

[cj001f]

I like how all the schools are spending money on rock gyms or football stadiums or other frivolity, yet they are all losing money. Hmmm.....

Football Stadiums often end being a net gain for the University - both in direct $ from TV rights etc, and indirectly from increased alumni giving.

 

The whole rock gym, super workout centers etc. is market forces at work (I thought you'd be in favor, Msr. Fairweather!) There are alot more schools for an increased population of students to choose from - they need to differentiate themselves.

[cracked]

It would be marketing forces at work if there was no gov't support.

[AlpineK]

That's nice about secondary schools Fairweather. What's more important is what's going on in the primary schools.

 

Without a basic education the likelyhood of turning to crime skyrockets. GW Bush passed a no child left behind bill, but guess what? That's right he didn't put any money behind it.

 

So I suggest putting the tax money you save Fairweather plus a little extra into a fancy security system.

[Fairweather]

You must get all your info from the NEA junk mailers you receive. Did you read the link I provided? Biased, for sure - but I don't see you contributing stats, or anything more to this debate than hyperbole or worse. BTW, I have two kids currently in K-12. I may be more in touch with these issues than the average childless Seattle liberal.

 

Tacoma is in the process of replacing all of their aging high schools. The current project, Mount Tahoma HS, is a grand sight! Artistic brick inlays thruought, great glass cupolas, and a stadium with a pair of grandstands that would make an NFL program proud. The whole spectacle makes even my liberal-Democrat father-in-law shake his head in disgust.

 

Schools aren't cheap. I realize this. But aren't these priorities just a bit askew?

Edited April 8, 2004 by Fairweather

[mattp]

I'm having a really hard time understanding the "underfunding education" argument.

 

If you don't understand the difference between capital improvement projects and educational programs, and how they are subject to different criteria and their funding comes from different sources, you must not understand much about large educational institutions and must also not care to.

 

It'd be hard to argue with your premise that there are lots of wasteful construction or expansion projects underway at pretty much every college campus you can think of, and even at lots of grade-school and high school campuses as well. But "education?" There is certainly waste here, too. You can quote Rush Limbaugh about the latest degree program in something ridiculous, I'm sure. But folks who argue that cutting off the funds is going to improve the situation are really just promoting further reductions in funding, and nothing more. The schools that you think suck so bad are only going to get worse if you "hit 'em where it counts."