Income Tax:Right or Wrong?

income is wrong.

 

I agree with income tax to a certain extent... we have to support some form of gov't. Although I don't agree with how much they're ripping off my check.

 

You have to pay tax in one form or another otherwise your roads, hospitals, defence, libraries, public transport etc would not work to its full potential.

Also you are safeguarding against unemployment because if you suddenly become unemployed you are entitled to income support. Without it you would starve.

Income tax as a system is fairer than most in that it is based on a pay as you earn system therefore if you earn £100000 a year you have to pay a porportion of that as tax say 20%. If you earn £20000 a year you have to pay the same proportion ie 20%.
If you are earning 100000 a year you will pay £20000 in tax. If you are earning £20000 you pay just £4000.

My main issue with income tax are the tax brackets in the UK. We have a 10%, 23% and 40% bracket.

If you earn minimum wage you get taxed just 10% which I think is ok.

If you earn up to £32000 you pay 25% tax.

If you earn over £32000 you pay 40% for any amount over for example if you earn £40000 you pay £32000 at 25% and £8000 at 40% tax.

This bracket I think is wrong because it means any money you earn over £32000 is earned at half the minimum wage.

Although I can see some sense for pop stars and footballers to pay this amount as they can afford to spread the wealth it is unfair on the average person. Basically for a certain amount of my wage I am paying as much tax as a percentage as David Beckham, Elton John and Madonna. Worse than that they are probably set up as business so get to offset their taxes against expenses.

So Income Tax is as fair a way as any to raise taxes to run a country but I believe the higher tax bracket in the uk should be set higher than it currently is because too many people fall into that category. They could up the limit to £60000 a year and make the percentage 45 or 50%.

 

the idea of income tax is to keep people from earning money above their socio - economic class. all taxes are a means to this - plus it holds inflation back. unfortunately for britain when it started its industrial devolution in the 70's it started reverting back to a feudalistic society (which is based on a socio-economic mechanism). the experiment of the industrial revolution was buried by the people who made most from it. the average british joe just accepts tax on everything and hopes that he can retain his position in society. how to escape the problem? move, become part of the problem or join with a group of people who can be trusted and protect yourself.

 

exactly squawkers....and what sucks about that is.....they don't have to pay interest on that money.....but you can bet your ass that if you owed them you would have to pay interest and penalities
I filed for 7 years about 10 years ago ....and not a dime of interest....their name says it all........ THE IRS = THEIRS....self explanitory

 

This was sent from a friend in the political world.




WHY WAIT UNTIL 2008? THERE IS AN ELECTION IN 2006. I HEREWITH
FIRMLY STATE THAT I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY POLITICIAN, REGARDLESS OF THE
OTHER ISSUES, IF HE DOES NOT SPONSOR AND SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING
LEGISLATION.
THAT INCLUDES EVERYONE STANDING FOR ELECTION IN 2006.

LET US SHOW OUR LEADERS IN WASHINGTON "PEOPLE POWER" AND THE POWER

OF THE INTERNET. LET ME KNOW IF YOU ARE WITH ME ON THIS BY FORWARDING TO
EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU ARE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT!
KEEP IT GOING!!!!


2008 Election Issue !!

GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC.

This must be an issue in "2008" Please! Keep it going.

----------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY:

(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.
Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security
and, of course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of
their rare elevation in society . They felt they should have a special plan
for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their " own" benefit plan.

In more recent years, no congress person has felt the need to
change it. After all, it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this: !

When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they
die.

Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living
adjustments..
For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives
may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Intruded Thousand
Dollars), with their wives drawing $275, 000.00 during the last years of
their lives.

This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two
Dignitaries.


Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much
more during the rest of their lives.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00 . NADA....ZILCH....

This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You
and I pick up the tab for this plan . The funds for this fine retirement
plan come directly from the General Funds;

" OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"!

From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have
paid) into, - every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by
our employer)- we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after
retirement.

Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000
monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal "Senator" Bill
Bradley's benefits!




Social Security could be very good if only one small change were
made.

That change would be to:


Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and
Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us


then sit back.....


and see how fast they would fix it!

 

Robostilzkin said:

It is not only wrong but also against the US Constitution. And you realize that that money you get back as a "refund" is a long-term interest-free loan to the government, right?

Well, the Constitution has in it powers granted to the government to collect taxes, so that argument is totally false. The 16th Amendment adds income taxes to the legal forms of taxation the government can levy.

Also think about this: When you live in a house or apartment, you pay rent. That's the price of living in a house or apartment. Well, using that analogy, the income tax and other taxes could be called the "rent" for citizenship. Is we had no taxes at all, then how would police and fire departments be funded? You would have to pay a fee everytime you called the police or fire department. What about funding for that public library you go to when you want to check out a book to read? You would have to rent out the book just like you would videos at Blockbuster. Or what about the money to build new
freeways? You would have pay a toll everytime you drove on it. That's one reason it's called a freeway. It's not just that it's free of stop signs and traffic lights.

These are just some of the things that our taxes pay for. So think about that next time you want taxes eliminated.

 

if someone is making millions, its comforting to know they're paying tax to help those in a less fortunate position

 

Most people who want taxes eliminated don't mean all taxes, but getting rid of income tax and installing sales taxes instead so people have more freedom of control over their own money.

 

You people aginst the Income tax must really hate your Parks, Schools, Student Loans, Scholarships, Highways, and Healthcare.

Don't say those are state provided either, it would take about a 3 minute google search to proove you wrong.

Our tax policy is only bad because of loopholes which are exploited by the rich.

http://www.nysun.com/article/28712

I'm not a socialist, but the rich should pay their share, which is clearly more of the share then a worker on a migrant visa with a family of 6.

 

Indeed.

Income tax is NOT Unconstitutional.

In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations.

Three-quarters of the 48 states then in the union had to approve the amendment approving the income tax concept. 42 of 48 states approved the measure between 1909 and 1913.

CASE CLOSED.

The Income Tax IS Constitutional and whether you like the method of taxation, they are needed to provide public resources that all people use. The reason the rich should pay more is simple--they use more. The reason the Corporations should pay more is simple--they use (and abuse) more. A Corportation makes ALL it's money from the PUBLIC, thus it should give back to the PUBLIC.

 

word. They weren't perfect men and the constitution isn't an absolute document. Times change.

 

Income tax is illegal. The Tax Act does not permit it. It's written to be extremely confusing, but some brilliant legal minds have sorted it out, and found that yes, income tax is illegal. And anyone can prove me right.

If you don't pay your income tax, when the IRS sends letters to you, write back to them and tell them you don't have to pay it and ask them to show you the law that says you have to. It'll go on for a bit and they'll give up. Because the law doesn't exist and they don't want to take someone to court who can explain it to a jury.

I know this for sure, because I know a guy who's been doing it for years and never had any action against him. I live in Canada and I have not as yet researched the validity of income tax here. But in the US it's illegal.

 

you gonna back that up with some evidence?

 

I got some info on this....

http://www.pisceandelusions.org/reference/forbidden/incometax.html

 

Over here in the UK you get taxed as a matter of course. IE you don't have to fill out a tax return because they tax your money as you earn it. (your employer pays it for you out of your wages)

What I didn't know until recent years is that after earning so much money in a year you do have to fill out a tax return because you might be investing money etc.

Problem is that noone in British schools ever teaches you about tax. You certainly don't learn it in school, what forms to fill in, how to fill them in, what all those herebys and thereafters mean etc.

So if you don't learn at school and noone guides you with the process of tax returns how the fuck are you supposed to know the law and what you are allowed to claim and not allowed to claim etc.

 

I get 1200 a paycheck gross and after taxes have 800 and then after 401k and dental and medical plan upgrades and matched giving I bring home 600...I don't mind paying taxes at all but I do not like paying into social security AND retirement when i may not even get social security. If social security was given out on a need basis I would have no problem paying it.

 

I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes. I just wish everyone else would.

 

the further up the tax scale you go the less tax you pay, you either minimise it or ship it offshore.
when i reached 24 i realised that britain was like the titanic (and i left).
each measure brought down on the head of the population is filling each bulkhead until the ship sinks. its too late, the british people will never learn that a nation is made up of individuals who are educated and happy - not the economic bottom line. this is why i say to you and others as i have said before - leave if you can there is no future short term or otherwise. this problem has been brought about by the "tories" and "labour", they and their ilk are taking the country further back to the dark ages - as i said before , your average joe is too dumb now to make a difference.

 

I believe in Land Valuation Tax. Look up Henry George in Google or Wikipedia.