Congress Paving the Way for Tolls on Interstates

Antipodean Bucket Farmer wrote:
> I understand that, people whose income is lower
> than the "Standard Deduction" (about $7K these days?)
> don't owe any tax, and can claim a refund for all of
> the tax withheld during the year.

It has to be lower than the standard deduction + the personal exemption(s).
For a single person on a 2004 return that's $3050 + 4700 = 7750.

There are exceptions. A self employed person will usually owe Self
Employment Tax (= SS + Medicare) anyway.

> But which people get
> an excess "refund" of money that they never paid? Is
> that just the people with kids whom they cannot afford?
> Or the, "Earned Income Tax Credit," or what?

Pretty much just the EIC.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> 2) Which part of "automatic toll collection raises serious privacy
> problems" did you not understand?

The part about it not being compulsory.

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:57:43 -0800, Antipodean Bucket Farmer
> wrote:

>In article
>,
says...
>> On 11 Mar 2005 05:43:30 -0800, "Larry Bud" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Actually that number is flawed because it only represents taxable
>> >> wages and not other income which is not subject to taxation.
>> >
>> >Do you live in fantasyland? What income is not subject to taxation?
>> >
>> >The number comes right from the IRS.
>>
>> For most taxpayers, there is a difference between gross income and
>> taxable income.
>> For many, the difference is virtually infinite; that is, they pay no
>> taxes on their income.
>> In fact, many get a "refund" on taxes that not only are not due, but
>> were never deducted in the first place.
>
>
>I understand that, people whose income is lower
>than the "Standard Deduction" (about $7K these days?)
>don't owe any tax, and can claim a refund for all of
>the tax withheld during the year. But which people get
>an excess "refund" of money that they never paid? Is
>that just the people with kids whom they cannot afford?
>Or the, "Earned Income Tax Credit," or what?

Yes, earned income tax credit.
With the "credit", tax that was never paid is refunded.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:35:17 -0800, Antipodean Bucket Farmer
> wrote:

>In article
>,
says...
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:48:48 -0500, "Magnulus"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > Why not jus tax fuel- I think it would be more transparent than putting a
>> >tax on driving on certain roads.
>> >
>> In the US, a flat tax (which is what fuel taxes are - everyone pays
>> the same amount on what they use) are not popular.
>> Those who must drive will be hit harder than those who only *choose*
>> to drive, becasue they can choose not to drive, thus lowering their
>> tax.
>
>
>Even if you have to drive, you can often choose to
>drive a small, fuel-efficient car (lighter, and thus
>easier on the road surface), as opposed to choosing a
>large gas-hog SUV (heavier, and thus harsher on the
>road surface.)

Never been poor, eh?
You get what you can afford. The option of getting what's going to
cost you less in the long run often costs more, and is out of reach to
the very poor.

>
>Thus, the amount of fuel tax that an individual pays
>can be connected to the amount of wear-and-tear that
>their vehicle does to the road.
>
>With tolls, the lighter econo-box pays the same as the
>heavier, "mine-is-bigger-than-yours" SUV.
>
>OTOH, the folks who can choose to drive or not are a
>good group for giving that extra incentive to take
>public transit instead, reducing congestion and
>pollution for everyone.
>
>Choice is an interesting thing, and is often quite
>distorted in the individual's mind. My neighbours
>wouldn't even consider getting off their lazy arses and
>*walking* 1.5 km to the store (e.g. for their weekly
>lotto ticket...), and sneer at me for chosen, voluntary
>daily exercise walk. They have just as much option to
>walk as I do, and yet they refuse to accept
>responsibility for choosing to drive.
>
>I have met people who claimed that public transport
>simply wasn't an option at all, because they were just
>a better class of people, who are entitled to private
>car transport (including people who expect others to do
>the driving and provide the car.) They wouldn't wanna
>sink down to the emotional humiliation of riding around
>with those poor black folks...

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

"Daniel J. Stern" > writes:

> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005, Shawn Hearn wrote:
>
> > > Toll booths significantly increase pollution and fuel consumption, and
> > > automatic toll collection raises serious privacy problems.
>
> > That used to be true, but with EZ-Pass transponders, frequent users can
> > just move right through the toll booth without stopping.
>
> 1) If you think traffic proceeds through EZ-Pass checkpoints at normal
> interstate speeds, you've never seen an EZ-Pass checkpoint.

This is generally true, but there are a few toll plazas with EZ-Pass
express lanes which run at or near full speed. For example, both the
north and south end of the New Jersey Turnpike have express toll
plazas which you can drive through at 55 MPH.

At the other extreme, the DE/MD state line toll plaza on the Delaware
Turnpike often backs up on holidays and weekend nights because there are
not enough EZ-Passes; the toll booths cannot handle the traffic volume,
and even the left (EZ-Pass only) lane gets caught in a backup of several
miles. This tollbooth certainly does increase congestion. (I've never
used this toll plaza at rush hour, but I assume it is not as bad,
because the regular commuters do have EZ-Passes and thus the toll plaza
capacity is much higher.)

--
David Grabiner, , http://remarque.org/~grabiner
Baseball labor negotiations FAQ: http://remarque.org/~grabiner/laborfaq.html
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:35:17 -0800, Antipodean Bucket Farmer
> wrote:

>I have met people who claimed that public transport
>simply wasn't an option at all, because they were just

In a lot of cases, it isn't. Less than 1% of the areas in the US have
public transportation.

>a better class of people, who are entitled to private
>car transport (including people who expect others to do
>the driving and provide the car.) They wouldn't wanna
>sink down to the emotional humiliation of riding around
>with those poor black folks...

Or maybe they wan't to get to their destination with the same number
of holes in their body as they left with.

A white person in Chicago wouldn't even consider public transportation
in most areas where it IS available, unless they use it during a very
small window each day. Even then they are at major risk for personal
injury. A huge number of blacks feel the same way, with just slightly
less risk, and a larger window of time where they can get away with
it.

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 08:06:56 -0700, Big Bill > wrote:

>On 11 Mar 2005 05:43:30 -0800, "Larry Bud" >
>wrote:
>
>>> Actually that number is flawed because it only represents taxable
>>> wages and not other income which is not subject to taxation.
>>
>>Do you live in fantasyland? What income is not subject to taxation?
>>
>>The number comes right from the IRS.
>
>For most taxpayers, there is a difference between gross income and
>taxable income.
>For many, the difference is virtually infinite; that is, they pay no
>taxes on their income.
>In fact, many get a "refund" on taxes that not only are not due, but
>were never deducted in the first place.

Thanks to the ****ing liberals in congress. "Bush is being unfair by
lowering the tax rates of those who pay taxes, when he isn't lowering
the tax rates of those who don't pay taxes." Yet the American public
is so ****ing stupid they don't see how ignorant the democrats claims
are.

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:57:43 -0800, Antipodean Bucket Farmer
> wrote:

>I understand that, people whose income is lower
>than the "Standard Deduction" (about $7K these days?)
>don't owe any tax, and can claim a refund for all of
>the tax withheld during the year. But which people get
>an excess "refund" of money that they never paid? Is
>that just the people with kids whom they cannot afford?
>Or the, "Earned Income Tax Credit," or what?

EIC is one way, and the child tax credit is another. Dimocrats fought
Bush because those who pay no tax were not getting a refund exceeding
that which was withheld.

DTJ > wrote in message
news
> Antipodean Bucket Farmer > wrote

>> I have met people who claimed that public
>> transport simply wasn't an option at all,

> In a lot of cases, it isn't. Less than 1% of the
> areas in the US have public transportation.

Thats just plain wrong with the only percentage that matters, the
percentage of individuals who have access to public transportation.

>> because they were just a better class of people, who
>> are entitled to private car transport (including people
>> who expect others to do the driving and provide the car.)
>> They wouldn't wanna sink down to the emotional
>> humiliation of riding around with those poor black folks...

> Or maybe they wan't to get to their destination with
> the same numberof holes in their body as they left with.

Just as true of using their own car, stupid.

> A white person in Chicago wouldn't even consider
> public transportation in most areas where it IS available,
> unless they use it during a very small window each day.
> Even then they are at major risk for personal injury.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that
that is true when they use their own car too, stupid.

> A huge number of blacks feel the same way, with just slightly less
> risk, and a larger window of time where they can get away with it.

Thats coz on one can see them in the dark eh ?

In article says...
> A white person in Chicago wouldn't even consider public transportation
> in most areas where it IS available, unless they use it during a very
> small window each day. Even then they are at major risk for personal
> injury. A huge number of blacks feel the same way, with just slightly
> less risk, and a larger window of time where they can get away with
> it.

I love when right winged ideologues show their true colors. I listened
to Matt Drudge once on his radio show one late Sunday night. When it
comes to the right winged talk radio echo chamber, Matt sits pretty far
down on the food chain with, of course, Limbaugh on top. That said,
Drudge also has to scrape the bottom with respect to callers too. The
only reason I kept listening to his show was that one after another after
another caller sounded just like the above poster. I felt like an
anthropologist diving into the deepest depths of the right winged
ideologue's mind. It was fascinating!