Congress Paving the Way for Tolls on Interstates

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:48:19 -0600, DTJ > 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.

But 'area' doesn't use public transportation. People do.
What percentage of people have access to public transportation?
Remember, there are a lot of people in a very small percentage of area
in the US.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

> EIC is one way, and the child tax credit is another.

The child tax credit isn't refundable. There is an "additional child
tax credit" that can let you carry all or part of the CTC down to the
payments section so it's refundable, but ACTC is limited to 10% of
earned income above some number in the $14k range, so it's not going
to give you money you never worked for the way EIC does.

> Dimocrats fought
> Bush because those who pay no tax were not getting a refund exceeding
> that which was withheld.

But they lost because there's an unfairness on the other side, too:
The "Alternative Minimum Tax", because it's not indexed like the rest
of the tax code, is hitting more and more middle income taxpayers.
Among other things that means that large families get screwed out of
all their kids' personal exemptions. This is an issue that Republicans
want to fix and Democrats don't.

"DTJ" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

They understand the argument - the problem is that too many voters are in
the camp that don't pay taxes so it's in their interests to play along - and
worse, the freeloader subset getting to close to 50% of the voting-eligible
populace. Fortunately, we're not quite there yet - the liberals continue to
lose elections.

We need to make it so that you have to actually have owed (and paid) at
least 10% of the median federal income tax over the past four years in order
to be eligible to vote. Those who don't satisfy this requirement could still
register if they're willing to pay a catchup fee that makes up the
difference.

Big Bill wrote:
>>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.

all the poor people i see are in newer full size trucks/SUVs. mebbe
thats why theyre poor? around here, its not about being well-off. its
about *looking* like you are.

John David Galt wrote:
>
> 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.

Roughly double SS since the worker has to make up the employer's share.

I just did taxes for a handyman with $6K annual income. No tax due, but
the feds want $600 SE tax, reduced by $300 earned income credit. His
employers regard him as an independent contractor and he gets no
disability or workers' comp insurance either. If he complained they'd
find somebody else to do the work.

> > 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.

--
Cheers, Bev
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Never keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level.
It's cheaper." -- Quentin Crisp 1908 - 1999

>> 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.

The Real Bev wrote:
> Roughly double SS since the worker has to make up the employer's share.

Exactly double, in fact (unless the person's SE income is low enough to
get out of paying it, $400 IIRC).

> I just did taxes for a handyman with $6K annual income. No tax due, but
> the feds want $600 SE tax, reduced by $300 earned income credit. His
> employers regard him as an independent contractor and he gets no
> disability or workers' comp insurance either. If he complained they'd
> find somebody else to do the work.

I always pity these people when they come in to the tax office. Not
only are they having to pay the employer's share of the tax, but they
often have to pay a penalty for underwithholding.

In article >, John David Galt wrote:

> I always pity these people when they come in to the tax office. Not
> only are they having to pay the employer's share of the tax, but they
> often have to pay a penalty for underwithholding.

There is no 'employer's share'. A person costs a company X to employ.
How that X is divided up doesn't matter, the employee costs X. Thusly the
part of social security known as the 'employer portion' is nothing more
than wages not seen. It's money earned going to the government as tax.

And yes, it's a tax. There are no property rights to social security at
present.

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> On 12 Mar 2005 06:43:45 -0800, "Williams" >
> wrote:
>
> >authorities have successfully tracked and apprehended people based
on
> >info from toll transponders on fwy 91 in southern calif...
>
> Since you're obviously not a local, where did you hear about it?

let's just say i can name almost every exit on fwy 91 over a distance
of 50 miles

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 20:39:14 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, John David Galt wrote:
>
>> I always pity these people when they come in to the tax office. Not
>> only are they having to pay the employer's share of the tax, but they
>> often have to pay a penalty for underwithholding.
>
>There is no 'employer's share'. A person costs a company X to employ.
>How that X is divided up doesn't matter, the employee costs X. Thusly the
>part of social security known as the 'employer portion' is nothing more
>than wages not seen. It's money earned going to the government as tax.
>
>And yes, it's a tax. There are no property rights to social security at
>present.
>
Something not well understood.

I hope that the current dust-up over SS will encourage the 'people' to
do some investigation into Social Security.
What with the Administration and the Dems both saying they won't talk
to each other untill certain things happen, I find it interesting that
all sides are ignoring the elephant in the parlor: SS is a pyramid
scheme, and it's run its course.
(Note the proper use of "it's" & "its":-) )
We need to understand that the time of more coming in than going out
will end soon, and the SS "surpluses" are in the form of Treasury Note
IOUs, and the Treasury doesn't have the money to redeem them. While an
"Ownership" approach is, IMO, a good thing, there are very fundamental
changes that need to be made, or SS simply will not be able to even
supply what's due me. And *THAT'S* a problem!

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

In article >, Big Bill wrote:

>>And yes, it's a tax. There are no property rights to social security at
>>present.
>>
> Something not well understood.
>
> I hope that the current dust-up over SS will encourage the 'people' to
> do some investigation into Social Security.
> What with the Administration and the Dems both saying they won't talk
> to each other untill certain things happen, I find it interesting that
> all sides are ignoring the elephant in the parlor: SS is a pyramid
> scheme, and it's run its course.
> (Note the proper use of "it's" & "its":-) )
> We need to understand that the time of more coming in than going out
> will end soon, and the SS "surpluses" are in the form of Treasury Note
> IOUs, and the Treasury doesn't have the money to redeem them. While an
> "Ownership" approach is, IMO, a good thing, there are very fundamental
> changes that need to be made, or SS simply will not be able to even
> supply what's due me. And *THAT'S* a problem!

The democrats are telling me I might lose everything in the private account portion.

However, the SSA is telling me that around when I turn 65, the whole thing is
broke. And I mean broke, broke. As there is no more money. And by then the retirement
age will be higher than 65. All the money that is taken from me for social security
is gone. It's an income tax, just like any other.

So, GWB is offering me something, a chance at having some money. Democrats are offering
nothing.

This isn't a tough choice. No matter how much shrub's plan may suck, even if it nets
me 50 cents, it's better than presently proposed alternative of doing nothing.

Just to be fair, President Clinton offered up personal accounts in 1999 to the cheers
of democrats. But now that Bush has taken up carrying the torch the democrats have
decided to oppose it.

Really, I would just like to opt-out. Let me out now, keep everything taken thus far.
I can save money myself, and if need be, can prove it to the government.