Romney Avoids Taxes via following the law

[Metsfanmax]

Yeah, the current definition of marriage applies equally to everybody. The government's perspective on marriage has absolutely no bearing on who a person loves or even is sexually attracted to.

This was also "true "before Loving v. Virginia. A man could get married to any woman he wanted, so long as they were the same color. Applies "equally" to everyone, amirite?

[thegreekdog]

Maybe if people were actually treated equally and paid the same rate, or even only paid a sales tax, these semantics wouldn't be an issue.

By the way, check out the detail this woman went through to deduce exactly how much money she pays in taxes: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/maryland-woman-has-kept-track-of-every-tax-on-her-in-2012-and-youre-not-going-to-believe-how-much-shes-paid-so-far/

That headline is kind of absurd. Anyone who is in the middle class and pays taxes knows that ~30% of your income will go to taxes. In what way is this article documenting anything other than a paranoid woman who likes to use Excel?

I respectfully disagree. I doubt most middle class people know what percentage of their income goes to taxes. I've thought about figuring it out for myself, but I don't have that much time.

[Metsfanmax]

Maybe if people were actually treated equally and paid the same rate, or even only paid a sales tax, these semantics wouldn't be an issue.

By the way, check out the detail this woman went through to deduce exactly how much money she pays in taxes: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/maryland-woman-has-kept-track-of-every-tax-on-her-in-2012-and-youre-not-going-to-believe-how-much-shes-paid-so-far/

That headline is kind of absurd. Anyone who is in the middle class and pays taxes knows that ~30% of your income will go to taxes. In what way is this article documenting anything other than a paranoid woman who likes to use Excel?

I respectfully disagree. I doubt most middle class people know what percentage of their income goes to taxes. I've thought about figuring it out for myself, but I don't have that much time.

You may not be able to figure your tax rate down to the 1% level without a couple of calculations, but 5 minutes on the internet suffices to determine your approximate state and federal income taxes.

[thegreekdog]

Maybe if people were actually treated equally and paid the same rate, or even only paid a sales tax, these semantics wouldn't be an issue.

By the way, check out the detail this woman went through to deduce exactly how much money she pays in taxes: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/maryland-woman-has-kept-track-of-every-tax-on-her-in-2012-and-youre-not-going-to-believe-how-much-shes-paid-so-far/

That headline is kind of absurd. Anyone who is in the middle class and pays taxes knows that ~30% of your income will go to taxes. In what way is this article documenting anything other than a paranoid woman who likes to use Excel?

I respectfully disagree. I doubt most middle class people know what percentage of their income goes to taxes. I've thought about figuring it out for myself, but I don't have that much time.

You may not be able to figure your tax rate down to the 1% level without a couple of calculations, but 5 minutes on the internet suffices to determine your approximate state and federal income taxes.

Right, but most people leave out income tax withheld from paychecks (instead focusing on the end dollar, which is probably most accurate), social security, medicare taxes, sales taxes, and pass through of taxes by others. Those last four probably make up a large percentage of total taxes for most people.

[Metsfanmax]

Maybe if people were actually treated equally and paid the same rate, or even only paid a sales tax, these semantics wouldn't be an issue.

By the way, check out the detail this woman went through to deduce exactly how much money she pays in taxes: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/maryland-woman-has-kept-track-of-every-tax-on-her-in-2012-and-youre-not-going-to-believe-how-much-shes-paid-so-far/

That headline is kind of absurd. Anyone who is in the middle class and pays taxes knows that ~30% of your income will go to taxes. In what way is this article documenting anything other than a paranoid woman who likes to use Excel?

I respectfully disagree. I doubt most middle class people know what percentage of their income goes to taxes. I've thought about figuring it out for myself, but I don't have that much time.

You may not be able to figure your tax rate down to the 1% level without a couple of calculations, but 5 minutes on the internet suffices to determine your approximate state and federal income taxes.

Right, but most people leave out income tax withheld from paychecks (instead focusing on the end dollar, which is probably most accurate), social security, medicare taxes, sales taxes, and pass through of taxes by others. Those last four probably make up a large percentage of total taxes for most people.

Well, just focusing on payroll taxes, most companies give a list of what was withheld from your paycheck in a given pay period, so you can just add up the taxes and divide it by the gross income for that pay period to determine your effective payroll tax rate. Obviously that will be an overestimate since you'll get some of that refunded the next April, but that won't change your tax rate by more than a few percent.

Sales taxes and other non-payroll taxes, sure that requires a little more time to figure out and is dependent on how much you spend, but you can even estimate that really quickly if you have a rough idea what fraction of your paycheck you actually spend, and the local sales tax rate.

[BigBallinStalin]

Mets, the point is that "most middle class people know what percentage of their income goes to taxes."

You say "no."

TGD says, "oh rly? cuz here's some problems."

Then you imply that it's so easy because you can do X, Y, and Z for payroll taxes, oh but then the argument falls apart because calculating total taxes extracted from purchases and other taxes is costly to calculate.


Of course, no one's offering empirical data (surveys) on how many middle class Americans know how much they are taxed per year, but based on the above conversation, I opting toward "most middle class people know what percentage of their income goes to taxes" because the costs of acquiring this information are too high.

[Metsfanmax]

Mets, the point is that "most middle class people know what percentage of their income goes to taxes."

You say "no."

TGD says, "oh rly? cuz here's some problems."

Then you imply that it's so easy because you can do X, Y, and Z for payroll taxes, oh but then the argument falls apart because calculating total taxes extracted from purchases and other taxes is costly to calculate.


Of course, no one's offering empirical data (surveys) on how many middle class Americans know how much they are taxed per year, but based on the above conversation, I opting toward "most middle class people know what percentage of their income goes to taxes" because the costs of acquiring this information are too high.

OK, my statement should be amended to "most middle class people can easily figure out what percentage of their income goes to taxes, if they care." If you think you can't be bothered to do 10 minutes of research to figure out how much your income tax rate is because the "costs of acquiring this information are too high," you either A) truly don't care or B) are a moron.

Also, your post doesn't make sense.

[BigBallinStalin]

Mets, the point is that "most middle class people know what percentage of their income goes to taxes."

You say "no."

TGD says, "oh rly? cuz here's some problems."

Then you imply that it's so easy because you can do X, Y, and Z for payroll taxes, oh but then the argument falls apart because calculating total taxes extracted from purchases and other taxes is costly to calculate.


Of course, no one's offering empirical data (surveys) on how many middle class Americans know how much they are taxed per year, but based on the above conversation, I opting toward "most middle class people know what percentage of their income goes to taxes" because the costs of acquiring this information are too high.

OK, my statement should be amended to "most middle class people can easily figure out what percentage of their income goes to taxes, if they care." If you think you can't be bothered to do 10 minutes of research to figure out how much your income tax rate is because the "costs of acquiring this information are too high," you either A) truly don't care or B) are a moron.

Also, your post doesn't make sense.

Why don't they care? Because the perceived costs don't offset the benefits. What affects their valuation? It isn't 'not caring' itself that matters. It depends on what else one could be doing, and how does one perceive the benefits of knowing how much the State and Federal bandits extract from you? Seems depressing (for some).

And 10 minutes for you is not 10 minutes for everyone else. Imagine counting every sales receipt to calculate one's total sales tax.... That's not 10 minutes, so why say that it is? "Because they have records of their weekly purchases." They do? If not, it won't be 10 minutes.

At least you amended your contention, but if you did, then why do you say that my post doesn't make sense? (otherwise, you wouldn't have been convinced to revise your stance)...

[Metsfanmax]

Why don't they care? Because the perceived costs don't offset the benefits. What affects their valuation? It isn't 'not caring' itself that matters. It depends on what else one could be doing, and how does one perceive the benefits of knowing how much the State and Federal bandits extract from you? Seems depressing (for some).

I don't care why they don't care. I'm not making a value judgment. I'm just saying that if you want to know your effective payroll tax, it does not take an Excel spreadsheet.

And 10 minutes for you is not 10 minutes for everyone else. Imagine counting every sales receipt to calculate one's total sales tax.... That's not 10 minutes, so why say that it is? "Because they have records of their weekly purchases." They do? If not, it won't be 10 minutes.

We are talking about income/payroll taxes. That has nothing to do with effective sales tax. At any rate, what I was saying is that you can get a rough estimate for your total sales tax payment in a few minutes as well, without consulting every receipt.

At least you amended your contention, but if you did, then why do you say that my post doesn't make sense? (otherwise, you wouldn't have been convinced to revise your stance)...

I did not amend my contention. I meant that everyone who cares to know their tax rate, has no reason not to know it. My original statement did not make that clear, so I amended the words to more accurately express my original feeling.

Also, your post doesn't make sense because it's grammatically a failure if you meant to disagree with my statement, but since I determined that from the general tone of your post, I inferred what you were actually trying to say.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why don't they care? Because the perceived costs don't offset the benefits. What affects their valuation? It isn't 'not caring' itself that matters. It depends on what else one could be doing, and how does one perceive the benefits of knowing how much the State and Federal bandits extract from you? Seems depressing (for some).

I don't care why they don't care. I'm not making a value judgment. I'm just saying that if you want to know your effective payroll tax, it does not take an Excel spreadsheet.

What if it's too costly to calculate all of one's taxes? What then? They don't care enough? That doesn't explain anything useful, so we must ask "why don't they care enough?" (Because it's too costly to calculate, and the costs of calculating it don't justify the benefits.) That explanation matters, and that's not making a value judgment to explain why they don't care enough.

So, the middle class doesn't calculate their taxes because they don't care enough. You ignore their costs for doing so because you assume all can simply estimate all their taxes within 10 minutes--or a few minutes if we include sales tax.

We are talking about income/payroll taxes. That has nothing to do with effective sales tax. At any rate, what I was saying is that you can get a rough estimate for your total sales tax payment in a few minutes as well, without consulting every receipt.

TGD: " I doubt most middle class people know what percentage of their income goes to taxes."

Taxes, dude. All of them. Even the article linked by NS talks about all taxes ("how much money she pays in taxes"). Only you are talking about payroll/income taxes, so you're being irrelevant at this point because your criticism is off topic.

How does everyone get a rough estimate of their sales tax in a few minutes? (Assume everyone does good accounting?) The costs differ in obtaining this information, so it could be a few minutes or 10 minutes or > 2 hours. Why do you assume that the costs of obtaining all this information would be less than 10 minutes for everyone in the middle class?

I did not amend my contention. I meant that everyone who cares to know their tax rate, has no reason not to know it. My original statement did not make that clear, so I amended the words to more accurately express my original feeling.

Also, your post doesn't make sense because it's grammatically a failure if you meant to disagree with my statement, but since I determined that from the general tone of your post, I inferred what you were actually trying to say.

Well, obviously that's incorrect because there are good reasons why some people do not calculate all their taxes (which is the topic). The topic isn't tax rates or payroll and income taxes.

[Metsfanmax]

What if it's too costly to calculate all of one's taxes? What then? They don't care enough? That doesn't explain anything useful, so we must ask "why don't they care enough?" (Because it's too costly to calculate, and the costs of calculating it don't justify the benefits.) That explanation matters, and that's not making a value judgment to explain why they don't care enough.

Except that people are acting irrationally because they don't know how long it takes to calculate; they just assume that it would require a great deal of effort, when in fact it does not. I will assert without further justification that if you aren't willing to devote 10 minutes of your time determining the answer to this question, you don't really care. I am not interested in getting into a normative debate about this, because I think it is a common sense response.

So, the middle class doesn't calculate their taxes because they don't care enough. You ignore their costs for doing so because you assume all can simply estimate all their taxes within 10 minutes--or a few minutes if we include sales tax.

This is not a very strong assumption. If someone was given a list of instructions for how to estimate their taxes, it should take less than 10 minutes, assuming that they do have the information they need readily available to them. I can't really imagine how it would take longer unless a person is really, really bad at math.

We are talking about income/payroll taxes. That has nothing to do with effective sales tax. At any rate, what I was saying is that you can get a rough estimate for your total sales tax payment in a few minutes as well, without consulting every receipt.

TGD: " I doubt most middle class people know what percentage of their income goes to taxes."

Taxes, dude. All of them. Even the article linked by NS talks about all taxes ("how much money she pays in taxes"). Only you are talking about payroll/income taxes, so you're being irrelevant at this point because your criticism is off topic.

Your quote, and TGD's quote, both specifically mention income. When one refers to taxes on income, one is specifically not referring to sales taxes or VATs that occur when a consumer makes a purchase. Now, the original article did discuss a person who was also including consumption taxes in their total calculation, which would make sense if you were trying to answer the question "how much in taxes do I give to the government" (which is not what the quote above references).

What I'm pointing out is that consumption taxes are just a totally different conversation, because two people with the same salary and deductions will pay the same in payroll taxes, in general, but may have wildly different consumption habits. You can always control how much you pay the government in sales taxes, just by purchasing fewer things.

How does everyone get a rough estimate of their sales tax in a few minutes? (Assume everyone does good accounting?) The costs differ in obtaining this information, so it could be a few minutes or 10 minutes or > 2 hours. Why do you assume that the costs of obtaining all this information would be less than 10 minutes for everyone in the middle class?

It is quite simple. Take your net income, and subtract out any money you put in the bank, and any monthly payments you make (cell phone bills, insurance, rent, etc.). Assume that what's left is spent (otherwise your wallet is going to get full of unused cash rather quickly). Then multiply that number by the local sales tax rate. That way you don't need to count up your receipts. Is it rough? Sure. But it's a decent estimate.

Well, obviously that's incorrect because there are good reasons why some people do not calculate all their taxes (which is the topic). The topic isn't tax rates or payroll and income taxes.

I don't particularly care what the "topic" is to begin with, because there is no reason to know the exact number of dollars you pay to the government. It would not have made a substantial difference if that woman had gotten a number that was rounded off to the nearest thousand. It would not have changed her argument at all.

[BigBallinStalin]

What if it's too costly to calculate all of one's taxes? What then? They don't care enough? That doesn't explain anything useful, so we must ask "why don't they care enough?" (Because it's too costly to calculate, and the costs of calculating it don't justify the benefits.) That explanation matters, and that's not making a value judgment to explain why they don't care enough.

Except that people are acting irrationally because they don't know how long it takes to calculate; they just assume that it would require a great deal of effort, when in fact it does not. I will assert without further justification that if you aren't willing to devote 10 minutes of your time determining the answer to this question, you don't really care. I am not interested in getting into a normative debate about this, because I think it is a common sense response.

You don't know what normative means, so we can't realize any returns with this discussion, but I'll respond quickly.

So, the middle class doesn't calculate their taxes because they don't care enough. You ignore their costs for doing so because you assume all can simply estimate all their taxes within 10 minutes--or a few minutes if we include sales tax.

This is not a very strong assumption. If someone was given a list of instructions for how to estimate their taxes, it should take less than 10 minutes, assuming that they do have the information they need readily available to them. I can't really imagine how it would take longer unless a person is really, really bad at math.

Sure, assume the costs of obtaining this information would be less than 10 minutes, then you can conclude that it would take less than 10 minutes.

We are talking about income/payroll taxes. That has nothing to do with effective sales tax. At any rate, what I was saying is that you can get a rough estimate for your total sales tax payment in a few minutes as well, without consulting every receipt.

TGD: " I doubt most middle class people know what percentage of their income goes to taxes."

Taxes, dude. All of them. Even the article linked by NS talks about all taxes ("how much money she pays in taxes"). Only you are talking about payroll/income taxes, so you're being irrelevant at this point because your criticism is off topic.

Your quote, and TGD's quote, both specifically mention income. When one refers to taxes on income, one is specifically not referring to sales taxes or VATs that occur when a consumer makes a purchase. Now, the original article did discuss a person who was also including consumption taxes in their total calculation, which would make sense if you were trying to answer the question "how much in taxes do I give to the government" (which is not what the quote above references).

What I'm pointing out is that consumption taxes are just a totally different conversation, because two people with the same salary and deductions will pay the same in payroll taxes, in general, but may have wildly different consumption habits. You can always control how much you pay the government in sales taxes, just by purchasing fewer things.

You're saying that:

"how much money she pays in taxes" != "how much in taxes do I give to the government"

<shrugs>

How does everyone get a rough estimate of their sales tax in a few minutes? (Assume everyone does good accounting?) The costs differ in obtaining this information, so it could be a few minutes or 10 minutes or > 2 hours. Why do you assume that the costs of obtaining all this information would be less than 10 minutes for everyone in the middle class?

It is quite simple. Take your net income, and subtract out any money you put in the bank, and any monthly payments you make (cell phone bills, insurance, rent, etc.). Assume that what's left is spent (otherwise your wallet is going to get full of unused cash rather quickly). Then multiply that number by the local sales tax rate. That way you don't need to count up your receipts. Is it rough? Sure. But it's a decent estimate.

Assume everyone pays using plastic, assume they have this information readily available, and assume that it takes <10 minutes (in addition to the other calculations) in order to find one's total taxes paid, and then conclude that it takes 10 minutes. In other words, assume costs are low, then conclude that they're low.

Well, obviously that's incorrect because there are good reasons why some people do not calculate all their taxes (which is the topic). The topic isn't tax rates or payroll and income taxes.

I don't particularly care what the "topic" is to begin with,

That probably explains the source of your disputes with me in this thread. I give up.

[Metsfanmax]

You don't know what normative means, so we can't realize any returns with this discussion, but I'll respond quickly.

Besides the fact that this is wrong, I fail to see how whether or not I understand the word normative has any bearing on the discussion of taxes. That's a weak ad hominem argument, although quite appropriate for this forum, apparently.

Sure, assume the costs of obtaining this information would be less than 10 minutes, then you can conclude that it would take less than 10 minutes.

Yes, I made an assumption, and then I made a conclusion based on that assumption. Welcome to the world of logical debate. The next step would be to justify the assumption if it were seriously challenged. Since you haven't challenged the assumption (all you've done is make abstract logical arguments instead of actually engaging me on the merits of the discussion), I see no fault in this reasoning.

And it's not hard to justify the assumption. All you have to do is look at a printed paycheck (or your online pay stub, if you have direct deposit). It takes less than 10 minutes. All of the information is already on there (it states directly what payroll taxes were withheld).

You're saying that:

"how much money she pays in taxes" != "how much in taxes do I give to the government"

<shrugs>

I don't understand how you could possibly infer that this was my argument.

Assume everyone pays using plastic, assume they have this information readily available, and assume that it takes <10 minutes (in addition to the other calculations) in order to find one's total taxes paid, and then conclude that it takes 10 minutes. In other words, assume costs are low, then conclude that they're low.

Nothing in here required them to use a credit card. I pointed out explicitly that you don't need to track your day-to-day expenses to generate this estimate. If you do everything online, you can easily retrieve the information. If you pay by check, then you probably know by heart how much your monthly bills are.

That probably explains the source of your disputes with me in this thread. I give up.

I had no intentions of getting into an argument with you, so I don't particularly care what it is you were intending to debate, or thought I was trying to say. I am making an argument that is directly related, and perhaps slightly tangential, to the story that NS posted. Sorry if I wasn't arguing what you wanted me to argue. I am not here to have a debate on how to make an argument. If you would like to actually provide an example where a person could not come up with this information easily, please do so. Otherwise, kindly step out. Sometimes your argumentation for the sake of argumentation is amusing, but most of the time it just makes you annoying.

[BigBallinStalin]

Sure, assume the costs of obtaining this information would be less than 10 minutes, then you can conclude that it would take less than 10 minutes.

Yes, I made an assumption, and then I made a conclusion based on that assumption. Welcome to the world of logical debate. The next step would be to justify the assumption if it were seriously challenged. Since you haven't challenged the assumption (all you've done is make abstract logical arguments instead of actually engaging me on the merits of the discussion), I see no fault in this reasoning.

For example,

Claim: unicorns exist.

Assume that unicorns exist.
Therefore, unicorns exist.

The only way to resolve your claim about costs for all middle class Americans is empirically. Do you want to go there? Because I don't. The benefits aren't worth the costs for this discussion. All I'm pointing out is how bold your assumption is, and that it lacks empirical support (i.e. it's based only on your personal observation, which is problematic).

I've already challenged your assumption: "Assume everyone pays using plastic, assume they have this information readily available" etc. (then you insert additional caveats, but your argument still remains problematic here). You challenge these assumptions, and I deal with that below.


The main point here is that you're assuming costs are equal for all based on your own personal observation. That's a problem you should at least acknowledge with your argument.

Assume everyone pays using plastic, assume they have this information readily available, and assume that it takes <10 minutes (in addition to the other calculations) in order to find one's total taxes paid, and then conclude that it takes 10 minutes. In other words, assume costs are low, then conclude that they're low.

Nothing in here required them to use a credit card. I pointed out explicitly that you don't need to track your day-to-day expenses to generate this estimate. If you do everything online, you can easily retrieve the information. If you pay by check, then you probably know by heart how much your monthly bills are.

Dude, then fit in your own caveats with my criticism. Does everyone pay online? Does everyone know by heart their monthly bills? Does everyone know what you know about your own payments? Does everyone do as you do in your own assumptions ("they don't track their day-to-day expenses with credit cards, cuz it's all online!")?

You're arguing "yes, they do." That's a problem because not everyone does that. This should be obvious to you. You're assuming unicorns to prove that unicorns exist.

You're saying that:

"how much money she pays in taxes" != "how much in taxes do I give to the government"

<shrugs>

I don't understand how you could possibly infer that this was my argument.

(see below)

That probably explains the source of your disputes with me in this thread. I give up.

I had no intentions of getting into an argument with you, so I don't particularly care what it is you were intending to debate, or thought I was trying to say. I am making an argument that is directly related, and perhaps slightly tangential, to the story that NS posted. Sorry if I wasn't arguing what you wanted me to argue. I am not here to have a debate on how to make an argument. If you would like to actually provide an example where a person could not come up with this information easily, please do so. Otherwise, kindly step out. Sometimes your argumentation for the sake of argumentation is amusing, but most of the time it just makes you annoying.

I don't get this. The article is about ALL taxes, TGD mentions ALL taxes, NS mentions ALL taxes, and you shifted to "only payroll/income taxes," but then you zig-zag throughout your responses. I mean, come on! When they mention "income," you left out the context. It's not only about income tax and payroll tax; it's all about how many taxes are deducted from your income, as in "net income" or "all income."

Hence,

NS: "how much money she pays in taxes",
TGD: "I respectfully disagree. I doubt most middle class people know what percentage of their income goes to taxes. "

TGD isn't talking just about one's income tax.

Here's straight from the article:

The middle class Dundalk, MD, resident notes that she had to expand her list a number of times due to the hidden taxes she kept discovering. The average entry features a relatively small amount, sometimes only pennies, but it is all there. Gas taxes, state and federal taxes, special Maryland alcohol tax, cell phone taxes and “Bay Restoration Fees,” road tolls, mandatory union dues, and on and on.

[/quote]

It's about ALL taxes. You take net income and deduct ALL taxes. That's the topic.


RE: underlined
Do all your online payments reflect those taxes? (How about the tax included within gas, alcohol, etc.? You'll have to separate those out, which won't take 10 minutes). Do all middle class people pay road tolls online? How about cell phone taxes (which have to be separated from the total in the bill). This takes more than 10 minutes.

[BigBallinStalin]

You don't know what normative means, so we can't realize any returns with this discussion, but I'll respond quickly.

Besides the fact that this is wrong, I fail to see how whether or not I understand the word normative has any bearing on the discussion of taxes. That's a weak ad hominem argument, although quite appropriate for this forum, apparently.

Maybe there's something to be gained here.

Read the wiki definition of normative economics and positive economics (1st 2 paragraphs should be sufficient). The normative is about making claims like "it ought to be X." Positive economics is about "explaining what it is"---not "what it ought to be."

"Value judgments" belongs in the normative field. It's not "value" in the sense of perceived benefits and costs. "Value judgments" refer to judgments involving one's norms, moral disposition, etc. E.g. "this is morally wrong," "this is morally right."



Here's your position against which I contend:

his is not a very strong assumption. If someone was given a list of instructions for how to estimate their taxes, it should take less than 10 minutes, assuming that they do have the information they need readily available to them. I can't really imagine how it would take longer unless a person is really, really bad at math.

What exactly from my post is normative? If you understand "value judgments," "normative," and "positive," then you would conclude with "oh, your position is not normative."

Except that people are acting irrationally because they don't know how long it takes to calculate; they just assume that it would require a great deal of effort, when in fact it does not.

Sure, there's uncertainty which affects one's perceived benefits and costs (this is positive economics, not normative).

However, for reasons already stated, your assumptions are outta-whack, and your criticism about people "not caring enough" fails to explain why they do not care. You provide "there is uncertainty" as defense, yet you keep assuming that the costs of 'doing what you do' are the same for calculating ALL taxes which are deducted from one's net income (which is the point here).

If you're not discussing ALL taxes, then your entire argument is irrelevant to the main issue.
If you reject that you're discussing benefits and costs (i.e. perceived value/profit), then you'll be contradicting yourself because of all your "low-cost" claims in your assumptions.

[HapSmo19]

Jesus. Do you people exist in some sort of wormhole where spare time is infinite?

[2dimes]

Jesus. Do you people exist in some sort of wormhole where spare time is infinite?

For the time being.

[jimboston]

(congrats on logging on under the correct account this time).

Does this actually mean something?

What made you think that it might not? Don't get paranoid Jim.

I'm not paranoid.

I'm just trying to figure out what you actually mean with your post(s).

You have a tendency to be vague... but NOT in the interesting/funny way that Saxi does it... in an annoying and smug way.

I picture you sitting at your computer laughing at some secret joke that only you get... but when we finally peel back the layers we always seems to find that the "joke" was never really funny... it was just a bunch of random words. Like arguing with a "bot" in a chat room.

[jimboston]

You're whole point is that people care about the rates... fine, then your candidate should use precise language to explain exactly what he means. He should not use imprecise language to confuse the general public into thinking something that is not factually correct.

Uh...let he whose candidate has not sinned cast the first stone, or something like that.

Well yeah... they all try to confuse the electorate.

The taxes one is just particularly annoying.

[jimboston]

(congrats on logging on under the correct account this time).

Does this actually mean something?

What made you think that it might not? Don't get paranoid Jim.

You do seem to either be accusing or trolling...which is it?

Oh, Jim is a troll account.

How so?

I actually am making a point... you're just throwing barbs.

[jimboston]

Eh? I find jimboston considerably more reasonable than many of the conservative posters here (I would even say "most", now that I think about it). So what account do you believe to be his real one?

Thank you for the defense... but am I truly a "conservative"?

In another thread I recently explained my evolving view of same-sex-marriage.

Call me "moderate libertarian w/conservative leanings"... thanks.

[thegreekdog]

You don't know what normative means, so we can't realize any returns with this discussion, but I'll respond quickly.

Besides the fact that this is wrong, I fail to see how whether or not I understand the word normative has any bearing on the discussion of taxes. That's a weak ad hominem argument, although quite appropriate for this forum, apparently.

Maybe there's something to be gained here.

Read the wiki definition of normative economics and positive economics (1st 2 paragraphs should be sufficient). The normative is about making claims like "it ought to be X." Positive economics is about "explaining what it is"---not "what it ought to be."

"Value judgments" belongs in the normative field. It's not "value" in the sense of perceived benefits and costs. "Value judgments" refer to judgments involving one's norms, moral disposition, etc. E.g. "this is morally wrong," "this is morally right."



Here's your position against which I contend:

his is not a very strong assumption. If someone was given a list of instructions for how to estimate their taxes, it should take less than 10 minutes, assuming that they do have the information they need readily available to them. I can't really imagine how it would take longer unless a person is really, really bad at math.

What exactly from my post is normative? If you understand "value judgments," "normative," and "positive," then you would conclude with "oh, your position is not normative."

Except that people are acting irrationally because they don't know how long it takes to calculate; they just assume that it would require a great deal of effort, when in fact it does not.

Sure, there's uncertainty which affects one's perceived benefits and costs (this is positive economics, not normative).

However, for reasons already stated, your assumptions are outta-whack, and your criticism about people "not caring enough" fails to explain why they do not care. You provide "there is uncertainty" as defense, yet you keep assuming that the costs of 'doing what you do' are the same for calculating ALL taxes which are deducted from one's net income (which is the point here).

If you're not discussing ALL taxes, then your entire argument is irrelevant to the main issue.
If you reject that you're discussing benefits and costs (i.e. perceived value/profit), then you'll be contradicting yourself because of all your "low-cost" claims in your assumptions.

Wow, this spun out of control quickly. This appears to be a "I don't want to admit I was wrong" scenario.

It is really this simple. In order to accurately calculate an amount paid in taxes by an individual, one would have to take all income-based taxes (more easily determined) and add them up. Then one would need to take direct taxes paid that are not income-based taxes (sales taxes), which is more difficult because one has to literally determine which purchases the person paid sales tax and which the person did not (and states vary as to what is subject to sales tax). And then it gets even more difficult when an individual must determine how much money they pay for products and services that are reimbursements of taxes. For example, when one pays for gasoline, there is no separate charge for tax, but tax is included in the overall price. For example, if someone pays for tax consulting services on an hourly basis, the relevant firm likely calculates its hourly rate to account for income taxes the firm has to pay. These are virtually impossible to calculate.

I'm not making a judgment call here, I'm just pointing out that an individual probably pays 50% or more of his or her income in taxes, directly or indirectly.

[Metsfanmax]

I do not want to continue this anymore, because it is a silly argument. It will suffice to say that my interpretation of TGD's post was that he was referring to only income taxes, since he said the word "income" in the post. The traditional language when discussing taxes is that when you refer to "how much of one's income goes to taxes," that is logically distinct from "how much of one's spending money goes to taxes." The former language is always used to refer to state and federal payroll taxes (as well as capital gains taxes and the like). Even the language is reminiscent of this: when you use a phrase like "goes to taxes," you are referring to that money which is forcibly and passively (at least, in the case of paycheck withholding) taken from you instead of that money you willingly give to the government (through consumption taxes). Admittedly this is vague, because you can also consider the spending money you have to be part of your income, I guess, but that's not the traditional interpretation (because the money that you spend is not always money that is part of your "income"). I assumed TGD knew this distinction and was therefore restricting the debate to income/payroll taxes.

The only real interesting point here is how one would calculate indirect taxes, such as the taxes that go into your cell phone bill charge. That does require a bit more research (although most or all of this information is online, somewhere), and as TGD points out, it may even substantially change your effective tax rate, if those things constitute a large fraction of what you spend your money on. I was not talking about these things, nor are they particularly interesting to me. I apologize if I did not meet your expectations for what you wanted me to argue.

[thegreekdog]

I didn't want you to argue anything.

The only real interesting point here is how one would calculate indirect taxes, such as the taxes that go into your cell phone bill charge. That does require a bit more research (although most or all of this information is online, somewhere), and as TGD points out, it may even substantially change your effective tax rate, if those things constitute a large fraction of what you spend your money on. I was not talking about these things, nor are they particularly interesting to me. I apologize if I did not meet your expectations for what you wanted me to argue.

I have on idea how to begin to do this. I don't even think there is publicly available information on most companies.

My theory here is that most, if not all, taxes fall to people who are employees. There is no way for me to pass my taxes on to other people, although Walmart can pass their own taxes on to me if I shop there. Anyway, this is something to think about.

[Metsfanmax]

I have on idea how to begin to do this. I don't even think there is publicly available information on most companies.

My theory here is that most, if not all, taxes fall to people who are employees. There is no way for me to pass my taxes on to other people, although Walmart can pass their own taxes on to me if I shop there. Anyway, this is something to think about.

You don't necessarily need to get the information from the company; it might be available from the state, or from publicly available regulations. For example, the state gasoline tax is information that is easy to find.

A three minute Google search found me this:

http://www.ksefocus.com/wordpress-conte ... es-PDF.pdf