This was sent to me via email from a friend in the States i thought people might find interesting & or even humorous as i did.
As time rolls on and as sure as taxes themselves they'll find more & more ways to tax us to death.

Rebel.


''This is too difficult for a mathematician. It takes a philosopher.'' [on filing for tax returns] -Albert Einstein

''Income tax returns are the most imaginative fiction being written today.'' -Herman Wouk

''There's nothing wrong with the younger generation that becoming taxpayers won't cure.'' -Dan Bennett

''Fear is the tax that conscience pays to guilt.'' -Howard Aiken

''The Lord giveth and the Inland Revenue taketh away.'' -Unknown





Dear IRS,

Enclosed is my 2005 tax return showing that I owe $3,407.00 in taxes.
Please note the attached article from USA Today, wherein you will see the
Pentagon is paying $171.50 for hammers and NASA has paid $600.00 for a toilet seat.
I am enclosing four toilet seats (value $2400) and six hammers (value $1029),
bringing my total remitted to $3429.00. Please apply the overpayment of $22.00
to the "Presidential Election Fund," as noted on my return.

You can do this inexpensively by sending them one 1.5" Phillips Head screw
(article from USA Today detailing how HUD pays $22.00 each for 1.5" Phillips Head
Screws is enclosed for your convenience.)

It has been a pleasure to pay my tax bill this year, and I look forward to paying
it again next year.

Sincerely,
A Satisfied Taxpayer


TODAYS TAXES :
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes)
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax (44 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax Interest Expense (tax on the money THEY paid tax on already)
Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal , State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-Recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Toll Bridge Taxes
Toll Tunnel Taxes
Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
Trailer Registration Tax Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax


COMMENT:
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation
was the most prosperous in the world, had absolutely no national debt,
had the largest middle class in the world and Mom stayed home to raise
the kids

What--------------happened?


n

browsing the net a few months ago i came across a documentary called
america freedom to fascism, here

and although i'm not from the states i found it very informative

it would appear from the docu that the vast majority of americans do not have to pay income tax

Excellent REBEL! Hilarious!


womble1970, I'm sorry I couldn't watch your link because my connection is slow. Now, I'm not sure about everyone else, but even though we get some breaks on our federal taxes, the state usually takes it all. In the end it adds up, especially with the taxes we have to pay for so many other things. In many places, people are required to pay local taxes on top of state and federal. I'm all for paying my fair share to keep society and gpvernment working well, but seriously, when the government spends 600 bucks on a toilet seat, there is something way off there, and it's not just toilet seats! Our money is being flushed somewhere, but I have a feeling it's into someone's pocket.

Taxes suck. I paid around 45k in taxes this year. No way around. The IRS don't play.

Saw the clip Womble,...it's all one big $cam $et-up for the mega rich & shamele$$...cool link!

I hear ya uhmanduh, so long as i see my hard earned tax dollars being put to genuine good use, i could'nt be happier. ...$ee!


45k is a lot of tax for anyone to pay per annum eric, the average income earner would be lucky to earn that or double that per year, hope your accountant gets you back some/most of that @ the end of the financial year? ... i send mine a 'thinking of you/hope your well card' every now and then.

Later.


I have nothing against people making lot$ of money FACT...personally i sleep better @ nights when my pockets are full...but when the mega rich try to avoid paying tax AT ALL...that $tinks big time. -Rebel



Paul ONeill, the Secretary of the Treasury, who earned $56.4 million last year as the main man at Alcoa and got away with paying no payroll tax not a dimes worth on over 55 million bucks worth of his compensation. So while Mr. ONeill pays no tax on 99 percent of his income, virtually all the rest of us pay a payroll tax on 100 percent of what we make. And this creep is now popping up in front of Congressional committees saying he wants his income tax cut. Oy! (read those last 6 words again) $hame Tax break$



When i said earlier they wanted to tax us to death...man they're also taxing us 'in death'! -Rebel

The "Death" Tax is killing family business.

A family-owned business stands to lose nearly half of all its assets when it passes from one generation to the next. That's over half of everything, including land, buildings, equipment, money, and more� all because of the current Estate Tax law which is really a tax on death.

The reality is, people can't afford to pass on their business. They sell out, letting long-time employees go. Not because they want to. But because they have to. And the echo reverberates through an entire community. ashe$ to ashe$ du$t to du$t ... Au$$ie made


Some cool info on money... In God we tru$t There is about 500 billion of U.S. currency in circulation and most of it is held outside of the United States?

I got back 13k but that still leaves 32k they kept and that is crap. I think we should go to a consumption tax and wipe out income tax.

That's a short list. There are more taxes than this, no?

we need to get Rid of about 98% of All of Congress and the House. Quit voting in the kennedys and specters that keep Growing things like this.

And then, start Reversing the Rotten and get Back to al Healthy nation.

If we can't do this it's going to get bloody.

Shhhh, don't give them any more ideas

I'm not too clued in with what kind of taxes you guys have over there but i hear ya eric, the problem with a 'consumption' tax is if and when they introduce any kind of 'new easier & simpler tax' like the ''GST'' (Goods & Services Tax) which is basically the more you buy of ANYTHING new or get this....secondhand*wtf* the more you pay in tax that we have here and in other countries, it's just piled on to all the other taxes that are already milking the system dry. I'm fairly certain that all GST's start off @ 10% as it did here but i hear in France it's around the 25% now....and growing stronger.
Most countries brought in the GST to help take the burden off the lower & middle class and hit the rich where it hurts, sought of a conscience cleanser for the government to the poorer working class...who are they trying to kid...meanwhile we still have all the other taxes floating around

Anyway in answer to the reply, the reality is that once ANY kind of new tax is introduced & once in place it will never ever be removed *ouch*

Later eric.

25%. Crap. The way I spend I would end up paying more then with the income tax. I know taxes are necessary to run a country, but there has to be a better way. Just a little info. Here in Texas we have a 2 billion surplus in the budget and instead of using it for roads they sale the right to more toll roads here in Dallas. So we have the money, but they will not use for its purpose.

So where or what are they doing with the tax payer dollars over there then??

Let me find & or Google exactly what they do pay in GST in other countries.


Later.

They just have the excess sitting in a fund. Not using it at all. Unbelievable.

Here, check this out...i wasn't far off lol! ...


* Australia 10% - GST
* Canada 7% - GST
* France 19.6% - VAT
* Germany 16% - VAT
* Japan 5% - Consumption Tax
* Netherlands 19% - VAT
* Singapore 5% - GST
* United Kingdom 17.5% - VAT

GST

Edit: This will explain the GST better than i ever could eric... ...it ain't pretty i tell ya bouy<<thats my Texan impersonation

Later.

Taxes giveth as GST taketh away...

Everyone who's socially aware knows the introduction of the goods and services tax - as it happens, exactly five years ago last week - made the tax system a lot more regressive.

Except that everyone is wrong.

Associate Professor Neil Warren of Atax at the University of NSW and Professor Ann Harding and Rachel Lloyd of Natsem at the University of Canberra have just produced a study of "GST and the changing incidence of Australian taxes", which reaches some surprising conclusions. It's published in the eJournal of Tax Research.

A "progressive" tax is one that takes a progressively bigger proportion of people's incomes as incomes rise. A "regressive" tax is the opposite: it takes a progressively smaller proportion of people's incomes as incomes rise.

The popular conviction that the GST caused the tax system to become more unfair is based on a simple logic: the GST is an indirect tax, all indirect taxes are regressive, therefore the system has become more regressive.

But that logic was always too simple. For a start, the GST was replacing various old indirect taxes that were regressive also. For another thing, the decision not to tax food made the GST a lot less regressive than it could have been. For a third, there were many other changes in the tax reform package - including increases in welfare benefits and huge cuts in income tax - so what effect did they have?

Clearly, the effect of the GST package isn't something you can work out in your head. You have to study the figures very carefully. Which is just what Warren & Co did. They compared the position in 1994-95 (the Labor government's second last year) with the position seven years later in 2001-02 (after the GST had been going two years).

They found that the GST was indeed a bit more regressive than the indirect taxes it replaced. On the "progressivity index" (where anything above zero is progressive, anything below zero is regressive and zero is "proportional" - that is, neither progressive nor regressive), the GST scored minus 0.17, whereas the previous taxes scored minus 0.16.

Don't forget, however, that how regressive a tax happens to be is just one dimension of its effect. The other is whether you use the regressive tax to raise a lot of money or a little. (This is known as the "height" of the tax.)

Over the seven years to 2001-02, household pre-tax income rose by 36 per cent in nominal terms, while collections from indirect taxes rose by 59 per cent.

So not only was the GST a bit more regressive than the taxes it replaced, but the Government used it to raise more revenue than before. This meant that the proportion of their income paid in indirect tax by all households rose from 9.3 per cent to 9.7 per cent.

But that's just the first part of the story - and the first step in the sum. Warren & Co found that the progressivity index for income tax rose a fraction from 0.223 to 0.225. So while the GST was making indirect taxes a bit more regressive, income tax was becoming a fraction more progressive.

What's more, the Government was using it to raise a lot more revenue. While household income rose by 36 per cent, revenue from income tax rose by well over 60 per cent.

In consequence, the proportion of income paid in income tax by all households rose from 18.6 per cent to 19.5 per cent.

What was it that caused income tax to become a fraction more progressive? The same thing that caused income-tax collections to grow so strongly: bracket creep.

In other words, the huge income-tax cut that accompanied the introduction of the GST in July 2000 wasn't sufficient to outweigh the Government's failure to index the tax scales every year.

Income tax became a fraction more progressive because the absence of tax indexation hit higher income-earners a bit harder than it hit lower income-earners.

Finally, if we lump together all the other federal and state taxes - but particularly company tax - we find that they're mildly regressive. But their score on the progressivity index improved a bit from minus 0.08 to minus 0.07.

This favourable development, however, was pretty much offset by the fact that these taxes, too, were used to raise a lot more revenue. The proportion of income paid in "other taxes" by all households rose a little from 15.9 per cent to 16.1 per cent.

Now, let's start putting it all together. Because income tax and other taxes became a bit more progressive at the same time as the GST was making indirect taxes a bit more regressive, and because income tax raises about twice as much revenue as indirect taxes do, the combined effect was actually to make the whole tax system a little more progressive.

The system's score on the progressivity index rose from 0.035 to 0.037. (Note, however, that this very low score - not far above zero - means the total tax system is only just progressive. It's a bit more redistributive than if it was only proportional - that is, if everyone was losing the same percentage of their income - but not by much.)

So far, we've been looking at how progressive the tax system is and then, by taking account of the increase in the amount of revenue raised by it, at how much redistributing of income from rich to poor it's doing.

But now let's look at what happened to the distribution of income over the seven years to 2001-02 and what part the tax system played in the change.

The most common way of summarising the inequality of incomes between households is to use the "Gini coefficient". If the coefficient was zero, that would mean income was divided perfectly equally between all households; if it was 1, that would mean one household had all the income.

According to Warren & Co's figuring, the distribution of pre-tax income became a bit more unequal over the period, with the Gini rising from 0.33 to 0.36.

But the distribution of after-tax income hardly moved, with the Gini virtually unchanged at 0.33.

So, notwithstanding the introduction of the *evil GST* , the tax system became a little more progressive and redistributive, and this was sufficient to counteract a worsening in the distribution of pre-tax income, leaving the distribution of after-tax income essentially unchanged.

Warren & Co conclude that, despite all the changes during the seven-year period - in the tax and transfer system, the economy and the characteristics of households - the distribution of the tax burden and the distribution of household income were remarkably stable.

Ross Gittins is the Herald's Economics Editor.

GST...we voted for it lol!

I guess it's been said before, GST or any new tax for that matter always sounds & starts off user family friendly enough for everyone but then........

Here in Nevada, The former Governor set aside a nice sum of money, for unwed mothers, to help with medical costs for the babies. At the last minute, he decided to give a few people payraises, and took back the money he had set aside for the medical. The amount of money that all the government officials get's paid is just stupid. I don't understand why all the former persidents get so much money still, I don't understand why they get a salary, PLUS we pay for their security guards, and in addition to that, their wives get a salary. We all get taxed, and the single mothers with 6 kids, on welfare, working 12 hours a week, get's back more money then they earned, or that I paid in. Then you get the single mothers of 2 or 3 kids, working full time, paying out any extra money she has in child care, and breaks even on her taxes. I just don't get how this all works. The honest ones, are the ones that get the short end of the stick.

Yea i'm sure there is Celumnaz, but these are just the taxes that never existed 100yrs ago and the country was financially & economically the greatest in the world according to the email.

Now America is in debt for...wait for it...$ 48 Trillion - - and soaring every minute of every day rapidly even....and who's pay'n for it...

Later.



America has become more debt-dependent - - than ever before with total debt of $48 trillion, or $161,287 per man, woman and child and each added dollar of new debt produces less increased national income

America's total debt

America's total debt summary page

BIG PICTURE - $48 TRILLION of DEBT in America, and rising rapidly the economy is 2-3 times more debt-dependent - - with $29 Trillion DEBT EXCESS compared to prior debt ratios!