Juror#8 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) Incongruence: How is it that someone can pay $9,400 in Federal taxes, claim no withholdings throughout the year, yet only receive around 10% back as a refund... Yet.... A mother of three, who pays $1900 in Federal taxes throughout the year, receives almost $8000 back as a refund. She receives 4 times her initial federal tax exposure, and nearly 1/2 her gross income...and for what!?!?! The articulated policy behind Earned Income Tax Credit is to offset the burden of social security and to provide incentive to work. Yet the grapevine says that qualifying persons with families, in many instances, will work up to EIC limits and quit because that lump sum check is more advantageous and financially significant than working throughout the year and possibly disqualifying themselves for EIC. I believe that social welfare is a necessary program and that the benefits, in the aggregate, outweigh its, admittedly, considerable negatives. But the way that tax distribution, EIC, refunds, withholdings, etc. is handled is pathetically bad...like recklesslessly so. Shame on the Libs for passing that heap of garbage legislatively and shame on Ford or whomever for signing it into law. It is legislation without purpose. The articulated aim of the legislation is bull **** and is undermined by it's very own requirements. Edited February 6, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) Incongruence: How is it that someone can pay $9,400 in taxes, claim no withholdings throughout the year, yet only receive around 10% back as a refund... Yet.... A mother of three, who pays $1900 in Federal taxes throughout the year, receives almost $8000 back as a refund. She receives 4 times her initial federal tax exposure, and nearly 1/2 her gross income...and for what!?!?! The articulated policy behind Earned Income Tax Credit is to offset the burden of social security and to provide incentive to work. Yet the grapevine says that qualifying persons with families, in many instances, will work up to EIC limits and quit because that lump sum check is more advantageous and financially significant than working throughout the year and possibly disqualifying themselves for EIC. I believe that social welfare is a necessary program and that the benefits, in the aggregate, outweigh its, admittedly, considerable negatives. But the way that tax distribution, EIC, refunds, withholdings, etc. is handled is pathetically bad...like recklesslessly so. Shame on the Libs for passing that heap of garbage legislatively and shame on Ford or whomever for signing it into law. It is legislation without purpose. The articulated aim of the legislation is bull **** and is undermined by it's very own requirements. This is what happened to me the first time my wife and I filed for taxes after we had our first child. It was kind of strange to get back more than we paid in. It never happened since nor would I want it to since I feel the rich don't pay the same burden as the rest of us. But I agree it's piss poor tax code and needs to be changed. Edited February 6, 2012 by Bigfatbillsfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 This is what happened to me the first time my wife and I filed for taxes after we had our first child. It was kind of strange to get back more than we paid in. It never happened since nor would I want it to since I feel the rich don't pay the same burden as the rest of us. You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 You're an idiot. I don't like it when people get called names but in this case I agree. Slob man mocking my dead Uncle Eugene in the other thread was just over the line IMO. He is an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 This is what happened to me the first time my wife and I filed for taxes after we had our first child. It was kind of strange to get back more than we paid in. It never happened since nor would I want it to since I feel the rich don't pay the same burden as the rest of us. But I agree it's piss poor tax code and needs to be changed. So you got back more than you put in once and many people get a lot more back than they put in every year and I have a client who routinely pays $250k-$300k in federal taxes alone but you feel it necessary to add that little tidbit that I've bolded above. What the hell man, that sentence doesn't even make sense. You might as well have said my dog is black therefore he should be able to drive a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 So you got back more than you put in once and many people get a lot more back than they put in every year and I have a client who routinely pays $250k-$300k in federal taxes alone but you feel it necessary to add that little tidbit that I've bolded above. What the hell man, that sentence doesn't even make sense. You might as well have said my dog is black therefore he should be able to drive a car. That's racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 That's racist. No it's not, his dog prefers that to African American seeing none of his ancestors ever came from Africa. I know...I asked him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 That's racist. Just because he can play basketball doesn't mean he can drive a car. Let's see if he can play hockey, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 You're an idiot. I will allow this copyright infringement to slide, just this once, on the grounds that it was pretty much the only correct response you could give. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 This is what happened to me the first time my wife and I filed for taxes after we had our first child. It was kind of strange to get back more than we paid in. It never happened since nor would I want it to since I feel the rich don't pay the same burden as the rest of us. But I agree it's piss poor tax code and needs to be changed. And the the interest on your overpayment of tax's was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 And the the interest on your overpayment of tax's was? He got back more than he paid in because he was eligible for Earned Income Credit (EIC) once he had a child. On another note, I hope the child takes after it's mother. Then again who's more of an idiot, the idiot or the one who marries the idiot? Poor kid.* *Not said to knock his family members, just him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 That's racist. You joke eh? I'm really considering bringing a 5th Amendment Due Process claim in Federal Court because I sincerely feel that my tax return has been impacted on account of my race. The "woman" in the story is white but yet she is going to get more than she paid in. I'm black, and I get less. This is just another example of the takings that my people have endured for the last 400 years. Jesse Jackson is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 You said: You might as well have said my dog is black therefore he should be able to drive a car. I said it was racist. You said: No it's not, his dog prefers that to African American seeing none of his ancestors ever came from Africa. I know...I asked him. Which missed the point entirely. You assumed that since the dog was driving it was a "HE". This is racist against women. You joke eh? I'm really considering bringing a 5th Amendment Due Process claim in Federal Court because I sincerely feel that my tax return has been impacted on account of my race. The "woman" in the story is white but yet she is going to get more than she paid in. I'm black, and I get less. This is just another example of the takings that my people have endured for the last 400 years. Jesse Jackson is right. Isn't the 5th amendment "Thou shall not kill"? What does that have to do with taxes? If it is the adultery one you could claim you are getting screwed I guess but I would find a lawyer first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 You said: I said it was racist. You said: Which missed the point entirely. You assumed that since the dog was driving it was a "HE". This is racist against women. Isn't the 5th amendment "Thou shall not kill"? What does that have to do with taxes? If it is the adultery one you could claim you are getting screwed I guess but I would find a lawyer first. You're thinking of Prohibition. That was repealed last year and, to, plus forthwith Speakeasys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 You joke eh? I'm really considering bringing a 5th Amendment Due Process claim in Federal Court because I sincerely feel that my tax return has been impacted on account of my race. The "woman" in the story is white but yet she is going to get more than she paid in. I'm black, and I get less. This is just another example of the takings that my people have endured for the last 400 years. Jesse Jackson is right. You get 3/5 according to old law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 You get 3/5 according to old law. And a mule. YOU PEOPLE conveniently forget the mule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 You're thinking of Prohibition. That was repealed last year and, to, plus forthwith Speakeasys. I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 And a mule. YOU PEOPLE conveniently forget the mule. And you people always fail to mention the 40 acres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 This is what happened to me the first time my wife and I filed for taxes after we had our first child. It was kind of strange to get back more than we paid in. It never happened since nor would I want it to since I feel the rich don't pay the same burden as the rest of us. It's amazing to me that a person can genuinely sit down, have this thought, write it down, post it to a message board, and then manage to make it through the rest of the day without accidentally taking their eyes out with a fork while trying to eat lunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 It's amazing to me that a person can genuinely sit down, have this thought, write it down, post it to a message board, and then manage to make it through the rest of the day without accidentally taking their eyes out with a fork while trying to eat lunch. What's amazing is that he figured out how to father a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts