Anyone still have to do their taxes?

[NGM]

Isn't there a charge for Turbo Tax?

[Phanatic]

I use software like every year because I need complex sofware to figure out the tax code. It seems that senators and politicos haven't figured that out as their taxes are all farged up...

[Father Demon]

If I ran the country - 8% of all income.  FLAT TAX, baby....   that's the way it should be.

Can you imagine?

Income (A): __________________
Tax = 8%
Tax owed (A * .08): _________________

Could it really be that simple?

[Rome]

No, it really isn't that simple.

[Diomedes]

No, it's not the way it should be.

[rjs246]

A flat tax won't work, but it should be a hell of a lot simpler than it is. Massive overhaul.

[Feva]

This is about the right time to file if you want a speedy return. If you filed already, you might still be waiting for it because there's the bare minimum of people handling returns. If you wait until April, there's more people handling returns but there's 30 times as many returns coming in.

I filed for mine (through Turbo Tax) in the beginning of February and got my return back about a week and change later.

[Rome]

This is a great analysis of the "fair tax" issue with pros and cons on each side:

* Federal income taxes would be completely abolished. According to Fairtax.org, this would include all ancillary taxes on personal income such as estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, self-employment, Social Security, Medicare, and payroll taxes.

    * With the repeal of federal income taxes, the IRS (Internal Revenue Service or Income Robbery Service, depending on one's perspective) would have much less power to snoop into the personal and private financial lives of American individuals. Ideally, the IRS would simply cease to exist.

    * The Fair Tax would be "progressive" in the sense that it would avoid taxing financially challenged (i.e., poor) people for basic necessities. This is accomplished by means of a "prebate", which according to Fairtax.org would be $2,348 per year for a single person or $6,297 per year for a family of four.

    * The Fair Tax is calculated to be "revenue neutral", meaning that all current government services would continue to be fully funded because the money that is raised from this national sales tax would be equal to the amount of revenue that is lost due to the repeal of federal income taxes. Programs such as Social Security, Medicare, etc. would be unaffected.

    * Because this tax system is consumption-based rather than income-based, people could exercise a certain amount of control over how much tax they pay. Since the tax is only applied to new (not used, secondhand, etc.) items at the point of sale, a relatively frugal person could avoid paying taxes on most things, and might even make money because of the "prebate". Meanwhile, wealthy people who choose to live "high on the hog" without paying attention to their spending choices would probably pay more tax.

    * Since the Fair Tax only taxes consumption, it would not punish businesses for expanding and creating more jobs, investing in research and development, or donating to charity. Also, because the individuals who create and maintain those businesses would have more disposable income to expand and compete in international markets (assuming that they make relatively wise choices, see the point above).

    * The base price of goods and services (that is, their cost of production before adding any taxes, profits, etc.) would be lower because the embedded costs of the current income tax system would no longer be a factor. This would partially offset the increase in the total price of new products and services that would result from the Fair Tax.

    * From the standpoint of government revenue collection, the "problem" of tax evasion would be reduced because people who currently resist paying income taxes and/or derive their income from black market sources would be taxed automatically at the point of sale whenever they purchase new goods and services. Moreover, the government would no longer need to spend taxpayer money in order to chase down income tax evaders.

    * A national sales tax such as this would be much more transparent than the current tax system. There would be no more loopholes, special exemptions, payroll taxes, embedded costs, or other factors that allow people under the current system to avoid realizing how much tax they are actually paying. With the amount of taxation clearly visible to the general public, people (hopefully) would be less likely to tolerate wasteful spending, corruption, and inefficiency in government, resulting in lower levels of taxation and a stronger economy overall.


Cons:

    * The retail price of new goods and services would increase.

    * If the income tax is not fully repealed as promised OR a future president and/or Congress decides to re-instate some portion of the income tax code under the guise of a "national emergency" or something similar, we could end up with a national sales tax AND an income tax, which would be disastrous for our economic freedom.

    * The actual rate of the national sales tax would be 30%, not 23% as the Fair Tax proponents claim. This difference is due to the deceptive language that the proponents use to describe the tax rate calculation. Not only is this deception insulting, but it also makes it easier for the government to raise the tax rate in the future because people will think that the current rate is lower than it actually is.

    * Unlike the income tax brackets, this national sales tax proposal is not indexed for inflation, meaning that as inflation increases the base price of goods and services, the amount of sales tax that you pay will also increase.

    * People who have paid into the Social Security system and/or private savings accounts for retirement will be effectively double taxed when they begin withdrawing their money and spending it. This is because most of the money that people have managed to save up to this point already has been taxed under the current system.

    * Because tax rates would be simplified under the national sales tax system, this could ironically make it easier for the government to raise the tax rate on certain items that it deems "unhealthy" or "dangerous". If this occurs, things such as fatty foods, cigarettes, firearms, and an indeterminate number of other politically unpopular items could wind up being taxed at exorbitant rates, which would certainly go against the spirit of a "fair" tax system.

    * If the Fair Tax is sufficiently high (like 30% or more), this could encourage more people to enter the black market in order to avoid the tax. This could cause crime that is often associated with black markets to escalate and effectively criminalize otherwise ordinary people.

    * The "prebate" that is built into the Fair Tax system could actually do more harm than good in the long run because it would effectively put all Americans (except those without Social Security numbers) on the government dole, and this could create problems with dependency and the "free lunch" mentality as experienced by recipients of current government welfare programs.

    * The Fair Tax does nothing to solve the underlying cause of high taxation, which is excessive government spending. As long as the federal government keeps spending taxpayer dollars on things that it has no business being involved with in the first place, it will continue to require high taxes in order to finance its expenditures, including the increasing cost of the national debt. Simply changing the method of taxation is not going to change the root causes of unfair taxes.

The bold paragraph is the single biggest concern I have and it's the major reason why I think a fair tax wouldn't work at all.  The current system is a mess but it's nirvana compared to what would occur if the flat tax system is adopted.

[Butchers Bill]

30% or more??  Everything would go to the black market.  There are some European countries now that have a very healthy black market for day-today things like groceries and home repair.  They'll even quote you two prices.  1,000 with a receipt, 700 without.

[ice grillin you]

WASHINGTON ― The Internal Revenue Service today released new withholding tables that will result in more take-home pay this spring for millions of American workers.

The new tables incorporate the new Making Work Pay credit, one of the key tax provisions included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that became law earlier this week.

"For most taxpayers, the additional credit will automatically start showing up in their paychecks this spring," said IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. "Since employers and payroll companies will handle this change, people typically won't need to take any additional action. The IRS will continue working to implement this and other provisions of the new law as quickly as possible."

Many higher-income taxpayers will see little or no change in their take-home pay. That's because the Making Work Pay credit is phased out for a married couple filing a joint return whose modified adjusted gross income (AGI) is between $150,000 and $190,000 and other taxpayers whose modified AGI is between $75,000 and $95,000.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

the Making Work Pay credit is phased out for a married couple filing a joint return whose modified adjusted gross income (AGI) is between $150,000 and $190,000

I need a lower-paying job.  Or my lady needs to stay at home barefoot, popping out babies.

Obama's policies may cause me to procreate more, suckers.  I may go Duggar-style on your shtein.

[Diomedes]

oh, you poor thing.  it must be hard to get by on such a tight budget

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

I'm just saying - if the tax structure reduces the impact on our lifestyle from earning less money, we are receiving an incentive not to work - or at least for one of us not to work.

Obviously, it's just a microcosm of what will happen in the country as a whole.

[rjs246]

More jobs for the rest of us.

[ice grillin you]

More jobs for the rest of us.

lol