It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is this a true statement ?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 10:52 AM
I have made this image and was just wondering if all of you think this
is a true depiction of taxes...

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 06:15 PM
I'd say that's pretty close if the .40 in the second part equals all the basic (and not so basic) neccessities of life.

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 06:28 PM
Yeah, that sounds about right.
Always giving the working man (and women) the shaft (and not the cool Richard Roundtree Shaft either...)
What I don't understand is, if you get your federal/state taxes removed from your paycheck, then how is it possible that you still might owe the gov't money?
(I mean, theoritically I know how it's possible, but moraly/ethically, it just doesn't make sense...)
My dad (who was a treasurey dept./IRS manager for his whole career) couldn't even fully understand (or perhaps he did, but couldn't tell me...); all he would say to me was "the more you make, the more they take"
(thanx dad...)

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 09:44 PM
Yes and no. 40% tax in the first part is federal, state, and local and assumes a certain tax bracket. The best I've ever made is $30/hour for 50-60 hour weeks. I losing about 33% out of my check, and I got a good slice of it back on my return. So I think that's probably wrong for the average working class joe. If you're making six or seven figures and getting caught with the Alternative Minimum Tax, that's probably true though.

Then there's the claim that 2/3 of everything you pay at the checkout is taxes. That's just plain not true. Not even a little bit close. The only way that is true is if you count the tax to the manufacturer, tax to the shipper, tax to the store, tax to the cashier's wages, and sales tax.

But if you did that, then you couldn't count the taxes from the first part, because you're an employee somewhere, and your income taxes are being counted on somebody elses purchases in accordance with part 2.

In other words, they're double and triple counting taxation to make this argument.

In reality, a guy making around 60k in Southern California could probably expect to lost 1/3 on taxes, 7% on sales tax, making it a square 40%

Then you factor in the higher percentages on gasoline and property, but then you get into writeoffs... it's tricky. But 40-50% is probably the range.

Now the question you've got to ask yourself is this- if they weren't taxing you to give you the things those taxes buy, would you have to go out and buy them?

You got a 13 year education from the government when you were a kid and you're not paying off student loans from that.

You've got roads to drive on- imagine if you had to join a club like those toll-lanes with a radio transponder on your car, and you got a bill in the mail if you took a road that didn't belong to the plan you subscribe to.

You got emergency services- they feel like a waste until you really need them, and I'm well aware that there's never a cop around when you need one (I found that out by burying a family member), but we're better off with 'em than without 'em.

Realistically, I think we could save maybe 10% of our income with a tighter tax policy before we started making cuts that were bad for the economy- I could be wrong, but I think that if we got down into the 10/20% overall tax range, our quality of life would probably suffer. We'd lose some infrastructure and the rest would go up in price because it was for-profit, then you may have to worry about inflation as prices in general go up so that those in the upper class can buy up the luxuries that we all used to share on a not-for-profit basis.

A little taxation can be a good thing. For instance, suppose my city bumps the sales tax on fast food only by like half a cent. So I pay a dollar nine for a hamburger that used to cost a dollar eight. Then they take that money and they improve the local park- maybe put in a novelty like a water slide or something. Now of course that park is a hot spot. Property values around it get a slight boost maybe, the hamburger joint across the street does an extra $100K in business every year, they bump their wages a buck so they can get the best people, move their lines faster and take full advantage of this new business, the kids working there have got an extra grand a piece that year, they hit the mall with that obviously... money moves and thats good for the city, and part of they money isn't even our money- its coming in from outsiders who bought a hamburger for an extra penny while they were visiting our park.

As long as taxes are well thought out and well invested in the public good, I don't have any beef with them. I still hate paying them, but what are ya gonna do? Problem is that they could be MUCH better managed than they are. We do have to work on that a bit.

posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 11:59 PM
from bye view that looks ritte but it really depends wich state you in and all the tax stuf but withought that it looks somewhat correct.

in the words of Ben Franklen"Only two things are certain in this country Death and Taxes"

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 12:05 AM

Originally posted by imbalanced
I have made this image and was just wondering if all of you think this
is a true depiction of taxes...

I would love to see this work when you are finished. I hope you intend to put realistic figures into everything that accounts for how much we actually end up with.

People are blind to realize that whenever there money moves, a tax is usually involved. You are taxed for your labor, and taxed when you spend it, and in varying amounts depending on what it is.

edit: I think if you add in finance charges on credit, most people would probably be running a deficit all the time. Is it any wonder this nation is in debt beyond what we can pay.

[edit on 25-7-2006 by ben91069]

new topics


log in