# Taxation is theft



## Pie driver (Apr 29, 2016)

Honestly why on earth are we taxed, isn't uber supposed to be like giving a friend a ride and him giving me 5 bucks, do I have to report it if said fringe gave me 5 bucks, we should be exempt from taxes....


----------



## UberTaxPro (Oct 3, 2014)

A friend giving you $5 for a ride is taxable, technically.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Pie driver said:


> Honestly why on earth are we taxed, isn't uber supposed to be like giving a friend a ride and him giving me 5 bucks, do I have to report it if said fringe gave me 5 bucks, we should be exempt from taxes....


Membership dues.


----------



## Stygge (Jan 9, 2016)

Many uber drivers don't have to pay tax on their ubering as their cost exceeds their revenue.


----------



## UberTaxPro (Oct 3, 2014)

Stygge said:


> Many uber drivers don't have to pay tax on their ubering as their cost exceeds their revenue.


Should we be taxed? C 
a. yes
b. no
c. only if you make a profit


----------



## Bill Collector (Dec 17, 2015)

No wonder working "under the table" is so profitable.. I like the idea of taxing goods and services..just flat tax of certain percentage...No tax on income... Maybe that's not sustainable.


----------



## UberTaxPro (Oct 3, 2014)

Bill Collector said:


> No wonder working "under the table" is so profitable.. I like the idea of taxing goods and services..just flat tax of certain percentage...No tax on income... Maybe that's not sustainable.


It would be nice if the tax system could somehow reward and encourage hard work and income producing activities instead of always taking more when we earn more.


----------



## MikeCable60 (Apr 22, 2016)

Bill Collector said:


> I like the idea of taxing goods and services..just flat tax of certain percentage...No tax on income... Maybe that's not sustainable.


The problem is that the less money you make, the higher percentage of your income goes to taxes. Poor people spend most of their money on goods and services. Rich people spend a tiny percentage of their money on actual goods and services. Their investment income would be un-taxed. So you and I would be subsidizing Bill Gates and the Koch brothers...sound fair to you?



UberTaxPro said:


> It would be nice if the tax system could somehow reward and encourage hard work and income producing activities instead of always taking more when we earn more.


If you want the system to reward rich people by paying less of their income in taxes than poor people, that's what you have. Rich people get most of their income from investments. Income from investments is taxed at a much lower rate than income from working. It's called Capital Gains. That's why, when Mitt Romney reported his taxes in 2012, he showed that he was paying taxes at the rate of 13% on income from his $250,000,000 fortune, while I paid at about #30%, while working for a living. That seem fair to you? How about this? The poor don't pay taxes, middle income people pay more than them, and rich people pay more than us. You get more. You give more. Not a higher percentage when you're rich, but you're not allowed to game the system to that you don't pay your fair share.

It sucks, but if we don't have taxes, we don't have a government. The less government we have, the more fabulously wealthy people can take advantage of people like you and me. You may not like government...I don't either....but try no government for a while. We live in a society. We have to pay taxes. Yeah, I'd like the system to be fairer, too.


----------



## UberTaxPro (Oct 3, 2014)

MikeCable60 said:


> The problem is that the less money you make, the higher percentage of your income goes to taxes. Poor people spend most of their money on goods and services. Rich people spend a tiny percentage of their money on actual goods and services. Their investment income would be un-taxed. So you and I would be subsidizing Bill Gates and the Koch brothers...sound fair to you?
> 
> If you want the system to reward rich people by paying less of their income in taxes than poor people, that's what you have. Rich people get most of their income from investments. Income from investments is taxed at a much lower rate than income from working. It's called Capital Gains. That's why, when Mitt Romney reported his taxes in 2012, he showed that he was paying taxes at the rate of 13% on income from his $250,000,000 fortune, while I paid at about #30%, while working for a living. That seem fair to you? How about this? The poor don't pay taxes, middle income people pay more than them, and rich people pay more than us. You get more. You give more. Not a higher percentage when you're rich, but you're not allowed to game the system to that you don't pay your fair share.
> 
> It sucks, but if we don't have taxes, we don't have a government. The less government we have, the more fabulously wealthy people can take advantage of people like you and me. You may not like government...I don't either....but try no government for a while. We live in a society. We have to pay taxes. Yeah, I'd like the system to be fairer, too.


"The problem is that the less money you make, the higher percentage of your income goes to taxes." Really? have you looked at the tax brackets lately? If your income is low enough you'll pay 0 income tax. True that investments are taxed less than income but most investment money (mine anyway) was originally income and had income tax paid on it when it was earned.


----------



## MikeCable60 (Apr 22, 2016)

@UberTax - The point I was making was that a VAT-type tax on goods and services places a higher burden on poor people than rich people, because they pay a much higher percentage of their income to buy stuff, compared to someone wealthy.

As far as income tax, it depends how you look at the brackets. Sure, the guy who made $200,000 last year paid a higher percentage than the guy who made $50,000. To me, the more interesting point is that the guy who made $100,000,000 last year is going to pay less of a percentage of his wealth, no matter how you slice it, than either the guy at $200,000, or the guy at $50,000.

Do I think it's fair that a guy who made $300,000,000 last year by investing his daddy's money well, but didn't actually do anything, should pay taxes on his investment income. Yes, I do. Some guys in that bracket are smart, some are dumb as rocks, and lucky. What they have in common is that they're living in a parallel universe where they, and the next 6 generations of their family will never have to lift a finger to have every material thing they ever wanted. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that they should pay as high a percentage of their income in taxes as a guy struggling to make his car payment every month. To me, that's just basic fairness. I don't want to soak them. I don't want to nationalize their daddy's business. I just think they should pay their fair share. What's that? Well, you can argue about it, but I don't think the economy will collapse if a guy living off his billion dollar trust fund has to pay taxes at a rate as high as mine. I mean pay taxes, not be exposed to a high tax rate, then pay lawyers to get him out of paying taxes.

Is that unfair? Which guy do you want to be, the billionaire, or the guy struggling to pay his mortgage? If you're still ok with being the billionaire, even if he has to pay taxes at the same rate as me, then why feel sorry for him?


----------



## UberTaxPro (Oct 3, 2014)

MikeCable60 "the guy who made $100,000,000 last year is going to pay less of a percentage of his wealth, no matter how you slice it, than either the guy at $200,000, or the guy at $50,000." what does his "wealth" have to do with how much he pays in income tax? Give me an example with some #'s, not sure if I'm looking at the brackets the same way you are.


----------



## atthehop (Jul 24, 2015)

Pie driver said:


> Honestly why on earth are we taxed, isn't uber supposed to be like giving a friend a ride and him giving me 5 bucks, do I have to report it if said fringe gave me 5 bucks, we should be exempt from taxes....


Death and Taxes are mandatory, don't like it! you can leave the US but death cannot be stopped.


----------



## UbieWarrior (Apr 15, 2015)

Well with the Obamacare black hole, it almost pays to not report all your deductions to make your income higher. 

Pay $1000 in extra federal taxes and earn $3000-$6000 yr in free health insurance.

Low income pays lower taxes, rich pay low and middle gets screwed.


----------



## MikeCable60 (Apr 22, 2016)

UberTaxPro -

1. Your wealth shouldn't have anything to do with your income tax rate, but it does. Folks whose incomes are way above $1,000,000 typically have a large percentage of their income as capital gains, which is taxed at a much lower rate.

2. Numbers? A guy making $225,000 a year, doing nicely in Boston metro, but not fabulously wealthy, and certainly dependent on a weekly paycheck, is paying his taxes at a 33% rate. When Mitt Romney was running for president, he disclosed his tax returns. He was making well into 8 figures in income, the vast majority in capital gains, on assets of about $250,000,000. He was paying at a net rate of about 13%. Last time I checked, a married couple making $19,000 a year pays 15%.

That's fair to you?

I don't want to live in a communist country, or even a socialist country. I just think it's time that we figure out that in the 19th century, when we last had an incredibly weak and small central government, and a ridiculously rich and powerful moneyed class, it didn't work out so well for anyone who wasn't a dues-paying oligarch. We may not like the government, but we're stuck with having some kind of central power to make and enforce laws to protect the less powerful from the excesses of the more powerful. It's a sad fact, but in all societies where power resided with the wealthy, and laws applied to everyone except the wealthy, it never worked out well for anyone...including, eventually, the rich.

I just think the wealthy should pay at least as much as the poor and middle class to make our society run.


----------



## UberTaxPro (Oct 3, 2014)

MikeCable60 said:


> UberTaxPro -
> 
> 1. Your wealth shouldn't have anything to do with your income tax rate, but it does. Folks whose incomes are way above $1,000,000 typically have a large percentage of their income as capital gains, which is taxed at a much lower rate.
> 
> ...


Basically what you're saying is that the rates for capital gains and income tax should be equal. The guy in Boston making $225,000 is paying mostly income tax. Mitt Romney, like you said was paying mostly capital gains tax.
A* capital gain* is defined as the profit made by a taxpayer on the sale of an asset-sales price less cost basis. If a capital gain is realized after the underlying asset has been held less than one year, it is taxed at ordinary income tax rates as high as 39.6% .
Capital gains tax is theoretically a tax on money that has already been earned and has already had income tax paid on it. Income tax is paid only once, when you earn the money. Mitt Romney apparently doesn't need a job so he doesn't pay much income tax. The capital gains tax he is paying is on investment returns on money that he (or someone) already paid income tax on. 
Unless the guy in Boston does some serious tax planning he's gonna be paying a lot in income taxes. At least if he's able to hang on to some of it he won't have to pay income tax on it ever again. *If Mitt Romney takes a job with the same company he'll be subject to the same income tax rules as the Boston guy for the same earned income, his wealth would give him no advantage in the amount of income tax he would pay like you're implying.* 
Capital gains rates have varied from 12.5% to 35%. Lowering them increases investment activity which is good for the economy(job creation etc..). Increasing capital gains tax results in less investment activity(less jobs like the guy in Boston has). They're low now because the economy needs help. I understand your displeasure with some aspects of capitalism but I disagree with putting the blame on the ever changing capital gains tax.


----------



## MikeCable60 (Apr 22, 2016)

Yeah, I went to business school too. I get that the low capital gains tax incentivizes long term investment. I just don't agree that the gain to the economy outweighs the burden to everyone else who has to make up the difference. If you tax capital gains as income, and lower the top rate to 25% - but everyone actually has to pay that - there's more revenue and, let's face it, the guy with $100,000,000 isn't going to stop investing and put all his money in a pillowcase just because he has to pay 25% tax on it when he realizes a gain...just not going to happen like that.

Your argument about Mitt Romney taking a job is a complete red herring. If you made him walk barefoot from LA to New York he'd get blisters just like everyone else, but so what? It's never going to happen. If Mitt had to go to work 40 hours a week he'd have to pay the same tax rate as me, but he'll never have to, nor will his children or grandchildren. He can buy every car, house, vacation, and every other luxury he ever wanted, plus investing in whatever he wants, and he'll never come close to squandering enough wealth to have to go to work. Should he have to pay the same percentage of the money he makes in taxes as a guy who can only afford one new pair of shoes every year? I think he should, just as a simple ethical issue. I understand the incentives for wealth creation, but I just think he ought to be happy to pay the same tax rate as everyone else, especially since there's not a thing on earth he'll have to give up to do so.

Likewise, the issue of "paying twice" is a specious argument. There's no fundamental law of nature that says you only pay taxes on each dollar once, now and forever. I think we just have a fundamental disagreement, not just on the ethics of wealth, but on the good that comes from having some minimal sort of balance on the scales when it comes to wealth and power. I'm an investor, a serial entrepreneur, and between my wife and I we run 4 businesses. We work hard, and we don't take anything from anybody. I also believe that it's not just bad for poor people to be unable to access decent medical care and education, in the end it's bad for rich people too. A guy invests $100,000,000 in a company, he should absolutely make a bunch of money if it succeeds. But, if he makes a billion on that money, and he has to pay a $250,000,000 tax bill....he's not going to take his chips and go home, he's going to ***** and moan, and invest in some more stuff. There's not a thing in the world he'll have to give up. And, guess what. When that money goes to pay for a better school for somebody poor, and that poor kid graduates from Harvard, and starts a company instead of a new drug posse, the whole country (including the rich guy) wins.

I know the govt sucks, and it's darn near impossible to get them to spend money in a way that makes sense. I also know that running a society solely for the benefit of the wealthy has been tried before, and it has NEVER worked. I happen to think both the liberals and the conservatives are about equally foolish, though the liberals get about a milligram of extra credit with me, because they're trying to do something good - even if they're doing a terrible job at it. The conservative position that if you lower taxes and remove laws that cover businesses, the "invisible hand" will help everyone, has been proven over and over to NOT work. It's fine to tell a poor guy to lift himself up by his bootstraps, but our friend Mitt was born on third base, and convinced himself he had hit a triple. If you're going to live IN this country, you should contribute TO this country.

Look, I don't want to soak the rich, and I know all the theories about how every way anyone can think of, to get the rich to pay their fair share, is bad for the economy. Still, I just think if you've completely and utterly won the game of life, for yourself, and everyone who's ever been related to you, it won't kill you to reach down and give the losers a little help to get ahold of the ladder.


----------



## UberTaxPro (Oct 3, 2014)

MikeCable60
"I think we just have a fundamental disagreement, not just on the ethics of wealth, but on the good that comes from having some minimal sort of balance on the scales when it comes to wealth and power. "
Not necessarily, I'm saying the variable capital gains tax isn't the culprit or the solution to wealth distribution problems. Your issues seem to be more political than tax oriented. Also, I didn't go to business school, I was a political science major!


----------



## MikeCable60 (Apr 22, 2016)

A guy making $10,000 a year pays 15% of his income in taxes. A guy with $250,000,000 in assets, and an 8-figure income, paid 13% of his income in taxes. I'd say that simple statement is wildly political. I think separating politics from tax policy is an odd notion. Previous societies that tried to finance themselves on the backs of people who could least afford it typically wound up with blood in the streets. I don't think we ought to strip the wealthy of their money. It's everybody's right to make all the money they can. I just think that how much you pay ought to be based on how much you make, not on how much you can afford to spend on lawyers and lobbyists. You can agree or disagree with that last statement, but I can't see how you can disagree that it accurately represents the current state of things. 

You can say what you want about capital gains taxes. The simple fact is that the poor and middle class are paying taxes at a level that's painful to them on a day-to-day basis, and the fabulously wealthy simply are not. I don't want to soak the rich. I just think they should pay their fair share, and that's clearly not happening. You may want government to slide down Grover Norquist's bathroom drain, but the Koch brothers aren't going to fix our roads and bridges, and the Waltons aren't going to figure out a way to get healthcare to people who can't afford it. Government may be an awful way to get big things done in our society, but shutting down the government and assuming the folks with all the capital are just going to do this stuff out of the goodness of their hearts is simply not a successful strategy. 

So, what's the verdict in the political science world? How do we keep the hardworking people trying to keep hand to mouth from being completely screwed, while allowing big bucks capitalists to operate in a way that lets them earn, while getting them to contribute their fair share?


----------



## UberTaxPro (Oct 3, 2014)

MikeCable60 said:


> So, what's the verdict in the political science world? How do we keep the hardworking people trying to keep hand to mouth from being completely screwed, while allowing big bucks capitalists to operate in a way that lets them earn, while getting them to contribute their fair share?


The one thing about political science is that it's not very scientific. Karl Marx or Adam Smith....pick your poison.
What do you think about giving the rewards directly to hard working people for their hard work? How about giving tax breaks to people working over 40 hours? If you work a 2nd job to get ahead it shouldn't put you into higher tax bracket. How about all income earned over 40 hrs that's not overtime (like a 2nd job) be income tax free? Give the tax breaks and incentives directly to the "hardworking people" . It would take more than that but my point is that if you're going to use the tax code to solve the problem the benefits should go directly to the "hardworking people". Raising the capital gains tax means nothing to the guy working 3 low paying jobs to stay afloat because he's paying the same taxes as a guy working 40 hrs with the same total income. Give the tax incentives to the guy who has to work longer to pay the same tax.


----------



## MikeCable60 (Apr 22, 2016)

I don't think we should use the tax code to solve our problems. That's part of how we got in the financial mess we're in. What about something simple? Everybody pays 15%, except those below $XX in annual income. If you made $100,000,000 last year, you pay 15%.....same as if you made $75,000. Corporations pay 15%, which is a tax cut for most of them, but they actually pay it...no more creative accounting to allow a company to make $1 billion in profit and pay zero taxes. Nice and simple, breaks for the working poor, but no one else. No incentives...we all just contribute to the society we live in, no muss, no fuss. You get more, you give more. What's so silly about that?

I don't think "raising the capital gains tax" is the solution to anyone's problems. The capital gains tax exists as an incentive to investors. The logic is that a guy with a big pot of money will invest it, and make a lot of money, if you give him a tax break. That implies that he's going to keep it in his mattress, and refuse to invest, if you don't give him his tax break. I'm just saying that there's already an incentive: one way you make a lot of money, the other way you don't. Investors will still choose to invest even if you don't give them a tax break.


----------



## UberTaxPro (Oct 3, 2014)

A flat tax? Well that's still using the tax code to solve the problem. A flat tax would shift tax obligations from the rich to the poor, and especially the middle class, and eliminate desirable tax incentives for retirement savings, home ownership, and charitable contributions. Simple? Yes. Efficient and equitable? No


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

UberTaxPro said:


> "The problem is that the less money you make, the higher percentage of your income goes to taxes." Really? have you looked at the tax brackets lately? If your income is low enough you'll pay 0 income tax. True that investments are taxed less than income but most investment money (mine anyway) was originally income and had income tax paid on it when it was earned.


No one pays no tax. Sales tax, property tax, heck car registration is just a tax. Of course if you have little to no income you'll pay no income tax. But no one else pays income tax on that first few thousand that's exempt either.


----------



## UberTaxPro (Oct 3, 2014)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> No one pays no tax. Sales tax, property tax, heck car registration is just a tax. Of course if you have little to no income you'll pay no income tax. But no one else pays income tax on that first few thousand that's exempt either.


Sales tax is a good example of an unfair regressive tax. A flat income tax would also be unfair and regressive. I was talking about income tax specifically when I said " If your income is low enough you'll pay 0 income tax."


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

UberTaxPro said:


> Sales tax is a good example of an unfair regressive tax. A flat income tax would also be unfair and regressive. I was talking about income tax specifically when I said " If your income is low enough you'll pay 0 income tax."


 But NO ONE pays on that first $6000 or whatever the standard deduction is these days. And as you said, the sales tax is unfair and regressive. Perhaps we're on the same page. I don't have a problem with someone making very little money paying no income tax. They are often paying more in other ways because they don't have the income or credit to get good interest rates; they have to rent and can't get equity in a house or use the mortgage interest deduction (often higher than the standard deduction).

The divide between rich and poor is about opportunity to save and make money and it's absolutely true that having money makes it easier to make more. If you're caught trying to climb out of a hole, you spend all your time digging at the sides and have no time or energy for anything else. People like to say go to school, get a skill, etc. Nowadays that's no guarantee of anything, because most hiring in anything worthwhile involves who you know, and if you are trying to work and go to school, getting good grades and graduating is going to be that much harder if you're having to work full time while doing it.


----------



## MikeCable60 (Apr 22, 2016)

UberTaxPro said:


> A flat tax? Well that's still using the tax code to solve the problem. A flat tax would shift tax obligations from the rich to the poor, and especially the middle class, and eliminate desirable tax incentives for retirement savings, home ownership, and charitable contributions. Simple? Yes. Efficient and equitable? No


Well, by that logic, ANY change is "using the tax code to solve the problem". The tax code IS a problem. How does a flat tax shift obligations from rich to poor? If large businesses and high net worth individuals had to start paying a percentage of their actual income, the poor - below some threshold - paid no tax, and the middle class got a cut, how is that regressive? I'd much rather have my tax rate cut in half, and lose my mortgage interest deduction. You could argue incentive deducations point by point, but I prefer to say they're all examples of what's gotten us into trouble in the first place.

I agree with you about the sales tax, obviously unfair and regressive. But I don't see how that applies to a flat tax, starting at, say, $40,000 a year in income. That person making 40 is getting a cut, and everybody above him gets a cut until you get to the folks who are making more in passive income than salary.

So, we're in a situation where the national debt is in the trillions, more of our country's wealth is concentrated at the top than at any point in our history, and we're generally unable to govern ourselves....or even do something simple and expensive like fixing our roads and bridges. My one question to you is: What's your solution?


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

Whoever the 13 yes vote are, I would bet they are not willing to pay my fair share.  No, instead they would rather be jelly and see me in jail for having knowledge that they do not. 

You guys sound like your in Tax Court arguing over how much to pay. But I guess that is the "Good Faith" belief that you own something.

I don't care that Section 61 and about Gross Income. "Whatever source derived " still does not define the source. As source is not board and all encompassing.

Ask yourself this, if Tips were taxable, wouldn't the service require Uber to have a tip function ?


----------



## UberTaxPro (Oct 3, 2014)

MikeCable60 said:


> Well, by that logic, ANY change is "using the tax code to solve the problem". The tax code IS a problem. How does a flat tax shift obligations from rich to poor? If large businesses and high net worth individuals had to start paying a percentage of their actual income, the poor - below some threshold - paid no tax, and the middle class got a cut, how is that regressive? I'd much rather have my tax rate cut in half, and lose my mortgage interest deduction. You could argue incentive deducations point by point, but I prefer to say they're all examples of what's gotten us into trouble in the first place.
> 
> I agree with you about the sales tax, obviously unfair and regressive. But I don't see how that applies to a flat tax, starting at, say, $40,000 a year in income. That person making 40 is getting a cut, and everybody above him gets a cut until you get to the folks who are making more in passive income than salary.
> 
> So, we're in a situation where the national debt is in the trillions, more of our country's wealth is concentrated at the top than at any point in our history, and we're generally unable to govern ourselves....or even do something simple and expensive like fixing our roads and bridges. My one question to you is: What's your solution?


Any flat tax would be a lot worse than the current code in at least two areas: fairness and fiscal. Every proposed flat tax solution has been a highly regressive tax and would result in the loss of revenue.
The thing that complicates the tax code is not the number of rates. It's the crazy ways in which we define different types of income. It's all the preferences, deductions and credits that are the culprits. If as you say that's what got us into trouble in the first place, wouldn't that be the logical place to start fixing things? I certainly don't have a solution but I would would start with the way we define income and not be looking at a flat tax. The problem is I can't imagine any democrat politician calling for an end to the mortgage interest deduction or any republican politician calling for an end to interest-based financing during an election season!


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

Haha, well I saw the new Flat Tax form a few years ago. It goes like this;

1. How much did you make ? _______

2. Send it in. $ ________

3. Under Penalties of Perjury blah blah blah sign here X _______ 

As I see it, it is the definition of the words used in the code in everyday usage that give the common man an understanding that there must be some enabling clause that makes one required to file. Not to mention the complexity and all the horror stories that create the fear to Voluntarily Comply.

And then there is the definitions of Employee and Wages. As I see it only US and some State government employees are the only ones required. And just how is the word Instrumentality defined ? within those definitions.

Plus if the Tax Code ever did get repealed, millions would lose there jobs. Oh no can't have that happen. An old timer once told me that is what happened years ago when Polio got cured and the reason why Cancer will have be.


----------

