Taxes, Again

~ Clarissa

We are coming from our yearly visit with our accountant, and I’ve got to say, once again, how eminently modest federal taxes are even on high earners. It’s a bloody shame to complain about taxes in this country.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

20 thoughts on “Taxes, Again”

  1. That’s great!

    However, in Canada, the taxes are just enormous, even for low earners. And there are so many of them that sometimes you think that you give away more than you get. 🙂

    Like

    Reply

      1. I give English lessons by phone, and I am paid for that. But:

        (1) Tax No. 1 is deducted from my monthly salary (which is not high).
        (2) The salary is considered my income, and I am taxed again, which is Tax No. 2.
        (3) When I go shopping, I pay the 15% Sales Tax, which is Tax No. 3.

        Isn’t that funny? 🙂

        Like

        Reply

      2. There are some states hère like that, where the income required to file is in the low thousands of dollars. Mostly Southern states, IIRC.

        A man condemning the income tax because of the annoyance it gives him or the expense it puts him to is merely a dog baring its teeth, and he forfeits the privileges of civilized discourse. But it is possible to criticize it on other and impersonal grounds. A government, like an individual, spends money for any or all of three reasons: because it needs to, because it wants to, or simply because it has it to spend. The last is much the shabbiest. It is arguable, if not manifest, that a substantial portion of the great spring flood of billions pouring into the Treasury will in effect get spent for the last shabby reason.

        Rex Stout And Be A Villain.

        Like

        Reply

  2. It might be work the extra tax to get an extra 2 years of life expectancy, or even to have the reduced infant mortality that some of the taxes in Canada pay for.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Nah, I’d rather have the $$$ to spend as I please over a lifetime than an extra two years at the end. Even if I could live ten years longer in the frigid sub-Arctic nation called Canada, it wouldn’t be worth it.

      Like

      Reply

          1. “I didn’t mean you, I meant the other guy.”

            ?? I don’t see any untactful remarks on this comment page. 🙂

            Byt the way, the Republican debate starts on ABC in 45 minutes — an hour earlier than all the other debates began.

            Like

            Reply

  3. Re: taxes. I am very disappointed at the nonexistent breaks for child care. There is a working-mom penalty, basically. Husband and I pay about $25k per year in childcare costs (one kid currently in daycare and one in afterschool care) and I can deduct no more than $6k. There was a year when we had two in daycare, it was brutal. For three kids, the total cost of daycare alone until they reach 5 years of age amouts to over $300,000, and we live in the Midwest (so not in snazzy Manhattan and the like). And that doesn’t account for all the summer programs and afterschool care until they are in middle school or so, so both parents could keep working. No matter what the cost, you can still deduct no more than $6k per year, so basically all the childcare expenses are post-tax.
    We also have fairly high property taxes, which are supposed to go towards the local issues (schools, roads, municipality, police, etc.). The middle school building is a crumbling disgrace.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I am yet to find a single government on the planet that wants high-achieving, brilliant women to procreate. This is the last bastion that will never fall, it seems, so yeah. . .

      Like

      Reply

        2. “if you want smart boys, they literally must have a smart mother.”

          But if you want MORE smart boys in your population, this is an argument for keeping smart women out of the workforce and at home where they can give birth to — and care for — a larger number of offspring…

          Assuming the husband was once a “smart boy,” and as an adult can earn enough $$$ as the sole working parent to pay for it all. 🙂

          Like

          Reply

          1. Children of high-achieving mothers are more successful at every level of socialization and academic achievement. At the same time, a permanently absent father who has no time for childcare leads to underachieving sons and psychologically damaged daughters.

            Like

            Reply

            1. “Children of high-achieving mothers are more successful at every level of socialization and academic achievement.”

              Are there statistics to back this up? Until the 20th century, there were relatively VERY few (I didn’t say “none”) “high-achieving mothers” anywhere in Western civilization, because very few women at any societal level had an opportunity to work in high-end professions. Yet the history books are full of the world-changing successes of some of their brilliant children.

              Like

              Reply

Leave a reply to xykademiqz Cancel reply