A few years ago I saw a guy on FOX News talking about the American Tax Rate and how out of control it is.
He made the point that if Americans had to pay the taxes themselves, like small business owners do, they would overthrow the government.
When the taxes are taken off your check before you get it you become conditioned to accept it. But when you own a small business, and you save your money, then every three months have to write a check to the government for thousands, or if your successful TENS of thousands of dollars you start to realize what a huge chunk of your income the IRS keeps.
He pointed out how conditioned we are to be excited to be getting a big "refund" in April, when in reality we should be angered that for twelve months the government had use of OUR MONEY via an interest free loan.
ANYWAY, long story short (too late, I know) the most interesting point this guy made was how we all think we pay 25 - 35% of our income in taxes, but he showed how we actually pay WELL OVER half our income in taxes.
The government, particularly local government, is aware that raising the tax rate any high will cause an uproar, so for the last 20 years they increase your taxes via fees, registrations and various usage taxes.
When you think about it, your money is taxed when you earn it, and it's taxed when you spend it. If you save it, the interest will be taxed. If you give it away, it get's retaxed (unless it's to a non-profit organization).
We have "fees" now for the very things our taxes are supposedly paying for to begin with (for example, many communities now charge homeowners a fee for trash removal).
Here in Wisconsin they are planning on hiking auto-registration fees every year another $20.00 from the $45 it's currently at to $65.
Sin taxes on cigarettes, booze and other things are insanely high (and by the way states are up in arms over what to do about shrinking cigarette tax income since smoking is declining year after year, they'll be finding that lost income somewhere!).
Gas taxes add a ton of money to every gallon of gas you use.
So on and so on.
So what's your REAL tax rate? 60% maybe 65%?
It's crazier than you would beleive.
I've been giving this a lot of thought lately, and would like to start this thread as a place for anyone to insert an example of a fee or tax they know of. Over time I'd like to compile a nice chart and figure out what the average person really pays in a year in taxes.
Now, I would consider a tax to be any tax, registration or fee that goes to a government branch of local or federal origin.
Here's the one that made me finally start this thread.
Our local government is passing a $13.00 rental car tax to help pay for road repairs (something our gas taxes (which are among the highest in the nation) is supposed to pay for).
Everyone who rents a car will now pay $13.00 more in taxes to rent a car in Southeastern Wisconsin.
One thing that has bugged me for a long time is the "business phone". I know this is not a government tax, but it I consider it a business tax. I can have a phone with basic service in my house for about $30/month. The same service at my business is $75. We use the phone at home a lot more than I use my business phone. It sucks.
A few years ago, I got a bill for $45 from my local County government. Aparently, this is a yearly fee that that goes to the local government because I have a security system at my business. The problem is that occasionally, a security system gives a false alarm. The alarm causes police and or fire to respond to check it out.
I called and told them that this fee did not apply to me because my system calls me at home, not them. They said it does apply because of one time that I tripped the alarm as I was leaving the shop and it went off. A neighbor heard the alarm and called the police.
If we pay the $45 we get three free false alarm calls/year. After the three, it was $75 per alarm. If I didn't pay the $45 (which I never have) it would be the $75 for every alarm.
When I was talking to the emergency communication center director about this, I asked him if they've ever had a live person call to report something that turns out to be nothing. He said "of course we do". I then asked him if they are going to start charging every person that calls in with a false alarm. He was too arrogant to even consider how unfair that was.
We have local taxes- such as sales tax- different for unprepared food, eating out and "sins." We also have a removal fee for car batteries and oil. We also have property tax on our houses, vehicles and boat- even one tax for the boat and another for the motor!
Didn't the fee for renewing your license used to be $6 or $8? The last time I had to get my license renewed, it was $21! I totally wasn't expecting that.
Last year, it was $90 to renew my registration!
They nickel and dime you at the BMV. If you're late renewing your license, it's an extra $5. A learner permit is $9, then 60 days later, you still have to pay the full price for your license. For just an ID card, it's $13. To change anything on your license, like your address (or last name when you get married), it's $10.
MzHartz wrote: Didn't the fee for renewing your license used to be $6 or $8? The last time I had to get my license renewed, it was $21! I totally wasn't expecting that.
Last year, it was $90 to renew my registration!
They nickel and dime you at the BMV. If you're late renewing your license, it's an extra $5. A learner permit is $9, then 60 days later, you still have to pay the full price for your license. For just an ID card, it's $13. To change anything on your license, like your address (or last name when you get married), it's $10.
WHATTTT???? To renew licence here it costs $65.00!!! And for me car registration is $686 per year!!!!!!
LOL I think I'm getting kind of pinged off about the high rego costs for me here considering we don't even have proper roads here!!!! All unsealed roads!!! What are we paying for here then!!!
Here' they're talking about privatizing the toll roads in the state, and construction of new highways. So it makes me wonder why they keep raising our fees if they're just going to sell all our roads anyway!
Then yep, we've got that too, but I guess they just call it sales tax. But it's a little lower, 4-7.25%, depending on state. In Indiana, it's 6% (it used to be 5).
LOL I have a book around here on our taxes here and I will explain better. It's a crazy system here. But we are taxed on all our government fees a further 10% GST charge no matter what it is!
You know, I've mentioned this before in another thread, but it fits this one better.
We have a CROOKED, CROOKED governer, that get's paid off by the indian tribes to allow unlimited gaming for them here in WI.
Over his time in office he has raised the Wisconsin Gas Tax to a level so high that we're in the top five highest gas taxes in the country (atleast we were last time they reported it).
Of course when he raises this he hides behind needing to maintain our roads (that's what the gas tax is supposedly earmarked for, DOT spending).
Last election cycle this bonehead promised not to raise property taxes, and when he's elected and realizes he can't keep that promise he decides to take the money from the gas tax they've collected and use it to offset property taxes! I have NO idea how that's legal. But now, flash ahead a year and a half and he's pushing to raise the yearly car registration from $55 (I think I said $45 earlier, but it's actually $55) to $75, a $20 increase!
The reason? We're in desperate need of funds to maintain our roads!!!!!
MONEY WE'D HAVE IF HE DIDN'T STEAL IT FROM THE GAS TAX FUND IN THE FIRST PLACE!
here's a thought- do you suppose the property tax assessment each year on the value of your home is more or less than the appraised value a real-estate agent would give?
__________________
"And like Web, I enjoy throwing JR under the bus. Problem is, it's usually under the special bus that I ride every day". Ghostdancer 12-18-09
WASHINGTON--With only months left on a moratorium restricting state governments from taxing Internet access, the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday began a debate over whether the ban should be made permanent or allowed to lapse.
At issue is the scheduled expiration on November 1 of a law, initially enacted in 1998, that says local governments generally cannot tax Internet access, including DSL (digital subscriber line), cable modem and BlackBerry-type wireless transmission services. The law also prohibits governments from taxing items sold online in a different manner than those sold at brick-and-mortar stores, but it does not deal with sales taxes on online shopping.
That's the way it should remain, some politicians said at a brief hearing here convened by a House of Representatives panel on commercial and administrative law.
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey talks to News.com about Internet taxation.
"If we could liken the Internet to a mall, a place where you can go in and purchase goods and services, and also liken it to a library, a place where you can go and pull a book, pull a resource, and obtain some information, why would we tax a person upon entering a mall or why would we tax a person upon entering the library?" asked Rep. Hank Johnson, a Democrat from Georgia.
Industries that provide Internet access services have long backed making the ban permanent, and they already enjoy support from some members of Congress. In the House, Rep. Anna Eshoo, a California Democrat, has introduced such a measure, and senators have made similar moves.
But previous attempts at renewing the ban for more than two to four years have failed, in part because of resistance from state and local government lobby groups. State government representatives caution against making the moratorium permanent, saying it would deprive states indefinitely of vital revenue sources and that its original purpose--boosting the nascent Internet to commercial viability--has essentially been accomplished.
A 'slippery slope' "If a moratorium is made permanent, there is a slippery slope where other industries will seek their own preemptions of state laws," said David Quam, director of federal relations for the National Governors Association.
The NGA supports the idea of extending the ban in a limited sense and for a defined time period, he added. He said reports by government auditors and the University of Tennessee have shown no statistical correlation between levels of broadband penetration and the existence of Internet access taxes.
Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican and one of 66 House members who co-sponsored the permanent ban proposal, suggested he wasn't swayed by that argument. "Taxes always impact everything else in our economy," he said. "I would assume they've had a major impact in this area as well."
As a rule, economists dislike taxes that could discourage investment, but taxes that could hinder build-out of the Internet are especially problematic, argued Scott Mackey, an economist and partner at the law firm Kimbell Sherman Ellis. He spoke on behalf of a coalition of Internet service providers, "backbone" providers and application and content companies that support a permanent extension of the tax ban.
"A permanent moratorium will send a strong, pro-investment signal to those entrepreneurs that are looking to improve communications and commerce over the Internet," he told the politicians.
A U.S. Senate committee is scheduled to weigh the issue at its own hearing scheduled for Wednesday.
A separate issue on one politician's mind was what to do about the collection of sales taxes on the Internet. State governments have long griped that they are losing revenue to booming e-commerce businesses that aren't required to collect taxes from customers in states where the businesses don't have a physical presence. Rep. Bill Delahunt, a Democrat from Massachusetts, said he was planning to try again at enacting a bill designed to address those concerns.
As for the Net tax ban, he said, "my own position is we ought to have a temporary moratorium until we finally resolve the issue of how the states are going to support public services with an eroding tax base predicated on the growth of e-commerce."
City "Sidewalk" Tax Idea Infuriates Bar & Club Owners Wednesday June 27, 2007 CityNews.ca Staff
They're taxing you depending on the amount of garbage you throw out. They're taxing you when you sell your house. They're taxing you when you register your car. But will they actually have the nerve to tax you just for standing on the sidewalk? City Hall may have another wallet wallop coming for bar and club owners, as it ponders charging to have customers wait outside on Toronto-owned sidewalks to get into establishments.
Those behind the idea believe it will not only generate badly needed revenue but act as a kind of de facto crowd control and reduce the potential for violence downtown. But not everyone is in favour of yet another reason not to head into the core. "Taxing the sidewalk is just another insane thing the city can do," explodes Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong. "We'll tax not only anything that moves, we'll tax anything that doesn't move!"
But the man behind the motion insists it's more about clash than cash. "This isn't a money grab," maintains Councillor Adam Vaughan. "This is about trying to get nightclubs to behave like good corporate citizens and to take responsibility for their customers when they use the public space to hold them."
Not surprisingly club owners are also fuming about the idea."It's really, really annoying, to be very polite," an angry George Kioulmetis seethes. "Basically what you're doing is you're charging an extra tax in a specific district." The proposed bylaw would force club owners to get a permit to rent sidewalk space. There's still no word on exactly how much it would cost them. But while patrons won't pay for it, they're still sure it will wind up coming out of their pockets. "In the end the owners are going to feel the pinch and then the pinch is going to come on us," predicts Andrew Christoforou.
So when will it all happen? Not for a while. The city will hold consultations for the next five months, followed by a council vote. That means the earliest the new tax could have 'standing' is by the end of next winter.
Our local grocery store is having a sale on soda. 4 twelve packs for $12. So I've stopped in twice this week to get four cases of Diet Coke. Since this is the only item I've bought I noticed the taxes seemed a bit higher than they should be.
Sure enough, instead of our typical 5.6% tax rate, looks like soda is now taxed at 6.1% here.
On January 1 of 2009 they instituted a 0.25% tax on soda and in July of this year they doubled it to 0.5 %
Everyone I point this out to essentially says "eh, so what. It's a half a cent on a dollar". This is REALLY p*ssing me off!
All these nickel and dimes eat up every last penny of any raise I ever seem to get. What ticks me off the most is how this stuff is just snuck into law without any real public debate. One day you look at your receipt and see they're taxing you more.
PLUS, government taxes are SUPPOSED to be for a purpose. Not just "cuz we want mo' money". Why the hell is soda targeted for a tax? How does it burden the state of Wisconsin? Keep in mind, this isn't on SUGAR soda, this is on ALL soda.
ARGH..
Ok, I'm done.
Although, I did notice when I started this thread I pointed out the license plate annual fee was going up from $45 to $65. Oh, those were the days. It's already up to $75 now.
Luckily, they're not taxing soda here yet but it's in the pipeline to do so along with taxing bottled water.
Like the rest of you, we pay a sales tax, currently 6%, on everything except food from the grocery store. We pay a 19% road tax on every gallon of gas we buy. We have service taxes on our heat & electric bill, phone bill, water & sewer bill, and internet provider....doesn't matter which company provides said service, we gotta pay whatever service tax they decide to charge us....most are currently being taxed at anywhere from 6 to 10 percent, though our water & sewer just went to 20% of the total monthly bill.
For the pleasure of living in the city, the city taxes our earnings at 1 and a half percent every week. If you live outside of the city but work in the city, lucky you, you get to pay .75% each week.
We pay a tax for trash collection on our property taxes, but 2 years ago they decided $180.00 per year wasn't enough to pick up trash so they implemented a second seperate trash collection fee of an additional $50 per year. If I want to participate in recycling, I have to "rent" special containers from the city at $30 per crate per week.......of course they make you take 4 seperate containers and you pay the $30 per crate each week whether you set them out for pick up or not. (I don't recycle; it costs too dang much to do so!)
Our driver's license renewal fees are $28; last year they were $13. To renew our license plates each year they base the cost of the plate on the price of the vehicle when it was new....doesn't matter if you bought a used car; the cost for the plate is going to be based on how much that car cost when it was brand new! After 8 years we do get a slight reduction of $50.00.
And because they like us so well, they charge us an "administrative cost" on our property taxes which amounts to an additional 10% of the total tax bill, which we're charged twice a year.....once in July for the summer property tax bill and again in December for the winter taxes. I pay this administrative cost for them to print my bill and take my payment. That's what they told me when I questioned it.
Oh, and for the priviledge of having a police department, beginning this month it now costs me an additional $100 a year. This is a special tax known as Public Safety Tax, and it's on top of the $250 taxes I was already paying for police in my property taxes. And because the county sheriff department feels left out, they want a special Public Safety Tax too.....they're talking an additional $75.00 per year.
And MI decided they weren't already getting enough money to run our State parks every year. They would now like for each registered driver to pay an additional $10 on our license plate renewals, and they ask for it at the time of renewal. This additional fee will give me free entrance into any State Park in MI. Um, thanks, but no thanks! If I want to visit one of the State Parks, I'll buy a daily pass for $4.00. Don't make me pay more money for something I seldom use.
So my advice to any of you is don't move to MI! They'll tax you to death and then ask for more.