crazietalk.net

My Federal taxes were done last month, since we were getting a refund, but I have to do part-year returns for both Georgia and New Jersey, and I've been putting it off, because ugh, it's so damn complicated. I think we're getting a small refund from NJ, but we'll owe GA, and I want to go back over both returns really carefully to make sure I did everything right. Not looking forward to this, but no more procrastinating, it's gotta get done today.

Who else is up against the deadline?

Oh, and here's a list of tax-day freebies, just for fun: http://www.heyitsfree.net/2010/04/12/ta ... bies-2010/

Whew, looks like we'll be getting a refund from GA after all! Now to hope my husband gets home before 5; otherwise we'll be going on a little road trip, because it appears only one post office in the state of New Jersey will be open late tonight.

I called my CPA yesterday to ask him a question about my return. He was already celebrating. He said, "Today is our Christmas Eve. Tomorrow is our Christmas." The man was practically giddy.

As I said elsewhere, I e-filed the federal return on Tuesday and mailed the State return (with a check) yesterday.

Both returns were filed in early March. Have received, and spent, my federal $$. Still haven't received my $$ from the state.

TillyGalore wrote:Both returns were filed in early March. Have received, and spent, my federal $$. Still haven't received my $$ from the state.

I finally got my state return last week. I didn't file mine much sooner than you, Tilly. It's annoying that they can hold it that long.

Extension filed for me, but I should have them wrapped up soon! VA is surprisingly pretty quick to turn around a refund!

TillyGalore wrote:Both returns were filed in early March. Still haven't received my $$ from the state.

They're probably waiting for my 2 hundred bucks... Maybe they'll pay you next week. Although I have read that filers this week won't get refunds until late May. But you filed in early March, so hopefully soon.

CameronBornAndBred wrote:

TillyGalore wrote:Both returns were filed in early March. Have received, and spent, my federal $$. Still haven't received my $$ from the state.

I finally got my state return last week. I didn't file mine much sooner than you, Tilly. It's annoying that they can hold it that long.

I don't think the state is "holding" the money. Revenue is down and there's a shortfall. Waiting a little longer for a refund is better than having taxes raised to improve the cash flow.

gadzooks wrote:My Federal taxes were done last month, since we were getting a refund, but I have to do part-year returns for both Georgia and New Jersey, and I've been putting it off, because ugh, it's so damn complicated. I think we're getting a small refund from NJ, but we'll owe GA, and I want to go back over both returns really carefully to make sure I did everything right. Not looking forward to this, but no more procrastinating, it's gotta get done today.

Who else is up against the deadline?

Oh, and here's a list of tax-day freebies, just for fun: http://www.heyitsfree.net/2010/04/12/ta ... bies-2010/

I finished my Federal return in February and just finished my state returns today. I too have part-year returns; California and North Carolina. I ended up owing California this year but got a nice little return from North Carolina to offset the cost. It was a pain but nothing could be worse than the first three years when we started this company.
Year 1 I lived in NC and SC, but my company only paid taxes to NC.
Year 2 I lived in SC and NC, but this time my company only paid taxes to SC.
Year 3 I lived in NC and CA, but (get this) my company paid taxes to SC.

A few years later I got hit with a ton of audit letters from NC and SC and owed them big time. I was livid. My boss went to bat for me and I received a handsome bonus that paid of all the back taxes and penalties.

I hate paying taxes.

Miles wrote:....
I hate paying taxes.

AMEN!!!!! FLAT TAX?, anyone?

cl15876 wrote:

Miles wrote:....
I hate paying taxes.

AMEN!!!!! FLAT TAX?, anyone?

Depends on how flat it is. Now that I'm "retired," my income doesn't have the potential of future increases that someone who's actively employed might expect over time.

I've done a bunch for friends, plus my own...mine got e-filed a month ago...the last friend's returned got e-filed Monday night. One of the joys of living in Florida ----- NO STATE INCOME TAX so all I do is Federal

cl15876 wrote:

Miles wrote:....
I hate paying taxes.

AMEN!!!!! FLAT TAX?, anyone?

It may be better than the present but I favor the Fair Tax.
Watch John Stossel's show tonight on Fox Business Network. See what you think, then compare.

captmojo wrote:

cl15876 wrote:

Miles wrote:....
I hate paying taxes.

AMEN!!!!! FLAT TAX?, anyone?

It may be better than the present but I favor the Fair Tax.
Watch John Stossel's show tonight on Fox Business Network. See what you think, then compare.

I read about this a few years ago. At a glimpse, I was impressed. Thanks for the heads up on Stossel's show. I've always liked that dude.

I was dissapointed with the discussion last night. I guess because of time available, they didn't go into very much depth.

Like the cobbler's kids having no shoes, I usually don't get my returns done by 4/15. However, for the first time in I don't know how many years, I filed my returns by 4/15. Dropped them in the mail box as I left the office at 2am on 4/15. We closed the office around 4:15, had a margarita and the steak and goat cheese towers, had a 15 minute nap, and was at hand bell practice by 7pm. Today, car in for service, a few errands, and watching taped shows and Duke basketball. I like a work day with nothing to do!


And I'm very glad another tax season is over!

I will not make this a PP thread (and I mean that--I won't respond, even if it goes against every lawyer bone in my body.) But, the so-called fair tax has it's share of issues.

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinni ... irtax.html

As a starting point, I'm suspicious of any movement that goes to such great lengths to misstate its basic premise (the fair tax people claim it's a 23% tax, when it is undeniably, at the very least, a 30% tax; the 23% requires us to disregard basic principles of math because the 23% "sales tax" is tax-inclusive, when it is not possible to calculate the percentage of sales tax in a tax-inclusive manner) Further, the 30% (or 23% if you follow the voodoo math) presumes 100% compliance (meaning, every single purchase that should be taxed, is properly taxed.) We currently have about 85% compliance with the federal income tax, and that's with the IRS hunting people down. If we have a similar non-compliance rate, the sales tax will have to be higher than 30% if it is going to be revenue neutral--which the fair tax proponents assure us it is. Think about that: a $100 purchase will cost you $134+. A $10,000 purchase will cost you $13,400+ (and we haven't even addressed the confusion that the fair tax causes for financed purchases.)

Revenue neutrality leads to the final issue with that fair tax. People/households making under $24,000 will see their federal tax burden drop. People/households making over $200,000 a year will see their federal tax burden drop. That means, in order to be revenue neutral, people/households earning between $24,000 and $200,000 (read: the middle class) will see their federal tax burden increase. In other words, the "fair" tax, as dreamt up, isn't as fair as the clever title implies. It will lead to a higher percentage of middle class income going to the federal government. If you make more than $200,000 a year, you should support it. If you make less than $24,000 a year, you should support it. If you're between the two, take a long, hard look at it, because you'll be paying more in taxes (and the argument that individuals control their own burden is belied by the "fair" tax proponents assurance that it's revenue neutral.)

Caveat: I got a large chunk back from the feds (and a decent chunk from the State of Colorado) this year.

rockymtn devil wrote:I will not make this a PP thread (and I mean that--I won't respond, even if it goes against every lawyer bone in my body.) But, the so-called fair tax has it's share of issues.

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinni ... irtax.html

As a starting point, I'm suspicious of any movement that goes to such great lengths to misstate its basic premise (the fair tax people claim it's a 23% tax, when it is undeniably, at the very least, a 30% tax; the 23% requires us to disregard basic principles of math because the 23% "sales tax" is tax-inclusive, when it is not possible to calculate the percentage of sales tax in a tax-inclusive manner) Further, the 30% (or 23% if you follow the voodoo math) presumes 100% compliance (meaning, every single purchase that should be taxed, is properly taxed.) We currently have about 85% compliance with the federal income tax, and that's with the IRS hunting people down. If we have a similar non-compliance rate, the sales tax will have to be higher than 30% if it is going to be revenue neutral--which the fair tax proponents assure us it is. Think about that: a $100 purchase will cost you $134+. A $10,000 purchase will cost you $13,400+ (and we haven't even addressed the confusion that the fair tax causes for financed purchases.)

Revenue neutrality leads to the final issue with that fair tax. People/households making under $24,000 will see their federal tax burden drop. People/households making over $200,000 a year will see their federal tax burden drop. That means, in order to be revenue neutral, people/households earning between $24,000 and $200,000 (read: the middle class) will see their federal tax burden increase. In other words, the "fair" tax, as dreamt up, isn't as fair as the clever title implies. It will lead to a higher percentage of middle class income going to the federal government. If you make more than $200,000 a year, you should support it. If you make less than $24,000 a year, you should support it. If you're between the two, take a long, hard look at it, because you'll be paying more in taxes (and the argument that individuals control their own burden is belied by the "fair" tax proponents assurance that it's revenue neutral.)

Caveat: I got a large chunk back from the feds (and a decent chunk from the State of Colorado) this year.

I think I need to finish my bomber.
Palindrome post : 6336

rockymtn devil wrote:I will not make this a PP thread (and I mean that--I won't respond, even if it goes against every lawyer bone in my body.) But, the so-called fair tax has it's share of issues.

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinni ... irtax.html

As a starting point, I'm suspicious of any movement that goes to such great lengths to misstate its basic premise (the fair tax people claim it's a 23% tax, when it is undeniably, at the very least, a 30% tax; the 23% requires us to disregard basic principles of math because the 23% "sales tax" is tax-inclusive, when it is not possible to calculate the percentage of sales tax in a tax-inclusive manner) Further, the 30% (or 23% if you follow the voodoo math) presumes 100% compliance (meaning, every single purchase that should be taxed, is properly taxed.) We currently have about 85% compliance with the federal income tax, and that's with the IRS hunting people down. If we have a similar non-compliance rate, the sales tax will have to be higher than 30% if it is going to be revenue neutral--which the fair tax proponents assure us it is. Think about that: a $100 purchase will cost you $134+. A $10,000 purchase will cost you $13,400+ (and we haven't even addressed the confusion that the fair tax causes for financed purchases.)

Revenue neutrality leads to the final issue with that fair tax. People/households making under $24,000 will see their federal tax burden drop. People/households making over $200,000 a year will see their federal tax burden drop. That means, in order to be revenue neutral, people/households earning between $24,000 and $200,000 (read: the middle class) will see their federal tax burden increase. In other words, the "fair" tax, as dreamt up, isn't as fair as the clever title implies. It will lead to a higher percentage of middle class income going to the federal government. If you make more than $200,000 a year, you should support it. If you make less than $24,000 a year, you should support it. If you're between the two, take a long, hard look at it, because you'll be paying more in taxes (and the argument that individuals control their own burden is belied by the "fair" tax proponents assurance that it's revenue neutral.)

Caveat: I got a large chunk back from the feds (and a decent chunk from the State of Colorado) this year.

Also not to be PP, factcheck should have read the book and bill before making their critique. Prices are to essentially be unchanged at the retail level due to relacement of imbedded taxes, paid by manufacturers no longer required to pay income taxes themselves. The system would only work with a repeal of the 16th amendment, however.