Income tax moral dilemma

[Artemus]

Got a bit of a dilemma on how to file our income tax. Turns out if we itemize our deductions on our federal income tax we minimize our federal taxes and our state taxes are higher since the state removes the deduction for state taxes paid. If we take the standard federal deduction, our federal taxes go up but our state taxes go down almost exactly the same amount since the standard deduction is fully recognized by the state. (The alternative minimum tax kicks in on federal if we itemize so that is why it nearly balances either way.) The swing between state and federal is just over $400. So should we

1. Itemize federal and pay more to the state, which badly needs the money but only because of its terrible fiscal policies,
2. Take the standard federal deduction and give the money to the federal government, knowing in my heart that the extra $400 will support the Mueller investigation,
or 3. Do whatever minimizes the total tax bill, because hey, $39 savings will pay over half the annual fees for a Costco basic membership?

I won't tell you which option saves us $39 since that might bias your input.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Give it to the State. Putin's 10% cut of tax revenue only applies to federal money and there's no need to support that guy any more than you already are.

 

[Rhea]

In my state, I’d give it to the state because they will provide the social programs I support. But if your state does not support those programs, then give it to the feds, who do.

In short, give it to whichever side is doing a better job with programs that matter to you.
Or, take the $39 and donate it directly to a cause doing good, and write that off nexxt year in order to drive the spending.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The state needs it more than the Feds. The Feds can make what they want; states can't.

 

[Artemus]

We had pretty much already decided to give it to the state when I posted, despite the fact that that is the option that will cost an extra $39. The state programs that we like are the first thing to disappear when the state income goes down so it was pretty much a no-brainer. I just wanted to see what everyone here thought. Most others I've mentioned it to were strongly "whatever minimizes your taxes, even if it is only $1!" I think that is why I like the people here more than most people I know in real life. Go figure.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

My choice - take the money. Whatever gets more of your money back to you.

 

[Underseer]

Got a bit of a dilemma on how to file our income tax. Turns out if we itemize our deductions on our federal income tax we minimize our federal taxes and our state taxes are higher since the state removes the deduction for state taxes paid. If we take the standard federal deduction, our federal taxes go up but our state taxes go down almost exactly the same amount since the standard deduction is fully recognized by the state. (The alternative minimum tax kicks in on federal if we itemize so that is why it nearly balances either way.) The swing between state and federal is just over $400. So should we

1. Itemize federal and pay more to the state, which badly needs the money but only because of its terrible fiscal policies,
2. Take the standard federal deduction and give the money to the federal government, knowing in my heart that the extra $400 will support the Mueller investigation,
or 3. Do whatever minimizes the total tax bill, because hey, $39 savings will pay over half the annual fees for a Costco basic membership?

I won't tell you which option saves us $39 since that might bias your input.

Oh no! You mean your tax dollars might be used to investigate possible treason? That's terrible! Treason must never be investigated! How can we be a free country if treason is a punishable offense? Maybe you should just move to Russia. That way you know your tax dollars will be spent on things you approve and not on anything that might upset you.

 

[dendrast]

Paying taxes is your civic duty, along with voting and jury service.

Anyway, I want services, not tax cuts.

I'm Canadian, we have Universal Healthcare.

 

[fast]

Paying taxes is your civic duty, along with voting and jury service.

Anyway, I want services, not tax cuts.

I'm Canadian, we have Universal Healthcare.

Taxes: obligation
Jury: duty
Voting: right

Things can get tricky, and amidst overlap and implications, word play becomes more important than ever. And look, "responsibility" never even come up--or did it?

When poor people see rich people treating fines as fees, we then get things called points.

I wouldn't be so quick to think paying taxes is a duty, nor would I be so quick to think we have a duty to vote.

 

[dendrast]

If people did their duty and voted, then bizarre incidents like Trump wouldn't occur. It shouldn't be just a duty, it should be obligatory.

 

[fast]

If people did their duty and voted, then bizarre incidents like Trump wouldn't occur. It shouldn't be just a duty, it should be obligatory.

Voting is a right, not a duty.

We do not have a responsibility to vote. If we vote, however, we should do so responsibly. Although driving is a privilege and not a right, there is a parallel to voting in regards to responsibility such that we do not have a responsibility to drive but if we so choose to drive, then just as we should do if we do choose to vote, we should do so responsibly. No where in there is a duty. There's no more a duty to vote than there is in tipping your waitress.

I have a right to bear arms, but I have no duty or obligation to do so. Granted, if I choose to exercise my right to bear arms, then a case can be made that I should do so responsibly. I have a right to free speech, but I am not under no obligation to open my mouth. In fact, we are often reminded that we have the right to keep our mouths shut if we so choose.

You think (and think as you will; I have no problem with that) that voting should be obligatory. Your words, I remind you. At this juncture, I'll highlight the fact, as suggested by your comment, that although we are not now under a current legal obligation to vote, you think things should be changed such that we become obligated to vote. If that happens, voting will no longer be a right but rather a duty.

I have no qualms that I'd like to presently express as a more overarching issue is more pressing. If you were king and could choose whether voting is a right or a duty, you should hold no one accountable for not voting unless they have an obligation and thus duty to vote; however, you can't have it both ways. If you allow me to retain my right to choose and thus I can exercise my right to vote either by abstaining or otherwise, you may not hold me irresponsible for not casting a vote, as I have neither an obligation, responsibility, nor duty to do so.

 

[bilby]

If people did their duty and voted, then bizarre incidents like Trump wouldn't occur. It shouldn't be just a duty, it should be obligatory.

Voting is a right, not a duty.

We do not have a responsibility to vote. If we vote, however, we should do so responsibly. Although driving is a privilege and not a right, there is a parallel to voting in regards to responsibility such that we do not have a responsibility to drive but if we so choose to drive, then just as we should do if we do choose to vote, we should do so responsibly. No where in there is a duty. There's no more a duty to vote than there is in tipping your waitress.

I have a right to bear arms, but I have no duty or obligation to do so. Granted, if I choose to exercise my right to bear arms, then a case can be made that I should do so responsibly. I have a right to free speech, but I am not under no obligation to open my mouth. In fact, we are often reminded that we have the right to keep our mouths shut if we so choose.

You think (and think as you will; I have no problem with that) that voting should be obligatory. Your words, I remind you. At this juncture, I'll highlight the fact, as suggested by your comment, that although we are not now under a current legal obligation to vote, you think things should be changed such that we become obligated to vote. If that happens, voting will no longer be a right but rather a duty.

I have no qualms that I'd like to presently express as a more overarching issue is more pressing. If you were king and could choose whether voting is a right or a duty, you should hold no one accountable for not voting unless they have an obligation and thus duty to vote; however, you can't have it both ways. If you allow me to retain my right to choose and thus I can exercise my right to vote either by abstaining or otherwise, you may not hold me irresponsible for not casting a vote, as I have neither an obligation, responsibility, nor duty to do so.

Voting is a duty here.

If you are not disqualified, then failure to attend the polls is an offence for which you can be fined.

It's a secret ballot; you cannot be penalised for casting a blank or an invalid ballot. But you must attend.

And once compelled to attend, the VAST majority of people cast a valid ballot.

I think it's an excellent idea. Being lazy should no more be a cause for disenfranchisement than being female, black, or poor. Everyone has to live with the government that is elected. Even lazy people.



ETA - You do have a duty and obligation to bear arms, if drafted. Selective service is still a thing in the USA, isn't it?

 

[fast]

If people did their duty and voted, then bizarre incidents like Trump wouldn't occur. It shouldn't be just a duty, it should be obligatory.

Voting is a right, not a duty.

We do not have a responsibility to vote. If we vote, however, we should do so responsibly. Although driving is a privilege and not a right, there is a parallel to voting in regards to responsibility such that we do not have a responsibility to drive but if we so choose to drive, then just as we should do if we do choose to vote, we should do so responsibly. No where in there is a duty. There's no more a duty to vote than there is in tipping your waitress.

I have a right to bear arms, but I have no duty or obligation to do so. Granted, if I choose to exercise my right to bear arms, then a case can be made that I should do so responsibly. I have a right to free speech, but I am not under no obligation to open my mouth. In fact, we are often reminded that we have the right to keep our mouths shut if we so choose.

You think (and think as you will; I have no problem with that) that voting should be obligatory. Your words, I remind you. At this juncture, I'll highlight the fact, as suggested by your comment, that although we are not now under a current legal obligation to vote, you think things should be changed such that we become obligated to vote. If that happens, voting will no longer be a right but rather a duty.

I have no qualms that I'd like to presently express as a more overarching issue is more pressing. If you were king and could choose whether voting is a right or a duty, you should hold no one accountable for not voting unless they have an obligation and thus duty to vote; however, you can't have it both ways. If you allow me to retain my right to choose and thus I can exercise my right to vote either by abstaining or otherwise, you may not hold me irresponsible for not casting a vote, as I have neither an obligation, responsibility, nor duty to do so.

Voting is a duty here.

If you are not disqualified, then failure to attend the polls is an offence for which you can be fined.

It's a secret ballot; you cannot be penalised for casting a blank or an invalid ballot. But you must attend.

And once compelled to attend, the VAST majority of people cast a valid ballot.

I think it's an excellent idea. Being lazy should no more be a cause for disenfranchisement than being female, black, or poor. Everyone has to live with the government that is elected. Even lazy people.



ETA - You do have a duty and obligation to bear arms, if drafted. Selective service is still a thing in the USA, isn't it?

Good points.

His comment about Trump would give me free pass for plausible deniability for not being country specific in my babble--except for my now openly admitting I didn't consider the varying differences planet wide.

Still, good points!