• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why don't employers pay money to the government instead?

R

RandomPoster71

Banned
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
137
Reaction score
3
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Wouldn't it be easier if employers simply gave your paycheck to the government and the government gave you your share of the money? That way, no one would have to figure out what they owe/are owed at the end of the year and file taxes. Also, no one could ever be accused or convicted or income tax evasion. You would never have to worry about taxes or the IRS coming after you. The same would be the case with stocks when they were sold. When you sell a stock, you would go to the government and ask them for your share of the money and they would give it to you.
 
Neither my employer nor the government know all the details necessary to do this.
 
RandomPoster71 said:
Wouldn't it be easier if employers simply gave your paycheck to the government and the government gave you your share of the money? That way, no one would have to figure out what they owe/are owed at the end of the year and file taxes. Also, no one could ever be accused or convicted or income tax evasion. You would never have to worry about taxes or the IRS coming after you. The same would be the case with stocks when they were sold. When you sell a stock, you would go to the government and ask them for your share of the money and they would give it to you.
Click to expand...

When this nation becomes the American Soviet Socialist Republic then you can do that.

Till then? :no:
 
Deuce said:
Neither my employer nor the government know all the details necessary to do this.
Click to expand...

You would have to explain everything to the govermnment when you ask for your check. Your employer only needs to know how much they currently pay you. They would simply pay it to the government instead.
 
RandomPoster71 said:
You would have to explain everything to the govermnment when you ask for your check. Your employer only needs to know how much they currently pay you. They would simply pay it to the government instead.
Click to expand...
If I have to explain every detail to them anyway none of this gets easier for me.
 
RandomPoster71 said:
Wouldn't it be easier if employers simply gave your paycheck to the government and the government gave you your share of the money? That way, no one would have to figure out what they owe/are owed at the end of the year and file taxes. Also, no one could ever be accused or convicted or income tax evasion. You would never have to worry about taxes or the IRS coming after you. The same would be the case with stocks when they were sold. When you sell a stock, you would go to the government and ask them for your share of the money and they would give it to you.
Click to expand...

This already happens to almost everyone.

The government takes its cut first. You get what's left.

But that doesn't - and can't - eliminate the yearly recalculation, which is necessary because, as deuce points out, no one has enough information from week to week to properly determine how much the government needs to take from each check to ensure the proper yearly withholding.

In short, your proposal has little value.
 
RandomPoster71 said:
You would have to explain everything to the govermnment when you ask for your check. Your employer only needs to know how much they currently pay you. They would simply pay it to the government instead.
Click to expand...

Have you seen what’s required to provide during tax time and how long it takes to process just a once a year event? And you want the government to have this done bi-weekly?
 
Deuce said:
If I have to explain every detail to them anyway none of this gets easier for me.
Click to expand...

You only have to tell them how many dependants you have and when that number changes. Deductions would be a thing of the past.
 
JMaximus said:
This already happens to almost everyone.

The government takes its cut first. You get what's left.

But that doesn't - and can't - eliminate the yearly recalculation, which is necessary because, as deuce points out, no one has enough information from week to week to properly determine how much the government needs to take from each check to ensure the proper yearly withholding.

In short, your proposal has little value.
Click to expand...

No that isn’t what’s done, what’s done is your employer provides that. The government doesn’t take it themselves.
 
Praxas said:
Have you seen what’s required to provide during tax time and how long it takes to process just a once a year event? And you want the government to have this done bi-weekly?
Click to expand...

Only your number of dependants would be required at the beginnning of the year. At the end of the year, you give them the information you currently provide on your tax filings and they figure out and simply tell you how much they either give you back or how much more you owe them. They could also eliminate deductions entirely and simply go by income and dependants.
 
RandomPoster71 said:
Wouldn't it be easier if employers simply gave your paycheck to the government and the government gave you your share of the money? That way, no one would have to figure out what they owe/are owed at the end of the year and file taxes. Also, no one could ever be accused or convicted or income tax evasion. You would never have to worry about taxes or the IRS coming after you. The same would be the case with stocks when they were sold. When you sell a stock, you would go to the government and ask them for your share of the money and they would give it to you.
Click to expand...

As your previous tax bracket question was explained, each paycheck (or other source of income) is potentially taxed at a different rate. Why have the government calculate your taxes due for each paycheck instead of once annually?
 
RandomPoster71 said:
Wouldn't it be easier if employers simply gave your paycheck to the government and the government gave you your share of the money? That way, no one would have to figure out what they owe/are owed at the end of the year and file taxes. Also, no one could ever be accused or convicted or income tax evasion. You would never have to worry about taxes or the IRS coming after you. The same would be the case with stocks when they were sold. When you sell a stock, you would go to the government and ask them for your share of the money and they would give it to you.
Click to expand...

Even the leftiest of the left don't want anything to do with this idea.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
As your previous tax bracket question was explained, each paycheck (or other source of income) is potentially taxed at a different rate. Why have the government calculate your taxes due for each paycheck instead of once annually?
Click to expand...

They could flatten the rate, get rid of deductions, and give everyone 50% of the paychecks. At the end of the year, the government would give earned income credit checks to people based on how much help they need.
 
Jesse Booth said:
Mother of God, 25 tax filings a year sounds like utter hell for all parties involved. How about we don't do this?
Click to expand...

There would be 0 tax filings. The government, not you, would determine the flat rate every week based on the surplus/deficit they determine is being run and how much they calculate they need to maintain their balance sheet.

One week, the government taxes everyone's check at 33%. They might decide 50% the next week.
 
Last edited:
Praxas said:
No that isn’t what’s done, what’s done is your employer provides that. The government doesn’t take it themselves.
Click to expand...

Yes, they provide that (a chunk of your check) to the government.
 
What could possibly go wrong ?

RandomPoster71 said:
Wouldn't it be easier if employers simply gave your paycheck to the government and the government gave you your share of the money? That way, no one would have to figure out what they owe/are owed at the end of the year and file taxes. Also, no one could ever be accused or convicted or income tax evasion. You would never have to worry about taxes or the IRS coming after you. The same would be the case with stocks when they were sold. When you sell a stock, you would go to the government and ask them for your share of the money and they would give it to you.
Click to expand...
 
RandomPoster71 said:
Wouldn't it be easier if employers simply gave your paycheck to the government and the government gave you your share of the money? That way, no one would have to figure out what they owe/are owed at the end of the year and file taxes. Also, no one could ever be accused or convicted or income tax evasion. You would never have to worry about taxes or the IRS coming after you. The same would be the case with stocks when they were sold. When you sell a stock, you would go to the government and ask them for your share of the money and they would give it to you.
Click to expand...

It would definitely be easier. Keep voting Democrat or establishment GOP and we might just see it happen.
 
JMaximus said:
This already happens to almost everyone.

The government takes its cut first. You get what's left.

But that doesn't - and can't - eliminate the yearly recalculation, which is necessary because, as deuce points out, no one has enough information from week to week to properly determine how much the government needs to take from each check to ensure the proper yearly withholding.

In short, your proposal has little value.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. You would no longer have to figure out how much you need to live on. The government would do that for you.
 
RandomPoster71 said:
The revenue would fund government programs to help the lower classes.
Click to expand...

How the **** do you pay for rent and food with $3.07 an hour? If someone with a minimum wage job gets half of their income cut out, that's a maximum income of $491.70 a month to cover their living expenses. That's simply an untenable position, although admittedly, so is living alone with only a minimum wage job in most places.

Let's make it a bit better. Assume $24.00 an hour, a fairly well paying job. Certainly nothing to sneeze at, right? Well you're wrong. That's only $2,000 to get you through the month, and the last trailer I lived in cost $750 a month in rent. Good ****ing luck saving money up with 50% of your income immediately drained away, before paying for insurance, rent, gas, utilities, food, and any other costs you might have. What's that, you're out of the job because nobody hires at the construction company you worked for anymore? That's a shame. The restaurants seem to be going belly up as well, since nobody eats out anymore, and only the exceptionally wealthy can afford to pay for any of their hobbies and interests now. Millions are unemployed because most people don't have discretionary spending anymore. But that's perfectly fine, all the roads in the slum you now squat in just got repaved!
 
Last edited:
Lutherf said:
You're missing the point. You would no longer have to figure out how much you need to live on. The government would do that for you.
Click to expand...

They already do.

Have you ever heard of "tax laws"?

The forms you fill out at the end of the year aren't just some pretty paper for you to write down random numbers on.

You put down exactly what the government tells you to put down and get (or get to keep) exactly what they want you to get (or keep).
 
Jesse Booth said:
How the **** do you pay for rent and food with $3.07 an hour? If someone with a minimum wage job gets half of their income cut out, that's a maximum income of $491.70 a month to cover their living expenses. That's simply an untenable position, although admittedly, so is living alone with only a minimum wage job in most places.

Let's make it a bit better. Assume $24.00 an hour, a fairly well paying job. Certainly nothing to sneeze at, right? Well you're wrong. That's only $2,000 to get you through the month, and the last trailer I lived in cost $750 a month in rent. Good ****ing luck saving money up with 50% of your income immediately drained away, before paying for insurance, rent, gas, utilities, food, and any other costs you might have. What's that, you're out of the job because nobody hires at the construction company you worked for anymore? That's a shame. The restaurants seem to be going belly up as well, since nobody eats out anymore, and only the exceptionally wealthy can afford to pay for any of their hobbies and interests now. Millions are unemployed because most people don't have discretionary spending anymore. But that's perfectly fine, all the roads in the slum you now squat in just got repaved!
Click to expand...

Poor people's 50% would be supplemented with an amount the government deemed appropriate. The money would come from wealthy people who are only given the base 50% with no supplement.
 
JMaximus said:
They already do.

Have you ever heard of "tax laws"?

The forms you fill out at the end of the year aren't just some pretty paper for you to write down random numbers on.

You put down exactly what the government tells you to put down and get (or get to keep) exactly what they want you to get (or keep).
Click to expand...

The government would do all the work for you and determine how much you deserve. All you would have to do is go pick up your check at a government center or have it automatically deposited into your bank account. Actually, the government could serve as your bank as well. That way, no money would have to be transferred to a bank. The government could hang onto the money you don't spend for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom