|
On December 18 2009 15:58 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2009 15:41 gchan wrote:On December 17 2009 05:53 motbob wrote:payroll taxes make up a LOT of revenue for the U.S. government Half the payroll taxes is paid for by the company. So in effect, the only taxes that the 33% pay are their half of the payroll which is some 33% or less of the remaining 18%. Huh? I thought companies were forced to withhold the tax money from the employee's paycheck.
There's several components companies are forced to withhold from an employee's paycheck. The two absolute ones are social security (6.2% withheld) and Medicare (1.45% withheld). The other components, which are often variable, are the unemployment taxes (varies by state) and the normal individual income tax withheld. This latter one is calculated based on a predetermined formula that considers your marital status and number of dependents (which is why you're forced to fill out this info when you first sign up for a job). A lot of times, this formula ends up withholding too much for people, so they get a refund when they file their taxes next year. If it withheld too little, you owe taxes.
What I was referring to in reference to the chart is the 6.2% SS tax and 1.45% Medicare tax which is what the government determines as "payroll taxes." This category of taxes is actually half paid by the company and half paid by the individual. So when companies withhold the 6.2%, they have to eventually pay 12.4% to the government for the social security portion of their payrolls. Same with Medicare (3.9%). That's why I say individuals only pay 18% of that 36% shown, and of the 33% people not paying taxes, they are roughly only paying 33% of that 18% pie piece.
|
On December 17 2009 10:02 CharlieMurphy wrote:
yea so? The gov't also gave out free stimulus money to like 100 million people (some got 300$ others got like 700$)
Don't be a libtard, govt money comes from the taxpayers, not out of thin area...generally speaking.
|
So much misunderstanding about Taxes.
For your FIFA taxes (SS and medicare) you pay 6.2% on your first 106,000, but medicare is unlimited 1.45%. This is withheld from your paycheck each month. The business has to match the amount you pay. The company pays state and federal unemployment, along with a tax on earnings. You also have to pay state (if you have it) and federal income tax. The botton 50% of all earners pay less than 5% of all collected taxes (federal). The bottom 50% of earners make up to (about) 36000 dollars a year.
Each state has a different minimum wage, which is the minimum wage an uneducated, unskilled worker earns to meet the bare minimum to survive (cost of living is different from city to city, you earn twice as much working in NY than joebrown, kentucky but rent also cost twice as much).
Now there are also payment schedules, and all that other crap, but I don't work payroll so I don't give a shit. If you want I'll even cover exemptions, and you can even choose not to have taxes withheld from your pay check if you want.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On December 18 2009 16:15 gchan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2009 15:58 Mystlord wrote:On December 18 2009 15:41 gchan wrote:On December 17 2009 05:53 motbob wrote:payroll taxes make up a LOT of revenue for the U.S. government Half the payroll taxes is paid for by the company. So in effect, the only taxes that the 33% pay are their half of the payroll which is some 33% or less of the remaining 18%. Huh? I thought companies were forced to withhold the tax money from the employee's paycheck. There's several components companies are forced to withhold from an employee's paycheck. The two absolute ones are social security (6.2% withheld) and Medicare (1.45% withheld). The other components, which are often variable, are the unemployment taxes (varies by state) and the normal individual income tax withheld. This latter one is calculated based on a predetermined formula that considers your marital status and number of dependents (which is why you're forced to fill out this info when you first sign up for a job). A lot of times, this formula ends up withholding too much for people, so they get a refund when they file their taxes next year. If it withheld too little, you owe taxes. What I was referring to in reference to the chart is the 6.2% SS tax and 1.45% Medicare tax which is what the government determines as "payroll taxes." This category of taxes is actually half paid by the company and half paid by the individual. So when companies withhold the 6.2%, they have to eventually pay 12.4% to the government for the social security portion of their payrolls. Same with Medicare (3.9%). That's why I say individuals only pay 18% of that 36% shown, and of the 33% people not paying taxes, they are roughly only paying 33% of that 18% pie piece.
Oh ok I see.
Regardless, the majority of the people who aren't paying taxes are like <$50k yearly income. I don't think those guys would have that big of an impact on government revenue from taxes.
|
At the rate of which we have spent and seems like we will continue to spend, it just seems so irresponsible to keep piling on the debt for future generations of tax payers. The economic damage done to this country will be insurmountable if it keeps up like this
Edit: I also like how no one cares 1/3 just get a free ride.
|
|
|
from wapo a while back.
"Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent"
go become one of those 1/3 and see if it's a really awesome free ride. i bet it would be fun.
|
On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are?
I've been searching for a blog someone made about their dad only making about $100k a year and then bitching about how Obama's proposed tax rate for the upper class meant his family was going to make a lot less. Can't find it thou, but that truly made me laugh.
Depending on how many kids a person has I think anything over 100k/year is just "spare" money. Maybe the tax code should just be that any amount over 100k/year goes to the government.
|
here is a chart that shows how progressive income tax is in the US.
As stated above, once you are rich you can fiddle with your money to pay a lot less, 17% for buffet. I'm all for closing loopholes and tax being more progressive (so the working class and middle class pay less). The rich do pay the large majority of taxes, but still hardly their fair share it could be said.
As for other stats, the top 1% have about 35% of the wealth, not 99%. While that is certainly hugely un-proportionate, what gives better perspective to inequality is looking at the bottom -- the bottom 80% have <10%. The point for this topic is that monetarily it is hardly worth it to tax the bottom 50% (150million people).
So yes, we are able to sustain gov with less than 50% paying taxes.
Now, sustaining a democracy with around 50% of people not even bothering to vote is another matter. But, not like I even want 50% of people voting given how biased, uneducated, and uninformed they are.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On December 19 2009 00:23 Undisputed- wrote:
At the rate of which we have spent and seems like we will continue to spend, it just seems so irresponsible to keep piling on the debt for future generations of tax payers. The economic damage done to this country will be insurmountable if it keeps up like this
Edit: I also like how no one cares 1/3 just get a free ride.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/542.html
Look at the demographics table. 90% of the so called "free riders" are under the poverty level. Assuming a tax of 10% on those people, and assuming an average income of 20k, just for the fun of it: 76 billion. Now that may sound like a lot, but the average income of the bottom is NOT 20k.
Let's assume 10k: Comes out to be around 38 billion. Health care reform is about a trillion. A year in Iraq is 760 billion.
Taxing the poor gets you nowhere. You're making a big deal over absolutely nothing.
|
On December 19 2009 02:03 XoXiDe wrote:
from wapo a while back.
"Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent"
go become one of those 1/3 and see if it's a really awesome free ride. i bet it would be fun.
Sorry I don't fail at life : /
|
On December 18 2009 03:05 agorist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2009 02:50 Louder wrote:On December 18 2009 02:40 FieryBalrog wrote:On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are? No one can explain it, because it doesn't exist. The upper class get taxed more than the middle and lower classes. Did you really not know that? On December 18 2009 02:34 Louder wrote:
Poor people's taxes get paid by their employer. Since 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, I say let's put the burden on them. As if they'd even notice it missing. That would be great in a perfect world where the government knew how to control its own spending and had some idea of self-control. The govt's pockets are looser than a 5 dollar hooker and its self-control is worse than a 3 year old with a box of oreos. A democracy always caters to the lowest common denominator and a democratic govt is always more concerned about racketeering for votes above all else. Obviously the government's spending isn't perfect. I'd much rather see us devote our resources to taking care of our citizens via proper public education, affordable college, health care, and a social safety net that prevents homelessness completely. Instead we spend vast sums of money on wars we shouldn't be fighting, pet projects of senators and congressmen nestled into legislation read by no one, and a "war" on drugs that has done orders of magnitude more harm than good. So you'd like to make education and healthcare (and housing? lol) more expensive through theft. Awesome. You're a grade-A human individual. Have you thought about the consequences of longterm subsidization? Have you read no articles highlighting the deterioration of public education in the United States? No articles highlighting the decreasing usefulness of college degrees? I agree with you on war. Wars are nonsense. Our congress -- misfits. We need to stop thinking that government is the solution to all of our fucking problems. It is no silver bullet. You can't just throw money at education, healthcare, or poverty and expect everything to turn to gold. All that happens (without blatant pricefixing) is that the market adjusts to the subsidy and prices rise. In short, the tax dollars you spent to make something more cheap ends up making that something more expensive. But it's invisible right? Someone else is paying for it -- a rich person -- so, who cares? I wonder, how much do you donate to charity a year? Or is it that you think crab-mentality is noble?
Taxes are theft, are they? I certainly never said "throw money" at anything, though you're pretty clearly a rabid conservative in love with capitalism and the sanctity of the market. I think the current state of health care in this country serves as ample evidence that free market capitalism does not work for health care and that the "rules" simply do not apply. In fact, there are some things that are not ethically justifiably subject to the rules of capitalism - like health care and education. Further it's appalling to me when people like you take offense to the suggestion that the wealthiest members of society should be expected to give something back to help the least fortunate. The system we have allows them to get filthy rich and gives them endless advantages and avails them to lifestyles of extreme exorbitance.
There are a substantial number of countries who provide a solid safety net for the poor and jobless, health care, and quality education both before and including college. They do so with reasonable taxation of the wealthy and with effective spending of that tax revenue. It's not theft, it's called living in a society, and behaving as a member of that society, and paying your fair share. The end all, be all of human existence is NOT to acquire vast sums of wealth, and an "open market" is not an end itself. It's not even an adequate or ethically viable means to any worthy goal.
Not that you will believe me, and not that I have to explain this, but I make about $125k per year, and I donate $250 per month each to two charities. In addition to this I'm a contractor and pay more taxes than someone who is an employee.
|
On December 19 2009 02:03 XoXiDe wrote:
from wapo a while back.
"Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent"
go become one of those 1/3 and see if it's a really awesome free ride. i bet it would be fun.
What people don't realize is that this system comes from a progressive tax system, where the more you make, the more you are taxed. If you make 599,999 and are taxed at 15%, but then hit 600,000 you jump a tax bracket to 25%, you are obviously making less money. If you want a system that doesn't tax the low earners more than the rich (as a percent), you have to have a single tax rate, and enough exemptions to not have low earners taxed.
|
On December 18 2009 03:05 agorist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2009 02:50 Louder wrote:On December 18 2009 02:40 FieryBalrog wrote:On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are? No one can explain it, because it doesn't exist. The upper class get taxed more than the middle and lower classes. Did you really not know that? On December 18 2009 02:34 Louder wrote:
Poor people's taxes get paid by their employer. Since 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, I say let's put the burden on them. As if they'd even notice it missing. That would be great in a perfect world where the government knew how to control its own spending and had some idea of self-control. The govt's pockets are looser than a 5 dollar hooker and its self-control is worse than a 3 year old with a box of oreos. A democracy always caters to the lowest common denominator and a democratic govt is always more concerned about racketeering for votes above all else. Obviously the government's spending isn't perfect. I'd much rather see us devote our resources to taking care of our citizens via proper public education, affordable college, health care, and a social safety net that prevents homelessness completely. Instead we spend vast sums of money on wars we shouldn't be fighting, pet projects of senators and congressmen nestled into legislation read by no one, and a "war" on drugs that has done orders of magnitude more harm than good. So you'd like to make education and healthcare (and housing? lol) more expensive through theft. Awesome. You're a grade-A human individual. Have you thought about the consequences of longterm subsidization? Have you read no articles highlighting the deterioration of public education in the United States? No articles highlighting the decreasing usefulness of college degrees? I agree with you on war. Wars are nonsense. Our congress -- misfits. We need to stop thinking that government is the solution to all of our fucking problems. It is no silver bullet. You can't just throw money at education, healthcare, or poverty and expect everything to turn to gold. All that happens (without blatant pricefixing) is that the market adjusts to the subsidy and prices rise. In short, the tax dollars you spent to make something more cheap ends up making that something more expensive. But it's invisible right? Someone else is paying for it -- a rich person -- so, who cares? I wonder, how much do you donate to charity a year? Or is it that you think crab-mentality is noble?
Who said anything about theft? He just said the government should allocate more resources to important things. Why are you against progress in society?
He also never said "lol money = fix"
Also, crab mentality? Really? He obviously wants things to IMPROVE, did you read the same post I did? Or did you skim through it faster than konadora does a thread.
|
On December 19 2009 03:07 Louder wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2009 03:05 agorist wrote:On December 18 2009 02:50 Louder wrote:On December 18 2009 02:40 FieryBalrog wrote:On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are? No one can explain it, because it doesn't exist. The upper class get taxed more than the middle and lower classes. Did you really not know that? On December 18 2009 02:34 Louder wrote:
Poor people's taxes get paid by their employer. Since 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, I say let's put the burden on them. As if they'd even notice it missing. That would be great in a perfect world where the government knew how to control its own spending and had some idea of self-control. The govt's pockets are looser than a 5 dollar hooker and its self-control is worse than a 3 year old with a box of oreos. A democracy always caters to the lowest common denominator and a democratic govt is always more concerned about racketeering for votes above all else. Obviously the government's spending isn't perfect. I'd much rather see us devote our resources to taking care of our citizens via proper public education, affordable college, health care, and a social safety net that prevents homelessness completely. Instead we spend vast sums of money on wars we shouldn't be fighting, pet projects of senators and congressmen nestled into legislation read by no one, and a "war" on drugs that has done orders of magnitude more harm than good. So you'd like to make education and healthcare (and housing? lol) more expensive through theft. Awesome. You're a grade-A human individual. Have you thought about the consequences of longterm subsidization? Have you read no articles highlighting the deterioration of public education in the United States? No articles highlighting the decreasing usefulness of college degrees? I agree with you on war. Wars are nonsense. Our congress -- misfits. We need to stop thinking that government is the solution to all of our fucking problems. It is no silver bullet. You can't just throw money at education, healthcare, or poverty and expect everything to turn to gold. All that happens (without blatant pricefixing) is that the market adjusts to the subsidy and prices rise. In short, the tax dollars you spent to make something more cheap ends up making that something more expensive. But it's invisible right? Someone else is paying for it -- a rich person -- so, who cares? I wonder, how much do you donate to charity a year? Or is it that you think crab-mentality is noble? Taxes are theft, are they? I certainly never said "throw money" at anything, though you're pretty clearly a rabid conservative in love with capitalism and the sanctity of the market. I think the current state of health care in this country serves as ample evidence that free market capitalism does not work for health care and that the "rules" simply do not apply. In fact, there are some things that are not ethically justifiably subject to the rules of capitalism - like health care and education. Further it's appalling to me when people like you take offense to the suggestion that the wealthiest members of society should be expected to give something back to help the least fortunate. The system we have allows them to get filthy rich and gives them endless advantages and avails them to lifestyles of extreme exorbitance. There are a substantial number of countries who provide a solid safety net for the poor and jobless, health care, and quality education both before and including college. They do so with reasonable taxation of the wealthy and with effective spending of that tax revenue. It's not theft, it's called living in a society, and behaving as a member of that society, and paying your fair share. The end all, be all of human existence is NOT to acquire vast sums of wealth, and an "open market" is not an end itself. It's not even an adequate or ethically viable means to any worthy goal. Not that you will believe me, and not that I have to explain this, but I make about $125k per year, and I donate $250 per month each to two charities. In addition to this I'm a contractor and pay more taxes than someone who is an employee.
I'll start off with a question for you to think about as I explain a few things. Are we a free-market capitalist society?
How is our healthcare "free-market"? I can't purchase healthcare across state lines or prescriptions from China. States mandate what insurance companies must cover in plans, meaning I have very little choice in my coverage. Private insurance companies (now reduced to monopolistic status due to inane barriers to entry) compete only against subsidized federal entities. You can go ahead and blame a healthcare insurer, but ask yourself -- why have the direct costs for healthcare increased? Subsidization has fueled healthcare inflation in rates far beyond standard economic inflation for decades. Has private greed caused of this? Yes. How did it do it? Law. The only way to avoid competition is to use force, and, nobody is better at force than government.
Taxation on wealth and income is theft. You can lie to yourself all you'd like, however, ask yourself what happens when you stop paying your income taxes. You might say "Hey, it's the cost of living in a society!" or even worse, "without the society, you wouldn't have earned anything!". You'd however be perpetuating the gross misunderstanding that all that we earn is possible by the grace of our altruistic buddy, government. Jobs don't exist because employment is the fundamental component of a functioning society. A job exists because someone noticed a demand for a product and service and provided to others what they wanted. An exchange can only be made voluntarily in the absence of force. In this aspect, capitalism is an engine that most accurately meets demand with supply. To deviate from this balance is folly; you cannot do better without impacting something else (windfall).
I love your rather gross misunderstanding of reality. Fair share? What is that? Do you get to decide what others should pay? What in fact is the point of living? Helping others? Helping the state help others? Helping the state help others for the greatness of our society? This sounds familiar...
I believe your income and your charity. I admire the fact that you actually donate to charity, it at least shows you support some of your ideals. Pardoning the false compromise I'm about to make, wouldn't you rather donate to charity 30% of your personal income how you pleased rather than to a government? Do you really think the government can spend your money better than you can?
|
On December 19 2009 07:55 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2009 03:05 agorist wrote:On December 18 2009 02:50 Louder wrote:On December 18 2009 02:40 FieryBalrog wrote:On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are? No one can explain it, because it doesn't exist. The upper class get taxed more than the middle and lower classes. Did you really not know that? On December 18 2009 02:34 Louder wrote:
Poor people's taxes get paid by their employer. Since 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, I say let's put the burden on them. As if they'd even notice it missing. That would be great in a perfect world where the government knew how to control its own spending and had some idea of self-control. The govt's pockets are looser than a 5 dollar hooker and its self-control is worse than a 3 year old with a box of oreos. A democracy always caters to the lowest common denominator and a democratic govt is always more concerned about racketeering for votes above all else. Obviously the government's spending isn't perfect. I'd much rather see us devote our resources to taking care of our citizens via proper public education, affordable college, health care, and a social safety net that prevents homelessness completely. Instead we spend vast sums of money on wars we shouldn't be fighting, pet projects of senators and congressmen nestled into legislation read by no one, and a "war" on drugs that has done orders of magnitude more harm than good. So you'd like to make education and healthcare (and housing? lol) more expensive through theft. Awesome. You're a grade-A human individual. Have you thought about the consequences of longterm subsidization? Have you read no articles highlighting the deterioration of public education in the United States? No articles highlighting the decreasing usefulness of college degrees? I agree with you on war. Wars are nonsense. Our congress -- misfits. We need to stop thinking that government is the solution to all of our fucking problems. It is no silver bullet. You can't just throw money at education, healthcare, or poverty and expect everything to turn to gold. All that happens (without blatant pricefixing) is that the market adjusts to the subsidy and prices rise. In short, the tax dollars you spent to make something more cheap ends up making that something more expensive. But it's invisible right? Someone else is paying for it -- a rich person -- so, who cares? I wonder, how much do you donate to charity a year? Or is it that you think crab-mentality is noble? Who said anything about theft? He just said the government should allocate more resources to important things. Why are you against progress in society? He also never said "lol money = fix" Also, crab mentality? Really? He obviously wants things to IMPROVE, did you read the same post I did? Or did you skim through it faster than konadora does a thread.
What sort of resources do governments allocate? Who says what he wants is progress? Our education is getting worse, but, we spend more. Our healthcare is getting worse, but, we're paying more. When do we stop and critically assess what's going on before we emotionally submit to anal rape by the IRS?
|
On December 19 2009 08:39 agorist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 07:55 PanN wrote:On December 18 2009 03:05 agorist wrote:On December 18 2009 02:50 Louder wrote:On December 18 2009 02:40 FieryBalrog wrote:On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are? No one can explain it, because it doesn't exist. The upper class get taxed more than the middle and lower classes. Did you really not know that? On December 18 2009 02:34 Louder wrote:
Poor people's taxes get paid by their employer. Since 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, I say let's put the burden on them. As if they'd even notice it missing. That would be great in a perfect world where the government knew how to control its own spending and had some idea of self-control. The govt's pockets are looser than a 5 dollar hooker and its self-control is worse than a 3 year old with a box of oreos. A democracy always caters to the lowest common denominator and a democratic govt is always more concerned about racketeering for votes above all else. Obviously the government's spending isn't perfect. I'd much rather see us devote our resources to taking care of our citizens via proper public education, affordable college, health care, and a social safety net that prevents homelessness completely. Instead we spend vast sums of money on wars we shouldn't be fighting, pet projects of senators and congressmen nestled into legislation read by no one, and a "war" on drugs that has done orders of magnitude more harm than good. So you'd like to make education and healthcare (and housing? lol) more expensive through theft. Awesome. You're a grade-A human individual. Have you thought about the consequences of longterm subsidization? Have you read no articles highlighting the deterioration of public education in the United States? No articles highlighting the decreasing usefulness of college degrees? I agree with you on war. Wars are nonsense. Our congress -- misfits. We need to stop thinking that government is the solution to all of our fucking problems. It is no silver bullet. You can't just throw money at education, healthcare, or poverty and expect everything to turn to gold. All that happens (without blatant pricefixing) is that the market adjusts to the subsidy and prices rise. In short, the tax dollars you spent to make something more cheap ends up making that something more expensive. But it's invisible right? Someone else is paying for it -- a rich person -- so, who cares? I wonder, how much do you donate to charity a year? Or is it that you think crab-mentality is noble? Who said anything about theft? He just said the government should allocate more resources to important things. Why are you against progress in society? He also never said "lol money = fix" Also, crab mentality? Really? He obviously wants things to IMPROVE, did you read the same post I did? Or did you skim through it faster than konadora does a thread. What sort of resources do governments allocate? Who says what he wants is progress? Our education is getting worse, but, we spend more. Our healthcare is getting worse, but, we're paying more. When do we stop and critically assess what's going on before we emotionally submit to anal rape by the IRS?
It should have been obvious from my initial post that I don't think our approach to any of those subjects has been adequate, indeed I think in each of the areas I mentioned we've failed to do anything satisfactory with existing levels of funding. In terms of taxation, however, I stand by what I said. We should tax so that those with the greatest means pay the largest share and those with the least means are provided for, and those of any means have access to a quality standard of public services including health care and education, up to and including post-secondary.
Certainly a substantial deal of reform is needed across the board to achieve any measure of meaningful progress. That progress still comes at a price. And as our government is more than willing to sacrifice over one trillion dollars to invade and occupy a country on spurious grounds, I think it's fair to throw THAT into the equation of necessary reform, taxation and spending, not to mention no small measure of ethical bankruptcy, racism, imperialism, nationalism and religious contamination across the board.
The point is, this issue is not something that can be discussed without a greater context, and attempting to do so is disingenuous to say the least.
|
Before we argue about such economic and social issues such as class in united states, taxes, fairness of capitalism etc, we should first do research.
I strongly suggest everyone interested in this topic to research sociological texts such as William Domhoff's classic "Who Rules America".
zeppelin said it right, social change won't happen "[...} as long as the rich get to write the tax code".
|
On December 19 2009 09:15 Louder wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 08:39 agorist wrote:On December 19 2009 07:55 PanN wrote:On December 18 2009 03:05 agorist wrote:On December 18 2009 02:50 Louder wrote:On December 18 2009 02:40 FieryBalrog wrote:On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are? No one can explain it, because it doesn't exist. The upper class get taxed more than the middle and lower classes. Did you really not know that? On December 18 2009 02:34 Louder wrote:
Poor people's taxes get paid by their employer. Since 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, I say let's put the burden on them. As if they'd even notice it missing. That would be great in a perfect world where the government knew how to control its own spending and had some idea of self-control. The govt's pockets are looser than a 5 dollar hooker and its self-control is worse than a 3 year old with a box of oreos. A democracy always caters to the lowest common denominator and a democratic govt is always more concerned about racketeering for votes above all else. Obviously the government's spending isn't perfect. I'd much rather see us devote our resources to taking care of our citizens via proper public education, affordable college, health care, and a social safety net that prevents homelessness completely. Instead we spend vast sums of money on wars we shouldn't be fighting, pet projects of senators and congressmen nestled into legislation read by no one, and a "war" on drugs that has done orders of magnitude more harm than good. So you'd like to make education and healthcare (and housing? lol) more expensive through theft. Awesome. You're a grade-A human individual. Have you thought about the consequences of longterm subsidization? Have you read no articles highlighting the deterioration of public education in the United States? No articles highlighting the decreasing usefulness of college degrees? I agree with you on war. Wars are nonsense. Our congress -- misfits. We need to stop thinking that government is the solution to all of our fucking problems. It is no silver bullet. You can't just throw money at education, healthcare, or poverty and expect everything to turn to gold. All that happens (without blatant pricefixing) is that the market adjusts to the subsidy and prices rise. In short, the tax dollars you spent to make something more cheap ends up making that something more expensive. But it's invisible right? Someone else is paying for it -- a rich person -- so, who cares? I wonder, how much do you donate to charity a year? Or is it that you think crab-mentality is noble? Who said anything about theft? He just said the government should allocate more resources to important things. Why are you against progress in society? He also never said "lol money = fix" Also, crab mentality? Really? He obviously wants things to IMPROVE, did you read the same post I did? Or did you skim through it faster than konadora does a thread. What sort of resources do governments allocate? Who says what he wants is progress? Our education is getting worse, but, we spend more. Our healthcare is getting worse, but, we're paying more. When do we stop and critically assess what's going on before we emotionally submit to anal rape by the IRS? The point is, this issue is not something that can be discussed without a greater context, and attempting to do so is disingenuous to say the least.
Yes indeed Louder, why don't you start doing that by adressing his post in the spoilers right here? it seems pretty broad in context to me~~ or has cognitive dissonance rendered such things as trivial, unimportant and not worth redress?
+ Show Spoiler +I'll start off with a question for you to think about as I explain a few things. Are we a free-market capitalist society?
How is our healthcare "free-market"? I can't purchase healthcare across state lines or prescriptions from China. States mandate what insurance companies must cover in plans, meaning I have very little choice in my coverage. Private insurance companies (now reduced to monopolistic status due to inane barriers to entry) compete only against subsidized federal entities. You can go ahead and blame a healthcare insurer, but ask yourself -- why have the direct costs for healthcare increased? Subsidization has fueled healthcare inflation in rates far beyond standard economic inflation for decades. Has private greed caused of this? Yes. How did it do it? Law. The only way to avoid competition is to use force, and, nobody is better at force than government.
Taxation on wealth and income is theft. You can lie to yourself all you'd like, however, ask yourself what happens when you stop paying your income taxes. You might say "Hey, it's the cost of living in a society!" or even worse, "without the society, you wouldn't have earned anything!". You'd however be perpetuating the gross misunderstanding that all that we earn is possible by the grace of our altruistic buddy, government. Jobs don't exist because employment is the fundamental component of a functioning society. A job exists because someone noticed a demand for a product and service and provided to others what they wanted. An exchange can only be made voluntarily in the absence of force. In this aspect, capitalism is an engine that most accurately meets demand with supply. To deviate from this balance is folly; you cannot do better without impacting something else (windfall).
I love your rather gross misunderstanding of reality. Fair share? What is that? Do you get to decide what others should pay? What in fact is the point of living? Helping others? Helping the state help others? Helping the state help others for the greatness of our society? This sounds familiar...
I believe your income and your charity. I admire the fact that you actually donate to charity, it at least shows you support some of your ideals. Pardoning the false compromise I'm about to make, wouldn't you rather donate to charity 30% of your personal income how you pleased rather than to a government? Do you really think the government can spend your money better than you can?
|
i got most of my federal withholding back last year. but i also made very little money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/images/Numbers_Figure-1_What-are-fed-govts-sources-of-revenue_3.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.qbkaccounting.com/500px-US_income_tax_2008.svg.png)
