Who REALLY pays income taxes?

[Redworm]

Marginal smarginal. If the retail clerk is providing a necessary level of value to society, he’ll make enough money to pay his taxes. If not, his services won't be required and he'll be free to find more lucrative employment.

That's ridiculous. How exactly is he going to find more lucrative employment if he doesn't have enough money to keep a roof over his head let alone go to school and earn a degree that will qualify him for a such a job?

The successful retail empire benefits no more from the transportation infrastructure than your poor retail clerk.

It most certainly does. The retail empire makes many, many times more profit off the use of those roads - since they don't have to, yknow, build their own or fly everything in by cargo plane to their own private airport - than the guy that uses it commuting to work.

My personal bias is based on fairness. How ‘bout yours? Maybe some other standard?

"Fairness" is subjective. There is no universal constant for "fair".

 

[Redworm]

Redworm,

Might I suggest an arithmetic lesson?

Actually, your arithmetic looks OK, but the numbers you're using are way off.

I didn't miss anything. I understand and can defend all I stated.

You did miss something. The first is that there are only around 200,000 people in this country that qualify as working adults. You cannot expect children to pay income tax.

Maybe I hit the 0 too many times on my calculator so I'll try it again by hand and relay the results.

Here goes.

1.2 trillion in income taxes that the federal government collected.

1,200,000,000,000 / 200,000

yep. 6,000,000


Now, four grand in income tax multiplied by two hundred thousand working people.

200,000 * 4,000 = 800,000,000

Eight hundred million. Think we can defend the entire country with only two dozen F/A-18s?

 

[grymster2007]

That's ridiculous. How exactly is he going to find more lucrative employment if he doesn't have enough money to keep a roof over his head let alone go to school and earn a degree that will qualify him for a such a job?

If he wants to survive, he'll find more lucrative employment. Not ridiculous; just a fact.

The retail empire makes many, many times more profit off the use of those roads

And profit somehow trumps survival? Who's benefitting most here?

"Fairness" is subjective. There is no universal constant for "fair".

Fairness is subjective only to those motivated to see it so.

 

[grymster2007]

Redworm,

Keep trying! Hint.... try using 200 million working adults.

 

[Redworm]

oh! hahahahahaha you got me, pal

Man I need a break.

 

[Redworm]

If he wants to survive, he'll find more lucrative employment. Not ridiculous; just a fact.

It's ridiculous to think that someone can simply find more lucrative employment on a whim. If it were possible then everyone would be working six figure jobs.

It takes higher education or a really great idea that very few people ever have - and even then it takes start-up capital - or sheer luck for someone making twenty grand a year to double his income.

Yes, it's ridiculous to claim that the retail clerk should simply get a better job or starve when he's living paycheck to paycheck and doesn't have the resources to invest in the things that are required to get a better job.

And profit somehow trumps survival? Who's benefitting most here?

There is no profit without survival. The owners and shareholders of the company making the profit are already surviving plus they're making a profit.

They're getting the greater benefit from the roads, no two ways about it.

Fairness is subjective only to those motivated to see it so.

What? Dude, fairness is subjective. The concept of fairness is a human construct. There is no universal constant for it. Of course it's subjective; your definition of fair does not necessarily equal mine nor is yours any more valid than mine.

 

[grymster2007]

oh! hahahahahaha you got me, pal

Man I need a break.

Thank Christ.... I've had enough myself. We could take this up tomorrow. Meanwhile, I need to go count all the money I've swindled from the poor.

 

[Redworm]

Redworm,

Keep trying! Hint.... try using 200 million working adults.

So 800 billion from four grand a pop. Much better than my retarded numbers but still below operating costs. Now I'd love for the federal government to get that cheap but we'd have to drastically cut across the board, not just the services you don't like.

That being said, still not fair. The people at the bottom need a chance to make a better life, not punishment for not being as lucky as those born into prosperity and opportunity.

Four thousand to a person trying to feed kids on a retail clerk's salary is a lot more significant than four thousand to a guy making sixty a year. Why doesn't the retail clerk just make 60?

Because it takes money. No one magically lands a 60k a year job. it takes investment in education or in an idea that other people want to spend money on or flat out dumb luck or a very long time. It's unreasonable to think that anyone can just "decide" to increase their standard of living. It doesn't work that way.

Thank Christ.... I've had enough myself. We could take this up tomorrow. Meanwhile, I need to go count all the money I've swindled from the poor.

I meant a break from my school work. It muddled up my head with right-brain concepts that my left hemisphere must have gone to bed already.

Oops!

 

[Dust Monkey]

it's ridiculous to claim that the retail clerk should simply get a better job or starve when he's living paycheck to paycheck and doesn't have the resources to invest in the things that are required to get a better job.

Why is it the responsibility of others to see that this retail clerk has the resources to get a better job?

 

[zukiphile]

So is it not fair to argue that, at least for a large portion of the federal budget, having people pay in proportion to their assets or income (we'll stipulate a flat percentage rate for this argument) actually is having them pay their "fair share" as well?

I think it is a practical solution, but I am not impressed with the "fairness", a term so plastic it means whatever any writer wants it to mean, of charging a man 10 times what another man is charged simply because he has 10 times more. If you were charged three times the amount I pay for the same car just because you make more, you would be livid.

Again, arguing strictly for proportional (and not progressive) taxation, what about the other side of the coin? I'll set aside the whole "have benefited more from the government" aspect, since it's a lot more involved of a conversation than I'm looking to get into at the moment. But how about we simply go with "have more to lose?"

The problem is that it isn't really true. Those with the most to lose are the middle income professional and academic classes who depend on government order, fair courts, and education for their prosperity. The genuinely poor, nearly extinct in the US, and the very wealthy would have very similar outcomes.

See so much of south america. They lack the economic and social stability of a land title system that lets people of modest means own their homes and accumulate equity. People must reserve their land rights by ongoing use. Wealthy people have the resources to hold and control vast areas, while many others can only claim what they can personally hold as a home.

In that sense, the current tax distribution is very approximately "fair", with those of modest income paying little, middle income paying most of the tax burden.

 

[Redworm]

Why is it the responsibility of others to see that this retail clerk has the resources to get a better job?

It's not, but it is the responsibility of a civilized society - especially one that purports itself to be the greatest country in the world - to ensure that he has the opportunity to do such a thing. The more people we have getting higher education and better jobs the better we will all be as a whole. If you have any desire to see that this country succeeds - and success is not measured by the strength of our military, as some would claim - then you'll want to reduce the amount of poverty as possible by opening doors of opportunity for those that would otherwise have none.

 

[hogdogs]

I know one person that could go through all government agencys and flip through the ledgers and point out every wasted dollar or dollars of questionable destination... the reason the operating costs are so high is flagtant misappropriation of funds! My wife would have a field day! I would have to accompany her as she would weild a sword after the first day wanting to see heads rolling... I would have to constantly remind her "Honey they are stupid and know not what they do..."
Brent

 

[brickeyee]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

Karl Marx

 

[zukiphile]

Unfortunately both Hillary and Obama have plans to change that........upward.

Any evidence as to exactly how far upward? Preferably with some kind of quotes to lend support, rather than "olol Marxists."

Plus there's the fact that the President doesn't set the tax rates anyway.

Regardless, my bet? 38%.

From a 1.21.08 NYT piece:

“I want to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and the market.”

and

In the first period, from 1946 to 1973, the pay of most workers rose steadily. The income of the median family — the one earning less than half of all other families and more than half of all others — more than doubled during those years, to almost $50,000, in inflation-adjusted terms, according to Census Bureau data analyzed by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal group in Washington.

Since 1973, the income of the median family has grown only about 25 percent.

During the earlier period, Mrs. Clinton said, the share of workers in labor unions grew, allowing workers to win raises and benefits that they can rarely win on their own. Marginal tax rates on the affluent were “confiscatory” by today’s standards, she said. (In the early 1970s, the top rate, which applied to income above $1 million in today’s terms, was 70 percent; the top rate now is 35 percent.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/u...slogin&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

 

[Dust Monkey]

It's not, but it is the responsibility of a civilized society - especially one that purports itself to be the greatest country in the world - to ensure that he has the opportunity to do such a thing. The more people we have getting higher education and better jobs the better we will all be as a whole. If you have any desire to see that this country succeeds - and success is not measured by the strength of our military, as some would claim - then you'll want to reduce the amount of poverty as possible by opening doors of opportunity for those that would otherwise have none.

Nice, I am for people getting higher education and better jobs. I just dont want to pay for it.

 

[SecDef]

Nice, I am for people getting higher education and better jobs. I just dont want to pay for it.

Think of it as an investment. You will also reap the benefits. It's just not as direct.

The cool thing is that the economy isn't a zero sum game. People that generate wealth do so out of thin air, and then they spend the money. I want as many people generating wealth as possible in my city / state / country.

 

[Dust Monkey]

Think of it as an investment. You will also reap the benefits. It's just not as direct.

The cool thing is that the economy isn't a zero sum game. People that generate wealth do so out of thin air, and then they spend the money. I want as many people generating wealth as possible in my city / state / country.

I dont see it that way. I work to support me and mine. Pay for the education, food, clothes......of me and mine. Why should I have to support others? Sorry.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[grymster2007]

Higher education does not necessarily or even usually equal higher paying jobs. For example, I can’t find people to give $40K+/yr entry level machinist jobs to because parents, the government and most especially teacher’s unions tell all kids that they need to go to college and get a degree, so they’ll be more successful. So the schools lower the standards to accommodate all these kids, many of whom should have entered vocational school at age 14, and what we have now are a bunch of not-so-smart people holding a useless degree. They’re 25 years old and have never worked with their hands, they still can’t read, write or do the relatively simple math required. Their best prospect for employment is often in the service industry at $20K/yr and the true taxpayers have paid dearly for this travesty, not only in dollars wasted, but also in lower standards of living, outsourced jobs and lost opportunities for entrepreneurs.

 

[hogdogs]

Grymster brings up a GREAT point. While I am not a machinist, I can read the calipers and micrometers of the trade and have done a few things, with the real machinists help, on lathes and milling machines to complete tasks for they or I. I even invented offshore trolling lures designed for line as light as 15 pounds allowing trolling speeds in testing of 19 knots. None of these machinists were full time or as they all said... "Son I think you are better at this than alot of college grads." I would have worked for less than 40k to hone my abilities to that of "junior machinist" just never found the right shop. While a supervisor in pest control I met many a college student/grad working for minimum wage and offered them jobs and of the few that showed up, few were willing to bust butt for 35-60k thus 1 in 60 stayed a month...
Brent

 

[zukiphile]

Grymster brings up a GREAT point.

I agree.

We stigmatise trade schools by insisting that every smart lad get a classical, liberal arts, university education, and only directing behaviour problems and the slow elsewhere.

Providing the option of a fine and rigorous technical education to kids interested in it, the kids who might go on to engineering anyway, would only cut out a lot of the fluff that might be of little interest to them anyway.

I am not technically proficient, a typical number-phobe, but all reading Beowulf in highschool did for me was teach me that I didn't like reading Beowulf.