Why are taxes such an issue?

[Gulli]

I never said all 47% sit on the couch all day. I said they do not pay federal income taxes because of sitting on the couch or because they do not make enough. You love your made up numbers. Well IF .000000018 of the top .00000001% I like those numbers better. Hey this is kinda fun making up numbers.
Yea, this administration is waaaaaay awesome when it comes to transparency. The government already admitted that they knew they would not really be able to track the weapons, real smart. The root of the problem is the drug cartels in Mexico. Last I checked we can go there. Hell even our agents cannot carry their weapons. Mexico is too corrupt to be effective. The rule is by silver or lead.
I thought you wanted roads or police. Well stop the pig smell study and hire a cop. See all these pet projects do add up. I would love true number, but like you said "because I dont need actual numbers". Since we both do not agree with each other, only I am being partisan. Now tell me, how is that?

Um no, 47% of all households (including college students and seniors) do not pay NET federal income tax. They do however pay into medicare/medicaid, and so on and pay sales taxes (none of these are counted as federal income tax but they are counted into the 2.1 trillion total federal revenue). For most of these people medicare/medicaid and so on premiums account for more than the income tax did anyway (figures of 15-20% are not unheard of). Anyway, people keep making one colossal mistake when talking about these figures: doublecounting. They think the NET taxes and premiums of everyone should add up to 2.1 trillion but that is of course a mistake since the government is supposed to put more than 99% of federal revenue back into the country (which will eventually end up back in the pockets of citizens). So it's not really a surprise or a problem that many people get most of their money back in some form, otherwise money would be "leaking" from the US economy.

 

[MysticMiner]

^^^

Your daughter will have to figure out where opportunity springs from, and she may realize it's quite expensive to equalize that opportunity. She's also not aware of the scope of the federal government in regulating interstate commerce and other interstate relationships. Along with a few other details, like currency, bankruptcies and the environment. Stopping the laws from giving benefits to others is not enough.

People who just want to reduce and minimize the government are idealists, which is nice in a teenager, but it'll meet reality and change.

That said, you are substantially correct in regards the tax code, however you are attributing it to malice. In which case the problem is the government, not the tool.

^^

You have attributed the 47% of Americans who pay no net federal income tax (and yes, as said above, they do pay other taxes), to be nothing more than voters, you have asserted a negative opinion of them in a variety of form, so I'm going to say that my description of your position is accurate. And my rebuttal is that even if your condemnation of a large mass of people wasn't such an unwarranted assumption, it'd still be such a tiny fraction of the total wealth, that even if only 10% of the top 1% was equally condemnable, they'd still have more wealth. You keep focusing on the numbers being made-up by me, but you never note your own problem with doing it. Why is that? You get to condemn tens of millions of people as if they were all stealing wealth, when many of them may be working much harder than you want to admit, but me, apparently there's some problem with me, pointing out the flaw in your position, one you can't even understand is an example and nothing more.

But no, canceling the pig study wouldn't do much, it'd just mean people who live next to a pig farm would have to commission their own study, which would be more expensive than the government doing it once, and serving all the people. Acting as if the government can only do one thing or the other is a silly proposition, they can do both easily enough.

And if you are so worried about the drug war, work to end it yourself. It's been a mess for decades. Tracking arms sales is part of what they need to do now though, and while you can worry about those guns in the sting operation, I don't because I know there's no shortage of others. You're worried that somebody has a couple of matches when there's already a blazing inferno that started up before they even came on the scene. Doesn't seem effective to me.

Also, that last bit, not a reply to you. The "^" indicate a reply to a different post. Sorry if that's unclear.

^
Though no, Gulli, they aren't paying the general sales tax, but other taxes like the fuel taxes, or other federal excise taxes. Best to be specific.

 

[MysticMiner]

It's defined several different ways actually.

 

[Reynod]

Corporate welfare example:

The state government allows Oil and Gas companies to train their people using government subsidised profile training hours meant for the unemployed ... and the company picks up the tab for the training ... and even claims it against their corporate tax, as well as receiving another subsidy from the government for meeting their training quota for the year by doing it.

State government give the Oil and Gas industry a 25 acre property on the condition they develop the site for training ... then the government award the companies that move in a number of tenders for free equipment, resources, and even subsidises the utilities for the site, and funds a business development officer ....

I can keep throwing examples for the process manufacturing industry as well ...

 

[Reynod]

oldman there was a nazi post ... should we close this??

 

[MysticMiner]

The law is corporate welfare? I suppose in a sense, since the public body is being served by the law which protests the welfare of it. But I don't think that's an accurate description of how it is commonly used.

However, no, the Democrats did not have absolute authority in those years, even if they had been committed to acting in lockstep on the issue. They weren't, so it wouldn't have happened, even if it was necessarily a good idea. Or if it were entirely a federal question. My local government spent plenty on corporate welfare, for example. So even if they had done so on a federal level, it still would happen.

But no, the light bulb law did not require or encourage GE to build a factory in China, though I heard the factory was in Mexico, not China. Still, I can live with the toxic plant in China or Mexico over the toxic fumes in the air from burning coal in the US. The net mercury level IS higher with incandescent lights and the level of coal power generation in the US. Even if you break all your CFL bulbs and don't properly recycle them.

If you do...it's much lower.

Still, if you want to encourage GE to build in the US, go ahead.

 

[MysticMiner]

You're the one who said "I define it as the law." which I can only attribute as meaning that you believe that the entirety of the law is corporate welfare. Which I will grant as true in a sense, but not the meaning usually meant by others.

And you may think that particular bill screws us, but I disagree on that particular interpretation, I find it to be a beneficial law, and no, I don't find it to be corporate welfare in particular. Reynod's examples were much more pertinent to that. You can say it's a bad thing that GE closed a US factory and opened a foreign one, but that doesn't make the law in question actual corporate welfare.

 

[MysticMiner]

As I said, there's several different meanings to the term, not just one.

If you want I could provide you with some of the meanings I've seen, but I was kinda waiting for your question to be answered by the person you originally asked.

 

[Mutt x]

^^^

Your daughter will have to figure out where opportunity springs from, and she may realize it's quite expensive to equalize that opportunity. She's also not aware of the scope of the federal government in regulating interstate commerce and other interstate relationships. Along with a few other details, like currency, bankruptcies and the environment. Stopping the laws from giving benefits to others is not enough.

Mystic her point is the less the government is involved the less likely it's irresitable hand is to alter how the system works. The more involved it is the more it is shaped by special interests. People who want to use the government to "make" things fair have are just as determined to shape things they way they want/prefer as any other special interest group.

People who just want to reduce and minimize the government are idealists, which is nice in a teenager, but it'll meet reality and change.

The authors of our Constitution believed in a minimalist government and they were not teenagers.

That said, you are substantially correct in regards the tax code, however you are attributing it to malice. In which case the problem is the government, not the tool.

You are correct that the problem is the government, not taxes. I am not opposed to taxes as I stated earlier. But I don't think most people operate in malice but in self-interest. Two realities that our Founders recoginzed are that people act in their own best interest and that people are capable of great evil. The whole idea of checks and balances is because the Framers of the Constitution didn't trust government because it is innately corrupt, self-serving and tends to grow as much as you let it.

 

[MysticMiner]

Yeah, what your daughter doesn't get is that the special interests won't just go away because the government is not involved.

It'll still happen. Just without even the protections inherent in any good government. You may think that you'd have a better chance resisting them than the government, but my experience is that is rarely the case.

Nor is wanting shape things wrong. That's fine. It's how you want to do it that is an issue. Some are genuine, but misguided. Some are dishonest. Some are faithful and wise, but their intentions can be corrupted. So it happens. That's why we have the right to stand up and say no. Some places more than others.

And no, I would not say the authors of our Constitution did not believe in a minimalist government, I would say they believed in a constrained government, which is distinctly different. I suppose some might be attributed as having such a view, but it's not like they had an entirely uniform opinion, there were distinct arguments and divisions in the origination of the document itself.

I will agree they did have a share of idealism...but they also had a share of realism too. That's the more important part than the teenager part. Unless you're Michelle Bachmann insisting that John Quincy Adams was a founding father.

And I agree, most people do act in self-interest, not malice, however your description was one of malicious intent. And no, it's not because the government is innately corrupt, it is because individuals are. Which is why we need transparency and the ability to call the government into question. Unfortunately, the current US federal system as it has developed doesn't do as good a job of it as it could. Some reform would be nice.

 

[chunkymonster]

You're blaming the wrong people. The Union workers are not the ones who are collecting the big paychecks for work being contracted out. It's the owners of the corporations who lobbied the politicians to do it.

True and correction. The reason Union workers no longer collect big paychecks is because Unions are extremely guilty of pricing themselves out of jobs as a result of using thug tactics to force companies into paying them unsustainable wages and benefits. The UAW and GM bankruptcy was/is the prime example of Union greed.

The NEA is another example of Union greed and failure of Union leaders to ensure the best interest of their membership. My wife is a teacher, graduated Magna Cum Laude from Columbia, she's underpaid but still makes good money at over $60K per year, her Union membership dues are $35 per pay, over $730 per year, the State NEA has a marketing/advertising fund of over $5Million per year, the State NEA donated over $355K to Democrats ($0 to Repubs) in the last election cycle, but yet my wife and her students must supply their own classroom materials. You tell me what Union dues actually pay for.

Public Unions are even worse! Cities and Counties filing for bankruptcy is becoming commonplace because Public Unions demand wages and compensation greater than what the tax base can financially support.

A business owner's and CEO's responsibility is to maintain and/or increase profitability lest the company go out of business. If it financially prudent to move operations out of country in order to maintain that profitability, then the business owner and/or CEO would not be doing their job. Contrary to popular belief, most companies operate within the legal tax code and within the laws that bind and govern corporate behavior. Companies do not need to change, the laws and politicians need to change.

Yeah, that's why with less than 10% of workers nationwide unionized, they are clearly controlling the market!

Oh wait, no, that's not happening.

The lack of union representation could be why worker salaries have remained near-flat while executive compensation has escalated.

Why do you blame unions when there's far more abuse going on in executive board rooms?

Your stats do not include Public Unions. Private Unions are +/-10% of the working population. However, +/-36% of the working population belong to Public Unions. Combined, they represent +/- 46% of total workers and collectively, that 46% of the working population has more say and influence into local and federal politics than any number of people on any Executive Board.

Union greed and entitlements are symptomatic of the Socialist Democrats concerted effort to create a government dependent social class. Unions and minorities are exploited by Socialist Democrats to further their agenda under the false pretenses that Democrats will ensure their entitlements. That is is fallacy of the Socialists and the primary reason why Socialism has failed throughout the world and the reason why it is failing in America.

 

[Gulli]

Union greed and entitlements are symptomatic of the Socialist Democrats concerted effort to create a government dependent social class. Unions and minorities are exploited by Socialist Democrats to further their agenda under the false pretenses that Democrats will ensure their entitlements. That is is fallacy of the Socialists and the primary reason why Socialism has failed throughout the world and the reason why it is failing in America.

Maybe socialism has failed but the social democracy is doing just fine in Australia, Northern Europe, Japan and Canada, who, compared to the US, each have lower national debts, less murders, lower overall crime rates, lower healthcare expenditures, less drug addicts, less homeless, no people going bankrupt because of medical bills, less extremely poor people, less working hours/more vacations, no 80-year olds who have to work to survive, less people who can't find their own country on a map, less people who think Adam and Eve walked with Dinosaurs, more affordable tertiary education, lower infant mortality and less income inequality.

These countries do have their own problems, but they are far better off than the United States in almost all aspects. The world of tomorrow will definitely be closer to the social democracy than to reaganomics. Many Americans are starting to recognize this and their number will only grow.

 

[brentkhack]

Well most countries need to thank us for some of those luxuries. Since it is us that police the world they do not have to spend that extra money for a stronger military, but on social programs. I like the idea that I have a say in how successful I may or may not be. Its funny how liberal students love to spread the wealth with other peoples money, but when asked if they will take a lower grade to raise the grade to those on the verge on failing a class they would refuse.

 

[brentkhack]

oldman there was a nazi post ... should we close this??

Did someone call someone else a Nazi? Or did they post a piece of history? If noone can post a piece of history, this would have closed long time ago.

 

[wanamingo]

Law proven again.

 

[Gulli]

Well most countries need to thank us for some of those luxuries. Since it is us that police the world they do not have to spend that extra money for a stronger military, but on social programs. I like the idea that I have a say in how successful I may or may not be. Its funny how liberal students love to spread the wealth with other peoples money, but when asked if they will take a lower grade to raise the grade to those on the verge on failing a class they would refuse.

That is an illusion: French and British nukes protect my ass, along with the over 2 million soldiers of the EU-memberstates, while America is just being paranoid and arming itself to fight aliens, as one poster here so eloquently put it.

 

[Gulli]

True and correction. The reason Union workers no longer collect big paychecks is because Unions are extremely guilty of pricing themselves out of jobs as a result of using thug tactics to force companies into paying them unsustainable wages and benefits. The UAW and GM bankruptcy was/is the prime example of Union greed.

Really? You don't think GM continuing to build cars for 1950s America instead of the 21st century, coupled with huge bonuses for failing management had more to do with it rather than the unions asking for lower wages and benefits than what had been the norm at Volkswagen (which is still doing just fine)?

 

[MU_Engineer]

Welfare is the path to work...?...You can't be serious. Welfare gives the poor so much money, they sit all day doing nothing but watching TV and eating. They don't need work if they have welfare.

I'll add unemployment and disability to that list as well. I just met somebody today who said that they worked part time because if they worked more, they would lose their disability check (for "full disability") from the government. So, we have somebody who is clearly able to work but limiting the amount they work because we're giving them money NOT to work. And we wonder why we're in a depression and our nation's credit rating has been downgraded. 😱

 

[dogman_1234]

Recession no, a Depression yes.

Remember, a recession is where your neighbor looses his job, a depression is where you loose your job. Get it? Good.

 

[brentkhack]

That is an illusion: French and British nukes protect my ass, along with the over 2 million soldiers of the EU-memberstates, while America is just being paranoid and arming itself to fight aliens, as one poster here so eloquently put it.

Like it or not, we are THE world police and that cost money. We have a huge U.S. military and also working with other world military. So in the EU all the small countries cant defend themselves, so they have to partner up. We dont have to, but we still do. So your welcome EU.

 

[MysticMiner]

Your stats do not include Public Unions. Private Unions are +/-10% of the working population. However, +/-36% of the working population belong to Public Unions. Combined, they represent +/- 46% of total workers and collectively, that 46% of the working population has more say and influence into local and federal politics than any number of people on any Executive Board.

My stats DID include both public and private workers, if it had just been private, it would have been lower and your math is terrible.

You cannot combine the percentages from public workers (36%) separately from that of private workers (closer to 7% taken separately) and get an accurate answer that represents the total working population(not 46%, but the 10% number I used earlier).

Please do not make me explain why.

Also, most cities and communities that need to file for bankruptcy do it because of mismanagement at the top. Since there's been fewer than 600 of them since 1937, I don't see it as a problem. Why do you think it's becoming more common? Even the most recent case, Central Falls RI, while pension obligations are a problem for it, does not mean the workers did wrong, when the mayor of the town is being investigated for fraud. I think the roots of their issues are far deeper than just the pensions.

That said, I do agree, the laws need to be changed, but I'm not going to put the onus of it on the working man. I'm going to look at the guy who took 10 cookies off the plate.

 

[brentkhack]

http://beforewisdom.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/godwinsLaw.png

Law proven again.

That's why it is a law. Dont want to get arrested, or worse...taxed in some way.

 

[MysticMiner]

I'll add unemployment and disability to that list as well. I just met somebody today who said that they worked part time because if they worked more, they would lose their disability check (for "full disability") from the government. So, we have somebody who is clearly able to work but limiting the amount they work because we're giving them money NOT to work. And we wonder why we're in a depression and our nation's credit rating has been downgraded. 😱

Perhaps because what they would earn from working would not be enough to live on if they lost the money from disability. That said, disability law actually DOES have an exemption to encourage people to work, through a program called Ticket to Work.

The person you talked to was misinformed. They should take to somebody at Social Security about it, and if they can earn enough, it'll be good for all.

 

[MU_Engineer]

Perhaps because what they would earn from working would not be enough to live on if they lost the money from disability.

There are two things wrong with your response. One, you're endorsing out and out fraud. Somebody who is on disability should actually be, you know, disabled. Not "well, they aren't actually disabled but they could use some extra money so we'll give them some anyway." Secondly, "enough to live on" is an impossible to precisely define number. I've seen large numbers of supposedly "poor" people on various government dole programs spending a lot of money on clearly optional items. They walk in with cell phones costing well north of a hundred bucks, backed up by a $50-100/month contract. Many smoke $150 or more in cigarettes every month (1 pack-a-day at ~$5.50-6.00/pack) and drink $50-100+ in alcohol per month. Don't forget the large LCD TVs many have, being fed by cable or satellite dishes. Just drive through a "poor" part of town in the evening; you'll see the glow of that large TV through the window, and see the satellite dishes on the roofs or on a pole in the yard. Oh, also don't forget lottery tickets and casinos. I have an old flip phone on a cheap contract, don't smoke, rarely drink, and my nicest TV is a 20-year-old CRT that's on its last legs. Yet I have to pay a considerable amount in taxes to support those yahoos that often have nicer stuff than I do. What's wrong with that picture?

 

[brentkhack]

There are two things wrong with your response. One, you're endorsing out and out fraud. Somebody who is on disability should actually be, you know, disabled. Not "well, they aren't actually disabled but they could use some extra money so we'll give them some anyway." Secondly, "enough to live on" is an impossible to precisely define number. I've seen large numbers of supposedly "poor" people on various government dole programs spending a lot of money on clearly optional items. They walk in with cell phones costing well north of a hundred bucks, backed up by a $50-100/month contract. Many smoke $150 or more in cigarettes every month (1 pack-a-day at ~$5.50-6.00/pack) and drink $50-100+ in alcohol per month. Don't forget the large LCD TVs many have, being fed by cable or satellite dishes. Just drive through a "poor" part of town in the evening; you'll see the glow of that large TV through the window, and see the satellite dishes on the roofs or on a pole in the yard. Oh, also don't forget lottery tickets and casinos. I have an old flip phone on a cheap contract, don't smoke, rarely drink, and my nicest TV is a 20-year-old CRT that's on its last legs. Yet I have to pay a considerable amount in taxes to support those yahoos that often have nicer stuff than I do. What's wrong with that picture?

Let's also add those who receive some type of welfare assistance do not want to be drug tested? The always patriotic ACLU is sueing to NOT have those people drug tested, why?