But seriously, what's the likelyhood of taxes going up EVEN MORE under Brown? (Sacramento: appointed, unemployment)

[hartford_renter]

Originally Posted by Oerdin

I would add to your list the "fact" that 47% of people don't pay Federal taxes is a lie. Just an out and out lie. What is true is that 47% (mostly retirees or low income people) don't pay Federal income taxes but income taxes account for less then half of all Federal tax revenue. Pay roll taxes actually bring in more money to the Feds then income tax and it is a highly regressive tax (hits the poor more then the rich) so I don't feel bad that the well off get hit with an income tax even though I'm one of them. The main reason why the percentage of people not paying income taxes has gone up is that the population is aging rapidly so more and more people are now retired and thus not paying income taxes.

THeres also a lot of people on welfare or people who earn under 20K.

The retires are getting social security payments back, but at least they paid for this with about 15% of income going towards payroll taxes. I wonder what the number would be if they weren't included. But your argument that most of the taxes are payroll, so what that all goes to SS. Federal pays for Defense and all the welfare that goes to the states.

Also if you look at the social security payments they are heavily skewed towards the poor. The calculation for SS benefits use only 15% of income in excess of 50K.

If you are rich you are getting screwed, no matter how you look at it.

The main question remains, why don't Californians get it???

I don't live there but have to wonder how you can pay 10% income tax and beleive it is OK to have taxes increase.

Why did you elect Boxer or Brown or any other democrat?

As Chevy Chase said in Christmas vacation - How can things get any worse we are at the thresholds of hell!

California is at the abyss, and stupid democrates Nancy Pelosi, Brown, and boxer are not going to help.

[BacktoBlue]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

THeres also a lot of people on welfare or people who earn under 20K.

The retires are getting social security payments back, but at least they paid for this with about 15% of income going towards payroll taxes. I wonder what the number would be if they weren't included. But your argument that most of the taxes are payroll, so what that all goes to SS. Federal pays for Defense and all the welfare that goes to the states.

Also if you look at the social security payments they are heavily skewed towards the poor. The calculation for SS benefits use only 15% of income in excess of 50K.

If you are rich you are getting screwed, no matter how you look at it.

The main question remains, why don't Californians get it???

I don't live there but have to wonder how you can pay 10% income tax and beleive it is OK to have taxes increase.

Why did you elect Boxer or Brown or any other democrat?

As Chevy Chase said in Christmas vacation - How can things get any worse we are at the thresholds of hell!

California is at the abyss, and stupid democrates Nancy Pelosi, Brown, and boxer are not going to help.

It's *democrats* So much irony in this BS post.

[Oerdin]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

The retires are getting social security payments back, but at least they paid for this with about 15% of income going towards payroll taxes.

FICA and SECA combined amount to 6.2% not 15%. They're also capped after $120,000 of income so if you earn more then that amount all the money you make above the cap does not have to pay either FICA or SECA. That makes the pay roll taxes even more regressive which is why I don't cry for millionaires when they whine about income tax being progressive.

[hartford_renter]

Originally Posted by Oerdin

FICA and SECA combined amount to 6.2% not 15%. They're also capped after $120,000 of income so if you earn more then that amount all the money you make above the cap does not have to pay either FICA or SECA. That makes the pay roll taxes even more regressive which is why I don't cry for millionaires when they whine about income tax being progressive.

The employer also matches the tax, so 7.2 + 7.2 ~15%

Wages being elastic, in effect reduces your pay.

Talking to some of the people on this forum makes a little giggly. Part of me laughs and part of me feels like I want to cry.

You are arguing that the poor pay a larger percentage then the rich, you argue that Democrats are more likely to cut taxes then Republicans.

MOD CUT But who else would vote for Boxer or Pelosi

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by Footballfreak

Don't get mad at me. That's what his website says. I'm only 19. I have no idea what he did as governor.

Never... these Forums are a medium to exchange ideas... there are at least several prospectives on each issue...

I really hope for the best and have to admit I'm a little biased having had Governor Brown as my Mayor.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

The employer also matches the tax, so 7.2 + 7.2 ~15%

Wages being elastic, in effect reduces your pay.

And if you're self employed, you get to write a check for the whole 15%.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Originally Posted by UB50

Don't know where you got this information, but much of it is incorrect. Here's an article about him in The American Conservative: The American Conservative -- Five Faces of Jerry Brown

Note that Reagan raised taxes and spent far more than Brown did. From the article: " But Governor Brown was much more of a fiscal conservative than Governor Reagan, even if he made arguments for austerity that the Republican would never use. ... Reagan had raised taxes several times and boosted spending by an average of 12.2 percent a year. In his first year as governor, by contrast, Brown increased spending by just 4.6 percent, less than the rate of inflation. He wasn’t always so restrained in the rest of his reign, but he was thriftier than his predecessor, accumulating one of the biggest budget surpluses in California history."

He didn't end up with a deficit because of anything he did. It was due to the huge Reagan recession that swept the country. Unemployment was around 25% in West Virginia!

Reagan did raise taxes. He claimed that he had to to pay off the debt that Browns dad had created in his two terms. also he was dealing with a liberal legislature during his time in office. When Reagan left we had more money than any other state in the nation.

another thing, Reagan inherited a mess that Carter created when he became President. You didn't have unemployment from Reagan, you had it from Carter. The greatest economic growth in the history of the nation occured during and after the time that Reagan left office as President. Interest rates were in the double digits before Reagan started. He proved that cutting spending works and taxing people to death does not work.

Conservatism is the way to save the nation not taxing those that produce.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Reagan did raise taxes. He claimed that he had to to pay off the debt that Browns dad had created in his two terms. also he was dealing with a liberal legislature during his time in office. When Reagan left we had more money than any other state in the nation.

another thing, Reagan inherited a mess that Carter created when he became President. You didn't have unemployment from Reagan, you had it from Carter. The greatest economic growth in the history of the nation occured during and after the time that Reagan left office as President. Interest rates were in the double digits before Reagan started. He proved that cutting spending works and taxing people to death does not work.

Conservatism is the way to save the nation not taxing those that produce.

I remember 17% mortgages... one sure way to lower the price of housing

My first mortage was 12.5%

[Oerdin]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

The employer also matches the tax, so 7.2 + 7.2 ~15%

Wages being elastic, in effect reduces your pay.

Talking to some of the people on this forum makes a little giggly. Part of me laughs and part of me feels like I want to cry.

You are arguing that the poor pay a larger percentage then the rich, you argue that Democrats are more likely to cut taxes then Republicans.

MOD CUT But who else would vote for Boxer or Pelosi

Oh, man you are a special piece of work. You said "retirees paid 15% of their income" so you're just wrong no matter how much you try to spin this about wage elasticity; it's obvious you got caught making "facts" up and now you are embarrassed but the way to not have that happen again is to stop making things up. Yes, I did in deed point out the FACT that payroll taxes are a regressive tax, which you've been completely unable to refute because it's true, and then you pulled some red herring about one side being more likely to cut taxes which I never once mentioned. Do you even read what you post before you post it? This is like arguing with a child.

I never mentioned which party was "more likely to cut taxes", you really should sharpen those reading comprehension skills, and instead pointed out that the temporary sales tax increase passed two years ago expires next year and so there will be a further $12 billion hole in the budget next year beyond this year's $19 billion deficit. I'm sorry facts upset you and cause you the discomfort of having to question your, apparently, sacred beliefs but they're still true even if you don't like them.

[Reason42]

Originally Posted by Footballfreak

It's *democrats* So much irony in this BS post.

...so wise and all knowing. I miss the days of certainty... ...the days of 18 years of age.