U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-18-2011, 11:29 PM
 
Location: Ohio
3,441 posts, read 5,168,892 times
Reputation: 2667

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by C.C View Post
Personally I wouldn't find it offensive at all to learn that 100% of households making less than $20K pay no IT. But it's an outrage that any $50K household can get away without paying at least a token amount.
The first statement is on face value 100% incorrect, the second is very subjective.

Percentages when what that percentage is based on isn't stated, is FUD.

Working poor pay little if any Federal Income Tax, retired folks depending on their income and age may pay little or no Federal Income Tax, disabled folks pay little or no Federal Income Tax.

A Federal "flat" tax with no exemptions or exceptions would be "unfair" to those of low incomes because they pay a larger percentage of their income for necessities.

Should a man that has an income of $25,000 is married and has four children pay the same percentage of his income as a single male making $250,000?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-18-2011, 11:42 PM
 
66,240 posts, read 30,160,286 times
Reputation: 8607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackwatch View Post
Should a man that has an income of $25,000 is married and has four children pay the same percentage of his income as a single male making $250,000?
Yes. Just as there is a 10 times difference in their salaries, there would be a 10 times difference in their federal income tax liability. And not only that, the man with 4 children would be receiving MUCH more in federal protections, services, and benefits than the single man even though the single man would be paying 10 times more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2011, 11:46 PM
 
17,027 posts, read 9,524,277 times
Reputation: 5701
There is no misunderstanding.

Why do some that get all of their payroll withheld taxes plus more in addition to that back?

That's not a "Tax Return".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2011, 11:46 PM
 
1,083 posts, read 1,576,857 times
Reputation: 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackwatch View Post

Should a man that has an income of $25,000 is married and has four children pay the same percentage of his income as a single male making $250,000?
No, but a man with a $25,000 income shouldn't have 4 kids either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2011, 12:38 AM
 
Location: Chicago
38,690 posts, read 89,001,769 times
Reputation: 29445
Quote:
Originally Posted by madpaddy View Post
I don't necessarily subscribed to the argument, at least not at face value.
But free market competitive pressures suggest the 7% would eventually filter back to the proletariat in some combination of higher wages, lower prices, and/or more complete employment.

When "other" labor costs increase, employers have three possible courses of action:
  1. Raise prices. To a large degree, the extent this option can be executed is limited by the competition's willingness to employ options 2 and/or 3
  2. Accept the higher expense and its negative effect on profitability. May be a short term solution, rarely a long term strategy.
  3. Lower wages. Sometimes an actutal $-for-$ reduction in wages or benefits IS enacted. More often some employees are laid off (meaning the remaining employees must increase their productivity for the same pay) and/or wages are frozen for some time while inflation erodes the actual value of those wages.
Typically #1 is employed until market share loss is a threat, then #2 unil the "pain" is too much, and finally #3.


The opposite options would present themselves if payroll taxes were eliminated over night
  1. Take the 7% as a windfall profit. Might work for a while, but it won't be long before you risk losing market share to companies that choose employ options 2 and/or 3. Competitive pressures will eventually drive industry-wide profit margins back to historic levels.
  2. Lower prices.
  3. Increase employee pay. Maybe you give people raises, maybe you give them more benefits, or maybe you just bring some more people on board to reduce the workload and increase job satisfaction.

It's not clear to me how much of the 7% stops at option two and how much filters down to three. Probably depends a lot on the industry and how much of a difference employee talent makes in the actual value of the product or service sold.
You're missing some options in each of your scenarios. Other options when labor costs rise are: 1) find cost savings elsewhere; 2) seek productivity gains from the current workforce (which is really a subset of #1), 3) shift your focus to other, less labor-intensive products/market opportunities. Other options when labor costs fall are 1) hire more labor; 2) retained earnings; 3) offset costs elsewhere; 4) reinvest in other areas (equipment, infrastructure, acquisitions, etc.) About the least likely scenario were the payroll tax to end tomorrow is "here's a 7% raise!" So while an employee's productivity is ultimately responsible for the employer's share of the payroll taxes, the employee is not "really" paying 15+% like the self-employed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2011, 12:38 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 21,952,602 times
Reputation: 8962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackwatch View Post
The first statement is on face value 100% incorrect, the second is very subjective.

Percentages when what that percentage is based on isn't stated, is FUD.

Working poor pay little if any Federal Income Tax, retired folks depending on their income and age may pay little or no Federal Income Tax, disabled folks pay little or no Federal Income Tax.

A Federal "flat" tax with no exemptions or exceptions would be "unfair" to those of low incomes because they pay a larger percentage of their income for necessities.

Should a man that has an income of $25,000 is married and has four children pay the same percentage of his income as a single male making $250,000?

A childless burger flipper working full time at minimum wage pays $500 federal income tax in 2011.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2011, 12:53 AM
 
31,385 posts, read 32,016,053 times
Reputation: 14896
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesjuke View Post
Why do some that get all of their payroll withheld taxes plus more in addition to that back?
The idea originally put forth by Richard Nixon is to incentivize work. The idea being that it is cheaper and socially beneficial that persons under a certain income should be granted some additional income for working even though the work that they perform leaves them in a category that would otherwise result in their seeking direct aid in the form of welfare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2011, 01:09 AM
 
17,027 posts, read 9,524,277 times
Reputation: 5701
It's still welfare and wrong.
Taking tax money from some and giving it to others as part of our Income Tax is subverting even Welfare.

I don't see anything Constitutional as a foundation for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2011, 05:07 AM
C.C
 
2,235 posts, read 2,064,549 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackwatch View Post
The first statement is on face value 100% incorrect, the second is very subjective.

Percentages when what that percentage is based on isn't stated, is FUD.

Working poor pay little if any Federal Income Tax, retired folks depending on their income and age may pay little or no Federal Income Tax, disabled folks pay little or no Federal Income Tax.

A Federal "flat" tax with no exemptions or exceptions would be "unfair" to those of low incomes because they pay a larger percentage of their income for necessities.

Should a man that has an income of $25,000 is married and has four children pay the same percentage of his income as a single male making $250,000?
How can saying I wouldn't be offended by something be "100% wrong"??? Do you somehow know better than I what would or wouldn't offend me?

The rest of your post doesn't even have anything to do with what I said - maybe you meant it as a response to someone else?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2011, 05:11 AM
 
Location: Central Maine
4,687 posts, read 5,520,537 times
Reputation: 4966
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4g4m View Post
This subject has been beaten to death. If you do a search- who pays income tax- you will find hundreds of sites proving that 47% don't pay income tax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
again with the lefty spin

fact 47% pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX
fact of those 47% about 15% pay NO FEDERAL INCOME OR PAYROLL TAX

all still pay sales tax to their states (if the state has it (NH doesnt)) all will pay a property tax (if they own property)

NO-ONE has ever said that 47% pay not tax at all

why cant liberals stop lying
And within the first few replies to this thread, we can see how the "47% myth" has spread.

The statement "47% don't pay federal income tax" has morphed into first "47% don't pay income tax", and then "47% don't pay taxes."

And who has done the spinning? (Hint: it's not the left.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:46 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top