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 10-19-2011, 10:58 AM
 
1,085 posts, read 1,586,557 times
Reputation: 768

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post

-because cost of living is different in everyplace
Agreed. But local tax rates are a collective choice, and where to live is an individual choice. You've failed to make the case to me why you should be excused from making a comparable contribution to the function of the federal government because you choose to live in a location with high local taxes.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-19-2011, 11:34 AM
 
1,085 posts, read 1,586,557 times
Reputation: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
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.
Good point on #3. On #1 and #2, I believe that in a competitive free market companies must always be finding costs savings and productivity gains just to maintain their current market position. Companies that float along with unnecessary expenses or underutilized employee productivity tend to be passed, and eventually replaced, by more focused competitors. Show me a company that is able to find expense cuts and increased productivity to offset a 7% increase in labor costs and I'll show you a company that wasn't competitive in the first place.




Quote:
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.)
Great point again with #4. I mentioned #1 (hiring more) but perhaps in too limited a context. Also mentioned #2 ("profit" = "earnings"). #3. is the same as #2; taking the savings to the bottom line is taking it to the bottom line, regardless of what other expenses are on the income statement.



Quote:
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.
In general you're right; little or none of the savings would roll down to increased wages in most industries. In a few industries or geographic locations where there is a highly competitive employment market, however, there could be substantial increases in wages.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2011, 11:08 PM
 
Location: Ohio
3,441 posts, read 5,192,007 times
Reputation: 2667
Quote:
Originally Posted by C.C View Post
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?

You implied some group pays no IT and I know for a fact that is NOT true(I am not speaking of myself), personally, I get fornicated.

The rest is just additional comments about the same topic.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2011, 11:59 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,083,092 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
false

their total tax is 500..then take off the 401k credit (line 50) of 200..(they do 'contribute' their 5%...then take the 400 make work pay credit and they tave a total tax of NEGITIVE 100.....and that's with the standard deduction...if they itemize (because of lots of medical bills) it can be even less

Um, the making work pay credit expired at the same time 2010 expired, so no 400 for 2011.

The minimum wage employees I know don't contribute to a 401(k) so I don't know how they'd get a tax break for that. And the ones I know don't itemize deductions either.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 03:01 AM
C.C
 
2,235 posts, read 2,070,907 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackwatch View Post
You implied some group pays no IT and I know for a fact that is NOT true(I am not speaking of myself), personally, I get fornicated.

The rest is just additional comments about the same topic.
I didn't say or imply that that group pays no IT. I just said I wouldn't be offended IF 100% of that group paid no IT...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 05:59 AM
 
Location: Texas
26,743 posts, read 11,232,823 times
Reputation: 6152
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero;21331296 in part

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)
Renters pay a good share of the landlords property tax. Take away property tax and you'll see rent prices drop.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 09:53 AM
 
Location: The Land of Reason
13,300 posts, read 10,504,102 times
Reputation: 3541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
Renters pay a good share of the landlords property tax. Take away property tax and you'll see rent prices drop.

Actually the cost will drop but not necessarily the actual rent. There is no proof that the landlords won't just "pocket" the difference
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 11:38 AM
 
2,515 posts, read 1,725,116 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
If they're out of work, they won't have an income to be taxed. Where's the tax evasion?
You said head tax.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 11:43 AM
 
2,515 posts, read 1,725,116 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No it won't, because many in the bottom 99% will keep demanding policies and regualtions that inflate bubbles. CRA anyone?
And the top 1% have the power and influence to say no we wont be having any bubbles today.

As far as who is behind stupid legislation ask the question who is benefiting from current economic mess? The top 0.01%? the rest are paying? So who is demaning stuff that blows bubbles? and who is getting used for others economic gain? Don't blame the puppet for the puppeteers actions.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 12:04 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 32,116,018 times
Reputation: 14896
Quote:
Originally Posted by newonecoming2 View Post
And the top 1% have the power and influence to say no we wont be having any bubbles today.
I normally demur from posting video clips but Colbert in a mere two minutes and thirty seconds puts to rest the canard that Wall St wasn't the sole cause for the economic collapse....


Colbert Mocks Herman Cain's 999 Plan With Hitler Reference (VIDEO)
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.


 
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.

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