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.
There is little or no hope for the conditions of middle income earners’ existences improving
unless those of lesser incomes experience even greater improvements in proportion to their incomes.
Or in proportion to their numbers as a portion of the whole of our society.
Historically it has been assumed that there would always be an expansion of meaningful work
made available for an ever expanding pool of warm bodies who would need it...
But that doesn't seem to be the case any longer.
Worse it doesn't seem that it will ever be so again.
The poor do not pay any effective taxes; so don't see the problem. Even lower middle in the end pays little taxes when you look at services government provides and who funds them in reality.
TextDav, I don’t doubt that you do not perceive and/or appreciate the consequences of our tax systems’ inequities.
Among USA’s population, in proportion to their individual incomes, individuals’ greatest amounts of taxes in proportion to their incomes are paid by those deriving their incomes from “on the books” wages and salaries which cannot be readily concealed.
Due to a large extent to progressive income taxes, among that segment of our population, those with lesser employment incomes pay lesser taxes in proportion to their employment incomes. It is those earning higher wages and salaries that are the overwhelming preponderance of our nation’s middle income earners which pay the greatest proportion of their incomes for taxes.
Wages and salaries are not the major income sources of the greater income earners within our population and much of their individual incomes are illegally concealed. Additionally there are many regulation provisions of tax waivers and reductions of taxable incomes which cannot be applied against employment incomes.
The actual individual’s net incomes of individuals c are very significantly less than the reported incomes and our progressive tax rates when applied to reported incomes do not reflect actual taxes paid in proportion to actual incomes.
Taxpayers earning actually similar incomes and should be subject to similar tax considerations pay drastically differing taxes in proportion to their individual incomes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
There is little or no hope for the conditions of middle income earners’ existences improving
unless those of lesser incomes experience even greater improvements in proportion to their incomes
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational
Or in proportion to their numbers as a portion of the whole of our society.
Historically it has been assumed that there would always be an expansion of meaningful work
made available for an ever expanding pool of warm bodies who would need it...
But that doesn't seem to be the case any longer.
Worse it doesn't seem that it will ever be so again.
MrRational, historically there has always been and I believe will continue to be meaningful work and even less meaningful work for those that can be recruited for less than meaningful wages. That has not always been true when and where meaningful wages are required.
I’m a populist and a proponent of a federal minimum wage rate that’s annually cost of living, (aka COLA) monitored and adjusted as required.
For many years our Social Security retirement benefits have successfully retained their purchasing powers by pegging them to our cost-price index.
TextDav, I don’t doubt that you do not perceive and/or appreciate the consequences of our tax systems’ inequities.
Among USA’s population, in proportion to their individual incomes, individuals’ greatest amounts of taxes in proportion to their incomes are paid by those deriving their incomes from “on the books” wages and salaries which cannot be readily concealed.
Due to a large extent to progressive income taxes, among that segment of our population, those with lesser employment incomes pay lesser taxes in proportion to their employment incomes. It is those earning higher wages and salaries that are the overwhelming preponderance of our nation’s middle income earners which pay the greatest proportion of their incomes for taxes.
Wages and salaries are not the major income sources of the greater income earners within our population and much of their individual incomes are illegally concealed. Additionally there are many regulation provisions of tax waivers and reductions of taxable incomes which cannot be applied against employment incomes.
The actual individual’s net incomes of individuals c are very significantly less than the reported incomes and our progressive tax rates when applied to reported incomes do not reflect actual taxes paid in proportion to actual incomes. More children if poor means what ;greater benefits.
Taxpayers earning actually similar incomes and should be subject to similar tax considerations pay drastically differing taxes in proportion to their individual incomes.
Respectfully, Supposn
Get real; is any rich child's parents sent unearned income or feed two meals a day at school ;healthcare thru government; housing just to name a few. Now I agree government doesn't get it thru to people who really need help but that is because urban areas have the vote and with 20% of poverty gets 80% of aid. But to say the rich child get more breaks; not true. One need to really look hard at where government gets its fund in real dollars. Its not even the middle class as a clue. Divide up the yearly budget by number of people to get share owned even if some get more services from being poorer. More and more the real problem is too many dependent on too few more and more.
...historically there has always been and I believe will continue to be meaningful work...
That's where we differ.
I define "meaningful" as being constructive in itself and part of an economic model
that is creating wealth. I specifically do NOT include "service sector" functions.
Most of these jobs are Gone Gone Gone.
More are going every day.
None of them are being created anew.
Quote:
...and even less meaningful work for those that can be recruited for less than meaningful wages.
This is not a positive or helpful approach in any sense.
We need to find a way to have FEWER people who would need these lowest levels of work.
Training or educating them for higher levels of work doesn't help anyone involved either.
Then you can account for the natural resources aspect and it's impact.
Get real; is any rich child's parents sent unearned income or feed two meals a day at school ;healthcare thru government; housing just to name a few. Now I agree government doesn't get it thru to people who really need help but that is because urban areas have the vote and with 20% of poverty gets 80% of aid. But to say the rich child get more breaks; not true. One need to really look hard at where government gets its fund in real dollars. Its not even the middle class as a clue. Divide up the yearly budget by number of people to get share owned even if some get more services from being poorer. More and more the real problem is too many dependent on too few more and more.
… The obvious question is if populist policies are of such net benefit, why are so many conservatives opposed to them?
Of course if you’re doing so well with the status quo, you’re much less likely to risk change and more likely to believe what has been to your benefit has also been to your nation’s best interests. Although commercial enterprises and their nations’ best interests generally converge, upon some issues they diverge.
What’s seldom discussed is some people’s need to obtain and/or retain superior status over others. These are people of such little confidence in their own self worth that they are impelled to do what they can to restrain and/or diminish others. They cannot admit even to themselves that if they had to choose greater status for themselves or greater wealth and lesser status, their need for status is of greater priority. To their minds the greatest benefit of wealth is the status that that they can derive from that wealth.
/////////////////////////////////////////
TexDav, I'm impelled to ask if you surely believe that anti-populist policies are the most advantageous to our nation’s economy or are you among those that prefer greater status and less wealth for themselves and our nation?
I define "meaningful" as being constructive in itself and part of an economic model
that is creating wealth. I specifically do NOT include "service sector" functions.
Most of these jobs are Gone Gone Gone.
More are going every day.
None of them are being created anew.
This, (i.e. Supposn's post) is not a positive or helpful approach in any sense.
We need to find a way to have FEWER people who would need these lowest levels of work.
Training or educating them for higher levels of work doesn't help anyone involved either.
Then you can account for the natural resources aspect and it's impact.
MrRational, all of those cops, truck drivers, pot hole fillers and gardeners owe their paychecks for unmeaningful service tasks to the charitable motivations of others? It’s altruism rather than capitalism that primarily drives our economy?
If you’re advocating significantly improving our educational industries’ performances, I concur. But improved tax equity and improves education and/or training are not mutually dependent upon each other.
Precisely. Exemptions favor the wealthy, and it goes way beyond just children, but any deduction. It's cheaper for them to buy house for instance than it is for a poor person (same house).
Poor people qualify for other benefits to make up for it, and if they are really poor having children is highly favorable rather than costly. Those in the middle pretty much pay for everyone else.
Don't know if you are aware of how Obamacare is funded? If you make ~$14k/yr or less, then you are on medicaid. Basically free, but restricted. Starting at ~$14k you get most of your Obamacare insurance payment subsidized, but anything you make over that point is effectively taxed at 15% of your income, until you become fully vested at ~$32k/yr. A person making $32k/yr subsidizes Obamacare the same $ amount as someone making $1B/yr. The cutoff for where you go from subsidizing to being subsidized is probably around $22k/yr.
This seems to be the say we are going in the US. Lots of benefits for the poor, primarily paid for by the almost poor.
No, Obama is all for the middle class/workers, remember?
Are you in favor of a progressive tax system? If so, then be consistent. You like seeing high earners hit with high marginal rates, but then you complain when that same factor results in a greater economic value for allowed deductions? Come on. . .
Are you in favor of a progressive tax system? If so, then be consistent. You like seeing high earners hit with high marginal rates, but then you complain when that same factor results in a greater economic value for allowed deductions? Come on. . .
TaxPhd, the purpose of progressive income tax rates is the grant lesser rates of taxes upon lesser earners; it is, a populist taxing method.
Reducing the progressive income tax rates by a uniform rate of taxable incomes rather than of tax rates is consistent with populist economic policies.
You pretend not to perceive that? Come on; you really do not expect us to believe you’re so mathematically challenged?
Come on; your post is due to your duplicity. I do not believe your pretended ignorance.
Respectfully, Supposn
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 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.
