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.
You'd have to consider it over a lifetime. Community services utilised through childhood and through retirement as well.
Good point, which illustrates part of the complexity of coming up with an answer. Let's take Medicare. We can't be sure how much on the "burden" side of things we will be in our old age until we get there. Although non-smokers, exercisers, healthy eaters, and people who maintain a healthy weight increase their odds of needing minimal medical care in old age, there is no guarantee. Some people are constantly at the doctor's office, are taking drugs up the ying yang, are in and out of the hospital, and have had multiple surgeries. The whole issue of medical care in old age is a large part of the burden versus contributor equation.
I'm trying to figure out what the utility of this exercise is, other than to feel superior. How incredibly sad.
While I am not privy to the inner thoughts of the OP of this thread, it is a rather interesting intellectual curiosity question, in my opinion, a question which may not deserve the put-down above. If I were to criticize the question, it would be for being too simplistic; it is so complex as to defy an answer, as so many replies have illustrated.
As already pointed out, in addition to federal expenditures and income, every state, every city, and every county also collects taxes and provides services. Many posters have ignored that.
As already pointed out, in addition to federal expenditures and income, every state, every city, and every county also collects taxes and provides services. Many posters have ignored that.
Most posters want to discuss the biggest tax impacts, and one topic vs' 52 topics, or even thousands. Its not so much ignored, as the topic is to vast, and not compelling enough as at the lower levels people are a lot more capable of addressing.
The bottom 25% of tax payers get all the benefits. Earned Income Credit, which is funny because it was income earned by someone else and not the low income tax payer.
The bottom 25% of tax payers get all the benefits. Earned Income Credit, which is funny because it was income earned by someone else and not the low income tax payer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Setchel
There's so many things wrong with this statement.
Well, Setchel, why don't you offer an analysis or least least one specific? The thing wrong with your statement is that it's devoid of meaningful content. You may be right, but you haven't convinced me. Anyone can say someone else is wrong, if that's all they say.
I'm surprised no one mentions the elderly. In my dad's final 2 years of life, his hospital bills to Medicare alone were about 3x what he paid in taxes during his lifetime.
I'm surprised no one mentions the elderly. In my dad's final 2 years of life, his hospital bills to Medicare alone were about 3x what he paid in taxes during his lifetime.
Because besides the fact it really sucks, it isn't taxes which is the topic (at least in this case.)
I like to use the example of a previous job in a convenience store:
Annual payroll costs ~$500,000. Employer's annual net profit ~$3 million.
I would say that the underpaid employees (within 25 cents of minimum wage) contributed far more than if they had been paid say an additional dollar per hour.
Why? Because their below-market wages allowed the employer to pay the top tax rate - an additional dollar per hour in an employee's paycheck would have been a net loss to taxpayers when that additional dollar was taxed at 10% and the employer's foregone dollar had been taxed at 39.5 percent.
Why were they working for below-market wages? That makes no sense. . .
Several stores, not just one, about 30 employees, and some extremely profitable high-volume locations with favorable long-term leases. An example of a business where the owner did pretty much everything right.
Costs are much lower than you think, all hourly employees are within 25 cents of minimum wage and stores are understaffed for the sales volume. The managers are not paid nearly as well as you think; the workplace joke at the time of an earlier minimum wage hike was that if the managers didn't get a raise by the the end of the year, the hourly employees would be better paid than the managers.
It is very rare to become a millionaire in the C store industry. You originally seemed to lead me to believe that it was a single store. Maybe I am wrong. It has happened before. The average would be a chain of maybe 8 or more stores. I just don't see a $3million profit from fewer stores. Not to say that it could not happen, it just goes against the norm. I would never say anything is not possible. Probable though is a different thing. Statistics would show that it would be difficult to make that kind of money.
Where are these high volume stores located?
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.
