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.
Let them go ask their Hollywood idols for more money cause I'm tapped out.
Seriously though..I see too many people complain about how they aren't making enough money to make ends meet. In reality though..they are probably spending more than they are making now due to increased prices and don't want to give up anything.
People are shocked when I tell them I don't have cable and got rid of it 5-6 years ago.
That's over $100 a month..$1200 per year. I can find TV shows, movies, documentaries on the internet.
Amazon has movies for $1.00 to watch.
Wow you mean you spend less then you take in, very UN democratic party of you. You should take some of the profit you make from not spending and have it taxed again
It's FAIR to take from one person, without his consent, and give to someone else who has done nothing to deserve what the person who worked for what he has has?
Why would you present it this way? Why not, "It's RIGHT that individuals and corporations who exist in this country and who take advantage of the benefits this country offers, particularly in their ability to create and grow their wealth, contribute to the maintenance of the resources (including laws, military, infrastructure, etc.) and prosperity of this country."
"The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law. ...
"All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it." ~ Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 16, Document 12
We no longer have straight welfare programs that allow people to live indefinitely without working unless they are disabled and cannot work. We have Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton who worked together to craft Welfare reform and pass it, to thank for that.
Continued below ... (I've been told that "no one reads long posts, their eyes gloss over and they skip to the next one, so I'm splitting what was one long post into several.)
Enough that the budget balances with everyone elses taxes. The bills must be paid and the problem isn't that the 50% who are paying taxes aren't paying enough. The problem is the 50% who are not paying taxes and that, something like, 40% of them get money back they didn't pay in in the first place. If someone needs welfare, they should apply for welfare. I have no idea why the tax system is being used like welfare. There are so many taking from the system or not paying into the system making the decsions for those of us who get the bill. When those who don't pay the taxes, decide the taxes for those who do, you have a problem. That is the situation we have now. It's analgous to me taking my family to a restaurant and getting the bill for both me and the table next to me with no control over what the table next to me orders. If they have to pay something, maybe they'll think about what they're spending.
You have one (primary) person and one (primary) multi-billion-dollar corporation to thank for the part in bold: Ronald Reagan (R) and Walmart (R-Corp).
Reagan said that the Earned Income* Tax Credit "is the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress." (Note both the "earned" and "income" parts of that name.)
Now, you may think that because I'm quoting him that I agree with him on this. I don't. This is where Walmart comes in.
If you ask me, the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress would be a bill that required the largest employers in this country to pay their workers aboveevery threshold we have of qualifying for government aid and/or tax credits for the workingpoor. You see, when Walmart is able to make $15 billion in profits — not revenues, PROFITS (after all expenses including taxes) — but pays their employees so little that they qualify for Food Stamps (one-third of all Food Stamp recipients are working people; as many as 80 percent of Walmart employees in any given store use a SNAP card) and that they qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and that they qualify for housing assistance, and that they qualify for Medicaid — they are using you and me to supplement their payroll department.
You could look at that like it is not the Walmart workers who are receiving Welfare and other Social Survival benefits, but Walmart itself. Because we, as a country, do not require them to pay their workers a thriving wage, and because we don't penalize them for not doing so, and because we basically give them the green light to "take advantage" of this generous system we've set up, they get away with forcing you and me to pay their workers so they don't have to and can get filthy rich at our expense.
Why are you not deeply, deeply offended and angry about that?
"The social contract implies that working people with full time jobs shouldn't need taxpayer assistance programs to thrive. And the only reason employees are currently using them is because the companies they work for are not living up to their end of the social contract. The burden of fully compensating workers should fall on the businesses who employ them, not the government. Why should we have to impose higher taxes on the public to pay for expanding government aid programs, when the private sector can solve the problem on their own? We can save billions, perhaps even trillions of dollars if businesses take full responsibility for their own payroll.
"This is not an anti-corporate policy—there are many businesses that pay their employees wages that allow them to thrive; to own homes, to save for their own retirement, to contribute to their communities and to charities, to enjoy vacation time with their families, to build up college funds for their children, and to create their own safety nets in case of a catastrophic event such as the loss of a job or a major illness. Wage laws set the bar for a healthy society, and corporations that are already above that bar are helping themselves as well as their communities.
"But many, many more are not. And they continue to lobby the Republican party for lowered standards of pay for their workers, making up ridiculous nonsense about how increasing their employees' share of the profit those employees help generate will force layoffs. Poppycock. Corporations in America are sitting on $1.9 trillion in cash. There is no excuse besides unbridled greed to whine about how shareholders will "suffer" if your stakeholders are paid sufficient to thrive in today's economy. None.
You see, Democrats want people off of Social Survival programs just as much as Republicans and Libertarians. We just (so far) disagree about how that should be accomplished. And between you and me, I think our elected Democratic Representatives have been getting the argument wrong, too. While they are right to fight for raising the minimum wage (which in a way forces companies like Walmart to take back a portion of their own payroll responsibilities), they have not been presenting the problem itself in the way I just illustrated above, and therefore are not working on a system that would not just disincentivize the Walmarts of the nation from underpaying their workers because they can get away with it, but penalize them if they dare try.
As for the strange idea that those who aren't paying federal income taxes are deciding other people's taxes, that's just, well, bizarre. Allow me to introduce you to a report by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), one of the deepest Conservative legislators we have in Congress:
What subsidies would those be? Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) released a report this week that outlines billions of lost revenue for the United States in the form of subsidies and giveaways to the super-wealthy in this country. He writes (emphasis mine):
The government safety net has been cast far and wide, with almost half of all American households now receiving some form of government assistance. But most taxpayers will be asking why when they learn who is receiving what.
From tax write-offs for gambling losses, vacation homes, and luxury yachts to subsidies for their ranches and estates, the government is subsidizing the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Multimillionaires are even receiving government checks for not working. This welfare for the well-off – costing billions of dollars a year – is being paid for with the taxes of the less fortunate, many who are working two jobs just to make ends meet, and IOUs to be paid off by future generations.
This is not an accidental loophole in the law. To the contrary, this reverse Robin Hood style of wealth redistribution is an intentional effort to get all Americans bought into a system where everyone appears to benefit. ...
We should never demonize those who are successful. [aside: that is not what Occupy or the 99% are doing. G-d love the rich; more power to 'em. But ...] Nor should we pamper them with unnecessary welfare to create an appearance everyone is benefiting from federal programs. ...
The government’s social safety net, which has long existed to catch those who are down and help them get back up, is now being used as a hammock by some millionaires, some who are paying less taxes than average middle class families. Comprehensive information on the full range of government benefits enjoyed by millionaires has never been collected previously. This report provides the first such compilation. What it reveals is sheer Washington stupidity with government policies pampering the wealthy costing taxpayers billions of dollars every year.
And they STILL cry that life is unfair.....Yes it is. The wealthy pay way more than their share and don't use many of the things they are paying for.
See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgianbelle
The truly wealthy will leave the US. Why stay in a country that is going to penalize them for working hard? If our country tries to gouge them, they will leave and take their money with them. I know that I am sick and tired of people not working and expecting something for nothing.
Why do you believe either of those things? The wealthy aren't going anywhere. The only other 1st World options they have tax both individuals and corporations at much, much higher rates than we do (and also offer significantly more services). We already tax our corporations at the lowest effective tax rate than any other OECD nation on this planet.
The sad thing is the Govt think it's their money they are letting us keep.
See the Benjamin Franklin quote above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
That's how I see it. The left seem to want people to end up with "their fair share".
No matter what type of tax structure you debate it always comes down to the wealthy keeping too much of their money.
It's not about how much they have to pay..it's about how much they get to keep and they are keeping too much.
Once you understand that, then you can debate with them.
When the "keeping" of that money that is in large part the result of the labor of others, adversely affects our entire economy, yes, it's a discussion we need to have as a nation, not of individuals, but united in the endeavor of remaining the greatest nation on earth.
Progressives are interested in better tax policy, but not to address income inequity and wage stagnation directly. We want corporate tax policy to accurately account for corporations' net burden and duty to society—the value of socially-funded infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.), public and common goods used, and negative externalities. And we want individual tax policy to also more accurately balance social duty and value. The costs of running the public's programs (that is, the government) should be fully paid for, in proportion to how it's used; which is in greater measure by those whose goods are carried over our roads and in through our ports, whose businesses benefit from international agreements negotiated by the government, whose taxes are given special treatment as incentives, and so on.
For example, the current tax scheme says that investor returns (capital gains) are MORE valuable to society than wages—a backwards policy if your goal is actual economic growth, since that's driven by middle class consumer spending.
But tax policy isn't going to fix income inequity and Progressives do not propose using it for that purpose.
What we really need are loopholes and deductions to companies who pay more to employees than investors. Or to clarify, not necessarily more, but a set percentage.
For example, I'd love to get a tax break for paying my employees more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
I wouldn't be in business if I didn't operate the way I do. My employees understand that and I bonus them when I'm able to.
My employees make more than I do I work a 2nd job to make ends meet and so do a lot of my employees (we're all Millenials).
I'd love to see a bill proposed that would reward employers who invest in their employees. There has to be some type of incentive for corporations to give their profits to employees rather than stockholders.
"Corporations are given a huge tax credit for increasing CEO pay. That's right; the more they pay their Top Dog, the less they have to pay the country to keep its infrastructure sound, its military prepared, its food safe, its borders protected, and so on. Twenty-six of our nation's largest corporations paid their CEOs more than they paid in federal taxes last year due to this incentive. That's outrageous.
"And it's backwards! How about we all call our Representatives in Congress and tell them to change the tax code to give corporations tax leniency if they transfer a certain percentage of their payroll expense from the top of the heap to the workers who've earned it. The country would actually make up the difference with the increased taxes paid by individuals who not only pay a higher tax rate than the CEOs (many of whom pay zero federal income taxes) or the corporations themselves (many of which also pay zero federal income taxes), but millions of them would also no longer qualify for income security programs like SNAP, or low income tax credits, housing assistance, or Medicaid!"
You will note, by the way, that in doing this we will also go a long way towards making Social Security solvent for decades without changing a single thing such as raising the retirement age or even eliminating the income ceiling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pollyrobin
Just because someone is poor, it shouldn't exempt them from paying a fair share as well.
Whether it be a flat tax or a national sales tax or the present tax system we have.
Why should the person making $9,500 a year not pay any income tax at the federal level.
Does not that person benefit from the same services (Defense, EPA, DOE, DHHS etc) as every
one else? Shouldn't they have skin in the game like everyone else?
This is an incorrect way of seeing this issue. See above. Everyone already has "skin in the game."
... I'd love to see a bill proposed that would reward employers who invest in their employees. There has to be some type of incentive for corporations to give their profits to employees rather than stockholders.
Well, there is. Payroll is a corporate expense, so any money paid to employees is not taxed. Dividends paid to stockholders comes from profits after all taxes have been paid.
Employers can also pay employee benefits such as health insurance, or course, and those are also corporate pre-tax expenses. It used to be that company paid health insurance didn't count as employee income. I no longer have employees, but I think tax codes have changed to make the employee pay income tax on its value. So now, since "company benefits" don't really benefit anyone, some companies quit offering health insurance. So now we have Obamacare instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgianbelle
By the way, Social Security is paid for by workers. We should get that back with interest when we retire. If we are not going to get it, it should not be taken out of our paychecks. This is different than social programs that benefit people who have not paid for them.
Unless you're self-employed, remember that your employer matches your share of SS taxes. Those of us who are self-employed do pay the full amount -- double what employees pay.
Unfortunately, Social Security was never set up as a forced investment. It's a Ponzi scheme and always was. It worked great when there were only a few retired folks drawing on it and lots of baby-boomers paying in, but now that the baby-boomers are retiring and there aren't increasing employees paying in, we're stuck in a bad situation. Like all Ponzi schemes, it only works for awhile before it begins to collapse.
I'm not really disagreeing with you. We were always told by the government that this was our retirement. Years ago I'd argue with my dad about that. He thought it was a great deal. Well, it was for him. He paid a small amount into it for a few years and retired with a nice monthly SS check. It's not such a good deal for us who have paid into it our whole lives -- at twice the rate that many realize (employer share).
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
... Willard told 60 Minutes his 14% rate was fair and the way to stimulate economic growth. Just WHERE is this growth he referred to?
"Willard" was not employed during that time, so he had ZERO earned income. He paid income tax when he earned that money. Further, most of it was likely dividends from corporate investments, and the corporations paid income tax on it BEFORE issuing any dividends. How many times do we need to tax this income? Furthermore, he used "loopholes" such as giving to charities. Do you want to eliminate loopholes? Willard proposed just that, but as long as they're there, you'd be stupid not to claim them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
No such thing as a loophole. It's an intentional tax code.
Good ole Warren Buffet has long scratched his head that his personal effective tax rate is less than his secretary's rate.
Loopholes, tax deductions, tax credits... all the same. We demand them, but if we don't use them then nobody else should either. Greenies want a break when they install their solar panels or buy their electric cars. They want that Volt to be priced so they can afford it, but they don't want the evil GM corporation to get the huge tax break for selling it below cost. They want windmills, but they don't want the windmill manufacturers and investors to get the gigantic tax credits that make them affordable.
I agree 100%. If windmills can't be profitable without giving tax breaks, don't build them. Pretty damned simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
A) Define "many".
B) Any business that files as an individual needs to get smarter and do it right.
I'd define it as "most". I don't need the insulation and double-taxation that a corporation would provide me for my small business. There was a time I did with another business but not with the home-based business I now have. Most small businesses are like this one -- too small to make incorporation worthwhile. I have an accountant and an attorney who I trust (to some degree), and when they both agree on something like this I don't argue.
Well, there is. Payroll is a corporate expense, so any money paid to employees is not taxed. Dividends paid to stockholders comes from profits after all taxes have been paid.
Employers can also pay employee benefits such as health insurance, or course, and those are also corporate pre-tax expenses. It used to be that company paid health insurance didn't count as employee income. I no longer have employees, but I think tax codes have changed to make the employee pay income tax on its value. So now, since "company benefits" don't really benefit anyone, some companies quit offering health insurance. So now we have Obamacare instead.
To the extent that you outline here, you are correct. To the extent that you omit the fact that there are bigger tax incentives to paying corporate CEOs higher and higher salaries, you are not completely correct. Those incentives need to be reversed. See my post above regarding this issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WyoNewk
Unless you're self-employed, remember that your employer matches your share of SS taxes. Those of us who are self-employed do pay the full amount -- double what employees pay.
Unfortunately, Social Security was never set up as a forced investment. It's a Ponzi scheme and always was.
No it isn't. The people who want to get rich off of that money going into their investment vehicles with them getting to control it, have told you that, knowing that you are primed to believe it. They're slick that way.
"Now, forgive me if I get a little bit spiritual: as I’ve written before, Social Security was designed to “create a strong link between the aged and the working-age population–today’s workers create the capital, the technology, and the wealth that will support tomorrow’s generation. Embedded in its…formulas is the notion that those of us who came before, whether they were teachers, accountants, homemakers, mail carriers, barbers, cashiers, or lawyers, have built up the productive capacity of our nation.
"When the children of these workers come of age (along with new immigrants), they will earn their living from this infrastructure while also making their own contributions. As they do so, we will peel off some portion of their earnings to provide pensions for their forebears, just as those forebears did for their own predecessors…Social Security is thus an elegant collaborative solution to a universal challenge.”
It worked great when there were only a few retired folks drawing on it and lots of baby-boomers paying in, but now that the baby-boomers are retiring and there aren't increasing employees paying in, we're stuck in a bad situation. Like all Ponzi schemes, it only works for awhile before it begins to collapse.
Also from the above article:
"Social Security is pay-as-you-go. Ponzi’s scheme was not as it depended on continuous doubling the ratio of contributors to investors (read this wonderful treatment by Social Security’s historian).
"As the above link concludes:
“The first modern social insurance program began in Germany in 1889 and has been in continuous operation for more than 100 years. The American Social Security system has been in continuous successful operation since 1935. Charles Ponzi’s scheme lasted barely 200 days.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by WyoNewk
"Willard" was not employed during that time, so he had ZERO earned income. He had already paid once income tax when he earned that money. Further, most of it was likely dividends from corporate investments, and the corporations paid income tax on it BEFORE issuing any dividends. How many times do we need to tax this income? Furthermore, he used "loopholes" such as giving to charities. Do you want to eliminate loopholes? Willard proposed just that, but as long as they're there, you'd be stupid not to claim them.
Loopholes, tax deductions, tax credits... all the same. We demand them, but if we don't use them then nobody else should either.
No, not all loopholes and tax deductions were created the same. Scroll up and read Senator Coburn's scathing rebuke of the loopholes designed for the sole use of the wealthy in this country.
Also, not all schemes to lower your tax payments are merely "loopholes" and not all of them are altruistic, so using charitable contributions as your sole example is disingenuous and misleading. Mitt Romney was involved in the illegal use of a scheme known as "Son of Boss" to invent losses that didn't really exist to avoid $80 million in taxes that were legally due. His scheme to call his management fees "delayed income," which the wealthy have bought Congresscritters to write laws that tax "delayed income" at lower rates is hardly altruistic. You and I are not able to buy legislators who will allow us to call our income anything that will get it taxed outside of the standard tax table rates.
"In 2008, the government estimated $6 billion in taxes had gone uncollected. A series of court decisions stated that the perpetrators were guilty of 'subverting the legislative purpose of the tax code by engaging in transactions that are fictitious or lack economic reality simply to reap a tax benefit.'"
And that was just in 2008 alone. Let me give you the broader perspective on this very serious problem: With what Mitt Romney and his fellow one percenters have stolen from us in tax avoidance schemes, we could have already paid down the ENTIRE national debt. That's right; all of it.
I'd define it as "most". I don't need the insulation and double-taxation that a corporation would provide me for my small business. There was a time I did with another business but not with the home-based business I now have. Most small businesses are like this one -- too small to make incorporation worthwhile. I have an accountant and an attorney who I trust (to some degree), and when they both agree on something like this I don't argue.
And you realize that the top of business you're describing is, quite bluntly, insignificant in the grand scheme of things? You don't base policy off these types of things.
I work 3 jobs right now to make ends meet so I get where you're coming from. My husbands company put it up to the employees to see what they would like to do. They voted to let everyone keep their jobs rather than a layoff. Companies are not going to take more from their own pockets to keep people working. The business world doesn't work that way.
I would wholeheartedly support a bill that allows incentives for employers to invest in their employees. It just adds taxpayers and consumers to our economy instead of their opposites.
I am on board with this as well.
The Profits and Productivity should be going to the employees and employers and not some stockholders and hedge fund criminals that are raping us American Muppets left and right.
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.
And they STILL cry that life is unfair.....Yes it is. The wealthy pay way more than their share and don't use many of the things they are paying for.
)
