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.
I had to give a two day noticed to get my money out.
Sometimes it's longer than that. I've had issues with Chicago area banks needing 5 business days notice for what they consider to be large withdrawals, but didn't seem all that large to me.
Sometimes it's longer than that. I've had issues with Chicago area banks needing 5 business days notice for what they consider to be large withdrawals, but didn't seem all that large to me.
These days banks keep very little "cash" on hand.
Swiping a card is how we pay for stuff these days.
Banks need money (they don't care whether it's rich people's money, poor people's money or dead people's money) to keep as reserves if they want to "borrow" money from the fed to lend out.
Can we all agree that rich people have more money in banks than poor people have in banks? So, while banks don't need rich people's money to lend, they do need rich people's money so that they may lend. And that's really the point that was being made, and that you tried to derail.
No attempt to derail anything, Keegan. I will show you the comment I responded to, so you have proper context:
Once you cease all the assets of the so called "rich" and no one has that "morally repugnant" investment capital, there will not be anyone for you to borrow money from.
To me that person was clearly suggesting that banks ONLY lend out deposits.
Then why do so many conservatives lump in social security with government spending? You can't have it both ways.....
Sure I can ...
The SS benefit is at a first order approximation proportional to one's income. Therefore it is very reasonable that the SS tax should also be proportional to one's income. That's the same thing as saying we should all pay the same percentage of our income into SS. Any tilt away from that and you are now talking about redistributing income from one class to another.
OTOH, income taxes are paid to support the general and necessary functions of the government and I submit that all citizens benefit equally from those services. So, in that context a discussion about how those costs should be shared across income classes is relevant. IMO, one can develop a moral argument that since the benefits are shared equally by all, the costs should also be shared equally.
Now, I don't go so far as to suggest we should do that, but recognize that there is a spectrum of solutions to how we apportion the costs of necessary government services that benefit all citizens equally. We could all pay the same dollar amount, we could all pay the same percentage of our income, or we could build a progressive tax structure where those with higher incomes pay a higher percentage. Obviously we've done the later, and it is abundantly clear that the current system tilts heavily towards those with higher incomes paying a significantly disproportionate share of the cost of the services that benefit everyone, and it's equally clear that a large percentage of the population pays nothing for these services.
As a general principle I think there should be some minimum federal income tax paid by everyone, even if in some cases it may be a trivial amount. Having a large class of citizens who bear no cost for incremental government services is not healthy for our society, particularly when we have lost our way with respect to what the truly necessary and essential functions of government should be.
As for SS, yeah I don't think it's constitutional, and a really good hint that it's not is that FDR had to threaten the Supreme Court with a scheme to expand the size of the court so he could load it up with justices that would vote his way in order to get his New Deal past the court. That said, I recognize it's here to stay. It does need to be reformed however, and it's appalling to me that it's used as a political football that both parties use to try to gain political advantage, rather than being leaders and doing what's right for the citizens. But, that's another subject ...
So a one line response with no actual factual rebuttal.
Yes they do. go read what I said. Look it up. Its not exactly hard.
It's been refuted. Your superior lack of search skills is unmatched only by your superior use of fallacies.
Statistics of Income Bulletin published by the IRS: In 2010 27,776,521 filers got $60,931,712,000 in EITC
37,422,453 under $15,000
30,895,052 $15,000 to $30,000
25,624,771 $30,000 to $50,000
--------------
66,136,276 filers in the EITC range and of those.....41.99% get EITC
So thanks to your strong-arm tactics, I'm forced to give them food, medical care, a place to live and all for free, plus free education, free birth control, free abortions, free school lunches, and then they get cash-back when filing their income taxes.
As I've proven before, there are people who pay no taxes of any kind -- Social Security? For the poor who voluntarily choose to destroy Wealth --often going out of their way to intentionally destroy Wealth -- instead of creating and building Wealth, Social Security is effectively a government-mandated savings account. They'll get that money back.
Someone with an adjusted gross income of $17,000 (that means they've already taken exemptions and deductions) and one child pays $0 in federal taxes and they get a free cash tax-payer gift of $2,865.
Google EITC and go to the IRS web-site and do it yourself if you want.
Assuming the entire $17,000 is 100% disposable (which means I am giving you the benefit of the doubt) and assuming every single thing they purchase is taxable (again, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) at a rate of 5.5% Sales Tax they would have paid $935 in Sales Taxes.
The free taxpayer gift of $2,864 would negate their Sales Taxes.
The story so far....
Our free-loading minimum wage pukes have paid $0 in federal taxes, plus received a free cash tax-payer gift of $2,865, against $935 in Sales Tax.
That leaves our free-loading minimum wage pukes with $1,930 of free tax-payer gift money to spend as they please.
The city earnings tax workers pay here is 2.1% of income (and not refundable) so that would be $675 on $32,150 ($32,150 - $15,150 for standard deduction for head of household and two exemptions = $17,000)
The story so far...
Our free-loading minimum wage pukes paid $0 in federal income taxes, and got a free cash tax-payer gift of $2,865.
$2,865 Free Tax-Payer Cash Gift to the free-loading minimum wage pukes
- $935 in sales taxes (assuming the entire $17,000 was taxable)
- $675 in city/county earnings payroll tax
-------
$1,255
Our free-loading minimum wage pukes still have $1,255 in free tax-payer cash left.
If they buys 30 gallons of gasoline per week, they'll spend about $632 in State and federal gasoline excise taxes.
That still leaves our free-loading minimum wage pukes $600+ from their original generous free tax-payer gift.
But then that assumes they don't get more than $2,865 in EITC free tax-payer cash give-away wealth-transfer.
Mathematically...
Then why do so many conservatives lump in social security with government spending? You can't have it both ways.....
Holy **** I damn fell off of the porch.
Conservatives aren't the only ones who commit that sin. Suffice to say that anyone who lumps Social Security together with the General Fund is wrong. Same with Medicare....except for that part of Medicare that really is paid out of the General Fund due to the fact that a failure in leadership by both the Bush and Obama Administrations has resulted the necessity to waste money in the General Fund.
Even a broken clock is right twice each day....
I know, you all looked at the title, and said "I am going to go into this thread and tear into this, this guys wrong. We ALL know the rich pay more!"
But thats because the debate is all about cherry picking data. We look at federal taxes-but exclude social security which is a 6.3%+6.3% tax....paid for by the working poor. But ONLY on the first 112K of income. The average .1%er has it as a rounding error. Heck as a % of my income I paid more in social security then Romney paid in federal....but then again my federal rate was ALSO higher then his....
But wait...what about state taxes? Turns out thats paid at a 5.6% rate by the average .1%er....and 11% for the poor folks.
So all this screaming about the federal rate, conveniently ignores the other taxes. Why is that? hmmmmm
edit-To clarify the title, twice as much as a % of their income.
oh please the working poor get back every dime they paid in taxes...both income tax and payroll tax
and they get back every dime in state income tax, (if their state even has an income tax)
they only thing we truely pay is property and sales tax
This is a myth. I'm Conservative, and I've been trying to educate Conservatives on this for years. Do some people get refunds? Yes. Do ALL of them get refunds? NO!
Ask me how I know?
I used to be one of those working poor. I never got a damn refund. In fact, the MORE money I made, the less I had to pay in taxes. The less money I made, the MORE I paid in taxes....no refunds.
I don't think I paid more than the rich, but to state that the working poor, (implying all of them), get refunds, is flat out false.
The effective tax rate for 1 in 5 tax returns is negative.
Your total tax burden (city, county, state, federal) is $.59 on every $1.00 you make.
The various levels of government take theirs and leave you with $.40.
And that is up from $.54.
Yup..your levels of government are nickeling and diming you to death and you don't even realize it.
That's why over 75% of working Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.
You only get to keep less than half of what you earn to spend as you please.
Yup. It also depends on how you define what is a tax. As a prior poster went on at length about the eitc amounts and blah blah blah......Of course if we used 60% of income is lost in taxes, we would instantly blow mirceas whole argument out of the water. But hey details.
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.
