Tea Parties

[eddie]

Oh I don't deny any of that, thus my "it's not enough." It's all terms anyways.

If you make 250K you probably are not in a situation where you get free medical.

Wait, free like military medical or "free" like you get x plan with y deductible with your job?

 

[villanelle]

No, of course not, just the inequity, and ridiculousness of defining who is wealthy and who isn't for the purposes of tax policy. How can you say Mr. Smith pays X amount because he 'has enough' and Mr Jones pays Y because he 'doesn't have enough', or needs more, without some sort of base line. It is the setting of the baseline that is grossly unfair. The use of marginal tax rates is counter productive, and American. Our system is beyond sanity. It is unfair by any definition and more often then not doesn't even yield the social or economic results it is designed to manipulate.

Who can afford what will always be a very loose definition, as will be what qualifies as wealthy.

But as far as taxes go, unless we go for a flat tax or something similar, we have to draw a line somewhere, and unfortunately, that will mean that some people who are right on the cusp feel the burden a bit more than they should.

The only other alternative that I can think of would be to evaluate each household individually, and take from each, according to his ability... but I'm pretty sure we don't to go that route.

 

[wink]

Who can afford what will always be a very loose definition, as will be what qualifies as wealthy.

That is no way to make government policy. Loose definitions are not conducive to good government. It is not the government's job to determine who has enough. For that matter, in American, I should think that not ever having enough is a pretty good motivator to great things, as a nation and individually.

But as far as taxes go, unless we go for a flat tax or something similar, ...

Thank you. I make more then you, I pay more. I don't know where the problem is with that. Is it because our public education is so bad that Americans don't understand that if a guy that pays 15% on 200K pays more taxes then the guy that pays 15% on 45K, or are we so far down the road of class warfare we have to punish the guy that makes 200K by socking him with some marginal tax rate? 'Thanks for the extra long hours, the vacation you missed with the family, and that risky capital investment in your business that kept you up at night, but we have to take just a bit more now that it all paid off for you. You know we have a lot of checks to write to middle class Americans so we can tell them we gave them a tax break.'

 

[MasterBates]

Then we have the whole marriage vs single thing..

Me and a bud. Same YG, same designator, both senior LTs on the bonus. Here is the post that I put in another thread a while back.

As someone who is in one of the higher brackets (28%) I think the current code blows ass.

For me, its relatively simple (1 Navy W2, Maybe 1-2 DITY W2s, 2 investment/banking W2s, 3 1098Es for student loans, and Alimony amount) to file, but I don't have enough other deductions to itemize. When I used to itemize (aka when I actually owned and lived in my house) It was far more drawn out and involved. And I had to save receipts for EVERYTHING. Saving receipts for a business I can see. Saving them for my personal taxes, not so much.

What I think is NOT FAIR about the current taxes is take me and LT Dave.

Me and LT Dave are both O-3s over 8. "Big" Flight pay. Both on the DH Bonus. Dave has a stay at home wife and kids. I have no children I am aware of.

Dave has a tad more $$ coming in due to BAH W/dependents, but that's not a factor for this discussion. We both have about $92,000/year coming in not counting BAH.

The difference? Dave gets to keep a lot more of it because he has 3 kids, and his wife Becky just popped out -4 on 30 December.

$92K in, assume renting, standard deduction type stuff to make this apples-apples comparison.
Dave- $4216 in taxes for the year. (source- Taxbrain.com)
Master- $17,239 for the same year/income (source- Taxbrain.com)

I pay $13,023 more in federal income tax for the same work.

Dave and his clan use more social services, more infrastructure, etc, yet I pay more for it. That is just part of what's fucked up about the basis of the tax code.

 

[MasterBates]

To put that in context, that's a new one of these EACH AND EVERY YEAR!

AND a good chunk of this as well:

Free and clear, each year, if I paid the same taxes as LT Dave.

 

[scoolbubba]

But Master, if we don't encourage procreation thru tax breaks, who will support the pyramid scheme of social security!?

 

[eddie]

To put that in context, that's a new one of these EACH AND EVERY YEAR!

Free and clear, each year, if I paid the same taxes as LT Dave.

Obviously, he chose to have the kids, but they do cost more than the bikes, don't they?

I know tax code as an incentive structure is a touchy subject, especially on the most general basis of the wide swath of power it can hand to the government. BUT some assistance / incentive/ whatever WRT to positive, well-educated and happily raised children is probably a good thing (less shitty kids dragging on the economy and no weirdness associated with low or negative population growth). Obviously it doesn't always work out that way, but I'm a bit hesitant to throw away the whole concept yet.

 

[picklesuit]

The California Public Education system sucks ass. I know, I graduated from it. My parents did all the work, those idiots just gave me the paper to prove I used my share of tax-dollars.

 

[MasterBates]

Obviously, he chose to have the kids, but they do cost more than the bikes, don't they?

I know tax code as an incentive structure is a touchy subject, especially on the most general basis of the wide swath of power it can hand to the government. BUT some assistance / incentive/ whatever WRT to positive, well-educated and happily raised children is probably a good thing (less shitty kids dragging on the economy and no weirdness associated with low or negative population growth). Obviously it doesn't always work out that way, but I'm a bit hesitant to throw away the whole concept yet.

He CHOSE to have the crotchfruit (oops, I mean children).

So he took on that cost of raising them, knowing that they would cost money to clothe and feed.

So why should I pay more in taxes, when his children are using far more services than I? I made a choice to have no children, (and keep it that way, pretty much permanently). I shouldn't have to pay more in taxes because "I can afford to pay more, because I don't have x mouths to feed at home"

That's fucking socialist. Telling me that I can afford to pay more because I don't have to spend the SAME income on little bastards that run loose in the commissary.

We're not talking 5-10% more. We are taking 400% more. (close enough, I don't feel like breaking out the calculator).

 

[MasterBates]

And to say they cost more than bikes.. He has an extra $250 per week to feed/clothe them.

The economies of scale for cooking for a family, and being able to recycle some of the stuff from older kid to younger kid, I'd say he still has more money in the bank than me. And I haven't been able to buy my 2 motorcycles nor put gas in them, because the gov't took that money from me before I ever got a chance to do what I want with it.

 

[Random8145]

So it is only the anchors that makes it count? It was heavily promoted; they aired 107 ads of their own coverage.

Jonah Goldberg from National Review said this was a legit criticism of Fox News during a talk on Fox News over the weekend.

Regarding the taxes, my big beef with when making $250K and over is that these are usually your high-earning professionals who work 60+ hours a week and who put themselves deep into debt to pay for their engineering, legal, medical, etc...education, because they want to make a nice life for themselves.

These higher incomes may put them into the highest-earning 5%, but they are not rich by any means at that level, no more than living in America, which puts you into the richest 5% of the global population, makes you rich either.

If I go to school and put myself into large debt to get an engineering education and work hard through school and grad school, then work long hours each week to get up to $250K a year, $300K, or heck even $400K or $500K if I am really good, I don't like the government taking away 50% or more of that money from me. Hell, if I got to $20 million a year, I'd be ticked if the government took 50% of that (or 70% as some advocate for the top marginal rate).

The great thing about America is you allow people to keep their hard-earned $$$. Government has no right to it and the tax system is not supposed to be for wealth redistribution. You let people go out and make as much as they can.

When you add up the Federal taxes, state taxes, county taxes, local taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, FICA taxes, corporate taxes which are passed down, etc...you're forking over a lot of money.

Having the highest earners pay a high-ER tax rate is okay I suppose, but not so high it takes 50% or more. IMO it shouldn't even take more than 40% overall, but government likes to spend so much and then people have to bail them out.

And the notion that higher taxes leads to higher-quality infrastructure and schools is not necessarily true, look at California. Highest taxes in the nation, also just scored in like the bottom in terms of the testing scores of the students I believe and the infrastructure is in the toilet in that state.

In North Carolina some time ago if I remember correctly, the state government raided the state highway fund of millions for their pet projects. I'd imagine they often have the $$$ for infrastructure spending, but don't spend it.

 

[Flash]

So why should I pay more in taxes, when his children are using far more services than I?.......We're not talking 5-10% more. We are taking 400% more. (close enough, I don't feel like breaking out the calculator).

One critical thing you are forgetting, those children are likey going to become taxpayers themselves sooner or later. The tax incentives for having children in this country, along with buying a house and investing in retirement, all encourage those things. We are one of the few 'first-world' countries that has a birth rate comfortably above the replacement rate. That is generally a good thing.

 

[eddie]

He CHOSE to have the crotchfruit (oops, I mean children).

So he took on that cost of raising them, knowing that they would cost money to clothe and feed.

Yeah, I know that. It was the first sentence of my post.

I shouldn't have to pay more in taxes because "I can afford to pay more, because I don't have x mouths to feed at home"

That's fucking socialist.

Yeah, it's socialistic. BUT, you don't pay more taxes because of what you can or can't afford according to someone. He pays less becaues the government wants to incentivise children and marriage, etc. The effect on you is the same, but I think the semantics are important here (namely because the government doesn't give a shit about YOU, or your friend either for that matter ).

Yes, the children utilize more services, but they are also potentially useful for macro growth in the long term. The argument should be about whether or not the government a) even has the right to incentivise any behaviors, tax code or otherwise) and b) if it does, whether or not you not being able to buy your bikes is worth X number of productive, contributing children raised over the long term (obviously that depends on whether we are talking economics or freedoms).

And to say they cost more than bikes.. He has an extra $250 per week to feed/clothe them.

The economies of scale for cooking for a family, and being able to recycle some of the stuff from older kid to younger kid, I'd say he still has more money in the bank than me. And I haven't been able to buy my 2 motorcycles nor put gas in them, because the gov't took that money from me before I ever got a chance to do what I want with it.

Maybe.

 

[wink]

We are one of the few 'first-world' countries that has a birth rate comfortably above the replacement rate. That is generally a good thing.

I believe we are the ONLY first world country with a birth rate that will sustain our social service obligations into the future ( unless the next three years are anything like Mr Obama's first 100 days of spending ). It absolutely is a good thing for American's to procreate. Many first world countries are on the equivalent of life support. They will implode because their population is not growing enough to support all their obligations into the future. When I see a family with 4 or 5 kids I see the payors of my social secruity and military pension. They can be plenty obnoxious in the mall. I don't have to live with them.

 

[Flash]

There is no correlation between tax rate and quality of services......I live in a fairly low tax area.....My city and county have been voted best run governments by several organizations.

I disagree. I would not have anywhere near the services that I have now except for the money I pay. It is a very expensive area, everyone from teachers to cops get paid more because of it and they do a good job.

Really, I didn't know you were a CPA.

No, but my brother is and his job is to find the deductions and loopholes so that companies and their employees pay as little in taxes they can. They still pay a lot, but he would be out of a job if he couldn't find them some way to save them money.

And why can't we agree that if you are making money and using public services, then you should pay income taxes.......But I am tired of pulling the cart for 40% of Americans that pay no taxes.......If you earn an income, you pay your share, and no one's share is zero!

The 'poor' will never pay as much as they consume when it comes to taxes, just like the 'rich' will never consume as much as they contribute. It is a fact of life in pretty much any country with an income tax. And the mount gained by raising taxes on the 40% who don't effectively pay right now would likely be insignificant compared to what the top 1% pay in taxes. Call it an obiligation of citizenship, but those who are 'better off' pay more. Unless you plan on moving to Monaco or Liechtenstein, I think you will find that is the true in most of the world.