|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 9, 2008 12:43:03 GMT -5
You did not answer my question on taxes saunterelle. Is that because when you see the actual numbers you do not have an answer? I will post it here again so you can try to answer. You are also welcome to try Mink. The Mean Salary of a janitor in California is $24,480. A 15% tax would give about $3,672 dollars in taxes if you exclude deductions and such things. The Mean Salary of a Chief Executive in California is $181,560. Using the same 15% tax it would give about $27,234, almost seven and a half times what the janitor pays. How is that not paying their fair share? Why should they have a higher rate when they have sacrificed more to get where they are? Fair does not mean a higher rate, it means an equal rate. So explain how paying a higher rate is fair when you sacrificed more to get it. By your logic, the Social Security system is backwards. The poor pay more to Social Security in terms of take home pay then anyone else. Perhaps the tax for social security should be reversed to take 7.5% on all wages above $42,000 rather then 7.5% on all wages under $125,000 or what ever it is. That is exactly what you are arguing for in payroll income tax, so it should work just as well for Social Security. Well, if the janitor ends up taking home $20,808 while the CEO takes home $154,326 there is quite a disparity there, right? It is obviously not socialist because the CEO is taking home a very large amount that he/she can use to live a more lavish lifestyle if he/she so chooses. Meanwhile the janitor is barely scraping by. For the janitor to receive a tax break means a lot in his/her life and affords basic necessities while for the CEO to pay more it might mean giving up a few luxuries. Granted the CEO works harder and longer than the janitor, but the CEO still becomes rich and lives very well while paying a higher tax rate. You're right in that it is not exactly "fair" but it establishes America as a place where we take care of our less fortunate, not a ruthless cut-throat purely capitalistic society. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 9, 2008 13:07:15 GMT -5
Again... the janitor at that salary level is not going to pay any income taxes. That is the reality of the situation.
Please explain the "fairness" in that.
Life is not "fair", and the never ending quest by the socialist/progressive left to achieve it is an exercise in utopian frenzy, punishing achievement, which will ultimately do far more harm than it ever will good.
Saunterelle, let's cut to the chase... are you proposing a pan-European style of government where everyone at the bottom is on the dole and the few left above are paying confiscatory taxes to pay for it? If that is not what you are advocating, then please explain in detail exactly what it is that you are proposing. With numbers please.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 9, 2008 13:09:13 GMT -5
Well, I am happy to see that you actually took the time to answer. It shows some compassion that you want to take care of the less fortunate. It also shows some convoluted logic to arrive at your conclusion that the take home pay is the actual basis for saying there is a disparity. The CEO probably spent about six extra years going to school, scrimping by to pay for his education, while the janitor was out partying or philandering or something other then working on his education. They both created their own lot in life and made the bed they have to sleep in.
Tell me, why should I pick up the bill for someone who did not exercise good sense in seeking to improve their lot in life, when they had the chance. That is where your logic breaks down. The janitor made his own life choices that led him to where he is today. Saying that the CEO should pay a higher rate on money earned over a specific amount is wrong, and shows the inequity of the very tax system we adhere to. If you really want to collect taxes based on peoples abilities to pay, then you should institute a strict sales tax system and eliminate payroll taxes completely.
Now, there is something else we can actually look at, education. Education needs to be both more affordable and more accessible. Then if a person ends up being a janitor because of poor life choices you won't feel so bad for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 9, 2008 13:19:23 GMT -5
Some excellent points and ideas bolverk. We'll just have to agree to disagree on certain aspects.
Big Dog, a pan-European tax system is close to what I believe in, although maybe not quite to that extent.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 9, 2008 13:28:23 GMT -5
The only fair way to go is to institute a sales tax system and eliminate payroll taxes. Taxes should be collected on investments which earn dividends, like stocks and bonds, but only on the money above the inflation adjusted investment amount of money made when selling or collecting on the stocks or bonds.
By using a sales tax method, people would have to pay taxes on everything. Rates could be adjusted for the type of items, such as necessities or amenities and conveniences. Taxes should apply to out of country purchases imported into the country as well. Don't us a VAT method though, as it will increase the price of the final product.
Since we are a consumption based society this would be the best approach. People would pay based on how they consume and the government would have a vested interest in making sure the economy remains sound if they want to create their pet projects.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Oct 9, 2008 13:51:30 GMT -5
I think the biggest difference between the candidates, other than Obama's appalling lack of experiennce, was revealed in this comment from Obama: But understand this: we also have to look at where some of our tax revenues are going. So, when Sen. McCain proposes a $300 billion tax cut, a continuation not only of the Bush tax cuts, but an additional $200 billion that he's going to give to big corporations, including big oil companies, $4 billion worth, that's money out of the system. No, Senator, that's not "money out of the system," that's money that is left in the private sector, where it can be much more efficient than if it was spent in the government sector. I wonder if Obama includes in the $300 billion to those eeeeviiiillll corporatists the $25 billion that the Democrat Congress just gave to American auto makers? If we want alternative energy development, doesn't it make sense to give tax breaks to the companies that are already working on it? Or, must we only give money to start-ups with no proven track record, simply because they are not eeeeviiilllll corporatists? |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Oct 9, 2008 13:54:32 GMT -5
On another note, did anyone pay attention to the "applause-o-meter" that was run acoss the bottom of the screen? Where was the input data coming from?
Did you notice, early in the debate, when Obama started rolling out the liberal trope, "the failed economic policies of George W. Bush", the applause-o-meter took a dive?
Maybe the folks with their fingers on the input buttons realize that Bush is not on the ballot this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Oct 9, 2008 18:31:58 GMT -5
Saunterelle, your idea of the government deciding how much money a person can get through a job was tried for over 70 years. It did not work in spite of endless 5 year plans, purges, tighter and tighter State control of the means of production and distribution. See the history of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for more detail.
Your idea would cut out all incentive for people to work hard, get ahead, and be productive citizens.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 9, 2008 19:07:51 GMT -5
Like I said regarding the example, the CEO still makes significantly more than the janitor and lives a much more lavish lifestyle. The system has worked well in parts of Europe where the rich pay a much higher percentage than in bolverk's example.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxsawdust on Oct 9, 2008 20:11:25 GMT -5
The system has worked well in parts of Europe where the rich pay a much higher percentage than in bolverk's example. You mean like Socialists in Europe? Just admit it's Socialism... You can do it. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 10, 2008 10:59:43 GMT -5
saunterelle, my point is simple. It is a bald face lie to say that someone who pays a higher rate because they earn more money is not paying their fair share. In fact, it is worse then a bald faced lie, because you have duped people into class warfare. The simple fact is, the rich pay more then their fair share. Not only that, they had to pay to go to school to get those incomes. You want to reward laziness and bad decisions, it is that simple. And it is wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 10, 2008 11:20:25 GMT -5
Here is what the actual taxes on those two salaries would be:
Janitor:
Wage - $24,480
Federal Tax - $2,892.00 or 11.81% of income
California Tax - $587.23 or 2.4% of income
total income taxes - $3,479.23 or 14.2% of income.
CEO:
Wage - $181,560
Federal Tax - $45,022.05 or 24.8% of income
California Tax - $14,690.45 or 8.1% of income
total income taxes - $59,712.50 or 32.9% of income.
The CEO currently pays more the double the tax rate of the Janitor, and Obama wants to raise his taxes, saunterelle. How is that fair?
The CEO gives up almost a quarter of his income to the feds and nearly one third of his income in all income taxes, and the Janitor does not even give up 1/8 of his income to the feds and just slightly over 1/8 of his income in all income taxes, how is that fair?
The CEO only earns 7.42 times the money the janitor earns. However, he pays 15.57 times the amount of federal tax of what the janitor pays in federal taxes and 25.02 times the state tax of what the janitor pays in state taxes. All total the CEO pays 17.16 times the income taxes the janitor pays. So please, tell me how he is not paying his fair share if he only earns 7.42 times the money the janitor earns.
This little exercise proves, without a doubt, that the class warfare on the upper income brackets is only a ploy for Obama to get elected. It shows that the upper bracket earners pay far more of their share in taxes in comparison to earnings. To say otherwise is simply a lie or deception at the most base level. It pits citizens against each other for the benefit of one individual, and that is immoral, plain and simple. Obama is evil incarnate by doing this.
|
|
