Thread: Hey!! Who's pulling the Bandwagon????

Originally Posted by Bruno

Getting an equal income percentage from all citizens is also not enough to cover the total amount.

Why not?

I'm not sure but last calculation I heard was around 17% to cover the current operating budget of the US. Of course that was pre-Obama so It is probably higher now. Percentage seem the most fair to me.

My wife actually turned down a raise once because it put her just over the lip into a higher tax tier, her "raise" would have cost us 5% of our total pre-raise annual income. Her company wanted to reward her but was prevented from doing so because of the current tired system so she stayed stuck at the same salary level as all her peers, you know the ones who didn't stand up high enough to be noticed by either management or the government.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

My wife actually turned down a raise once because it put her just over the lip into a higher tax tier, her "raise" would have cost us 5% of our total pre-raise annual income. Her company wanted to reward her but was prevented from doing so because of the current tired system so she stayed stuck at the same salary level as all her peers, you know the ones who didn't stand up high enough to be noticed by either management or the government.

You will not wind up with less money by accepting a raise that puts you in another tax bracket. You pay the higher tax percentage only on the money you make at that level.

If your joint income is in the 25% bracket, that 25% is not applied to your total income. You pay 10% on income up to $16,500, then you pay 15% on income between $16,500 and $68,000, and finally 25% on any income you make over $68,000, assuming you don't hit the next level.

Did the company tell your wife that she'd be better off not taking the raise? If so then that's shady business.

Originally Posted by commiecat

You will not wind up with less money by accepting a raise that puts you in another tax bracket. You pay the higher tax percentage only on the money you make at that level.

If your joint income is in the 25% bracket, that 25% is not applied to your total income. You pay 10% on income up to $16,500, then you pay 15% on income between $16,500 and $68,000, and finally 25% on any income you make over $68,000, assuming you don't hit the next level.

Did the company tell your wife that she'd be better off not taking the raise? If so then that's shady business.

I just ran this by my wife last night (she is a tax attorney) and she said the exact same thing. Unless there is something screwy going on with the state taxes, you never end up with less money by taking a raise and shifting brackets. I have never been taxed on money I didn't make. After earning it, now, that's a different story.

-Rob

Originally Posted by richmondesi

I'm assuming you realize that I said distribution and not REdistribution. Words mean things, my friend

My bad, Paul - I musta misread that. Still, the DISTRIBUTION () of wealth will always be skewed in a free market system. The idea is to capitalize on resources - labor being one of them - by seeking the lowest costs, pushing revenue and stretching the net profit to the max. As it compounds, the disparity between the haves and have-nots will inevitably increase. Of course, we can't all be laborers and we can't all be CEOs. Some of us will just have to make less than others. Period.

The problem with NOT being a I-Me system, is the "have-nots" (really, have-lesses, even our poorest are better fed than many others in this world) are over-extending their spending habits and taking on enormous debt to emulate the "haves" and then cry poverty and ask for help because they won't accept the reality of their situation. Each person/family needs to take responsibility for themselves and plan their life accordingly. Worry about yourself, and I'll do the same - let the chips fall where they may.

Originally Posted by commiecat

So it's okay for you to do more work to take the financial burden off of your family, but it's not okay for our government to do more work to take the financial burden off its citizens?

I hope you live out that dream and that everybody in your family lives happily ever after. I'm sure there are lazy bums waiting in line for their free handouts who, at one time, had the same dream as you.

To the first part - the government can do the work, but don't expect me to pay for it. At some level the government is an employee of the people, and I'm not in the habit of giving raises without a legitimate reason that benefits me, a stable budget in place so I can be assured my dollars are being spent wisely and a strict timeline for evaluating and adjusting that plan accordingly.

For the second part - I picked up the sarcasm, but I never meant to call all people with misfortune lazy. What's lazy is not taking responsibility for your current position and expecting someone else to fix it for you. I've been on the unemployment line - but I didn't sit around drinking beer leeching. I went out and looked for a job. The problem is not with having a cushion, it's about having people take naps on that cushion while the system says, "Shhh. They're tired." We're all tired. Drink coffee.

Originally Posted by BingoBango

For the second part - I picked up the sarcasm, but I never meant to call all people with misfortune lazy. What's lazy is not taking responsibility for your current position and expecting someone else to fix it for you. I've been on the unemployment line - but I didn't sit around drinking beer leeching. I went out and looked for a job. The problem is not with having a cushion, it's about having people take naps on that cushion while the system says, "Shhh. They're tired." We're all tired. Drink coffee.

To clarify, the sarcasm was aimed at opposition in general and not anything you've said specifically.

Originally Posted by commiecat

To clarify, the sarcasm was aimed at opposition in general and not anything you've said specifically.

It's cool dude.

Let's ask more basic questions than how to take and distribute money by a government fairly.

How do you know it needs all of the money it is asking for?

Who in the government is accounting for its spending habits?

How do I know that what the government is charging for its services is a reasonable and the execution is efficient?

How come the politicians (all of them) get more wealthy than most business owners when they get to Capitol Hill?

Before we answer how to get the money and who is paying what percentage, I think we need to take a look at how much they say they need and where it is going.

Failed programs never go away, we just continue to feed them as though they function in the capacity they were intended. It is assumed that because someone says we need it, that makes it so. I am very skeptical that we have leaders that think like this.

Did you notice how I did not poke my finger in anyone's eye?

David

That's actually quite easy to answer.

Originally Posted by Alembic

How do you know it needs all of the money it is asking for?
That's a judgment call made by the Congress during budget voting and by the voters during elections. The opposing financial interests on both sides should provide for the correct political market answer.

Who in the government is accounting for its spending habits?
From what I understand there are parts of the governments that are supposed to do that, but for non-classified information everybody should be able to get access to it so corrections can be made in the next elections.

How do I know that what the government is charging for its services is a reasonable and the execution is efficient?
Same as above for non-classified information. For classified information you are screwed.

How come the politicians (all of them) get more wealthy than most business owners when they get to Capitol Hill?
Aren't their incomes supposed to be public? I think the rational answer is because the voters are happy with the work they do. Same as when the same voters keep buying Apple products Steve Jobs gets richer.

At least that how the representative democracy is meant to work and I think in US it's working quite well. If you don't like the results I think you need to reevaluate the fundamentals.

One other point about progressive taxation that I didn't see mentioned.
If you already have say $100 000 you will be taxed higher percentage on each additional dollar you get than if you have only $10 000.
However I think most people would agree that (in absence of taxes) it's also easier to make extra dollars if you already have $100 000 than if you have $10 000.

Originally Posted by gugi

That's actually quite easy to answer.
At least that how the representative democracy is meant to work and I think in US it's working quite well. If you don't like the results I think you need to reevaluate the fundamentals.

It is not working quite well. If it were, there would not be so many PO'd people on both sides of the equation with a government that sells itself to the highest bidder sitting in the middle.

And no, we do not need to reevlauate the fundamentals. We need to reevaluate the execution of the fundamentals. The framer of the constitution had it right, but we screwed it up generationally screwed it up.