TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Smells Like Socialist Spirit
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 »

quote:

Originally posted by Zild I believe that is what is being implicated.

And this is working population, not counting children, pensioners and the unemployed?!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I'd also like you to address the rest of my previous reply to you, not just cherry pick the areas you think you can make an argument (unless of course you agree with everything in my last post?)

George, if there's anything I didn't address, I didn't address it because I perceived it as typical blather that didn't merit a response. If there's something you honestly want me to answer, please repeat what it is and I'll do my best. As history shows, there is little that you and I agree on.

1) 250K is not that much money and 2) I do not feel like more and more taxes on a more and more unequal progressive scale combined with income redistribution will provide the answer to the societal ills that you seem so concerned about.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Yes George you have to pay 10% on any earnings, but after you take the standard deduction and a personal exemption you don't have to start paying unless you earn at least $9000 since that is what the deduction + exemption amounts to.

In addition to the standard deduction and the personal exemption, there are other deductions that you can take that can get your taxes to $0 even if you make more than $9000.

If you have children, you can deduct each of them $3400 for each. I believe that there are also deductions that you can take towards mortgage interest. Also, you can deduct up to $2500 in student loan interest if you don't make more than $65K a year. The list goes on.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Thanks. So if around 50% of the population are paying no tax, does that mean 50% of the (working) population earn less than $9k?! That can't be right can it??

No, I don't think that is correct. Something we agree on.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy In addition to the standard deduction and the personal exemption, there are other deductions that you can take that can get your taxes to $0 even if you make more than $9000. If you have children, you can deduct each of them $3400 for each. I believe that there are also deductions that you can take towards mortgage interest. Also, you can deduct up to $2500 in student loan interest if you don't make more than $65K a year. The list goes on.

hmmmm....i hesitate to agree with that. if someone is earning a living wage and doesn't have a house full of children, then it is unlikely they can reduce taxable income to zero. most deductions are actual costs incurred during the year and deductions increase as wealth increases. also, if someone has a mortgage interest deduction i sure hope you can't bring your income down to zero (you would be way over extended - and the entire reason for the current crisis). oh - don't forget the earned income tax credit which gives certain taxpayers (usually someone with children making less than 14k a year) a refundable credit.

the big deductions are the business deductions for unincorporated businesses - especially depreciation.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy In addition to the standard deduction and the personal exemption, there are other deductions that you can take that can get your taxes to $0 even if you make more than $9000. If you have children, you can deduct each of them $3400 for each. I believe that there are also deductions that you can take towards mortgage interest. Also, you can deduct up to $2500 in student loan interest if you don't make more than $65K a year. The list goes on.

True. I was just stating the basics for a single person not taking itemized deductions with no children who isn't going to school.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka George, if there's anything I didn't address, I didn't address it because I perceived it as typical blather that didn't merit a response. If there's something you honestly want me to answer, please repeat what it is and I'll do my best

Yes I'd like you to admit you were wrong to say doctors would be paid a "pittance" if health care were free, and also to admit that free health care works perfectly well where it has been implemented

quote:

1) 250K is not that much money and 2) I do not feel like more and more taxes on a more and more unequal progressive scale combined with income redistribution will provide the answer to the societal ills that you seem so concerned about.

1 - yes it is
2 - and how would you address the problems associated with being poor? let them rot away and die? do you even care about the situation the poor people of America find themselves in just to fund those "ever-so-hard-done-by" in the top tax brackets? did it ever occur to you that's where the money was coming from? what about all the social problems that affect the middle classes because the poor have no money like crime etc?

I don't understand people who say $250k a year isn't a lot of money. I know I will probably never make that much and I have a science education. My family pulls in about 100K a year and we are very very comfortable with a huge house three cars, etc...

quote:

Originally posted by Zild I don't understand people who say $250k a year isn't a lot of money. I know I will probably never make that much and I have a science education. My family pulls in about 100K a year and we are very very comfortable with a huge house three cars, etc...

Seriously - it's almost unfathomable to me and I have a graduate degree.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Yes I'd like you to admit you were wrong to say doctors would be paid a "pittance" if health care were free, and also to admit that free health care works perfectly well where it has been implemented

Simple George--if you're going to provide free healthcare for the population at large, there is no way that the high salaries that most doctors receive today will be sustainable over the long haul. 1) The taxpayers wouldn't stand for it (much like the executive pay restrictions that have been put on companies that are being allowed to borrow from the TARP program that the U.S. just passed, if taxpayers are footing the bill for a universal serivce, they're going to demand salary caps on the service providers to keep their tax burden lower). So yes, over time, in your program, I would predict significant downward pressure on physician salaries, which will ultimately serve to drive talent from the market and lower the quality of service for everyone.

quote:

1 - yes it is

I will try to be humble here. I know it is a lot of money in the grand scheme of income earners, but the fact of the matter is that after factoring out health-care insurance, life insurance, mortgage payments, student loan payments, groceries, utilities, car payments, car insurance payments, tuition for kids, etc., etc., etc., it doesn't go as far as you seem to think it would. If a person can "own" so much on a $100K/year salary I strongly suspect that they have leveraged themselves beyond their means. If they are not, then I need to take some lessons from them in financial management.

quote:

2 - and how would you address the problems associated with being poor? let them rot away and die? do you even care about the situation the poor people of America find themselves in just to fund those "ever-so-hard-done-by" in the top tax brackets? did it ever occur to you that's where the money was coming from? what about all the social problems that affect the middle classes because the poor have no money like crime etc?

I think it takes more than simply throwing money at a problem. There is simply a limit to how much one can legitimately ask someone to pay in taxes to support a system that is clearly broken. There needs to be more accountability at the ground level. It can't all be the responsibility of the Federal government--there must be more done on the state and local level to address state and local level issues. I don't particularly care for the idea of paying an increasing share of my taxes to help poor people in Las Vegas, but at the Federal level, that is essentially what it amounts to.

Now answer me this: Do you think that it is the government's job to decide who gets how much wealth?

My family has all that you are talking about at the income level you are talking about and the house/cars are totally paid off. I owe about $40,000 for student loans and I think we have about a $30,000 credit line with citibank, but I don't see that as being over leveraged.

Maybe it has to do with the fact that my parents refuse to take out loans to buy new vehicles and we built the house with cash. So that is how I operate. I have no credit cards. I don't own any vehicles that I didn't pay for in cash etc...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Simple George--if you're going to provide free healthcare for the population at large, there is no way that the high salaries that most doctors receive today will be sustainable over the long haul. 1) The taxpayers wouldn't stand for it (much like the executive pay restrictions that have been put on companies that are being allowed to borrow from the TARP program that the U.S. just passed, if taxpayers are footing the bill for a universal serivce, they're going to demand salary caps on the service providers to keep their tax burden lower). So yes, over time, in your program, I would predict significant downward pressure on physician salaries, which will ultimately serve to drive talent from the market and lower the quality of service for everyone.

You have no evidence whatsoever to back that up. I have over 60 years worth of evidence to back my arguments up. Doctors in the UK start on �35k (approx $65k) that's STARTING wage. The tax payers demand MORE investment into the NHS and it is an institution that left wing and right wing alike would never dream of giving up (unless they had no desire to be elected). So please, next time you post about free health care, get your facts straight

quote:

I will try to be humble here. I know it is a lot of money in the grand scheme of income earners, but the fact of the matter is that after factoring out health-care insurance, life insurance, mortgage payments, student loan payments, groceries, utilities, car payments, car insurance payments, tuition for kids, etc., etc., etc., it doesn't go as far as you seem to think it would. If a person can "own" so much on a $100K/year salary I strongly suspect that they have leveraged themselves beyond their means. If they are not, then I need to take some lessons from them in financial management.

Oh right, so your argument that one quarter of a million dollars isn't much is because when they've spent it all there's not much left? Good argument The fact is, if you take that much home after tax you're in the top 1% of earners...

quote:

I think it takes more than simply throwing money at a problem. There is simply a limit to how much one can legitimately ask someone to pay in taxes to support a system that is clearly broken. There needs to be more accountability at the ground level. It can't all be the responsibility of the Federal government--there must be more done on the state and local level to address state and local level issues. I don't particularly care for the idea of paying an increasing share of my taxes to help poor people in Las Vegas, but at the Federal level, that is essentially what it amounts to.

"There needs to be more done"...no fucking shit Sherlock! Gonna give us any clues as to what needs to be done?

quote:

Now answer me this: Do you think that it is the government's job to decide who gets how much wealth?

To an extent, yes. And I assume you're more comfortable with unelected corporations deciding how much wealth the population gets rather than democratically elected representatives?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Seriously - it's almost unfathomable to me and I have a graduate degree.

that's actually why it shouldn't seem like that much to you.

My own opinion of money is warped because i work in NYC and i have 3 degrees; I simply don't think 250K is that much money. Starting salaries for people in my field range from 100K to 160K without including bonuses (which may not come this year). After 5 years, salaries increase to 180K - 225K. I'm sure for the average person it's a ton of money, but not everyone starts making 30K a year.

Housing in my town is about 2K for a one bedroom apartment. without big salaries you can't even live near the city.

Oh, add to that my 200K in student debt and my monthly payment takes a big bite out of my salary.

You're right most people start at $15k a year instead of $30k.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild You're right most people start at $15k a year instead of $30k.

touche, i was thinking about college grads.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley You have no evidence whatsoever to back that up.

OK, well other than economics, the law of supply and demand, the law of diminishing returns and plenty of case studies that are perfectly illustrative of the trend I spoke of...yeah no evidence, champ.

quote:

I have over 60 years worth of evidence to back my arguments up. Doctors in the UK start on �35k (approx $65k) that's STARTING wage. The tax payers demand MORE investment into the NHS and it is an institution that left wing and right wing alike would never dream of giving up (unless they had no desire to be elected). So please, next time you post about free health care, get your facts straight

Yay--something "worked" in the U.K. (with a population of what 60M people?) for 60 years. So are doctors' wages in the UK capped at all? Does the government subsidize the entire salary? Is the quality of the "free" healthcare there anywhere near the quality of the healthcare that I pay for here? Are you sure that what you've gained in accessibility, you haven't given up in quality and availability?

quote:

Oh right, so your argument that one quarter of a million dollars isn't much is because when they've spent it all there's not much left? Good argument The fact is, if you take that much home after tax you're in the top 1% of earners...

Hey dickbrain, nobody ever said $250K after tax. That would be closer to $400K pre-tax, which is a substantially larger sum of money. Keep the debate consistent.

quote:

"There needs to be more done"...no fucking shit Sherlock! Gonna give us any clues as to what needs to be done?

Do you actually read entire passages or just the part you want to respond to with vitriol? I suggested more accountability and more responsibility at the state and local level as opposed to pinning the entire liability on the federal government and the taxpayer base at large. Perhaps that's not specific enough for you, however I made a couple of suggestions which is more than you've done other than bitch and moan for 6 pages (which is typical).

quote:

To an extent, yes. And I assume you're more comfortable with unelected corporations deciding how much wealth the population gets rather than democratically elected representatives?

Silly me, I thought wealth was earned...you know, work hard, pursue an education, develop job skills, make smart decisions, take some chances...and hopefully end up doing something you enjoy that pays you wealth. It is not something that is owned and distributed by the Federal government as they see fit. At least I can negotiate with my boss for a better salary if I can show that I have earned it. There is no negotiating with the government.

Corporations decide how much their employees make based on the success of their product and service sales, not how much wealth the population gets based on some mythical fixed pot of money they have access to. That's a pretty odd statement.

Edit: Government has a legitimate reason to collect taxes for the purpose of raising the revenues that they need to carry out legitimate government functions. They should not (and do not in my eyes) have the power to bring about some bureaucratic idea of "fairness" via wealth distribution.

And many times those making that much aren't offered good benefits. I know I would have died by now or have had a mountain of medical debt if I didn't have insurance at this point. In fact I owe about $1000 right now that I'm paying off in payments for a recent ER visit. And that is with insurance.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 touche, i was thinking about college grads.

I'm a college grad (university right?) and I started a job on �11k after finishing uni, my next job was �13.5k and now I'm on �14k (about $24k) and I have a masters degree as well! Also, a great deal of people in those jobs, esp the 2nd one as it was with a law firm, were new graduates as well. There's something like 1 graduate job for every 60 graduates in this country so it's really hard to walk straight into a graduate job unless your degree is vocational (incidently, there are shortages of graduates in engineering and the sciences). I'm still looking for a graduate job after finishing uni 5 years ago (altho one year of that was taken out for my MA). Having a degree by no means you'll get a graduate job straight away because you still need experience and to work your way towards something (altho obviously a degree helps you in the end)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I'm a college grad (university right?) and I started a job on �11k after finishing uni, my next job was �13.5k and now I'm on �14k (about $24k) and I have a masters degree as well! Also, a great deal of people in those jobs, esp the 2nd one as it was with a law firm, were new graduates as well. There's something like 1 graduate job for every 60 graduates in this country so it's really hard to walk straight into a graduate job unless your degree is vocational (incidently, there are shortages of graduates in engineering and the sciences). I'm still looking for a graduate job after finishing uni 5 years ago (altho one year of that was taken out for my MA). Having a degree by no means you'll get a graduate job straight away because you still need experience and to work your way towards something (altho obviously a degree helps you in the end)

college = university

apparently the job market for college grads in the US is much more flexible. while finding a job during law school was a little difficult, i had a job lined up prior to graduation (let's just say it pays exceptionally well). You didn't intern as a graduate student?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka OK, well other than economics, the law of supply and demand, the law of diminishing returns and plenty of case studies that are perfectly illustrative of the trend I spoke of...yeah no evidence, champ.

Another post, another refusal to provide any evidence to back your argument (altho bizarrely you claim to have evidence!)

quote:

Yay--something "worked" in the U.K. (with a population of what 60M people?) for 60 years. So are doctors' wages in the UK capped at all? Does the government subsidize the entire salary? Is the quality of the "free" healthcare there anywhere near the quality of the healthcare that I pay for here? Are you sure that what you've gained in accessibility, you haven't given up in quality and availability?

No idea if doctor's wages are capped, but the average wage is �100k (approx $180k). And yes, the government (ie British citizens) pays (not subsidises) for the whole health service through our national insurance tax which is 23.8% of earnings (11% paid for by the employee and 12.8% paid by the employer). I have no idea whether the standard of health care in our hospitals is as good as America's top hospitals, however, according to the World Health Organisation, the UK's health care system ranks as 18th, and America comes in at 37th...

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

quote:

Hey dickbrain, nobody ever said $250K after tax. That would be closer to $400K pre-tax, which is a substantially larger sum of money. Keep the debate consistent.

Actually, "dickbrain", I said, and I quote: "if you're in the top 1% you're taking home a quarter of a million dollars after tax". So, care to adjust your earlier comments about it not being a large sum of money?

quote:

Do you actually read entire passages or just the part you want to respond to with vitriol? I suggested more accountability and more responsibility at the state and local level as opposed to pinning the entire liability on the federal government and the taxpayer base at large. Perhaps that's not specific enough for you, however I made a couple of suggestions which is more than you've done other than bitch and moan for 6 pages (which is typical).

What you said is just weasel words that is typical of a party in opposition criticising the current government. Crime should be reduced! Health standards should be increased! People should be richer! And we're the party to do it! Well it's all bullshit unless you can give specific examples. Telling me local and state authorities should "do it" suggests you haven't a clue whatsoever and you're clutching at straws to argue against taxes...

quote:

Silly me, I thought wealth was earned...you know, work hard, pursue an education, develop job skills, make smart decisions, take some chances...and hopefully end up doing something you enjoy that pays you wealth. It is not something that is owned and distributed by the Federal government as they see fit. At least I can negotiate with my boss for a better salary if I can show that I have earned it. There is no negotiating with the government.

Often wealth is earned, but not usually by those with none to start with. And the government doesn't "own" all the wealth to distibute it, they take contributions from people and distribute those contributions around (much of which is returned to the contributor in some way or another, eg police, firemen, soldiers, etc)

quote:

Corporations decide how much their employees make based on the success of their product and service sales, not how much wealth the population gets based on some mythical fixed pot of money they have access to. That's a pretty odd statement.

If you don't agree with paying taxes for services, those services must be provided by private companies. They set the price of their services, just like the government do with tax rates. The only difference is, with the companies, you don't have a say in how those companies are run, but everyone has a say in how government is run...

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 college = university apparently the job market for college grads in the US is much more flexible. while finding a job during law school was a little difficult, i had a job lined up prior to graduation (let's just say it pays exceptionally well). You didn't intern as a graduate student?

Nope

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Nope

We went into the wrong field obviously - when you study economics (greed), you make money. When you study politics (service), you make a pittance.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov We went into the wrong field obviously - when you study economics (greed), you make money. When you study politics (service), you make a pittance.

Heh!

One thing I noticed about America is that a politics degree and masters in international relations will be considered vocational for departments such as State. Whereas over here, to join the civil service graduate scheme (including foreign office), you just need a degree in anything (which obviously decreases your chances of getting a job there!). Likewise, if you wanted to join the CIA etc, over there a masters in terrorism would be ideal, whereas over here, Mi5, Mi6 and GCHQ want graduates from any discipline!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Heh! One thing I noticed about America is that a politics degree and masters in international relations will be considered vocational for departments such as State. Whereas over here, to join the civil service graduate scheme (including foreign office), you just need a degree in anything (which obviously decreases your chances of getting a job there!). Likewise, if you wanted to join the CIA etc, over there a masters in terrorism would be ideal, whereas over here, Mi5, Mi6 and GCHQ want graduates from any discipline!

CIA and FBI have changed their desired specialities. for obvious reasons they now desire graduates of arab and near east studies as well as people who studied arabic and farsi. the fbi generally likes to hire lawyers, accountants, and the people that i just described.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov We went into the wrong field obviously - when you study economics (greed), you make money. When you study politics (service), you make a pittance.

that should have been obvious. government officials can get some pretty sweet perks if you have the right position: traveling first class (usually international) is a nice perk. plus the 9-5 schedule is pretty nice. but then again, the schedule is the main reason for the salary.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.