Voters Prefer To Cut The Federal Payroll
-
GREECE!
SOCIALISM!
OBAMAO!
WAR ON CHURCH!
LEFTISTS!
CIVIL WAR!
GUNS!
GOD AND JESUS!
REAL AMERICA!
DERP DERP DERP!
-
John, here's a story from a guy who took a job as a cook at Applebee's:
"But even if I move up the ladder, from expo to line, it doesn’t guarantee much improvement when it comes to wages. When Freddie hired me, he told me I’d make $8 an hour for training and $9 an hour after that, putting me on the lower end of kitchen workers, whose median wages range from $8.69 for prep and $10.09 for cooks. Geoff, who cooks the burgers on mid, and Calixto, who does steaks and sides on broil, tell me they earn around $12 an hour, which sounds like a lot until I calculate what it means in annual salary: $24,000."
Now, here's what happens:
Geoff and Calixto both make $24,000 a year if they work a 40 hour work week for 50 weeks of the year.
Out of that paycheck will come:
- $2496 in Social Security taxes
- $696 in Medicare taxes
They'll then have $20,808 to live off of for the year, or $1734 a month. It's not much. And that's assuming he's single and doesn't have children.
The employee who makes $10 bucks an hour, or $20,000, will pay $2,660 in payroll taxes, and will have to live off of $17,340, or $1445 a month.
...So in your mind, what we really need to do to turn this country/economy around is to start making these types of workers pay income taxes?
Again, you're going to have to explain to me how this thinking works. What does this accomplish, and why would it be worth it?
-
>>And if you're asking me where I'd look for the more obvious sources of waste and duplication, I'd look to the defense budget. But even a lot of that is by design. To take an example from Connecticut, the Navy can say, "We don't need or want that sub built" but if certain Senators and Congressmen push it anyway, and it becomes part of the Defense bill, and Congress then appropriates the money, guess what? They're building it.
And that makes me sick, Heck.
The bluest of blue states and the anti-defense sentiment goes away as they circle the wagons to 'protect jobs' and , of course the Pentagon, etc. is wrong. THEY NEED THESE SUBMARINES!!!!
It's always, 'not in my backyard'.
Building subs for the sake of creating jobs amounts to little more than building another type of bridge to nowhere.
I agree 100% with you. There is a TON of waste in Defense. I asked it before and I will ask it again: why do we need an Air Force? To me, there has to be duplication of effort because the Army, Navy and Marines - who are actually part of the Navy - have their own air support. People say I'm crazy but nobody ever gave me a good reason why we couldn't live - once again - without the Air Force.
Also with earmarks.
-
John, here's a story from a guy who took a job as a cook at Applebee's:
"But even if I move up the ladder, from expo to line, it doesn’t guarantee much improvement when it comes to wages. When Freddie hired me, he told me I’d make $8 an hour for training and $9 an hour after that, putting me on the lower end of kitchen workers, whose median wages range from $8.69 for prep and $10.09 for cooks. Geoff, who cooks the burgers on mid, and Calixto, who does steaks and sides on broil, tell me they earn around $12 an hour, which sounds like a lot until I calculate what it means in annual salary: $24,000."
Now, here's what happens:
Geoff and Calixto both make $24,000 a year if they work a 40 hour work week for 50 weeks of the year.
Out of that paycheck will come:
- $2496 in Social Security taxes
- $696 in Medicare taxes
They'll then have $20,808 to live off of for the year, or $1734 a month. It's not much. And that's assuming he's single and doesn't have children.
The employee who makes $10 bucks an hour, or $20,000, will pay $2,660 in payroll taxes, and will have to live off of $17,340, or $1445 a month.
...So in your mind, what we really need to do to turn this country/economy around is to start making these types of workers pay income taxes?
Again, you're going to have to explain to me how this thinking works. What does this accomplish, and why would it be worth it?
John, here's a story from a guy who took a job as a cook at Applebee's:
"But even if I move up the ladder, from expo to line, it doesn’t guarantee much improvement when it comes to wages. When Freddie hired me, he told me I’d make $8 an hour for training and $9 an hour after that, putting me on the lower end of kitchen workers, whose median wages range from $8.69 for prep and $10.09 for cooks. Geoff, who cooks the burgers on mid, and Calixto, who does steaks and sides on broil, tell me they earn around $12 an hour, which sounds like a lot until I calculate what it means in annual salary: $24,000."
Now, here's what happens:
Geoff and Calixto both make $24,000 a year if they work a 40 hour work week for 50 weeks of the year.
Out of that paycheck will come:
- $2496 in Social Security taxes
- $696 in Medicare taxes
They'll then have $20,808 to live off of for the year, or $1734 a month. It's not much. And that's assuming he's single and doesn't have children.
The employee who makes $10 bucks an hour, or $20,000, will pay $2,660 in payroll taxes, and will have to live off of $17,340, or $1445 a month.
...So in your mind, what we really need to do to turn this country/economy around is to start making these types of workers pay income taxes?
Again, you're going to have to explain to me how this thinking works. What does this accomplish, and why would it be worth it?
Sometimes, Heck, people have to work multiple jobs to bridge the gap. Not a pretty picture but nobody said folks should make a 'living wage' if what they do does not warrant that level of wage.
I'd tell this guy to get an additional job. He'd be better off in the long run. Also, maybe get some training that might put him in a position to increase his earning power over time.
-
Doesn't the employer pick ip half the SS?
WSS
-
Yes and no. They have to pay half, but just pass most of that cost on to you in the form of a lower wage. You pay most of it one way or the other.
But I think you're right about the figures. I plugged them into an online FICA calculator. They don't look right.
...Aha. There. Another one gives me $1488 and $348, which is correct.
"The 7.65% tax rate is the combined rate for Social Security and Medicare. The Social Security portion (OASDI) is 6.20% on earnings up to the applicable taxable maximum amount (see below). The Medicare portion (HI) is 1.45% on all earnings.
* Section 601 of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 reduced, for wages and salaries paid in calendar year 2011 and self-employment income in calendar year 2011, the OASDI payroll tax by 2 percentage points, applied to the portion of the tax paid by the worker and the self-employed individual."
-
John, here's a story from a guy who took a job as a cook at Applebee's:
"But even if I move up the ladder, from expo to line, it doesn’t guarantee much improvement when it comes to wages. When Freddie hired me, he told me I’d make $8 an hour for training and $9 an hour after that, putting me on the lower end of kitchen workers, whose median wages range from $8.69 for prep and $10.09 for cooks. Geoff, who cooks the burgers on mid, and Calixto, who does steaks and sides on broil, tell me they earn around $12 an hour, which sounds like a lot until I calculate what it means in annual salary: $24,000."
Now, here's what happens:
Geoff and Calixto both make $24,000 a year if they work a 40 hour work week for 50 weeks of the year.
Out of that paycheck will come:
- $2496 in Social Security taxes
- $696 in Medicare taxes
They'll then have $20,808 to live off of for the year, or $1734 a month. It's not much. And that's assuming he's single and doesn't have children.
The employee who makes $10 bucks an hour, or $20,000, will pay $2,660 in payroll taxes, and will have to live off of $17,340, or $1445 a month.
...So in your mind, what we really need to do to turn this country/economy around is to start making these types of workers pay income taxes?
Again, you're going to have to explain to me how this thinking works. What does this accomplish, and why would it be worth it?
Sometimes, Heck, people have to work multiple jobs to bridge the gap. Not a pretty picture but nobody said folks should make a 'living wage' if what they do does not warrant that level of wage.
I'd tell this guy to get an additional job. He'd be better off in the long run. Also, maybe get some training that might put him in a position to increase his earning power over time.
Sometimes, Heck, people have to work multiple jobs to bridge the gap. Not a pretty picture but nobody said folks should make a 'living wage' if what they do does not warrant that level of wage.
I'd tell this guy to get an additional job. He'd be better off in the long run. Also, maybe get some training that might put him in a position to increase his earning power over time.
But that's irrelevant to our discussion. You're saying we should tax this guy. If you want to, imagine a guy who works 60 hours a week at $12 and hour, now he makes $36,000 a year. You want to tax him more too? You want to make sure he's paying some income tax?
I don't. I'm saying the notion that the right repeats constantly - that half of America doesn't pay any tax (flat out wrong) and everyone should have to pay some tax (based on the flat out wrong part) - isn't just factually inaccurate, it also doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
No matter how much harder you want Americans to work, this is the fact: the median income for Americans in 2010 was $26,000 and change. 50% of Americans make that, or less than that, a year. And that's why they pay no income tax - because they don't make a whole lot of money.
The problem is the "not making a whole lot of money" part.
-
Yes and no. They have to pay half, but just pass most of that cost on to you in the form of a lower wage. You pay most of it one way or the other.
But I think you're right about the figures. I plugged them into an online FICA calculator. They don't look right.
...Aha. There. Another one gives me $1488 and $348, which is correct.
"The 7.65% tax rate is the combined rate for Social Security and Medicare. The Social Security portion (OASDI) is 6.20% on earnings up to the applicable taxable maximum amount (see below). The Medicare portion (HI) is 1.45% on all earnings.
* Section 601 of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 reduced, for wages and salaries paid in calendar year 2011 and self-employment income in calendar year 2011, the OASDI payroll tax by 2 percentage points, applied to the portion of the tax paid by the worker and the self-employed individual."
Yes and no. They have to pay half, but just pass most of that cost on to you in the form of a lower wage. You pay most of it one way or the other.
But I think you're right about the figures. I plugged them into an online FICA calculator. That might have given me the self-employment number.
I think so. That look like about the percentage I pay.
WSS
-
Yeah, nice catch. We're nothing if not accurate here on The Browns Board.
-
Yeah, nice catch. We're nothing if not accurate here on The Browns Board.
Yeah, nice catch. We're nothing if not accurate here on The Browns Board.
Heh.
Maddow uses it for show prep I hear.
WSS
-
If the problem is,"the "not making a whole lot of money" part", I fail to see how working only 1 job rather than multiple jobs is irrelevant.
Generally speaking you make more money if you work more jobs.
-
If the problem is,"the "not making a whole lot of money" part", I fail to see how working only 1 job rather than multiple jobs is irrelevant.
Generally speaking you make more money if you work more jobs.
If the problem is,"the "not making a whole lot of money" part", I fail to see how working only 1 job rather than multiple jobs is irrelevant.
Generally speaking you make more money if you work more jobs.
John, that's my point - that this worker, and millions like him, works a full week and doesn't make all that much money, and the fact that he doesn't pay income tax doesn't bother me in the least.
You differed on that. So, do you think that worker needs to start paying income taxes or not? If so, what does that accomplish?
We're trying to see if you buy the rhetoric and the reality, or just the rhetoric.
-
And here's the precise figure: median US wage in 2010 was $26,363. As you know, that means 50 percent of workers earned less than or equal to $26,363.55 in 2010. These are basically the half of all earners who don't pay income taxes because they don't make enough money. They just pay all of the other taxes we levy.
My worry is that we make too many workers that only make $26,363 or less, and not enough workers to compete in the world economy, and to make more than $26,363. To me, that's the problem. And addressing it is really a question of education and job training and a whole host of other considerations.
To you, the problem is that these people don't pay any income taxes. I don't think what you want is for these people to have less money, but the reality is that what you're suggesting will lead these people to have even less money.
And many people on the right agree with you.
-
The initial point was that about 50% of the population pays no income tax, including many 1%ers.
That means 50% cover the gap.
As demographics confinue to shift away from the 50% who cover the gap to those 50% who don't pay income taxes, the system will 'crumble' under its own weight.
I'm sure the actuarial tables illustrating this train wreck are buried because, pretty much, nobody wants to face that reality. NOBODY
Neither putting the people currently paying no income tax nor placing the 1%ers into a 100% income tax bracket will be enough to fully close the gap.
We both know that.
I can live with people paying no income tax because they actually work.
Education and Training are oftentimes called out as the solution but, we both know, that many educated or - especially non-educated - people cannot be trained. In part, this the number of success stories coming out of Training Programs.
So - arguably (?), those uneducated (or uneducatable) or untrained (or untrainable) are becoming a larger percentage of the population.
I believe creating more manufacturing is part of the solution because people don't necessarily need to be (book) educated to earn a wage. Of course, technology has changed the manufacturing landscape since I worked piece-work during my college years so, some sort of training might be needed. However, uneducated folks (in the traditional sense) can earn a wage.
How many of these have the work ethic to work in this environment is another story.
It's interesting that you cited both Education and Training but not a cut in spending. Is voracious spending a given, due to a number of factors, including aging populations, etc?
Do you believe the current model will be able to sustain itself as a smaller percentage of the population need to pay a larger percentage of a 'drunken sailor' spending model?
I believe there will be a strong backlash - maybe people like that term better - if government spending continues to spiral (regardless if we agree about what should be done - I believe we both believe that spending will spiral).
There will be a tipping point, IMHO.
THAT issue is more important than whether Johnny at the 7-11 pays income tax, or not.
-
I see you've gone back and changed "pay no taxes" to "pay no income taxes" in your original post. And now you're talking like you never claimed that 50% of Americans paid no taxes. A little disingenuous, but at least it's now correct. And you're now arguing that you don't care that the working poor don't pay income taxes, which is 180 from what you started out arguing in this post.
So, congrats, John. You just argued for a progressive income tax code, where the working poor are exempt from the income tax through lower rates and things like the Earned Income Tax Credit. Or what the right calls "redistributing the wealth."
So your gut instinct was more Republican. After you thought about it for a few minutes, you decided the Democratic position made more sense.
And it's a good thing, too, because if there's anyone who makes me laugh more it's someone who rails against tax increases of any kind, especially those on "the job creators", hates capital gains taxes, estate taxes, wants the top rates cut, wants corporate rate cuts ...but then finally finds the one group of Americans who need to have their taxes raised: the poor.
This is essentially what every Republican candidate is arguing for right now.
-
The Republican primary is pretty entertaining though
-
I see you've gone back and changed "pay no taxes" to "pay no income taxes" in your original post. And now you're talking like you never claimed that 50% of Americans paid no taxes. A little disingenuous, but at least it's now correct. And you're now arguing that you don't care that the working poor don't pay income taxes, which is 180 from what you started out arguing in this post.
So, congrats, John. You just argued for a progressive income tax code, where the working poor are exempt from the income tax through lower rates and things like the Earned Income Tax Credit. Or what the right calls "redistributing the wealth."
So your gut instinct was more Republican. After you thought about it for a few minutes, you decided the Democratic position made more sense.
And it's a good thing, too, because if there's anyone who makes me laugh more it's someone who rails against tax increases of any kind, especially those on "the job creators", hates capital gains taxes, estate taxes, wants the top rates cut, wants corporate rate cuts ...but then finally finds the one group of Americans who need to have their taxes raised: the poor.
This is essentially what every Republican candidate is arguing for right now.
>>I see you've gone back and changed "pay no taxes" to "pay no income taxes" in your original post. And now you're talking like you never claimed that 50% of Americans paid no taxes. A little disingenuous, but at least it's now correct. And you're now arguing that you don't care that the working poor don't pay income taxes, which is 180 from what you started out arguing in this post.>>
Maybe it's just a matter of me doing what you, apparently, never do: 'stand corrected". I apologize, Heck.
>>So, congrats, John. You just argued for a progressive income tax code, where the working poor are exempt from the income tax through lower rates and things like the Earned Income Tax Credit. Or what the right calls "redistributing the wealth.">>
Not at all. My point is that the system will crash under its own weight if some types of actions are not taken. I said that taking every penney from "1%ers" won't cover the gap. What about this don't you understand or refuse to accept.??
So your gut instinct was more Republican. After you thought about it for a few minutes, you decided the Democratic position made more sense.
And it's a good thing, too, because if there's anyone who makes me laugh more it's someone who rails against tax increases of any kind, especially those on "the job creators", hates capital gains taxes, estate taxes, wants the top rates cut, wants corporate rate cuts ...but then finally finds the one group of Americans who need to have their taxes raised: the poor.
This is essentially what every Republican candidate is arguing for right now.
And you never uttered a word about curtailing spending. You fall into the category of wanting to squeeze and squeeze the working public so your academic exercises can be implemented.
By the way, I am unclear of whom you are describing as 'Left' And 'Right'. I assume its not nearly as simple as saying, "Democrat" and "Republican". Is the Right always Right and is the Left always Left? Are some people Left on certain subjects and Right on others? My guess is that a heck of a lot of people cross your pigeon holes more often than you'd admit.
-
>>I see you've gone back and changed "pay no taxes" to "pay no income taxes" in your original post. And now you're talking like you never claimed that 50% of Americans paid no taxes. A little disingenuous, but at least it's now correct. And you're now arguing that you don't care that the working poor don't pay income taxes, which is 180 from what you started out arguing in this post.>>
Maybe it's just a matter of me doing what you, apparently, never do: 'stand corrected". I apologize, Heck.
>>So, congrats, John. You just argued for a progressive income tax code, where the working poor are exempt from the income tax through lower rates and things like the Earned Income Tax Credit. Or what the right calls "redistributing the wealth.">>
Not at all. My point is that the system will crash under its own weight if some types of actions are not taken. I said that taking every penney from "1%ers" won't cover the gap. What about this don't you understand or refuse to accept.??
So your gut instinct was more Republican. After you thought about it for a few minutes, you decided the Democratic position made more sense.
And it's a good thing, too, because if there's anyone who makes me laugh more it's someone who rails against tax increases of any kind, especially those on "the job creators", hates capital gains taxes, estate taxes, wants the top rates cut, wants corporate rate cuts ...but then finally finds the one group of Americans who need to have their taxes raised: the poor.
This is essentially what every Republican candidate is arguing for right now.
And you never uttered a word about curtailing spending. You fall into the category of wanting to squeeze and squeeze the working public so your academic exercises can be implemented.
By the way, I am unclear of whom you are describing as 'Left' And 'Right'. I assume its not nearly as simple as saying, "Democrat" and "Republican". Is the Right always Right and is the Left always Left? Are some people Left on certain subjects and Right on others? My guess is that a heck of a lot of people cross your pigeon holes more often than you'd admit.
And you never uttered a word about curtailing spending. You fall into the category of wanting to squeeze and squeeze the working public so your academic exercises can be implemented.
By the way, I am unclear of whom you are describing as 'Left' And 'Right'. I assume its not nearly as simple as saying, "Democrat" and "Republican". Is the Right always Right and is the Left always Left? Are some people Left on certain subjects and Right on others? My guess is that a heck of a lot of people cross your pigeon holes more often than you'd admit.
John, you're really outdoing yourself. You began this post by asserting that the main problem was that 50% of Americans at the bottom didn't pay any taxes, and that they should. Then you got corrected on that, because it wasn't true. And then what do you have the balls to say now? That I want to "squeeze and squeeze the working public so your academic exercises can be implemented."
Dude, you just spent the first few posts saying we needed to tax the working public more. Meanwhile, I argued that we shouldn't tax them more. And then you accuse me of wanting to tax them more. How do you get to make that statement? And what academic exercises are you talking about?
And then you break out a pathetic straw man argument. Apparently there's nothing between changing the top tax rates from 35% to 39%, back to where they were before Bush, and confiscating 100% of their income. What part of that don't I understand? The part that nobody gives a shit about, because no one is suggesting that we do that.
Plus, I mention curtailing spending all the time. In fact, I mentioned it in this very thread - that you need to deal with the main drivers of the debt, which are entitlements and military spending.
Other than everything you said, great post.
-
And you never uttered a word about curtailing spending. You fall into the category of wanting to squeeze and squeeze the working public so your academic exercises can be implemented.
By the way, I am unclear of whom you are describing as 'Left' And 'Right'. I assume its not nearly as simple as saying, "Democrat" and "Republican". Is the Right always Right and is the Left always Left? Are some people Left on certain subjects and Right on others? My guess is that a heck of a lot of people cross your pigeon holes more often than you'd admit.
John, you're really outdoing yourself. You began this post by asserting that the main problem was that 50% of Americans at the bottom didn't pay any taxes, and that they should. Then you got corrected on that, because it wasn't true. And then what do you have the balls to say now? That I want to "squeeze and squeeze the working public so your academic exercises can be implemented."
Dude, you just spent the first few posts saying we needed to tax the working public more. Meanwhile, I argued that we shouldn't tax them more. And then you accuse me of wanting to tax them more. How do you get to make that statement? And what academic exercises are you talking about?
And then you break out a pathetic straw man argument. Apparently there's nothing between changing the top tax rates from 35% to 39%, back to where they were before Bush, and confiscating 100% of their income. What part of that don't I understand? The part that nobody gives a shit about, because no one is suggesting that we do that.
Plus, I mention curtailing spending all the time. In fact, I mentioned it in this very thread - that you need to deal with the main drivers of the debt, which are entitlements and military spending.
Other than everything you said, great post.
John, you're really outdoing yourself. You began this post by asserting that the main problem was that 50% of Americans at the bottom didn't pay any taxes, and that they should. Then you got corrected on that, because it wasn't true. And then what do you have the balls to say now? That I want to "squeeze and squeeze the working public so your academic exercises can be implemented."
I don't recall saying the main problem was that................ I might have said it but I don't remember (you should buy into this type of statement in a NY minute
Dude, you just spent the first few posts saying we needed to tax the working public more. Meanwhile, I argued that we shouldn't tax them more. And then you accuse me of wanting to tax them more. How do you get to make that statement?There is a difference between the working public and the so-called working poor, Heck. If you continue to feed the spending engine, who wll be burdened with more taxes? The working poor? The 1%ers? The working public? You lost me.And what academic exercises are you talking about?
And then you break out a pathetic straw man argument. Apparently there's nothing between changing the top tax rates from 35% to 39%, back to where they were before Bush, and confiscating 100% of their income. What part of that don't I understand? The part that nobody gives a shit about, because no one is suggesting that we do that.
Plus, I mention curtailing spending all the time. In fact, I mentioned it in this very thread - that you need to deal with the main drivers of the debt, which are entitlements and military spending.
Other than everything you said, great post.
-
John, if the median wage in America is $26,363, that's half of the country that makes that or less. That's a large share of the working public.
So if you don't want to increase the tax burden on these people (since they don't make very much) who else should have their taxes increased to pay for all the government spending? Anyone? Are there any revenue increases to be had here? What would you do?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login