1/28 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22878539
Bush vows to veto any tax hike. How does tax raise/status-quo
affect me directly as a poor graduate student?
\_ It doesn't. Eventually it gets paid for somehow regardless of
nominal taxes. Too bad Bush doesn't veto spending hikes.
\_ When you get a real job and watch half your pay check go to other
people, you'll care. Until then, no, taxes raises and hikes don't
mean anything to people who don't pay them.
\_ dimwit you are so full of shit.
\_ I didn't write the above. --dim
\_ Half? That's a fairly ridiculous exaggeration. -dans
\_ Not really. Property tax, sales tax, income tax (state
and federal), cap gains, SDI, FICA. I take home about
50% and that's not counting what my employer pays for me
(which may as well be in my pocket as far as my employer
is concerned).
\_ If you make 100K per year you'll pay about 20% in income
taxes. Your short term capital gains tax rate is equal to
your income tax rate, your long term is less. There is
now way in hell what your combined state income tax (a
no way in hell what your combined state income tax (a
couple points, worst case), sales tax, SDI, and FICA would
be 30% of your income. Is property tax really that
outrageous? Do you have some ridiculous AMT tax burden?
-dans
\_ Dude, you are totally out of it. Statements like
"There is now (sic) way in hell your [...] tax
would be 30% of your income" prove it.
\_ You say that you "take home about 50%." Does that include
your 401k contribution? I calculated my total overall
payroll and income rate last year and it was about 1/3 and
I am subject to AMT. At the highest possible rate, your
overall tax rate is 35% Federal + 10.3% state + 1.5% SDI,
which comes out to 46.8%. Close but no cigar. Are you
self-employed? If so, your tax rate might be higher.
\_ You totally neglected FICA, property tax, sales taxes,
use taxes, and "fees" like VLF.
\_ You totally neglected FICA, property tax, sales tax,
use taxes, and fees like VLF. You also ignored the
7.65% my employer is paying for me.
\_ Hell yeah, fuck all those taxes. Support FairTax.
\_ So now you are including taxes that other people
are paying? Yeah, if you include enough of those, I
am sure you can "prove" that your tax rate is over
100%! I not not include FICA, because it is eliminated
for income over $97.5k. The overall maximum rate is
only for those making over $1M. The rate for the $95k
guy is much less. Property tax, etc are not taken
out of your paycheck, so they do not effect your
"take home" pay, right?
\_ Yes, I include taxes other people are paying
for my benefit. My employer could give that
money to me and it wouldn't matter one whit
to them. Or, we could split it 50/50. The
fact that FICA has a cap doesn't matter. You
can't ignore it. Also, I consider "take home"
to be the amount I get to keep each year, not
the amount of my paycheck. I can take 59
deductions and get a huge paycheck, but I
don't get to keep any of that.
\_ You aren't listening very well to what I am
saying. Here are the calculations for a
$97.5k income with zero deductions (not very
likely, but an extreme case):
Income - $97.5
Fed income tax - 21411
State income tax - 6873
FICA - 7459
SDI - 693
That comes out to a 37.3% overall tax rate,
which is much lower than the theoretical
maximum. I calculated this from the tax tables,
btw. Why stop at FICA, if you are going to
start including your employers taxes? Why not
add corporate income tax as well? If he made
more money, he could pay you more, right?
[As an aside, I realized that zero deductions
makes no sense, since this guy would at the
very least be able to deduct his state taxes
from his federal taxable income. Doing that
lowers his federal income tax by 1924 and his
overall tax burden to 35.3%]
\_ State income tax as stated by you = $6873.
The standard deduction is $5350 for a
single filer. The difference is not 2%
in tax burden.
\_ What do you think "zero deductions" means?
Not everyone gets the standard deduction.
\_ The payroll taxes are not at all
similar to corporate income tax, but
feel free to include them if you wish
since we get taxed twice on that income.
\_ Don't forge to include the income tax
that the gas station owner pays on his
employees, since if he didn't have to
pay that tax, he could give you cheaper
gasoline.
\_ Huh?
\_ Sales taxes can easily bring you over 40%.
And property taxes should count, why not?
If you live somewhere it's an expense that
comes out of your paycheck in the end. - !op
\_ My god. You're so dense it's not
even worth reading your shit
anymore !op !pp
\_ :( awww. I guess you win.
\_ We were discussing paycheck deductions.
\_ No, only you were.
Yes, I am sure that your overall tax
burden can exceed 40%, since mine did
one year, when I sold a bunch of stock
and got bit by AMT and I didn't have
any deductions. I don't think it is
realistic to get to 50% and I would
be amused to see your scenrio as to
how it could be possible.
\_ I think we are actually discussing
overall tax burden. You are trying
to stick with the literal paycheck
but that's kind of dumb since the op
clarified this already.
I don't know if you can break 50%, but
I guess I wouldn't be surprised if you
could. What state has the highest
income, property, and sales taxes?
How much do corporate taxes affect
people's tax burden, reflected in
prices? How much might luxury taxes,
gaz guzzler taxes, or other special
purpose taxes affect someone?
\_ What does "I take home 50%" mean
to you? Like I said, I would be
amused. Pull out your calculator
and show us how it could happen.
\_ To me, it means "take home
at the end of the year".
Like I said, I can play
with deductions all over
the place to affect my
actual paycheck.
\_ That's right, you have
deductions, so you don't pay
as much taxes as you would
otherwise. This is what
everyone does, which is why
the 50% line is BS.
the 50% line is unrealistic.
\_ I think he means you can
claim deductions for your
paycheck that are bogus.
What matters is what you
ended up actually giving
the govt after tax year.
\_ That is not what take home pay
means to a normal person.
http://www.csua.org/u/kmh
\_ Your definition is
what I said and
includes even more
not related to taxes.
\_ I earn $97000. I go over the Bay
Bridge 9000 times and pay the
toll. Done.
Or if we include property tax
all you need is a high value to
income ratio.
Whatever, I too would be amused
but I'm not gonna do the work.
\_ Amusing. It would actually
take 19700 times.
\_ Amusing.
\_ I would bet there are real
people paying >50% overall
tax due to property taxes.
\_ Not very many of them,
which you would find out
very quickly if you did
the actual math. Most
people paying lots of
property tax have big
mortgages, and therefore
big deductions.
\_
1. Most people
paying lots of
property tax own
the property and
have no deduction.
2. The deduction
is capped at $1M
in debt anyway.
\_ Prove or demonstrate
evidence that 1 is
true.
\_ I am not sure if
it is and I
retract that.
My original
statement was
overwritten and
what I said
(which is true)
is that people
with expensive
homes tend
to make large
downpayments
(>50%) and
have smaller
deductions
in proportion
to property
tax than you
might think.
\_ Oh noes! Even if you were right and it was *only* 46.8%
do you *really* think the gvt taking *almost& half your
income is somehow ok? *shakes head* Or are you just
living down to the anal retentive engineer stereotype?
\_ I'm not the op and I just want to say your
reaction and response make you seem as mature
as dans. You're acting like a complete moron
which doesn't help in supporting your case.
\_ My case is very simple: 46.8% isn't a whole lot
different than 50% when you're talking about my
take home vs. the gvt's take away. If you can't
see that please return your diploma. Thanks.
\_ No one actually pays that rate, that is just the
theoretical maximum. I would be perfectly happy with
that tax rate if some decent government services
came with it. The guy who is claiming that the
guberment takes half of his paycheck is simply
lying.
\_ Why do you say I am lying? We just proved we
could already be at 45% without even considering
all taxes paid like FICA plus, e.g., gasoline tax,
hotel tax, airport tax, etc.. Hell, property tax
can be another massive chunk, especially if you
own properties outside of CA like I do which I am
not renting out at the moment but yet still
pay taxes on. I am glad you are in a tax bracket
where you keep 80% of your income, but wake up.
\_ keep it up loser, you're just whining now
because you don't like to lose arguments.
\_ You have a weird definition of "lose".
\_ 45% is for a guy making $1M+ with no
deductions. FICA is an insignificant proportion
of that kind of income. $1M+ guy probably
doesn't spend it all, he probably invests
most of it. My overall tax burden is about
1/3 btw. I don't trust you to be able to
calculate your own, after what I have heard
you claim so far, sorry.
\_ It doesn't take $1M of income to spend 45%
of your income in taxes.
\_ I see my pay check. By the time the gvt
is done taxing me I lose roughly half my
pay check. Is it 46%? 54%? I'd say it
doesn't matter and this whole thread
between you two has gotten bogged down in
hair splitting details. If the number was
33% (calculated any way you like), then I'm
working for the gvt for the first 4 months
of every year, not my family. I don't start
to earn anything for me until May 1st. You
think that's ok? Anyway, the original point
remains. The grad student op has no reason
to care until they get their first real pay
check and see how much the gvt takes from
it.
\_ Do me a favor then. Take out your latest
paycheck, add up all the taxes and then
divide that into your gross pay and tell
us for real what your actual tax rate
on your income is. I will be waiting.
\_ You're a moron. Withholdings are
just withholdings.
\_ Just answer the question, if the
math isn't too much for you.
math isn't too much for you. You can
go back and get your 1040 out from
last year if you want to give a
more accurate answer.
\_ The concept of "working for the
government, not my family" is an
ideological canard. Your taxes are
supporting your family; the school
system, the infrastructure you use,
the police and fire departments,
and the military. I'm sure this will
start you off on a rant about how
the roads have potholes and the schools
aren't good enough. So tell me; what
is the right amount of taxation, if
the current amount is too much?
(For extra credit: attempt to prove
that we're past the midpoint of the
Laffer Curve). -tom
\_ I don't see the relevance of the
Laffer Curve to this discussion.
Maximizing government revenue is
not a goal.
\_ Why not give 100% to the government
and let the government provide then?
\_ I notice that instead of answering
the question, you set up a straw
man.
There are some services that
the government is better able
to provide than private industry:
infrastructure and security, for
two obvious ones. There are other
services where the societal ROI
is so obvious that it makes no
sense to leave it to private
industry: health care and
childhood education, for two.
With the exception of the military,
the US and California are
insufficiently funded in all
those areas, which is why our
infrastructure, health care,
and childhood education are all
quite bad compared to other
industrialized countries; and
by extension, why our pollution,
crime rates, and life expectancy
compare disfavorably.
I am pretty certain that lowering
taxes does not improve any of
those areas. -tom
\_ Prove that gov't is better able.
\_ Please. Do you really think
a private entity could
have built the interstate
system? Do you see private
entities lining up to put
in the SF-LA bullet train?
Are there *any* real-world
examples of private entities
providing comprehensive
infrastructure or security?
-tom
\_ You went beyond massive
projects and mentioned
childhood education (why
stop there btw?) and health
care. And maybe that SF-LA
bullet train doesn't make
economic sense. Maybe the
interstate system should
have been a better rail
system. How are you so
certain that everything gov
does is great? Anyway,
it's pretty obvious that
some things are just way too
huge for there to be any
realistic competition and
that is where government
makes sense. Education and
health care are entirely
non-obvious however.
\_ I didn't say the
government inherently
does health care and
education better;
I said that the societal
ROI (for universal
childhood education and
universal health care)
are obvious. -tom
\_ You also said it makes
no sense to leave it
to private industry.
Ok, I misinterpreted
your point. I'm just
debating here part
time so I'm a bit
distracted.
\_ If the government
doesn't do it
better then they
shouldn't do it.
\_ The government
*has* to do it
(provide universal
health care and
child education)
because private
industry won't.
Private industry
loves to cherry-
pick the easy
problems and
claim they solve
them better. -tom
\_ Sorry, but
I disagree.
Private industry
does just fine
with both.
\_ where? -tom
\_ Private
school vs.
public
school,
for
example.
\_ Private
school
doesn't
provide
universal
education.
-tom
\_ Sure
it does. It's
just not free.
It could be
if the gov't
handed over
the $$$ they
waste.
\_ ah, so
it's OK to
tax to pay
for school.
Communist!
-tom
\_ Only
okay to
tax to
support
kids
whose
parents
pay no
tax. Most
of us
just get
our own
money
back.
______________/
That makes no sense.
How about this, we'll
have zero tax for
income up to $200K,
and 75% tax for income
over that, no
deductions. People
who are taxed are
ineligible for public
school and health care.
Sound good? -tom
\_ No, but only b/c I
find 75% rate
outrageous.
\_ So choose your
rate; tax
everyone over
$200K enough to
provide schooling
and health care
for everyone
under $200K.
Happy now? -tom
\_ This is another straw man
argument, btw. "How are
you so certain..." How
are you so certain that
everything private
industry does is great?
\_ Well, private entities
generally give you an
element of choice in
where to spend your
money, unlike a pure
tax-funded government
program.
\_ We have choices
in a democracy too,
but they are just
determined
collectively.
\_ The 'fat hand'
in your choice
to intervene is
so much 'fatter'
in the gvt case,
that you are
either being
sarcastic or
disingenious.
-- ilyas
\_ That's no comfort
at all.
\_ I would be happy to pay much more, like
50-60%, if it got me cradle to grave
health care, education and welfare,
along with clean safe streets, good
public transportation and great parks
and other public places, like they have
in The Netherlands and Sweden. I think
1/3 is fair, given how much the gov't
has done for me in my life.
\_ What has the gvt done for you that
you think is worth giving 1/3rd of
your life back to it every year until
the day you die? Would 1/4 be fair?
Would 1/8 be fair? 1/20? What about
people the gvt has done less for?
Should they pay less? Is it fair
that some people pay more and get
less?
\_ They (we really) fed me, clothed me
and housed me when my family was
poor. They gave me a free education
when I was a child and then a job
in the Army out of high school when
I didn't know what I wanted to do
and wasn't ready for college. They
provided me an outstanding
university education for less than
1/10th what a private school would
have cost me after the Army. They
even gave me my first job after
graduation, when I worked for the
UC for a while. I benefit from
knowing that I won't be starving
and out on the streets when I am
old. This lets me take more risk
now, benefitting me (and society,
indirectly). I am sure without all
that government aid I got when I
was young and needed it, I would
not be as successful now. The gov't
more than got its investment back
in me as well. Is it fair? I
don't know, is it fair that some
people win the sperm lottery and
some don't? Is it fair that one
guy gets hit by a bus crossing the
street and another does not? I
think you are asking the wrong
question. Life will never be "fair"
but society as a whole benefits
when we pool and share risk and
when we have an educated populace.
I think it is much more fair to
tax a few people to feed the
hungry than it would be to starve
them. I am sorry that you don't
feel the same way, but you are
welcome to vote for politicians
to implement your harsh vision of
what a fair world would look like.
\_ One thing I can say is that you
don't know how your life would
have been without this. You can
speculate that you would have
just starved. However, many
people lived for thousands of
years without a big helpful
gov't and didn't always live
like shit either. For example,
the safety-net like constructs
you love could conceivably be
implemented by voluntary local
communities/societies. There
are/would be various forms of
charity. You also don't know how
the economy might look like
without the current structure.
Do you think an army is the only
only possible job-provider?
Could one not use loans to pay
for university tuition, so you
literally do pay someone back
instead of handwaving and hoping
for the best? Just some food
for thought.
\_ The devil you know, and all
that.
\_ I might be able to imagine it
more clearly if you could
provide me with some real
world examples of societies
that had organized themselves
that way successfully. Surely
in human history there must
be some, right? When and where
were they?
\_ Why must there be? Were
there societies just like
the USA before the USA?
Not everything has been
done before, there are new
technologies and ideas,
and old ones that have
never been tried.
But think of any primitive
human tribal society. They
didn't generally throw the
old people to the wolves.
It seems like big gov't
wants to replace the role
of families and actual
human support structures.
What about my point about
the army and university?
Another problem here is
how you indenture yourself
for life, involuntarily. It
is not enough to say you
benefited. A slave benefits
from his master's food.
\_ So you want to replace a
system where the poor and
disabled have the right
to an existence as part
of the social contract
with one where they have
to depend on handouts
given at the whims of the
wealthy. And you think
that this is both going
to work and provide the
poor with more dignity.
Like I said, show me an
example of this ever
happening and I might not
be as skeptical. I don't
think a strong welfare
state eliminates the need
for family, though I can
see how it might lessen
the bonds a bit.
Oppresion tends to build
strong communities
amongst the oppressed
but that is hardly an
argument in its favor.
Handouts don't only come from the wealthy. _/
Right to existence != right to others' property.
Unless it is a child's support from his parents.
I don't think there is a right to food, shelter, and
medical care. All those things require the work of
others; how can you have an inherent right to that?
Most rights we talk about are freedoms against others
doing something to you, not rights for them to do
something.
Being poor != oppression.
Entitlement handouts erode personal responsibility and
accountability.
Private charity organisations are widespread. There's
no reason to assume that they would not work. They
might work better than the current government programs.
I don't make any claim about dignity levels as that is
subjective and irrelevant.
In a country where there is not enough to go around,
you clearly cannot have a right to food. Therefore that
right is inherently nonsensical.
\_ I disagree with your notion of rights, simply stated.
Mine are much closer to the UN Declaration of Human
Rights or FDR's "Four Freedoms" than your Cato
Institute flavor. None of your wealth exists in
isolation of society and most of it is actually
generated by the social fabric. To imagine otherwise
is wrongheaded and naive. In those societies where
there was only private charity, starvation and
disease were (and are) rampant, so yes, there is
\_ Irrelevant... different times, different tech,
different wealth.
plenty of reason to think that this model of taking
care of the disabled, elderly, orphans and other
helpless members of society would be insufficient.
The only differnce is, you think it is fine to have
people dying of hunger on the streets and I do not.
\_ You must think it's fine also. You aren't
donating all your assets to feed hungry people
in other countries. In any case, you are creating
a false dichotomy. There are other ways to
address chronic poverty than chronic handouts,
and there are voluntary forms of handouts.
And how would you know anything about poverty? Have
you ever been poor? You seem like the type who was
born on third base and thinks he hit a triple,
frankly. The evidence that handouts erode personal
responsibility is thin. In Europe, class mobility
is higher than here.
\_ You are crazy if you think Europe has more
class mobility.
\_ Handouts are pacifiers which diminish people's
drive to fix the underlying problems.
\_ Prove it. Did your attending a publicly
funded college make you dependent?
\_ Most of us paid fees. If we had paid
2X as many fees (unsubsidized) I don't
think much would be different. In
fact, Cal is headed in that direction.
\_ why, then do countries which have more
handouts have fewer underlying problems
than the US? Your stance is ideological
and not based in reality. -tom |
http://csua.com/feed/