taxes (from Repub thread)

[thegreekdog]

Hey BBS - I provided for a $5 million exemption. That should be enough to cover those who are not members of the modern aristocracy and those without intelligent tax advisors.

I'd imagine that the members of the modern aristocracy at the time of their deaths own assets valued at > $10 million or maybe even > $50 million, but that may be wrong. I'm not sure which percentage of the US population in terms of net wealth is part of the modern aristocracy. Also, I'm not sure if net wealth is an accurate enough proxy for modern aristocratic membership because political clout can be available to those who possess significantly less than $5,000,000 at the time of their death.

If we want to rob the modern aristocracy of their power, then we must address the fundamental provider of that power: the state--especially the US federal government. Ceteris paribus, giving the state more money through estate taxes only enlarges the politicized pool, which will still be susceptible to rent-seeking (e.g. from those with their hands in the state's coffers and from those with their hands in the politician's pockets). So, these costs of increased taxation may not offset the supposed benefits of a 100% estate tax + $5m or $50m exemption.

See other thread.

[isaiah40]

So according to player's suggestion of doubling the deduction of SS taxes out of those who make less than say $50k a year, that person would see a deduction of 12.4% coming out every check instead of the 6.2% it is now? Then there is the 1.45% Medicare tax, then the 6.35% (avg) Federal tax, then you have St. Louis Mo city income tax of 1%, and then the 6% Missouri tax rate. So let's break this down using $800/wk

SS tax = $49.60
Medicare =$11.60
Federal = $50.80
St. Louis City tax = $8.00
Missouri Tax = $48.00
Total Deductions = $168.00
Total left in check = $632.00

Now if we double the SS Tax as player suggests then:
SS tax = $99.2
Medicare Tax = $11.60
Federal = $50.80
St Louis City Tax = $8.00
Missouri Tax = $48.00
Total Deductions = $217.60
Total left in check = $582.40

Oh that is before the employer cuts your hours back to less than 30 hrs per week because he/she can't afford the Obamacare tax. Now why would I want to work the same hours and get $49.60 less in every check?? I'd be better off going on welfare!

[PLAYER57832]

So according to player's suggestion of doubling the deduction of SS taxes out of those who make less than say $50k a year, that person would see a deduction of 12.4% coming out every check instead of the 6.2% it is now? Then there is the 1.45% Medicare tax, then the 6.35% (avg) Federal tax, then you have St. Louis Mo city income tax of 1%, and then the 6% Missouri tax rate. So let's break this down using $800/wk

SS tax = $49.60
Medicare =$11.60
Federal = $50.80
St. Louis City tax = $8.00
Missouri Tax = $48.00
Total Deductions = $168.00
Total left in check = $632.00

Now if we double the SS Tax as player suggests then:
SS tax = $99.2
Medicare Tax = $11.60
Federal = $50.80
St Louis City Tax = $8.00
Missouri Tax = $48.00
Total Deductions = $217.60
Total left in check = $582.40

Oh that is before the employer cuts your hours back to less than 30 hrs per week because he/she can't afford the Obamacare tax. Now why would I want to work the same hours and get $49.60 less in every check?? I'd be better off going on welfare!

Combined with an increase in the minimum wage... but you start to get at why expecting these people to just put the money into a 401K, without withdrawing it when, say the rent comes due.. is not reasonable.


Per your "obamacare" bit... any employer of more than 50 people is already required to provide insurance. Maybe not GOOD insurance, but insurance. In the case of smaller employers, individuals are facing the requirement.

[isaiah40]

My calculations are based on $20/hr not minimum wage.

[Woodruff]

(3) Increase the estate tax to 100% of any liquid assets valued at over $5 million, adjusted for inflation, including stocks, bonds, and cash. This requires a complete overhaul of estate and gift taxes.

No, no, and no. The government doesn't deserve any money from people simply because they died. All that money was already taxed when they were purchased/stored, and any money that hasn't previously been dispersed will still be taxed under our current system (such as capital gains on stocks). It's double taxation in the worst form and punishes those who accumulated wealth and chose to pass it down to their survivors. Keep the money in private hands, not in the government's hands.

Yeah, f*ck that. We work for ourselves and our family. What we have is to pass on to them, no one else is entitled to that.

Anything that gives more money to the government is like giving more crack to a crackhead.

The US government took in $2.7 trillion in revenue and if that's not enough money then it's the government who has to adjust their spending. Not us having to give them even more money. Those living on the government tit just keep expanding in number as more and more is taken from everyone.

Coming into riches merely because one's ancestor dies is the antithesis of the American dream.

"It's called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." –George Carlin

[PLAYER57832]

My calculations are based on $20/hr not minimum wage.

And yet, you failed to mention that most of the country makes less than that... so your analysis only applies to the top earners, not where my argument lay.

[PLAYER57832]

"It's called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." –George Carlin

I miss that guy.....

[Nobunaga]

Yeah, that George Carlin. Funny as hell and incredibly successful.

... Was that a lucky "roll of the dice" that made him his millions, as Player once attributed all success on this forum? Or perhaps it was talent and hard work... (something like... well, like the American dream)..... Naaaahh. Just dumb luck.

[Night Strike]

My calculations are based on $20/hr not minimum wage.

And yet, you failed to mention that most of the country makes less than that... so your analysis only applies to the top earners, not where my argument lay.

Not necessarily.

"Median household income definition and source info Median household income, 2007-2011 $52,762"

That comes out to about $25 an hour, assuming it's a single-income household, meaning by definition $20 an hour would be lower pay than about 55% of the population.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

[Lootifer]

My calculations are based on $20/hr not minimum wage.

And yet, you failed to mention that most of the country makes less than that... so your analysis only applies to the top earners, not where my argument lay.

Not necessarily.

"Median household income definition and source info Median household income, 2007-2011 $52,762"

That comes out to about $25 an hour, assuming it's a single-income household, meaning by definition $20 an hour would be lower pay than about 55% of the population.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Not sure thats a particularly valid assumption.

[Woodruff]

My calculations are based on $20/hr not minimum wage.

And yet, you failed to mention that most of the country makes less than that... so your analysis only applies to the top earners, not where my argument lay.

Not necessarily.

"Median household income definition and source info Median household income, 2007-2011 $52,762"

That comes out to about $25 an hour, assuming it's a single-income household, meaning by definition $20 an hour would be lower pay than about 55% of the population.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Not sure thats a particularly valid assumption.

I would say it's highly invalid, even.

[Lootifer]

Well without further information the real number is somewhere between the $27915 and $52762 numbers.

Since I assume the lower number includes children and highly dependent adults I would suggest it will be closer to the higher number. Odds are in this case Player is probably slightly wrong.

[isaiah40]

My calculations are based on $20/hr not minimum wage.

And yet, you failed to mention that most of the country makes less than that... so your analysis only applies to the top earners, not where my argument lay.

And yet you fail to see the point. If you make $20/hr you are barely making it in today's economy. Gas almost $4/gal in some places, milk cost just as much as a gallon of gas, a loaf of bread $1.50 and that is the cheap stuff. So let's say groceries run around $300/mth. Rent where I live starts around $600/mth, electric will run you around $100 - $250/mth, water/sewer/trash around another $150/mth. Add all that up and you get around $1200/mth. At minimum wage your pay before any taxes are taken out would be $1160/mth. This person is in the hole every single month. If you want to raise the minimum wage, the cost of things will also go up, so it is a catch 22, you will never get ahead.

All this does not take into consideration, car insurance, registration, gas etc. Now you still want those making minimum wage to chip in another 6.25% for Social Security??

[Lootifer]

My calculations are based on $20/hr not minimum wage.

And yet, you failed to mention that most of the country makes less than that... so your analysis only applies to the top earners, not where my argument lay.

And yet you fail to see the point. If you make $20/hr you are barely making it in today's economy. Gas almost $4/gal in some places, milk cost just as much as a gallon of gas, a loaf of bread $1.50 and that is the cheap stuff. So let's say groceries run around $300/mth. Rent where I live starts around $600/mth, electric will run you around $100 - $250/mth, water/sewer/trash around another $150/mth. Add all that up and you get around $1200/mth. At minimum wage your pay before any taxes are taken out would be $1160/mth. This person is in the hole every single month. If you want to raise the minimum wage, the cost of things will also go up, so it is a catch 22, you will never get ahead.

All this does not take into consideration, car insurance, registration, gas etc. Now you still want those making minimum wage to chip in another 6.25% for Social Security??

LOL!

Man I want to live in a place where you can pay $1.23 NZD per litre of gas (we pay ~$2.20 or ~$7/gal in your currancy)!

Also it's fairly common knowledge that minimum wage cannot be lived off in all but the cheapest of assumptions.

[isaiah40]

My calculations are based on $20/hr not minimum wage.

And yet, you failed to mention that most of the country makes less than that... so your analysis only applies to the top earners, not where my argument lay.

And yet you fail to see the point. If you make $20/hr you are barely making it in today's economy. Gas almost $4/gal in some places, milk cost just as much as a gallon of gas, a loaf of bread $1.50 and that is the cheap stuff. So let's say groceries run around $300/mth. Rent where I live starts around $600/mth, electric will run you around $100 - $250/mth, water/sewer/trash around another $150/mth. Add all that up and you get around $1200/mth. At minimum wage your pay before any taxes are taken out would be $1160/mth. This person is in the hole every single month. If you want to raise the minimum wage, the cost of things will also go up, so it is a catch 22, you will never get ahead.

All this does not take into consideration, car insurance, registration, gas etc. Now you still want those making minimum wage to chip in another 6.25% for Social Security??

LOL!

Man I want to live in a place where you can pay $1.23 NZD per litre of gas (we pay ~$2.20 or ~$7/gal in your currancy)!

Also it's fairly common knowledge that minimum wage cannot be lived off in all but the cheapest of assumptions.

This is very true, so why would Player make the recommendation to INCREASE the Social Security tax??

[Lootifer]

No idea; I tend to skimp over her posts (no offence Player, but they usually are pretty long).

[BigBallinStalin]

My calculations are based on $20/hr not minimum wage.

And yet, you failed to mention that most of the country makes less than that... so your analysis only applies to the top earners, not where my argument lay.

And yet you fail to see the point. If you make $20/hr you are barely making it in today's economy. Gas almost $4/gal in some places, milk cost just as much as a gallon of gas, a loaf of bread $1.50 and that is the cheap stuff. So let's say groceries run around $300/mth. Rent where I live starts around $600/mth, electric will run you around $100 - $250/mth, water/sewer/trash around another $150/mth. Add all that up and you get around $1200/mth. At minimum wage your pay before any taxes are taken out would be $1160/mth. This person is in the hole every single month. If you want to raise the minimum wage, the cost of things will also go up, so it is a catch 22, you will never get ahead.

All this does not take into consideration, car insurance, registration, gas etc. Now you still want those making minimum wage to chip in another 6.25% for Social Security??

LOL!

Man I want to live in a place where you can pay $1.23 NZD per litre of gas (we pay ~$2.20 or ~$7/gal in your currancy)!

Also it's fairly common knowledge that minimum wage cannot be lived off in all but the cheapest of assumptions.

Depends on the hours per week. If I got $15,000 in subsidies and $10k from >40 hours per week, then I'd be inclined not to earn more money--especially since the $15k in subsidies goes away.

How 'bout them apples kiwis?

[Lootifer]

I dun get it.

[BigBallinStalin]

I dun get it.

Also it's fairly common knowledge that minimum wage cannot be lived off in all but the cheapest of assumptions.

So like, if you worked on minimum wage for 5 hours per week, then sure.

If you worked on minimum wage for 60 hours per week, then no.

If you worked on minimum wage for 40 hours per week, then no. (You just can't consume as much).

If you worked on minimum wage for 40 hours per week, and earned welfare Whatevers, then you can net smoething like $30k a year, which ain't bad.

[Nobunaga]

Speaking of taxes - thought this was cute.

[PLAYER57832]

Yeah, that George Carlin. Funny as hell and incredibly successful.

... Was that a lucky "roll of the dice" that made him his millions, as Player once attributed all success on this forum?

That is definitely not what I said. I DID say that luck is a big part of a lot of success... and George Carlin would be among those most likely to agree.

Or perhaps it was talent and hard work... (something like... well, like the American dream)..... Naaaahh. Just dumb luck.

No, both... and he never disputed that.

If you can only get your point across by lying, then your whole point is just a lie.

[Nobunaga]

Yeah, that George Carlin. Funny as hell and incredibly successful.

... Was that a lucky "roll of the dice" that made him his millions, as Player once attributed all success on this forum?

That is definitely not what I said. I DID say that luck is a big part of a lot of success... and George Carlin would be among those most likely to agree.

You certainly did. "Roll of the dice" were your exact words, regarding the attainment of success in the United States. There was no "It's just part of it" contained in your expression at that time.

[Symmetry]

Yeah, that George Carlin. Funny as hell and incredibly successful.

... Was that a lucky "roll of the dice" that made him his millions, as Player once attributed all success on this forum?

That is definitely not what I said. I DID say that luck is a big part of a lot of success... and George Carlin would be among those most likely to agree.

You certainly did. "Roll of the dice" were your exact words, regarding the attainment of success in the United States. There was no "It's just part of it" contained in your expression at that time.

I think that expression is more nuanced towards Player's point given the site you're posting in.

[Nobunaga]

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=101744&p=2311544&hilit=+roll+the+dice+#p2311544

On the other hand, I have never seen any real connection between a person's hard work, intelligence or any other positive quality and income. In reality, success is far, far more about luck than anything else.

I love being right.

But I admit, "roll of the dice" was not used by Player at that time.

[Symmetry]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=101744&p=2311544&hilit=+roll+the+dice+#p2311544

On the other hand, I have never seen any real connection between a person's hard work, intelligence or any other positive quality and income. In reality, success is far, far more about luck than anything else.

I love being right.

But I admit, "roll of the dice" was not used by Player at that time.

I'm confused, you seem to be wrong.