henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Mar 14, 2011 18:44:44 GMT -5
Everybody else has taken a shot at it, so I'll take one, too. Mine will be to show that safeharbor was correct. Government employees do NOT "pay" taxes. The Treasury Department ends up with all monies collected from every source by the government. The Treasury Department transfers collected taxes to the different government Departments and agencies to cover their operations, and some of what they transfer is used to pay government employee salaries. Government employee salaries have a place to show that income tax was taken out of their pay. But what really happens is that instead of giving it to the employee the agency, or Department, of the government that gave them their pay check , , , sent that amount back to the Treasury Department . When the "taxes withheld" from the government employee paychecks was returned to the Treasury Department all it does is replace some of the actual taxes that had previously been collect by the Treasury and had been transferred to the other agencies and Departments of the government. Inside the government it is all referred to as "transfer payments" and it should be more easily understood by thinking the government with no employees. If their were no government employees there would be no transfer payments. As for the "spendable" portion of government employee salaries, that is just taxpayer money that is returned to the economy and recirculated, some of which does go back to the Treasury Department through the purchase of goods that have other types of taxes imposed. . . . gasoline, tires, batteries , , , etc. , . . . . BUT. Government produces no products and pays no taxes, and therefore should not be included when computing the GDP. Another way to look at government employee salaries, (and this will make some bloods boil), is to compare them to welfare checks. If the welfare recipient could be allocated a little more and have some "withheld" for taxes to bring their take home amount the same as it is now, then they would be taxpayers too, , , at least in some people's minds. The difference is that the government employees are considered to be an indespensible necessity where the welfare recipient is not so necessary. (But please folks, can't we get by with a few less of them both?)
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Mar 15, 2011 8:37:04 GMT -5
How did this turn into a hate government employees thread?
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Mar 15, 2011 9:45:29 GMT -5
PI, I won't try to answer for my predecessers, and under some circumstances I might resemble that remark. bit I SAID "government employees are considered to be an indispensable necessity". I would just like to be able to get along with a fewer of them.
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Mar 15, 2011 10:37:50 GMT -5
Since I'd never do this, why don't you go to any military base, and on any payday, ask our soldiers "so how's your welfare check?" Come back and tell us how that turned out, 'k. Oh, and if you want to save money on "welfare handouts," why don't you pave the roads or process medical forms. No the difference is the vast majority does work, but if you're unhappy, well I heard many third worlod countries have excellent tax rates. Just make sure to bring lots of guns and you better worship the same god they do. Here's a tax we can all agree on: GA GOP Wants to Tax Girl Scout Cookies valdostatoday.com/Blogs/Politics-Blogs/Stupid-Republicans-GA-GOP-Wants-to-Tax-Girl-Scout-Cookies.htmlI mean where do they get off thinking they can leech off the system? And they're always strutting around, wearing their scout suits going to *gasp* camps on the cookie buyers' dime. The nerve! And according to "Can the Girl Scouts Help Balance Georgia's Budget?" www.politicsdaily.com/2011/03/14/can-the-girl-scouts-help-balance-georgias-budget/"...GOP lawmakers have proposed a cut in corporate tax rates for domestic and foreign corporations" and "A recent task force that studied how to manage the shortfall recommended cutting corporate taxes. To make up for that loss in revenue, House Bill 385 would impose a tax on nonprofit fundraising efforts, which would mean taxing the popcorn sold by the state's Boy Scouts, as well as those Tagalongs and Samoas that the Girl Scouts sell every year to raise money for their leadership and community involvement programs." This makes a lot of sense because corporations are the real victims here . I mean those poor CEO millionaires don't seem to be able to afford to go to camp (have you ever seen one there?) or even a sash with badges; I've never seen any of them wearing one, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong. Someone should start a charity to correct this gross oversight right away! Just call it the "Sashes for CEOs." Oh wait, even the "S" and the "C" sound alike, they're different letters and some people may become confused. So, I recommend that you change it to "Cashes for CEOs." There all better! Why, even thinks it's a Smurfy idea!
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Mar 15, 2011 11:41:17 GMT -5
Actually I kinda agree with the Girl Scout cookies, it seems like it is more of a racket now.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 15, 2011 12:53:23 GMT -5
It hasn't turned into a "hate government employees thread." What's your problem with those that disagree with you that you have to accuse them of "hate"? Is your argument that weak?
You'd be far more likely to do that than any of the people on the other side of the argument from you.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 15, 2011 20:25:36 GMT -5
How did this turn into a hate government employees thread? That's easy- it's the same motivations that turn threads in to hate union workers. People have been getting shafted left and right in the private sector, so instead of standing up and demanding a better deal for themselves they want to bash/punish other people and make their jobs suck like theirs. So maybe quit yammering on and on about government pensions and benefits and start thinking about who took yours.
|
|
WolfNoMate
Established Member
Hang on a sec...I'm reloading!
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 23:31:10 GMT -5
Posts: 484
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"19e6c9"}
|
Post by WolfNoMate on Mar 16, 2011 7:11:25 GMT -5
FairTax.org - go read for yourself, it isn't difficult to understand.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Mar 16, 2011 7:58:59 GMT -5
He wants a 5.4% surtax on income over $1 million. Thoughts? Ask Maryland how their "tax the rich to prop up the coffers" worked out for them
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Mar 16, 2011 9:17:47 GMT -5
It hasn't turned into a "hate government employees thread." What's your problem with those that disagree with you that you have to accuse them of "hate"? Is your argument that weak? You'd be far more likely to do that than any of the people on the other side of the argument from you. Because comparing government workers to welfare recipients wasn't hateful? Every employee is dependent on somebody. Every business that has customers who pay for goods or services through government programs (i.e. welfare, SS, etc) is dependent upon those government programs. Every employee of those companies are dependent upon those government programs. Every company those employees are customers are dependent upon the taxes collected that pay for those government programs. There really is a trickle effect. Non-government employees may have a few more degrees between them and taxes collected than government employees, but I would imagine that to some extent we are all monetarily dependent in some way on the taxes we collect.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 16, 2011 15:27:04 GMT -5
Welfare recipients and government employees get their check from exactly the same source, taxes paid by people who don't work for the government. That's obvious to anyone with a minimal grasp on reality. No it isn't hateful because the comparison isn't about the contribution to society, but only source of income. Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with welfare recipients as such, since many have no other real choice. Your problem is that you simply reject reality that you find unpleasant. That's apparently an option for liberals. If you lay the facts on the table and deal with them, you'll find that facts don't have values like "hateful" or "disparaging," but are simply facts. Ignore them at your own peril [unfortunately, you can drag down the rest of us with you.].
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 16, 2011 16:53:27 GMT -5
Saying that govt workers don't pay taxes is like arguing that people who work at walmart & also buy groceries at walmart don't pay for their food. Yes, the money comes from & goes back to the same place, but they still earned it as income & later paid it out as an expense.
Thus, they do pay taxes & like everyone else they have a measure of control on the amount of taxes they pay - from the savings credit, child tax credit, mortgage interest deductions, number of exemptions, filing status, etc. If they didn't pay taxes, then their takehome & effective tax rate wouldn't vary based on all the different variables in the tax code.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 16, 2011 18:41:42 GMT -5
Actually, other Wal-Mart shoppers pay for their food. Customers buy food [etc.] at Wal-Mart and Wal=Mart makes a gross profit which in turn pays for the facility, provides for net profit and, of course pays the salaries of Wal-Mart employees. That's how a retail business operates. You could say that Wal-Mart employees actually work for their food [the food they buy from Wal-Mart] and that is true [They spend some of the money they earned at Wal-Mart at Wal-Mart. The real issue is that the government produces no wealth, but only has what it takes from those who do produce wealth.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Mar 16, 2011 19:19:27 GMT -5
Welfare recipients and government employees get their check from exactly the same source, taxes paid by people who don't work for the government. That's obvious to anyone with a minimal grasp on reality. No it isn't hateful because the comparison isn't about the contribution to society, but only source of income. Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with welfare recipients as such, since many have no other real choice. Your problem is that you simply reject reality that you find unpleasant. That's apparently an option for liberals. If you lay the facts on the table and deal with them, you'll find that facts don't have values like "hateful" or "disparaging," but are simply facts. Ignore them at your own peril [unfortunately, you can drag down the rest of us with you.]. I'm a liberal now??? My views haven't changed, but now it looks like some of those on the right are back to attacking me just like during the Bush years. When I was in the military, I bought things at different places, so I was a customer that helped keep people employed...so I guess they were dependent upon the money I EARNED, or at least I felt that I earned it. I realize you may seem to think that I received a handout of some sort since it came from taxes...you can qualify it anyway you like, but I'll say that most employees who work for the government earn their paychecks. You can argue that the government should reduce in size, and I'm not saying I disagree with that assumption, however trying to argue that they don't pay taxes from the money they receive just like every other person who receives a paycheck is deceitful to say the least.
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Mar 16, 2011 20:33:31 GMT -5
Raising taxes on those making over $1MM is just a fun way to trick ourselves into thinking someone, else, is paying taxes. Raising taxes on any group, ultimately funnels down to the cost of goods and services, so I would prefer we just instituted a sales tax, cut out the middle-man, and see the price of our social programs. Actually, because higher priced goods and services may cause some to buy less, thereby averting their tax duties, I would prefer that we just reduced the size of our social programs, if we are serious about closing the deficit gap. We do like to stick our head in the sand when it comes to paying for our benefits, so lets just tax people with a SS# ending in 5. It is just as arbitrary, and ultimately is passed on in costs, but at least we would be admitting our cowardice.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Mar 16, 2011 20:41:24 GMT -5
I wonder if Sanders has any idea how many taxes millionaires pay already each year?
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Mar 16, 2011 20:47:52 GMT -5
Under Voodoo, the rich have doubled their wealth- everyone else has lost. Duh.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Mar 16, 2011 20:50:52 GMT -5
Warsaw I must say you know not from which you speak.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Mar 16, 2011 20:51:00 GMT -5
Under Voodoo, the rich have doubled their wealth- everyone else has lost. Duh. And your cite?
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Mar 16, 2011 21:09:15 GMT -5
Under Voodoo, the rich have doubled their wealth- everyone else has lost. Duh. Actually under voodoo the wealthy became significantly wealthier, as did the middle, and lower middle. The lowest improved their lifestyle, nominal incomes and maintained their real incomes. Under lower aggregate tax burden everyone would have done better and under higher aggregate tax burden everyone would have done worse. It would take socialist redistribution to actually have changed the net result, something the US consistently resists. The general world technological improvements allowed for the lifestyle improvements on a whole and no historical tax structure would have done much to the outcome. Voodoo or not, none of us would have had anything to complain about. Tax the rich it's passed on to the consumer, tax the poor and it is passed on to the consumer, tax the blonds and...oh, never mind.
|
|