We are fighting a war. Doesn't that have to cut a little into someone's check, and if it has to cut into someone's check, shouldn't it be yours?
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
jeni, of course, if you do donate 10-20% of your gross income to charities, you get a tax write-off that would pull you below Kerry's line anyway. And youy only get taxed at the new rate on money earned at the new bracket.
Whether you are making 40k, or 400k, the first 40k earned are taxed at the same rate; it's subsequent income that get taxed higher.
posted
Irami, if everyone is sharing the burden, then I don't mind if the number of dollars from my wallet is greater than the number from yours. That's a federal matter, and my citizenship isn't worth more than yours. My percentage of the contribution shouldn't be any more either, unless I volunteer it. Which we probably would if asked. Forcibly being taxed is different than being asked for further contribution.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This might be of interest and relevant to this thread; it's a state-by-state listing of much (or little) of federal money gets spent into a state compared to the taxes sent from that state.
While there are exceptions, in general, the "blue state" pay out more than they receive, while "red states" are more likely to get receive more than they pay.
Here in Illinois, we receive 77 cents for every dollar sent to Washington.
Alabama, OTOH receives $1.61 in federal spending for every dollar that goes from that state to Washington.
The site looks nonpartisan, even possibly a conservative slant, but other can probably judge that better than I can:
posted
Except that you agree to be ruled by the law of the USA. As a result, one could say (despite very colorful Libertarian language to the contrary) you aren't being forced to pay. You have very clear avenues to pursue to change the pay rate. And there's the ever-useless suggestion of moving out of the country
posted
Those tax states will be naturally skewed, because a lot of our national defense money (military bases) is spent in those red states... I wonder what it would be if you removed military base expenditures, but kept military-industrial complex expenditures in (weapons/vehicle manufacturers and the like).
posted
sndrake I don't know if just calling them "red" and "blue" states is truly fair. Farm subsidies have been around for a very long time for one thing, and those only affect rural areas. Also more rural areas need roads just as much as urban areas. Across the country, it costs just as much to put in a road in a rural area as it does an urban area, sometimes more. Are we to tell the rural areas that they don't deserve roads that will get them to the hospitals because they don't pay as much in taxes? (And rural areas still have huge quantities of dirt roads nonetheless.)
posted
The tax rate is pretty fair, if you look at the total percentage of tax payed as equivalent to the total percentage of wealth owned.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
that really doesn't change the picture. The dollars spent on defense in the red states contribute heavily to both employment and the overall economy. Move the bases or the industries, and the economies would take a hit.
Note - as I said, there are exceptions. Texas has fairly close to a 1:1 ratio in terms of its relationship with the Feds.
And a couple of the blue states are in the plus column, but not by much.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heavens Bok, I would never choose to leave. I love America. Where else could a married couple who have virtually no higher education qualify as "rich" by Kerry standards? That's the American Dream. 'Course, next year could be complete crap. That's the joy of being 100% commission.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
As someone who pays taxes in Illinois, I don't mind that almost a quarter of my federal taxes go out of state. In other words, I'm really not saying something like "why should *I* have to pay for some of the red states?"
As an American, I don't object to the idea of sacrifice - although the sentiment seems to be losing popularity.
I'm not objecting to the disparity, but trying to highlight some irony.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
aahhh, actually with all of the hype the last day over the Clinton Presidential library opening, I was wondering whether the gov't picks up some of the tab for presidential libraries and if so how much?
posted
If you want to spread the tax load around more fairly, start taxing 'churches'.
/rant
I am a little joking, but it boggles my mind how some godly preachers have so much wealth. Aren't people like T.D. Jakes and Benny Hinn wealthy because of church offerings and church run businesses?
quote:aahhh, actually with all of the hype the last day over the Clinton Presidential library opening, I was wondering whether the gov't picks up some of the tab for presidential libraries and if so how much?
I checked around a little, and it looks like the Clinton library was built mostly with private donations. I think there was some funding through a bond in Little Rock, but it was a minority of the funding.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oops, sorry. I do think that $200k would be classified as rich by over 99% of people you meet, though .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a one time fluke I hope. This was an unusually busy year. Normally it's not anywhere close to that. The word "rich" sounds so permanent.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Irami, if everyone is sharing the burden, then I don't mind if the number of dollars from my wallet is greater than the number from yours. That's a federal matter, and my citizenship isn't worth more than yours.
That is a fine answer. Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be much happier if tax collection were flipped, so that states collected far more taxes than the Federal government. There's much greater accountability and ability for the citizenry to make their wishes known in state governments. States could create the kind of government they want with respect to services, safety nets, welfare, etc., and people could change from one type of society to another without having to emigrate.
posted
To put that in perspective, jeni, you made as much last year as the typical American family makes in six. In other words, even if you made no money at all for the next five years, you'd still have enjoyed an above-average salary over that time frame. To put that into a more direct perspective, if Christy and I had made the same amount, we could have enjoyed our current comfortable lifestyle and still had $160,000 left over from this year alone to put into Sophie's college fund -- which is enough to pay for four years of private college costs at current rates.
posted
Yep. But as neither Jeni nor I were being specific about our incomes to the dollar, and as I imagine we're both fairly well-informed regarding the tax code, I figure the difference -- while not negligible -- is not substantial enough to invalidate the point. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, bear in mind that the bulk of it has had 38% withheld. Even so, our children's and neices' college funds have done well this year. I hope it means that our neices *will* go to college, since they otherwise won't really have the opportunity. Some of it went to pay for services that we needed because I travelled 8 months of this year for work. A lot went to pay for the new roof, new windows and repainting of our rental house. Relatives live in that house at cost, so improvements to the house are pure loss. (Tax deductible though.) A chunk went to pay our share of our daughter's surgery at the end of last year. We maxed out the allowable out-of-pocket expenses on the 5 day hospital stay.
It goes faster than you might think. We didn't buy any real extravagances except for the 42" DLP TV...which IMO was shopping therapy after our daughter had her hip fixed. It is a bit embarrassing, though we do enjoy it. We don't owe anyone any money, though, except for the houses, and that's the nicest part of having such a good year.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*makes notes that if jeni evers makes it back to Florida, she's buying dinner cause she's rich and all*
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: In fact, I make nothing. Well, I have made $300 in the last four and a half years from my writing. And maybe a total of $500 in the last year from selling items on Ebay.
I have a husband who works very hard to provide for our family - and I happen to love him and I'm proud of him.
I agree with this if you're sitting at home doing nothing with no children to care for.
But the minute burden of children enters the picture, *they* become the primary concern. It stops being "What's best for me and my wife?" and becomes "What's best for *our* children?"
What's best for the children is to make enough income to keep them alive, etc. If you were not there to watch the children, your husband would have to hire a nanny to do it at a severe pay loss to himself. Not to mention a housekeeper to clean his house.
Do I like referring to a housewife's giving nature in terms of how much cash she's worth? Not really. But when you consider how much more increase your husband has because you're there to do the dirty work, then you'll see exactly how much you DO earn.
Who you choose to handle the finances is another question entirely.
-----
Another random:
In my second year of marriage, my husband and I had to move to take care of my mother in another state while she underwent chemo. The job market was terrible that year, and my husband was doing two part-time jobs making basically diddly. I can't remember how much it was exactly, but it was less than what he could have made with a full-time job making minimum wage, which he couldn't find. So he took two janitorial jobs, one at Belk's and one for our church, to try and keep us alive. (Eventually I ended up going to work instead, leaving him at home, because my earning potential was greater, but that's another story.)
Anyway, in desperation we turned to Welfare. We went down and applied, and were turned down. I wanted to know why, of course. The reasons they gave amounted to, "You're married" and "You have a job". Seriously. The woman practically laughed in our faces when we showed up, and she hadn't even seen our income yet. It apparently didn't matter that the jobs that he had weren't enough to meet our needs. I was pretty disgusted. I *thought* that people like me were the very ones Welfare was designed to help. People struggling to dig themselves out of poverty. Apparently it's only there for people who are perfectly content to remain in poverty, because you could only get Welfare down there if you didn't have a job.
It would be different if they were only talking about disabled people or any number of people who cannot work. But I can't imagine that all of those people were in that situation.
I know that there is a difference between the people who can't work and the people who don't want to. The only thing I can't figure out is how to weed the "don't want to's" out from the rest of them. Shouldn't there be some sort of rule that says anyone on Welfare who can work should have to in order to continue receiving benefits, unless no work is available"? Or is there already a rule like that I don't know about?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, we did a road trip to Montana and narrowly avoided being killed in a rock slide at Glacier Nat'l Park instead. Florida would have been more fun. My work travel schedule was so screwy I couldn't plan our vacation time. I didn't know until the Friday before our vacation that I would actually get to take the week off. Not good circumstances to buy airline tickets.
Since we didn't go this year, next year to FL would be a must, but hubby has pretty much staked our vacation out for Hawaii so we can visit a couple of his customers. And we have to go to NC to go visit my grandmother as we haven't been to visit since she moved there 5 years ago. So I'm figuring 2006. If it's sooner, I'll make sure to email. I still want to meet Ryan. Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Shouldn't there be some sort of rule that says anyone on Welfare who can work should have to in order to continue receiving benefits, unless no work is available"? Or is there already a rule like that I don't know about?
quote:President Clinton proposed and Congress adopted a $3 billion program to help move welfare recipients into work. This program is targeted at the hardest-to-employ welfare recipients: people who have been on welfare for a long period, have limited reading and math skills and poor work histories, and, in some cases, are struggling to overcome substance abuse problems.
FWIW, it is designed for you. I am sorry that you had a bad experience, PSI.
quote:Fact #3. Over One-Third of Welfare Families Have Stayed on Welfare for One Year or Less...
Time on Welfare: 1 year or under 34.3% 1-2 years 16.3% 2-3 years 11.9% 3-4 years 8.7% 4-5 years 6.4% 5 or more years 22.1%
Source: U.S. Dept. Of Health and Human Services, ACF, "Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of AFDC Recipients" 1996, U.S. Census Bureau
The 1996 "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act" (aka Welfare Reform Law) imposes a five-year lifetime limit on welfare benefits. Most adult recipients of public aid must find a job before receiving benefits for a total of 2 years, or they lose those benefits.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
I am a little joking, but it boggles my mind how some godly preachers have so much wealth
These do not connect. Pastors pay income tax, just like anyone else. We also pay 100% of our social security tax (in most professions the employer pays half) and we pay it on non-cash benefits (like housing) as well as on salary.
If clergy are getting rich (and some certainly are) it's because they're being paid a ridiculously high salary, not because they get any money tax free. (Unless, of course, they're cheating on their taxes. I'm sure that happens as well.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but in theory churches are tax free because that leaves them more money to do good with, and those clergy who are wealthy are getting paid out of offerings that should be going to feed the hungry, serve the poor, what have you, was kind of my not so well made point.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I think that there are other issues with churches being tax free. There are various militant atheist/anti-religion people who dote on providing reasons as to why 'churches' shouldn't be tax free. I don't know any of them, and I just kind of threw it out to see what people thought about the idea rather than googling around for stuff about something that I honestly don't know anything about.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stormy, I think we'd find that a number of good churches and non-profit organizations would go under, where the televangelists of the country would go on getting richer.
I earnestly believe that local churches and localized secular non-profits are far more effective at helping the poor and needy than the government. They have less red tape, more ability and willingness to see the situation more fully than a government agency.
I'd hate to see any of these groups die off because they had to pay their tax bill (though I wholeheartedly agree that they must pay payroll taxes -- I've heard of churches that protested even that, which is silly. Jesus said to give Ceasar his due.)
edited to add that it's always a good thing to find out how much of your charitable contributions actually make it into the hands of the needy. If an organization will not give you their year-end financial statements, it's probably a good bet the answer is "not much".
quote:I earnestly believe that local churches and localized secular non-profits are far more effective at helping the poor and needy than the government. They have less red tape, more ability and willingness to see the situation more fully than a government agency.
I'm a fan of secular non-profits, and the ones I know of are heavily government subsidized, but there is a strange kind of red tape which goes along with praying to Jesus as the Savior of mankind in order to get a bowl of soup.
That said, in some ways, the Catholic Church does more good for the people in Los Angeles than the government. Whether one is a member of a church or not, an American is an American, and there is a dignity in knowing that we, as a nation, take care of Americans, and all they have to do is show up.
That said, I think that they should have to say the pledge, too.
Edit:
Every American deserves food, shelter, and education, not in virtue of their faith but in virtue of their citizenship. It seems inappropriate to outsource the job which is properly America's, to a group which may make this help conditional on a religious practice, service, or worship. This is one of those things that may not be a big deal for you, but it's a deal breaker, and it should be.
posted
Not true...we were poor when we were young, and when he was working up the ladder at JC Penney he didn't make much, but I rememeber that my parents were always very coreful to not mention pay rates during casual conversations. The only reason they managed to get a house at all was because my dad was a Vet, and got a VA loan in a low income subdevision that had been recently completed.
If he knew I was even saying this much on an internet forum, he would not be a happy camper....and I haven't really said anything at all...lol...
Even with friends it was considered impolite to discuss it, inless you needed to know. Even then it was up to the person you were discussing it with to say if it was OK do talk about it.
Here, though, I think it was OK, because this was a frank discussion about socio-economic conditions and what there influence on the election might have been.
It was never a shame thing, or something we were embarressed about...it simply wasn't ta proper topic for discussion.
posted
Back to which party is going to make you pay more money...
I argue that this one is making quite sure our tax burden will stay quite high for generations to come.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One question about welfare: should we really be requiring everyone on welfare to work? At first glance it seems like a good idea. After all, why should we support people who just sit on their bottoms all day? But if we're talking single parents, would we really rather have them work all day making minimum wage AND paying for child care (which would probably not be very good)? Is that really preferable than supporting them as they raise children?
Posts: 23 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Zan. We'd do that anyway. See you in 2006, I think. Be thinking where you want to go. ![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
