President Signs Defense Bill

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought we were comparing maximum tax rates. I dont know but doubt that the guy flipping burgers in Sweden is paying 50 percent plus in taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt that he's not. But obviously neither of us know, so it's not relavent.

[ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the reminder, I did not include the 15 percent plus we pay in FICA and medicare - including the poor sap at the bottom end of the tax schedules.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, so you were not including SS tax in the 39% federal tax. So, where did you get 39% from? As of last year, nobody paid more than 35%, and the vast majority paid 28% or less.

[ QUOTE ]

Sales and property taxes may or may not have to do with income but they are still taxes that we pay to the govt for the services that the govt offers. So, yes that is part of the tax burden.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is a tax that people pay at their discretion. The less you buy, the less you pay. Many people live at or above their means, spending the majority of their income each year. Some of these expenses are necessities, but many are not. These people pay a hell of a lot of taxes each year voluntarily.
[ QUOTE ]

For your information, our govt is already in the business of national healthcare via medicare and medicaid. We just dont cover everyone with it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thank god, because medicare and medicaid blows.
[ QUOTE ]

Fortunately, I have essentially retired, so I dont need any vacation time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good for you.
[ QUOTE ]

From your post (and the fact that you pay less taxes now) I suspect that you are at the higher end of the income scales and are thus seeing the reduction in net taxes. The middle and lower classes are seeing higher net costs for the govt services (paying for a school extracurricular activity costs more for the poor as a percentage of income).


[/ QUOTE ]
No, my income is middle-class.
The idea that it is cheaper to pay the government to pay for a service is absurd. It only seems that way because you are redistributing wealth. It seems cheaper because someone else's taxes are paying for it. It's still costing twice as much, though. It's like saying things were cheaper when you were a kid because your parents paid for everything.
[ QUOTE ]

I strongly suggest you consider that we are not living in a low tax state, just in a state that is not spending the money on social services for the working population but on military and welfare programs for the non-workers. The incentive to work or provide jobs in the middle income levels is fast disappearing.

[/ QUOTE ]
I imagine by "state" you mean "country".

I do not think we live in a low-tax state. I think taxes should be a hell of a lot lower. However, as bad as our tax system is, it's worlds better than socialist countries like Sweden.

It's not the government's job to provide social services, IMHO. This is a good thing, because the government truly sucks at it, no matter how much money you throw at them. Collect all the taxes you want for public schools, but most of them will still suck. Some schools actually provide a decent education, but that's because they have teachers and administrators who actually give a sh!t, not because they get a lot of tax money. Again, see Philadelphia: collects obscene taxes from its citizens, and it's public schools are deplorable (and damn near backrupt). The immediate suburbs collect a lot less taxes, have provide a much better education.

And I certainly don't agree with the spending on welfare for non-workers.

Given that the purpose of government is to defend the rights of it's citizens, the military should be first and foremost when it comes to government spending. No individual can protect themselves against an attack from a hostile force, and it's the government's job to protect people from this. Any individual can succeed financially and take care of their own "social services" (granted, some have it easier than others), so IMHO this should be a subordinated goal of the government at best.

[riverflush]

well said, moondog.

[MMMMMM]

"What about indidviduals that are in receipt of social service yet are too young to have an income to pay for insurance?"

That issue, and the question of what about the lowest income brackets, are irrelevant to the point I was making.
Clearly, some individuals do benefit from such a system, but the overall standard of living is necessarily reduced due to the inherent waste of government.

As for your question: aren't most of them minors, and under their parents' custody?

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought we were comparing maximum tax rates. I dont know but doubt that the guy flipping burgers in Sweden is paying 50 percent plus in taxes.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I doubt that he's not. But obviously neither of us know, so it's not relavent.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to argue the tax-issues, pros and cons of any system. But the guy flipping burgers in Sweden will pay about 31% income tax (depending on where exactly he's doing the flipping). Then there are all the other taxes, of course.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
you are working 6 months out of each year just to pay the government.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yes and no. I hear what you're saying, but those 6 months worth isn't exacly lost, I do get some things back... But I'm not going to get into a big argument defending a system I'm not so sure is the best. But it does have advantages over the american way, and disadvantages too. Which is larger, I don't know.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought we were comparing maximum tax rates. I dont know but doubt that the guy flipping burgers in Sweden is paying 50 percent plus in taxes.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I doubt that he's not. But obviously neither of us know, so it's not relavent.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to argue the tax-issues, pros and cons of any system. But the guy flipping burgers in Sweden will pay about 31% income tax (depending on where exactly he's doing the flipping). Then there are all the other taxes, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the info.

If that same guy was making $7/hr in the US (which is a lot for a burger flipper), he would make about $14,560 if he worked 8 hrs per day, 5 days per week, with no vacation. Comparatively, he would pay 10% federal tax, and it would only be on the income in excess of $14,000, for a total federal tax of $56. This would be about 0.38% of his total income. He probably spends more than that on sneakers.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, yes and no. I hear what you're saying, but those 6 months worth isn't exacly lost, I do get some things back...


[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, yeah?!?! Well listen here, you!...

[ QUOTE ]

But I'm not going to get into a big argument defending a system I'm not so sure is the best. But it does have advantages over the american way, and disadvantages too. Which is larger, I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, fair enough.