NationStates Jolt Archive

Lots of people here with opinions about income and taxes, lets see just how diverse all us folks are on the income scale. how representative are the opinions here? Fear not, the poll is not public, but be honest anyway. Convert to US currency if you wish.

If you still ive at home with your mommy and daddy just post your own income. Or better yet, go away. Get a job. Get your own place then come back when you have a life. ;)

Here's a 'helper' for our foreign pals: http://www.xe.com/ucc/

None, I dont live in a country that uses $.

It depends on how much I need, for what purpose and how much ink and paper I have left.

Los of people here with opinions about income and taxes, lets see just how diverse all us folks are on the income scale. how representative are the opinions here? Fear not, the poll is not public, but be honest anyway.


How much does the individual make? Or is it you and your spouse?

I do alot of things myself. Rental properties, Importer and business owner. My Gross for a year is huge but my expenses are nearly equally as big. I probably net on my tax returns anywhere from 100-200. But truly thats not what i make. Alot of things can be hidden in business. All our food comes through our restuarant. This is hidden in the restuarants food costs. Our cars are owned by my import business. Hence another huge write-off. All our travel expense can be attributed to my import business too. Basically vacation write offs. My house is owned by the same company i have our other investment properties in. So you see my point here. You can hide alot of your income inside your own controlled corporations. Maximum corporate tax is 20% Maximum personal tax is 38% in US. Clearly our family would be in high end if I didnt move things into corporate form.

mummy gives me about £40 a week

Yeah, it's time that mum give me my money too. Have no idea how much. :)

It's not the money that matters. It's the toys. :)

mummy gives me about £40 a week

That's an aweful lot. That's about what I used to get.

And guess what?!

I give more in charity with my annual allowance than any Conservative does with their yearly income!

If I were to make $200,000 a year, I'd be willing to pay --- no, I'd want to pay (so long as it wasn't in a corrupt country like America) 50% in taxes.

Noone chooses their place in existence.

as a self-employed artworker (graphic design) / website monkey / full time student, my income is ever so slightly variable. sufficed to say, i'm broke nearly all the time :(

My Grammy, Toodles McDuck-Duck, always said that it is impolite to ask a person about their income. "Shame!" Come on...is a person's worth defined by their income? For the record, I've been WEALTHY & POOR and back again. The only people that really ever wanted to know -wanted to sell me something! :p

That's an aweful lot. That's about what I used to get.

And guess what?!

I give more in charity with my annual allowance than any Conservative does with their yearly income!

If I were to make $200,000 a year, I'd be willing to pay --- no, I'd want to pay (so long as it wasn't in a corrupt country like America) 50% in taxes.

Noone chooses their place in existence.
i miss out in EMA cause of my stepdad so i guilt trip my mum into giving me money

Can we discuss income in comparable terms. The unit $ is not a fixed value. How about beers, or packets of rice, or toilet rolls or something.
Your income gives you a purchasing power. This is not the same as a number of $s It depends upon the cost of living where you are.

I am sure that someone living in Spain or Italy has more purchasing power with $100,000 per year than someone in Finland or Iceland with $150,000 per year.

mummy gives me about £40 a week
I only get $20 every other week. And that's at best. ;_;

household makes about £45-£50k a year

so i voted $80-95,000 a year

i dont know how much that is in the US though...here its not bad. might not seem so much in some other areas of the UK even (eg London)

Can we discuss income in comparable terms. The unit $ is not a fixed value. How about beers, or packets of rice, or toilet rolls or something.
Your income gives you a purchasing power. This is not the same as a number of $s It depends upon the cost of living where you are.

I am sure that someone living in Spain or Italy has more purchasing power with $100,000 per year than someone in Finland or Iceland with $150,000 per year.


This is a good post. Completely on target. So I guess we need to also put in how many cases of beer and rolls of toilet paper we could buy yearly!

as a self-employed artworker (graphic design) / website monkey / full time student, my income is ever so slightly variable. sufficed to say, i'm broke nearly all the time :(

That's awesome. I want to be like that.
Doing what I love and living from paycheck to paycheck.

My dad may be loaded but he doesn't do what he loves. :p

Saipea wants to
Be a starving artist who
Still contributes $

I only get $20 every other week. And that's at best. ;_;
it's only cause i miss out on £30 a week from the government cause my stepdad earns too much

How much does the individual make? Or is it you and your spouse?

I do alot of things myself. Rental properties, Importer and business owner. My Gross for a year is huge but my expenses are nearly equally as big. I probably net on my tax returns anywhere from 100-200. But truly thats not what i make. Alot of things can be hidden in business. All our food comes through our restuarant. This is hidden in the restuarants food costs. Our cars are owned by my import business. Hence another huge write-off. All our travel expense can be attributed to my import business too. Basically vacation write offs. My house is owned by the same company i have our other investment properties in. So you see my point here. You can hide alot of your income inside your own controlled corporations. Maximum corporate tax is 20% Maximum personal tax is 38% in US. Clearly our family would be in high end if I didnt move things into corporate form.

The poll indicates household, so it'd be you+spouse and children if their income is high enough.

As for expenses for business owners, sole props, k1 or c1 income, I suppose 'gross' in this example is before tax and after expenses.

Of course, sadly, many business owners fudge the numbers on their federal returns. Shows how cheap many peoples integrity is - some even brag about it! (I know, I work in the financial services industry) In this poll there is no reason for it.

[

Of course, sadly, many business owners fudge the numbers on their federal returns. Shows how cheap many peoples integrity is - some even brag about it! (I know, I work in the financial services industry) In this poll there is no reason for it.[/QUOTE]


Well I could say this, My taxes are from me and not the governments money. So if someone were to "Fudge" then how is it that they are stealing? I mean can you steal your own money? Isnt the government stealing it from you?

Well I could say this, My taxes are from me and not the governments money. So if someone were to "Fudge" then how is it that they are stealing? I mean can you steal your own money? Isnt the government stealing it from you?
Please repair my quote. Lieing is lieing, period. Whatever money you 'save' by lieing on your return is the price of your integrity.

Please repair my quote. Lying is lying, period. Whatever money you 'save' by lying on your return is the price of your integrity.

There are people, and Marrakech II appears to be one of them, that genuinely believe that taxation is theft. The argument is that the money they make, is made by their effort and no-one has any claim on this money. They would rather pay directly for their services, through private contractors and service providers than indirectly through taxation.
There is a problem with defence and international negotiation of trading rights, but these are generally ignored.
If anyone that holds this position, and it is somewhat justifiable, manages to avoid paying some tax somewhere, not necessarily by ilegal methods, then they will feel justified in doing so.

Now, back to topic. How do I convert our hosehold income into dollars? If I just convert by the exchange rate, this disregards the cost of living difference. (A large factor in our case) Please do not be so americentric in these things. Choose a measure of income that is universalisable.

That's awesome. I want to be like that.
Doing what I love and living from paycheck to paycheck.
glad to hear i have a fan :D
well, my lifestyle has a fan anyway...


i warn you, being poor isn't all its cracked up to be :(
unfortunatley, my parents are also kinda poor (but they've always stuck their neck out for me, paying for a good education throughout my life - for that i am ever thankful to them :) )

<snip>

Now, back to topic. How do I convert our hosehold income into dollars? If I just convert by the exchange rate, this disregards the cost of living difference. (A large factor in our case) Please do not be so americentric in these things. Choose a measure of income that is universalisable.
I believe the Economist magazine uses the Big Mac standard (seriously) for cost of living conversions, A popular alternative is the Mars bar.

I make £20 ($40) per hour tutoring, and tutor an average of 5 hours a week, so that's 52 * 100 = £5,200 a year, which amounts to about $10000 per year which isn't bad for a student. It covers my tuition and housing fees quite well, and leaves me with $2000 to spend over the summer, at least (given I receive funding too, naturally. They don't expect me to live of tutoring ^-^).

I believe the Economist magazine uses the Big Mac standard (seriously) for cost of living conversions, A popular alternative is the Mars bar.

The economist is only really concerned with this conversion between first world countries. The Big Mac standard does not work with regard to the third world. Big Macs here are luxuries (and actually more expensive than a good piece of grilled contra-fillet in a rye bun sandwich with lettuce, tomato, ham and cheese). They are only eaten by pretensious teenagers. The Mars bar does not exist in Brazil!

i get paid to learn stuff i would pay to learn. i won't brag about my paychecks, since they really aren't anything amazing (yet :)), but i can afford a lifestyle that is already more comfortable than i need...i haven't even started my career, and i am already more than satisfied with my financial situation and income level!

so if anybody tries to tell you that academia means living in poverty, you just smack them upside the head on my behalf.

The economist is only really concerned with this conversion between first world countries. The Big Mac standard does not work with regard to the third world. Big Macs here are luxuries (and actually more expensive than a good piece of grilled contra-fillet in a rye bun sandwich with lettuce, tomato, ham and cheese). They are only eaten by pretensious teenagers. The Mars bar does not exist in Brazil!
Very fair counter argument. I never was a fan of the Economist anyway. Trouble is, I suspect the same difficulty applies to most commodities. Comparative prices will not be constant across different types of economies - eg, technology goods more expensive in third world countries, basics cheaper.

(No Mars bars in Brazil? I thought they were an infallible indicator of life! Damn, that's one less fact I know.)

I give more in charity with my annual allowance than any Conservative does with their yearly income!

If I were to make $200,000 a year, I'd be willing to pay --- no, I'd want to pay (so long as it wasn't in a corrupt country like America) 50% in taxes.

Noone chooses their place in existence.

I'd say no one chooses their STARTING place in existence. I grew up rather poor, however, I got out and made my life better by learning a trade that would be in demand for today's world--I/T. Humans have wills, and can use them--if they learn.

It can be done--supporting those by taxing others just perpetuates the cycle.

Bout 39 right now ... by myself

My dad earns a bit over $200,000 cdn a year.

I earn $7.45 an hour and probably earned $4000 this year (I got more in the summer). Go minimum wge.

How much money do I make?
None.

It can be done--supporting those by taxing others just perpetuates the cycle.
Yes, and removing the support completely will just make everything ok overnight....

Yes, and removing the support completely will just make everything ok overnight....
Not overnight, it will take a while. Most of them will die eventually.
The rest will turn to lives of crime, but we'll just ignore that.

:D

Whatever I finds, I keeps.

Lets just say it falls comfortably within the 0-$15,000 bracket, and that isn't counting reduction for business overheads, but hey I've only been doing this freelance sound engineering stuff without a 'home' venue for about six months so things should pick up somewhat in the future as my kit, contacts and confidence improve. The main thing, however, is that I truely love my work and am not starving as a result of choosing to follow this path.

Yes, and removing the support completely will just make everything ok overnight....

No, just dumping everything overnight won't work. I agree completely.

But, we're just creating more and more programs to "help". We're not weaning the populace off the handouts, we're giving more, keeping people dependent upon said programs, teaching a generation that it's okay to stay on the programs, instead of succeeding on their own.

I don't have a job, so I make $0.00 a year. :(

Is it just me here or do quite a few of the economically rightist posters seem to be still iving off their parents, while the more leftist leaning ones are the ones that are actually working?

Is it just me here or do quite a few of the economically rightist posters seem to be still iving off their parents, while the more leftist leaning ones are the ones that are actually working?

I'm in school right now, no time for a job.

Is it just me here or do quite a few of the economically rightist posters seem to be still iving off their parents, while the more leftist leaning ones are the ones that are actually working?

Crazy, ain't it?

I'm in school right now, no time for a job.

So's my wife, full time ... and she has three kids ... and a job. Damn lazy right wingers. :p :D

Over $115,000, and I still hate the republicans ( in fact, since Bush's cuts came into place, Ive donated them all to democratic campaigns...and a little to the natural law party, sue me)

Is it just me here or do quite a few of the economically rightist posters seem to be still iving off their parents, while the more leftist leaning ones are the ones that are actually working?

Making me the exception? Interesting.

Making me the exception? Interesting.

It is always better to be the exception than the rule.

I'm in school right now, no time for a job.

I'll readily admit that my comment was spurred by your own, but it wasn't intended as an attack on you, by any means - I'm not even entirely sure where I would place you as an economic leftist/rightist, but I would guess that it would be to the right of what I perceive to be centre.

I'm in school right now, no time for a job.
I"m in school. Third year university. I still find time for a job.

Hell, I got the job so I wouldn't have to mooch off my parents for food.

As a household we make about £60'000 a year, me myself... welll lets just ay i make £0 ever... at all... i live well below the poverty line :D

Left-wniger living off his parents here! Well, they pay for my tuition fees and accomodation but nothing else, guess that counts. I want a part time job but i'm being pretty picky and havent found anything good yet.

I"m in school. Third year university. I still find time for a job.

I think Roach-busters might be refering to secondary rather than tertiary education, which makes it somewhat different as far as working goes, but I could be wrong.

Very fair counter argument. I never was a fan of the Economist anyway. Trouble is, I suspect the same difficulty applies to most commodities. Comparative prices will not be constant across different types of economies - eg, technology goods more expensive in third world countries, basics cheaper.

(No Mars bars in Brazil? I thought they were an infallible indicator of life! Damn, that's one less fact I know.)

Imported goods do tend to be more expensive, but home built technological stuff is not so much so. (Obviously some components are imported, almost anywhere in the world.) I still think that beer may be a good worldwide standard.

Can we get an idea of this here. (North Island and compatriots, you may be the exceptions)

How many beers a month does a basic starting job buy (after tax please)?
Or should we look at the number of beers the local minimum wage buys to see if it is comparable?
First off, define a beer. OK a basic 330ml bottle of beer. No special brews or fancy stuff, just good old beer (ordinary lager for the Brits)

Here this costs R$1,20 in the supermarket.
The minimum salary is R$260 per month, no income tax or deductions on this amount so a minimum salary is 217 beers.

A normal starting salary out of college is about R$800-1000 per month. After tax and INSS (Social Security) this would come out to around 650-800. On average about 600 beers.

I am curious to know how many beers a starting salary earns elsewhere (basic job, not a doctor/lawyer) an accounts clerk, a salesman etc.

Imported goods do tend to be more expensive, but home built technological stuff is not so much so. (Obviously some components are imported, almost anywhere in the world.) I still think that beer may be a good worldwide standard.

Can we get an idea of this here. (North Island and compatriots, you may be the exceptions)

How many beers a month does a basic starting job buy (after tax please)?
Or should we look at the number of beers the local minimum wage buys to see if it is comparable?
First off, define a beer. OK a basic 330ml bottle of beer. No special brews or fancy stuff, just good old beer (ordinary lager for the Brits)

Here this costs R$1,20 in the supermarket.
The minimum salary is R$260 per month, no income tax or deductions on this amount so a minimum salary is 217 beers.

A normal starting salary out of college is about R$800-1000 per month. After tax and INSS (Social Security) this would come out to around 650-800. On average about 600 beers.

I am curious to know how many beers a starting salary earns elsewhere (basic job, not a doctor/lawyer) an accounts clerk, a salesman etc.
I like the idea of a beer standard; it feels right. (Though you might need to strip out tax for Scandanavian countries, to avoid gross distortion.)

Starting salaries in the UK are complicated by tax and tax credits, however, order of magnitude, I would say that lowest paid sectors average about £200 pw full-time, around £650 pcm after tax. Basic starting salaries for graduates perhaps of the order of £300 pw, say £1,000 pm after tax. (I'm working from memory here, so I could be out.)

Bottled lager in the UK is almost always premium, but a basic half-litre can of lager in a supermarket would set you back about £1 on average, ignoring discounts.

So that's about 1,000 beers a month for a graduate starter.

I think Roach-busters might be refering to secondary rather than tertiary education, which makes it somewhat different as far as working goes, but I could be wrong.
Yeah, Secondary school didn't take up this much time. Secondary school is quite frankly, a joke. I have less free time now than I did then and that's if I don't count the job. The only reason I didnt' get a job back then is that my parents wouldn't let me, but they're all the way over there and I'm over here so they have no say now.

I don't work to make any money. My wife makes it all for us and I sleep with her for it... well I guess that is work...

Making me the exception? Interesting.
Me as well

I don't make money, counterfeiting is against the law.

Iearn 75,000 dollars a year, we're a traditional single income family of 7.

There are people, and Marrakech II appears to be one of them, that genuinely believe that taxation is theft. The argument is that the money they make, is made by their effort and no-one has any claim on this money. They would rather pay directly for their services, through private contractors and service providers than indirectly through taxation.
There is a problem with defence and international negotiation of trading rights, but these are generally ignored.
If anyone that holds this position, and it is somewhat justifiable, manages to avoid paying some tax somewhere, not necessarily by ilegal methods, then they will feel justified in doing so.

umm, lieing on a 1040 IS illegal.

Not agreeing with a law does not give someone the right to ignore it. Try driving 100 MPH on the freeway because you 'disagree' with the speed limit and see how the judge reacts...

I do agree that taxes are way too high and imprudently spent, however I do not perjur myself on my 1040 to pay less than what everyone else in my income does. The law is what the law is. My integrity is worth far more than the small amount of tax which I would save. (And yes, compared to my integrity $15,000 is very small)

I didn't count all the tips I get under the table. (Shhh! Don't tell Big Brother!) That adds about $8000 a year. Wow. From $23K to $31K, for a household of 3 that's not too bad in the midwest US.

Just by myself I bring home about $1300 each month, that's about **digs for calculator** wow! 2080 beers! (say $15 per case, 12 oz. bottles of Budweiser)
I think I should get drunk more!

Oh yeah, that's delivering pizza 3 nights per week.

After I'm out of school I'll make $1872 to $2304 each month after taxes, very rough estimate, so that's 2995 to 3686 beers. Ugh, I feel sick.

Oh, that's as a registered veterinary technician.

umm, lieing on a 1040 IS illegal.

Not agreeing with a law does not give someone the right to ignore it. Try driving 100 MPH on the freeway because you 'disagree' with the speed limit and see how the judge reacts...

I do agree that taxes are way too high and imprudently spent, however I do not perjur myself on my 1040 to pay less than what everyone else in my income does. The law is what the law is. My integrity is worth far more than the small amount of tax which I would save. (And yes, compared to my integrity $15,000 is very small)

There are legal ways of sheltering some income from taxation. Lying on a 1040, I would not know about, not being American. Things like college funds and deeds of covenant gifting work in the UK to shelter money destined for educational purposes from capital transfer tax. Also, having property, vehicles, travel etc as bart of corporate expenses, as opposed to personal expenses changes the way they are taxed. Legally.

I do not condone tax evasion, only avoidance. Arrange your finances to pay the minimum possible, within the law. If the speed limit on the freeway is less than 100, then do not drive at 100. If you want to drive at 100 then go to Germany and do it where it is legal (160Kph is legal there). Restriction avoidance.

it's only cause i miss out on £30 a week from the government cause my stepdad earns too much

you "miss out" on income support because your stepdad earns "too much"? lol bad attitude.

I don't make money, counterfeiting is against the law.

Iearn 75,000 dollars a year, we're a traditional single income family of 7.

of 7 what? and what do you do that gets you 75 grand?

Not enough.

*shakes fist at piles of PS-2 games and Disney movies*

Personally, I make about $NZ300 a week but I live at home so its a cruise. If I went flatting, it would be enough for rent, petrol and booze. The important things in life.

it's only cause i miss out on £30 a week from the government cause my stepdad earns too much

Hmm, i might ask my parents for money because, as i'm not disabled, i miss out ll those lovely disability benefits :( Oh yeah, and i dont have children so i'll ask them for something towards all those allowances i'm missing out on too...

:p

currently i make the equivalent of about $520 per month at a part time job. It keeps me in food and stuff for college, but i still live at home with my parents, who basically pay for transport,etc for me. If I get really stuck for money I'll borrow off my parents, but it makes me horribly guilty so i pay them back as soon as posssible!
Aside from that, i try to get good full time jobs in the summer for spending money in college term time. my money from last summer just ran out and i'm feeling the pinch!!

0-15$k If i convert. :p I shouldn't convert though. Thats mom+brother. Working here in Malaysia sucks, but the cost of living here is very very cheap so it make sense. Not going to be travellling anywhere soon though.

Plus my dad doesn't earn on a monthly income basis. It's by business deals he closes.

So it can vary from $2000-4mil. Haven't had any lucky big ones yet though. :p Just small ones so far.

*darn*

umm, lieing on a 1040 IS illegal.

Not agreeing with a law does not give someone the right to ignore it. Try driving 100 MPH on the freeway because you 'disagree' with the speed limit and see how the judge reacts...

I do agree that taxes are way too high and imprudently spent, however I do not perjur myself on my 1040 to pay less than what everyone else in my income does. The law is what the law is. My integrity is worth far more than the small amount of tax which I would save. (And yes, compared to my integrity $15,000 is very small)

Technically, most of the tax code is illegal to begin with. We're only supposed to be paying on money earned out of the US, not all our wages. That's one of the reasons why several that are fighting the IRS are starting to win--someone's understanding the laws, and stopping the false info being pumped out by the IRS.

Make sure it's an actual law before you start blindly obeying it.

I'm not saying exactly, but I'm in the bottom half of your choices. BTW did you specify Gross or AGI or Taxable?

I make around 2200 bottles a month. Taxes and deductions are pretty high, without them it would be 3700 bottles. But beer sells in 0.5 litre bottles here. ;)

Can we discuss income in comparable terms. The unit $ is not a fixed value. How about beers, or packets of rice, or toilet rolls or something.
Your income gives you a purchasing power. This is not the same as a number of $s It depends upon the cost of living where you are.

I am sure that someone living in Spain or Italy has more purchasing power with $100,000 per year than someone in Finland or Iceland with $150,000 per year.
Too true. I get $3000US a month, approx. However, considering I can buy the latest DVDs for less than $1US (I just watched 'The Incredibles' tonight which was very good. 'Million Dollar Baby' is crap though). Lunch costs me $2.50US and I can go to a restaurant and buy a dinner for two for less than $20US. Public transport costs me $2.50US a day, and that's 40 minutes travel on the subway each way.
So $3000US isn't that bad really. Actually it's bloody good.

Don't know about toilet paper, but rice is very cheap (surprise surprise) and I can buy 5 cans of not bad tasting beer for $1.25US, so a quarter each.
And Coca Cola in a PROPER glass bottle (330ml) is $0.75US, with $0.15 refund if you return the bottle. So 6 bottles cost $3.75US. So beer is cheaper than Coke, which is the way it should be.

I just remembered - here you have to pay tax just once a year, which I had to do last week. My total tax bill for last year (though admittedly I've only been working here 7 months) was a painful $225US.

Where are you at Demented Hamsters?

Where are you at Demented Hamsters?
Hong Kong.
The tax rate is just so ludicrous. Back in NZ, I was paying around 30% in tax and earning less than 1/2 of what I get here. In HK if you earn less than $2000US a month, you pay no tax at all.

Hong Kong.
The tax rate is just so ludicrous. Back in NZ, I was paying around 30% in tax and earning less than 1/2 of what I get here. In HK if you earn less than $2000US a month, you pay no tax at all.

Hong Kong.. That makes sense. Wow you earn damn alot.

Prices are there about the same as Kuala Lumpur. And yeah.. piracy. :D
Get yourself the latest Norton Antivirus or Windows XP for USD1 each.

There are legal ways of sheltering some income from taxation. Lying on a 1040, I would not know about, not being American. Things like college funds and deeds of covenant gifting work in the UK to shelter money destined for educational purposes from capital transfer tax. Also, having property, vehicles, travel etc as bart of corporate expenses, as opposed to personal expenses changes the way they are taxed. Legally.

I do not condone tax evasion, only avoidance. Arrange your finances to pay the minimum possible, within the law. If the speed limit on the freeway is less than 100, then do not drive at 100. If you want to drive at 100 then go to Germany and do it where it is legal (160Kph is legal there). Restriction avoidance.

On that I absolutely agree. There are plenty of legal ways to reduce tax liability. However, there is no reason why a person who earns $8000 in tips should feel entitled to not pay tax on their income as fair as anyone else. Their choice to not report it is a reflection on how cheap their integrity is.

Sadly, there are a huge number of people in this world who have very cheap integrity. they lie on tax returns, insurance claims and debt collectors. They congratulate themselves on 'saving' $1000 on taxes then look down at someone like Leona Helmsley - At least it took millions to corrupt her integrity, rather than just a few thousand dollars.

Is it just me here or do quite a few of the economically rightist posters seem to be still iving off their parents, while the more leftist leaning ones are the ones that are actually working?

:shrug: that might be the case on that particular website, but that point does follow to the world at large. The majority of right-wingers, if by simple demographics, are working class people. Mechanics, electricians, farmers etc... Doesn't meant there aren't quite a few wealthy types that support their children while in college.

On that I absolutely agree. There are plenty of legal ways to reduce tax liability. However, there is no reason why a person who earns $8000 in tips should feel entitled to not pay tax on their income as fair as anyone else. Their choice to not report it is a reflection on how cheap their integrity is.

Sadly, there are a huge number of people in this world who have very cheap integrity. they lie on tax returns, insurance claims and debt collectors. They congratulate themselves on 'saving' $1000 on taxes then look down at someone like Leona Helmsley - At least it took millions to corrupt her integrity, rather than just a few thousand dollars.

Even the legality of the federal income tax itself is questionable. Anyone who does anything to avoid it, legally or illegally should be congratulated and thankful they are so lucky as to be able to hide their tips.

On that I absolutely agree. There are plenty of legal ways to reduce tax liability. However, there is no reason why a person who earns $8000 in tips should feel entitled to not pay tax on their income as fair as anyone else. Their choice to not report it is a reflection on how cheap their integrity is.

Sadly, there are a huge number of people in this world who have very cheap integrity. they lie on tax returns, insurance claims and debt collectors. They congratulate themselves on 'saving' $1000 on taxes then look down at someone like Leona Helmsley - At least it took millions to corrupt her integrity, rather than just a few thousand dollars.
There are pragmatic, though not particularly moral, arguments to be made in favour of such an attitude. It could be argued that low level shadow economy stuff like this keeps a healthy churn in wealth at low income levels, allowing some freedom of economic movement in an area that would otherwise be stifled. That could be argued to be good from a social psychology perspective; no one likes to feel restricted.

Looked at in another way, high wealth individuals and corporations have a greater stake in a properly funded state, and so have a greater obligation to pay their share. Also, if such high profile cases are seen to get away with not paying tax, whether through legal but artificial avoidance or outright evasion, it undermines the credibility of the tax system as a whole. This could be extremely risky - taxation is only practical with the consent, passive or otherwise, of the taxed. If you have to drive compliance with coercion, you'll probably drive your economy into the ground. (Not to mention put more than a few civil liberties at risk.)

mummy gives me about £40 a week


Perhaps I could give you some money to be your "special friend"

We make enought to keep our family of four in the upper middle class splendour to which we have become acustomed. I won't be specific except to say that it is at the high end of your scale.

We could earn more. For example, I get paid a daily rate as a consultant and so days off - including statutory holidays - are all unpaid. However I would far rather work to live than live to work because time spent with those I love is worth far more than another day in the great cubicle maze. So if I only average about six weeks off per year, it's just because we couldn't afford much MORE time off without having it affect our lifestyle, and I need to leave in some room for illness or other unexpected events.


When I was younger I put in the extra time to drive the fancier cars. Now - that would strike me a rediculous waste of my time.

Technically, most of the tax code is illegal to begin with. We're only supposed to be paying on money earned out of the US, not all our wages. That's one of the reasons why several that are fighting the IRS are starting to win--someone's understanding the laws, and stopping the false info being pumped out by the IRS.

Make sure it's an actual law before you start blindly obeying it.
ROFLMAO!

Please, wear a recoder when you use that defence in court. I've never heard a judge laugh in court before!

Our household makes about 55,000 beers annually.
330ml

We do have 600ml bottles, but there is a refund on the bottle which just complicates things too much.

Our household makes about 55,000 beers annually.
330ml

We do have 600ml bottles, but there is a refund on the bottle which just complicates things too much.

Wow. u guys make beer. :D Cool. What brand?

I make enough for a deposit on a house. ;)

I'm on disability, which comes to $7400 a year. Which is why I live in Oklahoma, it's cheap. I wasn't making much more the last year I worked, because it was only part-time. I was taking 16 hours that semester, so I opted to work only part-time.

of 7 what? and what do you do that gets you 75 grand?7 people, me, the missus and 5 offspring. I'm an Engineer.

No I don't drive a train, but I am an engineer in the classic sense, I operate power producing machinery. I'm what is known as a 'stationary engineer'. The machinery I operate is non-mobile, specifically the central plant in a mid-sized hospital. My expanded duties include maintaining and repairing all equipment, machinery and systems that are not directly used for medical treatment.

I take whatever I can get from babysitting the whiny kid down the block (I don't get an allowance. :mad: ). That totals to about $300 a year.

I make $0 at the moment.

I'm desperately searching for a job, but nobody wants to hire a full time student. SCREW YOU BASTARDS!!! :mad: They don' know what they're missing out on.

My household makes a shameful amount of money, but part of that is due to the fact that my scab brother is still living at home when he has a job that earns him $40Kish... Why is he still at home? :p

I earn €48 000 a year.
I work 35H/week. I have 45 days of holidays per year.
I pay a lot of taxes (a little more than 50%).
I have access to many cultural events for free.
My CE (it is a mandatory organisation paid by the employer for 1% of his revenue) provides me with subsidies to go on holidays (about €600/year)
I have access to free education and free health care.
I have free highways, a train ticket costs about €30 for 800 km at very high speed (350 km/h).
I pay €400/month for a 45 square meter flat.
A bottle of beer ranges from €0.2 (Kaiser, comparable to Budweiser in the US) to €20 (imported beer from Mozambic).
A kg of rice costs about €1.

ROFLMAO!

Please, wear a recoder when you use that defence in court. I've never heard a judge laugh in court before!

Laugh all you want. It's already happened.

http://www.etherzone.com/2003/stang081503.shtml

I make 33,100.04 USD a year. (according to that neat converter) of which my government takes about 11000 USD.
BUT, for that i get free almost everything within health care, and schooling and all that :). (or atleast cheap)

7 people, me, the missus and 5 offspring. I'm an Engineer.

No I don't drive a train, but I am an engineer in the classic sense, I operate power producing machinery. I'm what is known as a 'stationary engineer'. The machinery I operate is non-mobile, specifically the central plant in a mid-sized hospital. My expanded duties include maintaining and repairing all equipment, machinery and systems that are not directly used for medical treatment.

rock on. USD75k is a good wage for that job. it's nice that skills are recognised.

I'm on disability, which comes to $7400 a year. Which is why I live in Oklahoma, it's cheap. I wasn't making much more the last year I worked, because it was only part-time. I was taking 16 hours that semester, so I opted to work only part-time.

what's your disability, if you don't mind me asking?

people i know in okie call it oklahell.

Laugh all you want. It's already happened.

http://www.etherzone.com/2003/stang081503.shtml


OMFG! You are hilarious! Please, keep them coming!

Really, taking something serious from an 'alternative' newsite is always interesting, particularly when it has the word 'ether' in it.

ether - 1 : the rarefied element formerly believed to fill the upper regions of space 2 : a light volatile flammable liquid C4H10O used chiefly as a solvent and anesthetic

so what is it? Spaced out or anesthetized?

There are people, and Marrakech II appears to be one of them, that genuinely believe that taxation is theft. The argument is that the money they make, is made by their effort and no-one has any claim on this money. They would rather pay directly for their services, through private contractors and service providers than indirectly through taxation.
There is a problem with defence and international negotiation of trading rights, but these are generally ignored.
If anyone that holds this position, and it is somewhat justifiable, manages to avoid paying some tax somewhere, not necessarily by ilegal methods, then they will feel justified in doing so.

.

I dont mind paying my fair share. I agree with a flat tax system. But problem here in the US you are penalized for making more money. Really I am creating jobs and commerce. So I get penalized?! Is that a fair system?! Answer would be "Hell NO!"

MR. MURPHY: Just one thing, to put Ms. Kuglin on notice, she has got to pay taxes, I think the court ought to instruct her that that is the law.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, Mr. Murphy is not incorrect that it is the law, and I think what he's also saying is there will still be civil penalties.

This is from the transcript (http://www.constitution.org/tax/us-ic/kuglin/kuglin_transcript_030808_vol_5.txt) of the case US vs Vernice Kuglin. The case cited in the page referenced by Zaxon.

It directly contradicts Zaxon's position. The law does require that you pay income tax.
As this comes from pages 777-778 of the transcript, I really don't have time to find out why she was found not guilty, but it is not because there is no law requiring the payment of income tax.

I dont mind paying my fair share. I agree with a flat tax system. But problem here in the US you are penalized for making more money. Really I am creating jobs and commerce. So I get penalized?! Is that a fair system?! Answer would be "Hell NO!"


I was actually defending your position somewhat against unconsidered criticism.

But if it is that bad, leave. Go and live somewhere that has a fairer tax system. If you don't want to leave, then why are you complaining. Just pay your taxes. It is not like you are in Communist East Germany and can't move out if you don't like it.

as a self-employed artworker (graphic design) / website monkey / full time student, my income is ever so slightly variable. sufficed to say, i'm broke nearly all the time :(
PM, that will change if your talents and ambition are solid.
If not, you'll wind up in a gas station.

If so, I bet you'll move a tad more right when the IRS wants to take your efforts and redistribute them to everyone else.

Unless you go hypocrite.

I was actually defending your position somewhat against unconsidered criticism.

But if it is that bad, leave. Go and live somewhere that has a fairer tax system. If you don't want to leave, then why are you complaining. Just pay your taxes. It is not like you are in Communist East Germany and can't move out if you don't like it.
The tone of your comments leads me to believe you are in a vastly lower income bracket. In that case, we already know YOU won't be going anywhere, since you can still filch the taxpayers money and collect your food stamps and handouts. Asshole.

I actually work as a contractor with my father. Joys of family businesses. Problem here is, you should specify whether you mean NET income or GROSS. After all, my father is making around 100k a year. The problem is that he is still paying taxes on land that he owns, payments on equipment, house, boats, vehicles, etc. In 2003, for instance, he and my mother, who is a middle-school teacher, showed a negative combined income after expenses.

I personally make somewhere around 45k-50k a year, and I turn 22 next month. I'm living in an apartment, which costs me about $700 a month. I'm paying off a boat and a vehicle. I still at least show a positive income, but the point is that you should specify net or gross income

The tone of your comments leads me to believe you are in a vastly lower income bracket. In that case, we already know YOU won't be going anywhere, since you can still filch the taxpayers money and collect your food stamps and handouts. Asshole.

I actually work as a contractor with my father. Joys of family businesses. Problem here is, you should specify whether you mean NET income or GROSS. After all, my father is making around 100k a year. The problem is that he is still paying taxes on land that he owns, payments on equipment, house, boats, vehicles, etc. In 2003, for instance, he and my mother, who is a middle-school teacher, showed a negative combined income after expenses.

I personally make somewhere around 45k-50k a year, and I turn 22 next month. I'm living in an apartment, which costs me about $700 a month. I'm paying off a boat and a vehicle. I still at least show a positive income, but the point is that you should specify net or gross income


Ah all bow before the great seer of NS.
The tone of my reply tells you what income bracket I am in?
Oh, and thanks for the insults as well, I like to collect them.
See my sig. It has my political compass results in it. If you can read aand understand these, then you will see that your ad hominem flamming was completely unjustified. :p
Libertarian basically, for those who don't know the political compass.

As it happens our household income is pretty reasonable. I claim no benefits at all, nor have I claimed any benefits in the last 20 years. I Pay for my own health care, my son attends a private school.

I, unlike some, have not had the dubious benefit of being guaranteed a job in my fathers business. (My father worked in Banking in the City of Westminster, but it was not his Bank) I have worked in various occupations, and studied, and have obtained various qualifications. I however decided that I did not like the taxation and social welfare system in the UK, where I was born and raised. I felt it was too lenient on scroungers and layabouts. So I left. I went somewhere where there was opportunity for people who could think and were willing to work. All I was saying to Marrakech II was that this is also an option for him.

Now, be a little more grown up and actually read what is in front of you.

The tone of your comments leads me to believe you are in a vastly lower income bracket. In that case, we already know YOU won't be going anywhere, since you can still filch the taxpayers money and collect your food stamps and handouts. Asshole.

I actually work as a contractor with my father. Joys of family businesses. Problem here is, you should specify whether you mean NET income or GROSS. After all, my father is making around 100k a year. The problem is that he is still paying taxes on land that he owns, payments on equipment, house, boats, vehicles, etc. In 2003, for instance, he and my mother, who is a middle-school teacher, showed a negative combined income after expenses.

I personally make somewhere around 45k-50k a year, and I turn 22 next month. I'm living in an apartment, which costs me about $700 a month. I'm paying off a boat and a vehicle. I still at least show a positive income, but the point is that you should specify net or gross income
Wow. Put down the glass dick and stop pakin' rocks in the bowl, fucktard.

You obviously don't know where Alien Born stands on every issue you've self-righteously referenced.

Wow. Put down the glass dick and stop pakin' rocks in the bowl, fucktard.

You obviously don't know where Alien Born stands on every issue you've self-righteously referenced.
Well, in that case, perhaps you and Alien Born can explain why you think it was appropriate for him to tell a productive, hard-working American citizen that he should "leave" if he doesn't like paying higher taxes.

Dickwads, if you really want to start a flame fest, then I'm fine with that. if you want to have a reasonable discussion, then ok. But don't be a pack of cock-sucking, shit-faced, pricks from hell who use the anonymity of the Internet as an excuse to be jackass, and then act so self-righteously pissed when someone class you on it. By the way, Eichen, if I talk to you, then you can stop giving Alien Born the reacharound long enough to defend him. Until then, why don't you go back to burying your nose in his ass.

And Alien Born, if you act like a pissant, then I'm going to respond in like manner. It's all you deserve. Your earlier post that I responded to was completely unnecessary and made you sound like just another Unemployment case bitching about how long it takes for his check to arrive while the rich assholes on the other side of town live it up. Fuck you.

I was actually defending your position somewhat against unconsidered criticism.

But if it is that bad, leave. Go and live somewhere that has a fairer tax system. If you don't want to leave, then why are you complaining. Just pay your taxes. It is not like you are in Communist East Germany and can't move out if you don't like it.

By the way, asshole, while we are still on this topic, I like how you say this to an American citizen when you live in Brazil. I don't hear any Americans acting like this. Just some Brazilian with Eichen's dick shoved up his ass. By the way, where precisely do you think he SHOULD move? Hmm? Or he is not allowed to put forth his opinion that he disagrees with American tax policy, a subject that your opinion means precisely SQUAT on?

By the way, asshole, while we are still on this topic, I like how you say this to an American citizen when you live in Brazil. I don't hear any Americans acting like this. Just some Brazilian with Eichen's dick shoved up his ass. By the way, where precisely do you think he SHOULD move? Hmm? Or he is not allowed to put forth his opinion that he disagrees with American tax policy, a subject that your opinion means precisely SQUAT on?


wow....*looks into crystal ball*

i see a short stay on NS for this person.

what's your disability, if you don't mind me asking?

people i know in okie call it oklahell.

Bipolar disorder and fibromyalgia. And yes, Oklahell is an accurate description. Especially for a liberal.

HadesRulesMuch and Eichen, you both need to calm down a bit. Especially you, HadesRulesMuch, judging by all you just said. Might it help if you two stepped back and cooled down a bit?

Now, since I'm not a Moderator, you don't have to listen to me. But if this continues, I will report it, as this is very blatant flaming here.

wow....*looks into crystal ball*

i see a short stay on NS for this person.
You got that right, my NS cuzin! I see a new screen name already in development. :p

But really dude, you dropped the civility first.
I just felt obliged to return the favor.

You got that right, my NS cuzin! I see a new screen name already in development. :p

But really dude, you dropped the civility first.
I just felt obliged to return the favor.


word.

Hades doesnt play well with others. *slaps hades hand*

*slaps Eichens......* oh right...we're family now. no more slapping your arse!


*runs out of thread*

How much do I make? Not enough! LOL.

At my new job I will make 26,000/yr. Its enough for me to live on. But more wouldn't hurt, lol.

Just ignore him folks, he's only attention seeking.

This is from the transcript (http://www.constitution.org/tax/us-ic/kuglin/kuglin_transcript_030808_vol_5.txt) of the case US vs Vernice Kuglin. The case cited in the page referenced by Zaxon.

It directly contradicts Zaxon's position. The law does require that you pay income tax.
As this comes from pages 777-778 of the transcript, I really don't have time to find out why she was found not guilty, but it is not because there is no law requiring the payment of income tax.

And yet someone has actually to point to the law. Until that actually happens, you're just taking a lawyer's word?

Now THAT'S funny.

I dont mind paying my fair share. I agree with a flat tax system. But problem here in the US you are penalized for making more money. Really I am creating jobs and commerce. So I get penalized?! Is that a fair system?! Answer would be "Hell NO!"

You aren't penalised for making more money you idiot.

If you make more, you STILL keep more, even after tax. They'd have to tax you 110% of your income to be penalising you for making more.

I say you are creating your own personal wealth on the backs of the people you employ, who work as hard as you for a lot less money. Is that a fair system? Hell no.

You aren't penalised for making more money you idiot.

If you make more, you STILL keep more, even after tax. They'd have to tax you 110% of your income to be penalising you for making more.

I say you are creating your own personal wealth on the backs of the people you employ, who work as hard as you for a lot less money. Is that a fair system? Hell no.

It's called pay for responsibility. The people employed by the business are only responsible for what they do. The owner is responsible for running the company well enough to be profitable, to be able to pay those employees that are working.

Percentage wise, the wealthier you are, the less you get back after taxes. If you're just talking dollar for dollar, yes, there is generally still more money after taxes for those that make more.

I actually work as a contractor with my father.
I personally make somewhere around 45k-50k a year, and I turn 22 next month. I'm living in an apartment, which costs me about $700 a month. I'm paying off a boat and a vehicle.
Very impressive. No doubt you worked hard and got this job over all the other applicants through a combination of relevant qualifications, great interview skills and a valuable work history.

It's called pay for responsibility. The people employed by the business are only responsible for what they do. The owner is responsible for running the company well enough to be profitable, to be able to pay those employees that are working.

Percentage wise, the wealthier you are, the less you get back after taxes. If you're just talking dollar for dollar, yes, there is generally still more money after taxes for those that make more.
The owner is not necessarily running anything. You can have stock shares in Wall Mart and not know anything about running a distribution company.
The CEO is supposed to be responsible for running a business, although at the end of the day, the employees always pay for the mistakes of the CEO. They are in the first line for being fired and for salary cuts.

I does just make sense that those who work pay less taxes than those who own.

"how much $ do you make?"

I don't "make" any "$." That's illegal and will earn you some seriously chaffed wrists from being chained up all the time. :D

I does just make sense that those who work pay less taxes than those who own.

How does that make sense? Seriously, I want to know why you think that.

How does that make sense? Seriously, I want to know why you think that.
Then read the whole post of mine.
The only thing I can add is that those who get the most privileges from the system should be the one who pay the most.

It's called pay for responsibility. The people employed by the business are only responsible for what they do. The owner is responsible for running the company well enough to be profitable, to be able to pay those employees that are working.

Percentage wise, the wealthier you are, the less you get back after taxes. If you're just talking dollar for dollar, yes, there is generally still more money after taxes for those that make more.

So dollar for dollar, you're still richer, so stop moaning.

The people employed are responsible for what they do, the owner is responsible for what she does. If the owner fulfils her responsibilities but the employees don't fulfil theirs, the result is exactly the same as it is if the employees fulfil their responsibilites but the owner doesn't fulfil hers. So who says whose job is more responsible?

Furthermore, the biggest, richest companies with the highest pay aren't run by their owners. Their owners have shares and do nothing to contribute, and the highest paid workers eg the CEO can screw the company into the ground and still get paid millions, then move on to another company.

How does that make sense? Seriously, I want to know why you think that.

Because you have more, so you pay more. Overall, you still have more.

rock on. USD75k is a good wage for that job. it's nice that skills are recognised.Thank you. I love my job. I can earn a comfortable living and not sell out or buy in. I provide a socially moral important service. And I don't have to be entangled in the politics of healthcare while indirectly supporting it.

You know those kids who always took things apart to see how they worked?

Well I was the kid able to put them back together again afterwards and make them work again. So the job is perfect for me.

How does that make sense? Seriously, I want to know why you think that.

Conversely, how does this make sense:

http://www.ctj.org/corpfed04pr.pdf

A progressive tax scale (not based on labor vs. ownership, but on overall income) makes a lot of sense. This is because 30% taken from a household making $21,000 a year means more than 30% taken from a household making $120,000 a year. In the former, the tax would interfere with that household's ability to pay rent or buy food; in the latter, that tax would limit the household's selection of second cars.

Theoretically, this is what we've got in the U.S., but only theoretically. The tax actually turns regressive when you get into big big money, as the CTJ report illustrates. So how does that make sense? Workers should pay taxes to subsidize their employers?

A flat tax above a certain *realistic* poverty line makes the most sense, both in terms of perceived "fairness" and in terms of eliminating this sort of zero-tax b.s.

The people employed are responsible for what they do, the owner is responsible for what she does. If the owner fulfils her responsibilities but the employees don't fulfil theirs, the result is exactly the same as it is if the employees fulfil their responsibilites but the owner doesn't fulfil hers. So who says whose job is more responsible?

re-read your own post:

if the person (singular) running the show doesn't do their job, nothing works.

if the employees (plural) don't do their jobs, nothing works.

your own language makes Zaxon's point for him; the single boss is as important as the workers are collectively.

Our household makes about 55,000 beers annually.
330ml

We do have 600ml bottles, but there is a refund on the bottle which just complicates things too much.

You know, most of us in the industrialized world, having moved off the barter system, calculate our wages in "beer coupons," not in actual beers.

You know, most of us in the industrialized world, having moved off the barter system, calculate our wages in "beer coupons," not in actual beers.

Yeah, the back ache on pay day is killing us here.
Oh, and our banks are rather strange as well.

And yet someone has actually to point to the law. Until that actually happens, you're just taking a lawyer's word?

Now THAT'S funny.

Actually I was taking the Judge's word, not the lawyer's. But I'll let you argue that one with HadesRulesMuch.

Yeah, the back ache on pay day is killing us here.
Oh, and our banks are rather strange as well.

One time I took a bank tour. They showed me the Clydesdales and everything.

re-read your own post:

if the person (singular) running the show doesn't do their job, nothing works.

if the employees (plural) don't do their jobs, nothing works.

your own language makes Zaxon's point for him; the single boss is as important as the workers are collectively.
Basically owners are useless. They only bring something when they work on top of owning.
responsibility doesn't exist. Some people say they deserve their money because they're responsible but it is not true. They are responsible for nothing. I have never seen a share holder go to jail because his company colapsed. They don't take any more risk than the employee. The employee risks his job. The owner risks his property. He should be taxed much more than the employee, I'd even go as far as expropriating him. The employee should not be taxed at all because he earns all his money.

Basically owners are useless. They only bring something when they work on top of owning.
responsibility doesn't exist. Some people say they deserve their money because they're responsible but it is not true. They are responsible for nothing. I have never seen a share holder go to jail because his company colapsed. They don't take any more risk than the employee. The employee risks his job. The owner risks his property. He should be taxed much more than the employee, I'd even go as far as expropriating him. The employee should not be taxed at all because he earns all his money.

If the owner is the founder, is he/she still useless. The jobs and welfare of all the employees derive directly from his/her actions. The production also derives from his/her actions.
A silent partner, who just provides capital, you may have an argument against. Which is why in some countries unearned income is taxed higher than earned income. But for the entrepreneur him/herself I do not think that your position is justifiable.

Basically owners are useless. They only bring something when they work on top of owning.

so? if i own a set of paints and some canvass, and i choose to shape them into a work of art, that painting belongs to me. if i choose to sell it, the money belongs to me, and if i choose to put it in a gallery and charge money for people to see it then the money they pay belongs to me. even if i am expending no energy because i am now simply owning the painting, i still get to enjoy the profits. if somebody else sells me a painting, and i choose to do any of these things, the same holds true.

responsibility doesn't exist.

ahh, socialism...


Some people say they deserve their money because they're responsible but it is not true. They are responsible for nothing.

i'm sure that's true of some people. however, i KNOW i deserve my money because i am responsible; i earn money because i work hard and am responsible with my time and my efforts. if i were irresponsible, i would not make the money i am making today. i am responsible for a great deal (relatively speaking) and i am paid to be responsible with the things that are my responsibilities.


I have never seen a share holder go to jail because his company colapsed.

i've never seen a worker go to jail because his company collapsed, either. what's your point?


They don't take any more risk than the employee. The employee risks his job. The owner risks his property. He should be taxed much more than the employee, I'd even go as far as expropriating him.

the employee risks his job (his source of income), while the owner risks his property (his source of income). why should one be taxed more than the other?


The employee should not be taxed at all because he earns all his money.
both employee and employer will benefit from the services provided by tax dollars, so i have no idea why you think one of them should not pay for those benefits while the other should.

Then read the whole post of mine.
The only thing I can add is that those who get the most privileges from the system should be the one who pay the most.

What's the reason behind that? Why should someone who has more money be forced to give it to others?

So dollar for dollar, you're still richer, so stop moaning.


I'll stop moaning when people stop stealing from me.


The people employed are responsible for what they do, the owner is responsible for what she does. If the owner fulfils her responsibilities but the employees don't fulfil theirs, the result is exactly the same as it is if the employees fulfil their responsibilites but the owner doesn't fulfil hers. So who says whose job is more responsible?


The employees are responsible for their work, not for the entire well being of the company. That's why they generally don't go to jail, when a company violates some sort of statute. If one person in IT screws up, or is missing for some reason, another member of IT can generally fix things. There are more people qualified to help out. There are fewer qualified to run entire businesses.


Furthermore, the biggest, richest companies with the highest pay aren't run by their owners. Their owners have shares and do nothing to contribute, and the highest paid workers eg the CEO can screw the company into the ground and still get paid millions, then move on to another company.

Fine, switch off the owner to the CEO then. Yes, they can screw the company into the ground, and many times, they are held accountable for their actions. You do get the occasional ENRON where someone gets away with things, but then again, I'm not happy about people not facing their responsibilities.

Because you have more, so you pay more. Overall, you still have more.

All of which I EARNED. Now, why does the government get to steal MORE from me to pay for programs I don't want to support? I'm not here to support you or anyone else on the planet, unless I choose to.

There's this thing about personal responsibility. Before anyone jumps on my background, here it is: I grew up poor. Not destitute, but poor. I took the only thing I had, my brain, and I fed it. I learned, I read, I thought. And now, I'm doing all right for my self. Why can't others do the same? They have free will, they can make choices. They don't have to turn to drugs, or have a mountain of kids.

There is one group that I actually support giving aid to: Those that are born with physical or mental disabilities, or gain a version of either over the course of there existence.

It's not your money. It's not your call.

I'll stop moaning when people stop stealing from me.

Okay, here's something you're going to have to face up to: If the country were going to be run solely off taxes paid by the workers while owners get a free ride, first and foremost, America simply could not afford the things that make it great. I'm not talking about Medicare and Social Security, I'm talking about the highway system and public schools and ports and railways. Second, the workers, who are scraping by as it is, would starve to death and not be around to turn the grindstone to put ten million bucks of flour on their CEO's plate. We'd wind up with the world's largest bananna republic where the rich get their gold-plated Lear Jets at the expense of the nation, which has to settle for bumpy dirt bike paths.

Conversely, how does this make sense:

http://www.ctj.org/corpfed04pr.pdf

A progressive tax scale (not based on labor vs. ownership, but on overall income) makes a lot of sense. This is because 30% taken from a household making $21,000 a year means more than 30% taken from a household making $120,000 a year. In the former, the tax would interfere with that household's ability to pay rent or buy food; in the latter, that tax would limit the household's selection of second cars.

Theoretically, this is what we've got in the U.S., but only theoretically. The tax actually turns regressive when you get into big big money, as the CTJ report illustrates. So how does that make sense? Workers should pay taxes to subsidize their employers?

A flat tax above a certain *realistic* poverty line makes the most sense, both in terms of perceived "fairness" and in terms of eliminating this sort of zero-tax b.s.


Okay, WHY is that household only making $21,000 per year? It all comes down to choices. If someone chooses to be a teacher, it's also their choice to accept the salary that comes with it.

Just because someone feels like taking a path one direction doesn't mean I have to alter mine to "help them out".

Actually I was taking the Judge's word, not the lawyer's. But I'll let you argue that one with HadesRulesMuch.

Okay, my bad.

Okay, WHY is that household only making $21,000 per year? It all comes down to choices. If someone chooses to be a teacher, it's also their choice to accept the salary that comes with it.

Just because someone feels like taking a path one direction doesn't mean I have to alter mine to "help them out".
But there comes a point (and I agree with SOME of what you say) but individuals can improve themselfs but unless there is a world overhaul you cant move EVERYONE up

So irregardless of choices there HAS to be a bottom wrung on the latter
if you artificialy bring them up (lets say higher minimum wage) you drag cost of living up with it(at least with current resource setup)

Okay, here's something you're going to have to face up to: If the country were going to be run solely off taxes paid by the workers while owners get a free ride, first and foremost, America simply could not afford the things that make it great. I'm not talking about Medicare and Social Security, I'm talking about the highway system and public schools and ports and railways. Second, the workers, who are scraping by as it is, would starve to death and not be around to turn the grindstone to put ten million bucks of flour on their CEO's plate. We'd wind up with the world's largest bananna republic where the rich get their gold-plated Lear Jets at the expense of the nation, which has to settle for bumpy dirt bike paths.

Who said anything about a free ride? I was talking equal.

And we should be paying for the things we use, not a pot for every scheming politician to feed from.

But there comes a point (and I agree with SOME of what you say) but individuals can improve themselfs but unless there is a world overhaul you cant move EVERYONE up

So regardless of choices there HAS to be a bottom wrung on the latter
if you artificialy bring them up (lets say higher minimum wage) you drag cost of living up with it(at least with current resource setup)

Good point--you can't move everyone up. There just is no way. Egalitarianism just doesn't function with any species. There is usually a heirarchy. There has to be lower rungs--but there are still paths, for those with the will to move, to take.

Good point--you can't move everyone up. There just is no way. Egalitarianism just doesn't function with any species. There is usually a heirarchy. There has to be lower rungs--but there are still paths, for those with the will to move, to take.
For individuals yes there are paths (been down ... well up thoes paths myself)
(on a side note just got a raize ... a big one ... move me out of the 45 k a year + catagory :p(and yes that is per household ... I live by myself lol)

Okay, WHY is that household only making $21,000 per year? It all comes down to choices. If someone chooses to be a teacher, it's also their choice to accept the salary that comes with it.

Just because someone feels like taking a path one direction doesn't mean I have to alter mine to "help them out".

A teacher, shit.

The reason someone is making $21,000 is because not everyone can be an engineer. We still need people to bus dishes. We need line cooks and guys to work the register at Arby's. We still have a federal minimum wage that grants a full-time worker a whopping $10,712 a year with no guaranteed benefits. We have a federal law that says it's alright to pay someone 70% of poverty line. The reason they're making $21,000 is not because the breadwinner "decided to be a teacher." The reason they're making $21,000 is because that's what the federal fucking government says is an appropriate income for a two-worker household.

Do you think someone sets out and says, "I want to make minimum wage." Bullshit. Personal responsibility is all well and good, but I love how the employers treat it as a one-way street. It's the "personal responsibility" of the worker to improve their lot in life. In the meantime, the employer, with the $5.15 an hour travesty, is doing everything in their power to throw roadblocks in front of that worker. Where's the responsibility of the CEO not to take the bread out of his employees' mouths so that he can sip his Cristal?

What about the personal responsibility of the employer not to make their living on the back of the worker? They aren't making their own way. They're taking their profits out of the pockets of the minimum wage worker. And with a federal minimum wage, you can't sell me the bullshit line about "it being the worker's duty to find a better situation." We've got federal approval of a substandard wage and that gives the employer carte blanche to fuck it to Johnny Frycook and Jimmy Punchcard.

For individuals yes there are paths (been down ... well up thoes paths myself)
(on a side note just got a raize ... a big one ... move me out of the 45 k a year + catagory :p(and yes that is per household ... I live by myself lol)

Congrats. I always like to see people succeed.

Okay, here's something you're going to have to face up to: If the country were going to be run solely off taxes paid by the workers while owners get a free ride, first and foremost, America simply could not afford the things that make it great. I'm not talking about Medicare and Social Security, I'm talking about the highway system and public schools and ports and railways. Second, the workers, who are scraping by as it is, would starve to death and not be around to turn the grindstone to put ten million bucks of flour on their CEO's plate. We'd wind up with the world's largest bananna republic where the rich get their gold-plated Lear Jets at the expense of the nation, which has to settle for bumpy dirt bike paths.

This is pretty much what happens in Latin America. OK the basic worker does not pay any tax, but nor do the multi-millionaires. We have a failure of infrastructure, which is one of the major reasons why we are a third world nation not a first world one. The tax burden here falls on the middle classes. Those who earn from 5 to 20 minimum salaries. The CEOs and Corporate moguls do not pay taxes, and the most ridiculous is that banks do not pay taxes.

Zaxon.
It may seem that you are being penalised for working, but you are not. Your enterprises could only function within the conditions provided by the state, as You Forgot Poland points out. If you are directly profiting from this infrastucture and society, should you not contribute to its upkeep. The more you benefit from it, the more you should pay toward it.

An analogy. A group of four friends decide that they will get together to buy and maintain a car. They decide democraticaly which car they are going to have, and buy that one, on credit. The repayments and maintenance costs can be attributed between the friends in various ways.
1. Equal shares. Everyone pays the same.
2. By time of usage. Each week is divided up into 168 hours and the costs attributed according to who has the car for how many hours in each week. The car is always in the possesion of the last one to use it.
3 By mileage. the mileage done by each of the friends is recorded and the costs attributed pro ratio.
Which of these is fair?

You are advocating method 1.
I, and You Forgot Poland, as I understand him, are advocating method 3.
Psylos, I have no idea, probably that the car should be common property anyway so why is anyone paying for it.

Does this make sense?

Congrats. I always like to see people succeed.
I was gifted with being a computer geek :p

You are advocating method 1.
I, and You Forgot Poland, as I understand him, are advocating method 3.
Psylos, I have no idea, probably that the car should be common property anyway so why is anyone paying for it.

I'll go in with that analogy. I'm not saying necessarily that you measure how many highway miles or rail cars a corporation or individual uses, just that the average corporation is going to benefit more from infrastructure than the average individual and so their "mileage" is assumed to be higher. I'm not up on the "pay as you go" thing because that's an invite for bureaucracy.

A teacher, shit.

The reason someone is making $21,000 is because not everyone can be an engineer. We still need people to bus dishes. We need line cooks and guys to work the register at Arby's. We still have a federal minimum wage that grants a full-time worker a whopping $10,712 a year with no guaranteed benefits. We have a federal law that says it's alright to pay someone 70% of poverty line. The reason they're making $21,000 is not because the breadwinner "decided to be a teacher." The reason they're making $21,000 is because that's what the federal fucking government says is an appropriate income for a two-worker household.


You're right, there will always been inequality in the job market. But there are still paths to make their way.


Do you think someone sets out and says, "I want to make minimum wage."


Nope.


What about the personal responsibility of the employer not to make their living on the back of the worker?


Um, isn't that what an employee does? They work to support the business?


They aren't making their own way. They're taking their profits out of the pockets of the minimum wage worker. And with a federal minimum wage, you can't sell me the bullshit line about "it being the worker's duty to find a better situation." We've got federal approval of a substandard wage and that gives the employer carte blanche to fuck it to Johnny Frycook and Jimmy Punchcard.

I've been there. I've punched the clock. I've made minimum wage. I did something about it. Just like they can. Yes, it IS the workers' responsibility to change their life. Not the government's and not business owners'.

I'll go in with that analogy. I'm not saying necessarily that you measure how many highway miles or rail cars a corporation or individual uses, just that the average corporation is going to benefit more from infrastructure than the average individual and so their "mileage" is assumed to be higher. I'm not up on the "pay as you go" thing because that's an invite for bureaucracy.

True. I was not proposing it as a literal measure your usage and pay for it basis. Though that could be done, with horrendous overheads. More, as you say, a genreal, use more, pay more type thing.

I've been there. I've punched the clock. I've made minimum wage. I did something about it. Just like they can. Yes, it IS the workers' responsibility to change their life. Not the government's and not business owners'.

"Up by the bootstraps" is a myth propogated by the fortunate to attach a sense of achievement to their good luck.

Given: There will always be crappy but necessary jobs out there, no matter how many people pull themselves out of these circumstances.

Given: As long as the federal government supports a minimum wage that is below the poverty line, the people working these baseline jobs will not earn a living wage.

Conclusions: Either the people working these necessary baseline jobs do not deserve a living wage or there is a grave flaw with this system.

Which is it?

I think it's the latter and that it is the responsibility of the worker not necessarily to pull themselves up, but to repair a system that punishes necessary work.

It may seem that you are being penalised for working, but you are not. Your enterprises could only function within the conditions provided by the state, as You Forgot Poland points out. If you are directly profiting from this infrastucture and society, should you not contribute to its upkeep. The more you benefit from it, the more you should pay toward it.


I believe, either in this thread or another, I stated that I would only pay for what I use. But only that.


An analogy. A group of four friends decide that they will get together to buy and maintain a car. They decide democraticaly which car they are going to have, and buy that one, on credit. The repayments and maintenance costs can be attributed between the friends in various ways.
1. Equal shares. Everyone pays the same.
2. By time of usage. Each week is divided up into 168 hours and the costs attributed according to who has the car for how many hours in each week. The car is always in the possesion of the last one to use it.
3 By mileage. the mileage done by each of the friends is recorded and the costs attributed pro ratio.
Which of these is fair?


I'm sorry, I can't buy that one. I don't do business deals with friends. That causes problems.


You are advocating method 1.

No, I'm not. Where does it state that the rich use more of the taxes pot than those that aren't?

[QUOTE=Alien Born]
I, and You Forgot Poland, as I understand him, are advocating method 3.
Psylos, I have no idea, probably that the car should be common property anyway so why is anyone paying for it.


Your analogy doesn't match the situation. You seem to be saying that the rich somehow use more of the tax money.


Does this make sense?

Not really. Did I misinterpret?

"Up by the bootstraps" is a myth propogated by the fortunate to attach a sense of achievement to their good luck.

Given: There will always be crappy but necessary jobs out there, no matter how many people pull themselves out of these circumstances.

Given: As long as the federal government supports a minimum wage that is below the poverty line, the people working these baseline jobs will not earn a living wage.

Conclusions: Either the people working these necessary baseline jobs do not deserve a living wage or there is a grave flaw with this system.

Which is it?

I think it's the latter and that it is the responsibility of the worker not necessarily to pull themselves up, but to repair a system that punishes necessary work.

If it's a myth, then I couldn't be here--nor could several of my friends. It's not a myth. I've lived it.

I have a problem with advocating the illegal removal of someone else's property because someone hasn't done what they could to make their lives better.

It's not the job of the government to support the people. It's the people's responsibility to support themselves.

More on bootstraps.

On one side, we've got this kid:

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/hires-image/mother_and_child_starving_bw.jpg

On the other, we've got this little lady:

http://www.starpulse.com/Supermodels/Hilton,_Paris/Gallery/GalleryView.html?pic=4

Somewhere in between, we've got UpwardThrust.

Now, this is going out on a limb, but I'd reckon that no amount of personal initiative is going to get child A to the socioeconomic level of UpwardThrust, assuming the little nipper lives past age five.

Carrying that along--nothing personal UT--but I reckon there's very little out there, including winning the lottery, that will give UT half the loot our American Princess was born with.

That's chance. That's luck.

This thread started out as an income question and ended up as a tax issue.

How come? Maybe when you take money from people for the general good everyone forgets how it got there in the first place. Instead, everyone starts thinking about what everyone owes them.

The wealthiest 5% pay most of the personal income taxes in the US. They should at least be recognized for that rather than used as a way to win votes.

The lowest income earners (down to $0) draw more from society than they contribute. That should be said as loudly as the sneering at the wealthy.

In the middle, everyone is just trying to get to a level they are comfortable. If you don't settle what that is, you will never be happy.

This thread started out as an income question and ended up as a tax issue.

How come? Maybe when you take money from people for the general good everyone forgets how it got there in the first place. Instead, everyone starts thinking about what everyone owes them.

The wealthiest 5% pay most of the personal income taxes in the US. They should at least be recognized for that rather than used as a way to win votes.

The lowest income earners (down to $0) draw more from society than they contribute. That should be said as loudly as the sneering at the wealthy.

In the middle, everyone is just trying to get to a level they are comfortable. If you don't settle what that is, you will never be happy.


Good points, Oz.

I believe, either in this thread or another, I stated that I would only pay for what I use. But only that.
Can you suggest an efficient and cost effective way of actually measuring what you use? If so, I will be very happy to go with it.

I'm sorry, I can't buy that one. I don't do business deals with friends. That causes problems.
Too true.


You are advocating method 1.

No, I'm not. Where does it state that the rich use more of the taxes pot than those that aren't?
The fact that they have resources to make use of it with. The poor are concerned with food on the table and a roof over their heads. (I, like you have been there, in my case because I wanted independence from my parents, so it was optional I suppose). The rich are concerned with more than this, they wish to experience the world, to move beyond basic subsistance. This is only possible if the infrastructure is there. You need to have the road network and docks and customs and FDA to be able to get the good quality imported coffee that you want. The poor don't care, so long as it wakes them up.

Your analogy doesn't match the situation. You seem to be saying that the rich somehow use more of the tax money.
I am, and they do. Tax money, not social security money. That is another kettle of fish.

Not really. Did I misinterpret?
I think so, but you probably do not.

More on bootstraps.

On one side, we've got this kid:

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/hires-image/mother_and_child_starving_bw.jpg

On the other, we've got this little lady:

http://www.starpulse.com/Supermodels/Hilton,_Paris/Gallery/GalleryView.html?pic=4

Somewhere in between, we've got UpwardThrust.

Now, this is going out on a limb, but I'd reckon that no amount of personal initiative is going to get child A to the socioeconomic level of UpwardThrust, assuming the little nipper lives past age five.

Carrying that along--nothing personal UT--but I reckon there's very little out there, including winning the lottery, that will give UT half the loot our American Princess was born with.

That's chance. That's luck.


You are right unless I invent something massivly fundemental (while trying to do so right now) that gives me massive amounts of royalties and sell it to a major telecom I will probably be making about what I do now for a long while

But I am more then comfortable and have been blessed (ironicaly use that word as an agnostic) with having the skill to pull myself to someplace I am comfortable being ... also love my work.

:) I dont mind being in the middle (specialy because I am only 22 and not even graduated with my masters yet ... still technicaly a student... even if it is grad student)

The fact that they have resources to make use of it with. The poor are concerned with food on the table and a roof over their heads. (I, like you have been there, in my case because I wanted independence from my parents, so it was optional I suppose). The rich are concerned with more than this, they wish to experience the world, to move beyond basic subsistance. This is only possible if the infrastructure is there. You need to have the road network and docks and customs and FDA to be able to get the good quality imported coffee that you want. The poor don't care, so long as it wakes them up.


I'd say that the employees that drive the trucks on those roads, and pilot those ships actually need them to do their jobs. Now if the businesses paid for road and port usage....that sounds like a cost of operations and is more than acceptable.


I am, and they do. Tax money, not social security money. That is another kettle of fish.


I think everyone uses the roads quite a bit. I will disagree that those with more money utilize public services more than others.

I'd say that the employees that drive the trucks on those roads, and pilot those ships actually need them to do their jobs. Now if the businesses paid for road and port usage....that sounds like a cost of operations and is more than acceptable.
Agreed.



I think everyone uses the roads quite a bit. I will disagree that those with more money utilize public services more than others.
In the absence of data we are going to have to agree to disagree.
I think one thing, you think another. So be it.

In the absence of data we are going to have to agree to disagree.
I think one thing, you think another. So be it.

I can live with it. :)

Does "not enough" count?