NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like to see Obama as president, though i don't really expect all that much from him. I haved voted in the last 4 presidential elections and not one of the candidates i voted for have won. I therefore assume that if i vote for Obama he will also lose. Is it therefore more ethical for me to vote for someone like Bob Barr who i know will lose than to jinx Obama with my support?

Any correlation with who you vote for and who wins is purely coincidental. You want Obama to be president, therefore you should vote for him. Simple.
[/thread]

I guess it's about testing the theory that any, even the silliest thread on NSG is guaranteed to reach at least two pages.

Vote for who you want to win and do not overthink it. Its Democracy not rocket science...

Vote for who you want, NOT who you think will win. If everyonevoted for who they thought would win, democracy would be dead.

i still feel a little guilty about voting for kerry, he was the first time i ever broke down a voted for a democrat and not some random 3rd party candidate and look what happened.

i still feel a little guilty about voting for kerry, he was the first time i ever broke down a voted for a democrat and not some random 3rd party candidate and look what happened.

He lost by 1 less vote than if you'd stayed at home. Good for you :)

Vote for who you want, NOT who you think will win. If everyonevoted for who they thought would win, democracy would be dead. i'm actually somewhat unconfortable about voting for a winner... they are all scumbags if you help elect one you are partially responsible for what they do. i actually feel slightly guilty every time i vote for giving the system my own little seal of legitimacy.

Well, if you want him to be president...it kind of makes sense to vote for him.

I personally don't think another 4-8 years of a one-party government is something our country needs after the Republican debacle, but if you think it might turn out alright you might as well vote for him. Who knows, maybe it'll finally result in Congress accomplishing something.

I guess it's about testing the theory that any, even the silliest thread on NSG is guaranteed to reach at least two pages.
naw i've had some sink like absolute lead balloons... virtually any troll that doesn't get mod stomped is good for three or four pages, but regular threads can easily die within a half dozen posts.

Sure you can vote for him, if you want our taxes to go up.

Sure you can vote for him, if you want our taxes to go up.

In b4 thread gets locked because someone hijacked it into another election thread.

i still feel a little guilty about voting for kerry, he was the first time i ever broke down a voted for a democrat and not some random 3rd party candidate and look what happened.

Could you imagine Theresa as a first lady? Non-stop material for the comedians.

Sure you can vote for him, if you want our taxes to go up.

Actually taxes for the rich will go up. He plans on raising the threshold on those that don't pay taxes.

Actually taxes for the rich will go up. So, you want the top fifty percent of the country to pay more than the ninety percent that they already pay? The bottom fifty percent of our country pays less than three percent of all taxes. Stop bitching, and pay up.
Here's a few sources:
http://wealthisgood.blogspot.com/2008/08/taxes-rich-pay-more-than-fair-share.html
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html

Actually taxes for the rich will go up. He plans on raising the threshold on those that don't pay taxes.
yeah i actually expect that making a combined income of 40 grand with my wife and no kids my taxes will remain the same or go down with obama and stay the same with mccain.

yeah i actually expect that making a combined income of 40 grand with my wife and no kids my taxes will remain the same or go down with obama and stay the same with mccain.

That's right. However what they say now and actually do is completely different. If I were voting solely on my tax bill I would go with McCain because overall Republicans tend to keep taxes lower whilst the Democrats don't. I paid out my nose in taxes under the Clinton Administration and really saw it drop comparably in the Bush years. However our budget deficits are through the roof.

yeah i actually expect that making a combined income of 40 grand with my wife and no kids my taxes will remain the same or go down with obama and stay the same with mccain.

You shouldn't pay any taxes if you do it right. Always have a side business that loses money. ;)

You shouldn't pay any taxes if you do it right. Always have a side business that loses money. ;) i think we paid a little over a grand in income tax last year.. that's why i can't really support ron paul... any federal sales tax or flat tax would substancially raise my tax burden.

That's right. However what they say now and actually do is completely different. If I were voting solely on my tax bill I would go with McCain because overall Republicans tend to keep taxes lower whilst the Democrats don't. I paid out my nose in taxes under the Clinton Administration and really saw it drop comparably in the Bush years. However our budget deficits are through the roof.

The reason is, those tax cuts were based on some...optimistic...predictions for tax revenue. They were made on the assumption that the economic growth and stock market performance of the 1990's would continue, which anyone could tell you was basically impossible.

To put it in perspective, the NASDAQ would have to be in the 20,000 point range back in 2006-2007, basically continuing the dot-com bubble for another 6-7 years at a minium. It's right now around 2,261 with its most recent high of 2,851.

stop being superstitious and vote for obama.

its a great feeling when your guy finally wins.

Are you gay?

Are you black?

If you answered "yes" to both or all three of these questions, Barack Obama might be exactly what you've been looking for!

Aaaaand thats 2 pages [/thread]

So, you want the top fifty percent of the country to pay more than the ninety percent that they already pay? The bottom fifty percent of our country pays less than three percent of all taxes. Stop bitching, and pay up.
Here's a few sources:
http://wealthisgood.blogspot.com/2008/08/taxes-rich-pay-more-than-fair-share.html
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html

Oh look who's reared his ugly little head :P Welcome to NSG.

Again, same thing as in IB: taxes paid correlate to wealth distribution, not with population count, so stop bitching :wink:

Oh look who's reared his ugly little head :P Welcome to NSG.Oh, look, you insulted me. Good job.
Again, same thing as in IB: taxes paid correlate to wealth distribution, not with population count, so stop bitching I'm not, I'm saying others should stop because the wealthy do pay all the taxes already.

If you're really superstitious about your vote making a candidate lose, you should use it as a weapon and vote for McCain/Palin. That way, you will be happy if your curse continues to work and they lose, or you can be happy that they broke your curse for you if they win! See, its a win-win for you to vote for McCain/Palin :tongue:


[/end tongue in cheek]

Oh, look, you insulted me. Good job.

Pfft... take it in a stride dude... jeez.

I'm not, I'm saying others should stop because the wealthy do pay all the taxes already.

And that's inappropriate how?

1) The larger your wealth, the larger proportional benefit you draw from all protections the state and law provides (law enforcement, national security, etc.)

2) The extreme accumulation of capital deprives others of buying power, thus through taxation, if you redistribute some of this wealth, you stimulate consumption and therefore economic growth.

3) Private property is a legal right (there be no such things as natural rights), therefore the state may appropriate it, just as it issues it. Be glad it's only x%.

4) Since none of these people will go wanting anything, because they are taxed... well... fuck them, and their complaints.

yeah i actually expect that making a combined income of 40 grand with my wife and no kids my taxes will remain the same or go down with obama and stay the same with mccain.

How much could you have paid in federal income taxes last year with 2 people at 40,000 between the two of you?

Actually taxes for the rich will go up.
But who exactly is rich? Would you count a 28 year old guy, who spent most of his life on education in a highly specialized engineering profession, and now works 10+ hours a day, earning $115,000, as one of the rich?

So, you want the top fifty percent of the country to pay more than the ninety percent that they already pay?

The top fifty percent makes about ninety percent of the income. If you can't figure out why that is possible, then you really should not be talking about economics.

The top fifty percent makes about ninety percent of the income. If you can't figure out why that is possible, then you really should not be talking about economics.
It earns 88%, but it pays 97% of the taxes.

Increasing the tax on the "rich" is the same as just increasing the tax - the "poor" (and that includes the whole lower-middle class) only pay some trivial amount so they can say "I pay my taxes", not anything actually substantial.



P.S.
Also, you should keep in mind that many people in the "bottom half" aren't exactly poor - many of them don't earn or pay anything at all, as they're simply not in the workforce. That's why the top half earns 88%, because it has like 80% of the working people.

All these "analyzes" showing some bottom percentage "earning" 0 cents and some top percentage "earning" a lot simply don't differentiate between those who work and earn little, and those who don't work at all and are fed by those of the upper percentile. As well as they don't differentiate between income consumed directly, and income spent on investments into creating new industries and jobs.

Are you gay?

Are you black?

If you answered "yes" to both or all three of these questions, Barack Obama might be exactly what you've been looking for!

http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/125/him2086_125.gif

"Two Snaps Up For Change!"

But who exactly is rich? Would you count a 28 year old guy, who spent most of his life on education in a highly specialized engineering profession, and now works 10+ hours a day, earning $115,000, as one of the rich?

That is considered rich under the tax code. However one may disagree with that opinion. Off the top of the head that is more than double the household average of the US. So that 115k for you as an individual would make you upper middle class.

I work more than anyone I know. I own multiple business and keep very busy. I also pay more taxes than most people I know. I for definitions sake am rich. Do I feel rich or act rich is a different story. I actually sometimes feel like slave labor. When I write a check to the IRS every month for 5k and then have to pay more at the end of the year I feel like I am getting ass raped. Not to mention all the B & O tax and taxes I collect for the great State of Washington. So I am one that laughs a bit at people complaining about taxes. Really there isn't to much to complain about. Especially when most hardly pay any taxes. The guy making 40k between two people paid 2.5% of his gross income in taxes. God I wish I paid 2.5% however with deductions and such I average in the 30% range per year which is more than the average American household contributes in two lifetimes of work. But hey I'm not bitchin.

http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/125/him2086_125.gif

"Two Snaps Up For Change!"

It just dawned on me he would do a great Obama impersonation.

You Americans with your low tax... back in my day (and by that I of course mean, in my out of the way country), the top tax bracket of $180,000+ have to pay $58,000 a year plus 45c on every dollar over that. And that is just in federal income tax. Then there's the 10% goods and services tax, all the myriad of property taxes, state taxes, business taxes, etc. etc.

And I know that, by European standards, this aint much at all. Tax wise, we got it pretty easy.

So you'll forgive me if I don't sympathise with you for your tax burden.

(of course, you all have to pay through the nose for stuff like health care, so it probably balances out...)

You Americans with your low tax... back in my day (and by that I of course mean, in my out of the way country), the top tax bracket of $180,000+ have to pay $58,000 a year plus 45c on every dollar over that. And that is just in federal income tax. Then there's the 10% goods and services tax, all the myriad of property taxes, state taxes, business taxes, etc. etc.

And I know that, by European standards, this aint much at all. Tax wise, we got it pretty easy.

So you'll forgive me if I don't sympathise with you for your tax burden.

(of course, you all have to pay through the nose for stuff like health care, so it probably balances out...)

58,000 plus HOW much more for each dollar over?:eek2: *Brain fizzles out*

58,000 plus HOW much more for each dollar over?:eek2: *Brain fizzles out*

45 cents. From every dollar over that amount.

If you earn $180,001 in income a year, you pay $58,000.45. Add 45 cents for every dollar upwards.

It isn't THAT much....

(and that's only for the super rich. And yes, I define super rich as earning over $180,000)

(of course, you all have to pay through the nose for stuff like health care, so it probably balances out...)
That's a big part of the difference. Most Americans also have to spend a stupidly large portion of their income on their car(s) because the public transport system is largely non-existent and everyone is so damned spread out.

I personally don't think another 4-8 years of a one-party government is something our country needs after the Republican debacle

Do you honestly think the reason for this "debacle" is simply one-party rule... and has nothing to do with the character of the President and the ruling party?

That's a big part of the difference. Most Americans also have to spend a stupidly large portion of their income on their car(s) because the public transport system is largely non-existent and everyone is so damned spread out.

I wish I could say we didn't do the same here, but our public transport system is shocking, and we spread out like a cheap Thai ladyboy. I don't drive, but that's just coz I can't afford to, seeing as how I study full time and all.

*regrets living in the outer suburbs and taking a daily 1.5 hour public transport commute just to go 25km*

45 cents. From every dollar over that amount.

If you earn $180,001 in income a year, you pay $58,000.45. Add 45 cents for every dollar upwards.

It isn't THAT much....

(and that's only for the super rich. And yes, I define super rich as earning over $180,000)

...

Wow... And you say you have it easy compared to the rest of Europe?

You Americans with your low tax... back in my day (and by that I of course mean, in my out of the way country), the top tax bracket of $180,000+ have to pay $58,000 a year plus 45c on every dollar over that. And that is just in federal income tax. Then there's the 10% goods and services tax, all the myriad of property taxes, business taxes, etc. etc.
The 30% Marrakech is talking about is not the entire tax in US either. The actual combined taxation level is about 40% average. Thus... From his 30% (33%?) tax bracket and 60k/yr IRS payment, I presume his income past tax is about $140,000-$180,000 (first 20k are untaxed). But what he pays in direct tax is only a part of the total taxation, just as for you.
Combined, he probably gives up about 70% of his income as tax. That is, gets less than 1/3 for himself. And that is with "himself" meaning him and his business expansion, not just personal spending.


BTW, you know what buggers me most? If you're trying to save the money for something, you get taxed twice. That's right. When I put whatever I saved into stocks, I still pay all the tax from the salary. Yet when I get the return, I have to pay again on it (unless going gray).
And who is generally saving money? People who don't have enough. [Yes, the situation for me is a bit different,] but still, it's indicative as a general concept.

The tax system is already quite socialist, any further and it's bordering on killing any incentive to work harder.

...

Wow... And you say you have it easy compared to the rest of Europe?

I'm not even IN Europe, but places like Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark (I think...) pay heaps.

Then again, they get all their shit paid for by their government, who are generally pretty efficient over there for some reason which we can't seem to emulate here.

That's a big part of the difference. Most Americans also have to spend a stupidly large portion of their income on their car(s) because the public transport system is largely non-existent and everyone is so damned spread out.

That can be mitigated really with a cheap car. I did a little calculating for a couple employees that thought they were saving money on the bus. It turns out that they could actually be ahead with a cheap car even in today's prices. Reason being is the time you spent waiting and then riding public transportation. I calculated the time they wasted into hours worked at their current rates. With the same amount of time spent at home per week they could actually put an extra $50 in thier pockets. I know individual results would vary but really if you look at the whole picture and break it down it really isn't the best way for most.

The 30% Marrakech is talking about is not the entire tax in US either. The actual combined taxation level is about 40% average. Thus... From his 30% (33%?) tax bracket and 60k/yr IRS payment, I presume his income past tax is about $140,000-$180,000 (first 20k are untaxed). But what he pays in direct tax is only a part of the total taxation, just as for you.
Combined, he probably gives up about 70% of his income as tax. That is, gets less than 1/3 for himself. And that is with "himself" meaning him and his business expansion, not just personal spending.


BTW, you know what buggers me most? If you're trying to save the money for something, you get taxed twice. That's right. When I put whatever I saved into stocks, I still pay all the tax from the salary. Yet when I get the return, I have to pay again on it (unless going gray).
And who is generally saving money? People who don't have enough. [Yes, the situation for me is a bit different,] but still, it's indicative as a general concept.

The tax system is already quite socialist, any further and it's bordering on killing any incentive to work harder.

70%? Are you sure? That sounds like a motherload of tax. Although lets see, you say past tax he'd be at about 140,000 to 180,000... well, if he's paying the %30, then he must be earning up to 230,000. Which means here, he'd be paying... 80,500 in tax? Sounds about right. Which is actually pretty similar. Hmm. You know, doing maths is good for me sometimes. It's been two years since I've done anything that requires more than my fingers...

Anyway, I'd like to know if that 70% is true.

That can be mitigated really with a cheap car. I did a little calculating for a couple employees that thought they were saving money on the bus. It turns out that they could actually be ahead with a cheap car even in today's prices. Reason being is the time you spent waiting and then riding public transportation. I calculated the time they wasted into hours worked at their current rates. With the same amount of time spent at home per week they could actually put an extra $50 in thier pockets. I know individual results would vary but really if you look at the whole picture and break it down it really isn't the best way for most.

Yeah, but that's a pretty big assumption that they would be able to conveniently work those extra hours and spend the same time at home.

Plus, riding the bus can be fun. It's good to mix with the plebs.
*is feeling hypocritical for complaining before*

The 30% Marrakech is talking about is not the entire tax in US either. The actual combined taxation level is about 40% average. Thus... From his 30% (33%?) tax bracket and 60k/yr IRS payment, I presume his income past tax is about $140,000-$180,000 (first 20k are untaxed). But what he pays in direct tax is only a part of the total taxation, just as for you.
Combined, he probably gives up about 70% of his income as tax. That is, gets less than 1/3 for himself. And that is with "himself" meaning him and his business expansion, not just personal spending.


BTW, you know what buggers me most? If you're trying to save the money for something, you get taxed twice. That's right. When I put whatever I saved into stocks, I still pay all the tax from the salary. Yet when I get the return, I have to pay again on it (unless going gray).
And who is generally saving money? People who don't have enough. [Yes, the situation for me is a bit different,] but still, it's indicative as a general concept.

The tax system is already quite socialist, any further and it's bordering on killing any incentive to work harder.


The taxable portion of income after write downs is roughly what you mentioned. So you are right on with the numbers.

As for saving money. I figure the best group to actually save a high percentage of their money is the people making right in the average for American household income. Of course if they are stupid and try to "keep up with the jones" they will falter.

If I were able to keep a high portion of my money I would probably create more jobs with it by expanding. This is what some don't really understand and some do which is why there are tax breaks for the so called wealthy. It is basically a jobs program for the lower classes.

Yeah, but that's a pretty big assumption that they would be able to conveniently work those extra hours and spend the same time at home.

Plus, riding the bus can be fun. It's good to mix with the plebs.
*is feeling hypocritical for complaining before*

In the US you can work as much as you want. There are no restrictions here like some nations. Plus riding the bus is not fun when you got the homeless guy in the back. The young couple groping each other in the next seat over and the fat guy sitting next to you with the loud mp3 player. Not to mention the cell phone converstations going on. I would rather sit in my car and listen to my music or talking on the cell phone in private.

The taxable portion of income after write downs is roughly what you mentioned. So you are right on with the numbers.

As for saving money. I figure the best group to actually save a high percentage of their money is the people making right in the average for American household income. Of course if they are stupid and try to "keep up with the jones" they will falter.

If I were able to keep a high portion of my money I would probably create more jobs with it by expanding. This is what some don't really understand and some do which is why there are tax breaks for the so called wealthy. It is basically a jobs program for the lower classes.

This is why distinctions have to be drawn between small business owners who are NOT super wealthy because they are spending money running their businesses and creating jobs, and the mega-rich CEO types who really don't need a fifth ferrari, who should probably get some higher taxes.

In the US you can work as much as you want. There are no restrictions here like some nations. Plus riding the bus is not fun when you got the homeless guy in the back. The young couple groping each other in the next seat over and the fat guy sitting next to you with the loud mp3 player. Not to mention the cell phone converstations going on. I would rather sit in my car and listen to my music or talking on the cell phone in private.

Ahhh, it's good to know that the world over, people riding the bus are the same.

Reading your description, I'm back on the old 732 evening bus after a hard days school.

Of course, I also moonlight as one of the young couples groping each other AND as the fat guy with the mp3, but that's only when I'm bored :p

70%? Are you sure? That sounds like a motherload of tax. Although lets see, you say past tax he'd be at about 140,000 to 180,000... well, if he's paying the %30, then he must be earning up to 230,000. Which means here, he'd be paying... 80,500 in tax? Sounds about right. Which is actually pretty similar. Hmm. You know, doing maths is good for me sometimes. It's been two years since I've done anything that requires more than my fingers...

Anyway, I'd like to know if that 70% is true.

He is accurate if you calculate in the income tax, the local sales tax of 10%, property taxes which are about 1.5% of assessed value and the myriad of other taxes that are tacked onto communication bills, energy bills and the like. I could go on and on but it hurts my head thinking about what I have to pay. Now this you have to understand is not the typical American situation. However as a percentage of gross income the average American is probably around 50% going out to various tax jurisdictions.

He is accurate if you calculate in the income tax, the local sales tax of 10%, property taxes which are about 1.5% of assessed value and the myriad of other taxes that are tacked onto communication bills, energy bills and the like. I could go on and on but it hurts my head thinking about what I have to pay. Now this you have to understand is not the typical American situation. However as a percentage of gross income the average American is probably around 50% going out to various tax jurisdictions.

Oh okay.

That's not much lower than here then, actually. A little bit, once you take into account all the other various taxes.

Wait for Neu L to come along, he'll have a stronger understanding of all this. I'm just going what I know.

Well... If you don't live in a swing state, you CAN try to jinx McCain by voting for him.

Regardless, if such tricks work, so will the ritual I made, and McCain will call Obama a n*gger during the debate.

The taxable portion of income after write downs is roughly what you mentioned. So you are right on with the numbers.
You mean ~$150,000 is what you pay these $5,000/mo checks to IRS out, or what's left after them?


As for saving money. I figure the best group to actually save a high percentage of their money is the people making right in the average for American household income. Of course if they are stupid and try to "keep up with the jones" they will falter.
Well, probably.
But households in just the lower portion of the upper-middle class suffer the most from it. They have just enough to afford some highly-taxed spending and saving, but their income is pretty fixed (once you pass 80k/yr, you can start investing, but below it's not feasible), thus have to jump between brackets, hindering planning, and lose constantly on credit and double taxation.


If I were able to keep a high portion of my money I would probably create more jobs with it by expanding. This is what some don't really understand and some do which is why there are tax breaks for the so called wealthy. It is basically a jobs program for the lower classes.
Exactly. What most people envying "millionaires" (including those living in a condo and driving a cheap car) don't get is that the business income is not all for spending, it's mostly for further reinvestment.

Some of my (older) relatives are involved in business (manufacturing), and I've seen them living much cheaper than myself, until a couple years ago. That is with me still investing a lot of my income in stocks (and that too helps to create jobs, though not as much as running a business directly). Capitalism is not some medieval society. Yes, the rich live better, but, considering most of them, not all that much; and their hundred-million incomes don't mean they consume a thousand times more - the majority of these incomes gets reinvested.

Well... If you don't live in a swing state, you CAN try to jinx McCain by voting for him.

Regardless, if such tricks work, so will the ritual I made, and McCain will call Obama a n*gger during the debate.

That would be so catastrophically poor for America's standing in the world, I would laugh on end for days at the sheer ridiculousness of it.

You mean ~$150,000 is what you pay these $5,000/mo checks to IRS out, or what's left after them?


We pay (the wife and I) between 60k-80k in taxes a year to the IRS. This is only for Federal Income taxes and not the Med and Oasdi taxes.

Well, probably.
But households in just the lower portion of the upper-middle class suffer the most from it. They have just enough to afford some highly-taxed spending and saving, but their income is pretty fixed (once you pass 80k/yr, you can start investing, but below it's not feasible), thus have to jump between brackets, hindering planning, and lose constantly on credit and double taxation.


If people lived below their means they could. This I advocate to my employees all the time. I also practice it myself. We live in a modest house for our income. We both drive nice German cars however they are paid for.

We pay (the wife and I) between 60k-80k in taxes a year to the IRS. This is only for Federal Income taxes and not the Med and Oasdi taxes.
So your combined income before income tax is about 200k-220k, and 60k-80k of it is income tax? What do you have left after all the taxes, then?

( And that's only what you pay directly, not in hidden and supply-side taxes, i.e. the government considers you should feel paying it. )

If people lived below their means they could. This I advocate to my employees all the time. I also practice it myself. We live in a modest house for our income. We both drive nice German cars however they are paid for.
Well, living below your income is efficient, but not always... I also can say I live below my means now, because I simply didn't have much to spend on, as I live in family house (although paying most bills), my SO isn't low-class either, and I'm simply not much for luxury.
However, it only works when you can easily invest half your income or more, so that it's time-efficient to manage the money, and that it can grow into a profitable capital of its own. If someone's earning 40k for household, however, how much can they save, 5k, 8k? That's not going to bring significant income, and you'll probably sell it off pretty soon anyway, so it's not going to grow.


This is why distinctions have to be drawn between small business owners who are NOT super wealthy because they are spending money running their businesses and creating jobs, and the mega-rich CEO types who really don't need a fifth ferrari, who should probably get some higher taxes.
And why are you so sure CEOs all have five Ferraris and such? Most of them too are active in the investment market, and some have own businesses.
Plus, a CEO is a paid salaryman; he should be rather compared to a famous footballer, who is in demand and thus commands a high price.


70%? Are you sure? That sounds like a motherload of tax. Although lets see, you say past tax he'd be at about 140,000 to 180,000... well, if he's paying the %30, then he must be earning up to 230,000.
Anyway, I'd like to know if that 70% is true.
AIUI from the later posts, it's not even after all taxes, just what's left as personal income past company-paid taxes.

But that's just open taxes. With things from property tax to VAT, it totals out to 70% for that bracket. That means that very theoretically, he could actually earn, without any taxes, a bit over $400,000, but the company and he pays nearly $300,000 of that in various taxes (the result is under $100,000, as there are taxes like VAT).

I would like to see Obama as president, though i don't really expect all that much from him. I haved voted in the last 4 presidential elections and not one of the candidates i voted for have won. I therefore assume that if i vote for Obama he will also lose. Is it therefore more ethical for me to vote for someone like Bob Barr who i know will lose than to jinx Obama with my support?

Are you in a swing state? If so, slap your self around a few times, then take a deep breath. Do you actually think the universe is out to get any candidite that you vote for? Cause that's either obcene self-absobtion or paranoid delusions. Dont worry about jinxing it. You won't. Worry about what will happen if oil runs out and there's nothing to replace it. Worry about what will happen if McCain dies and a die hard Creationist becomes President. Worry about the utter, disastrous collapse of America as a global power if their is a war with Iran (and Russia). Or worry about the continual errosion of the Constitution.

If you are in a swing state, it is your duty as a citizen to get out and vote. Obama's ahead, but any percent for McCain is to close for comfort. The GOP's policies have become a terrible threat to American Democracy, and survival. If the Republicans, or the country, is to be reformed, they need to be delt a crushing defeat.

To all the undecideds who may vote for Obama: our nation is counting on you. Don't let us down.

That would be so catastrophically poor for America's standing in the world

Not if they went on to elect Obama. Well, at that point, "when".

...

Wow... And you say you have it easy compared to the rest of Europe?

Yes. European tax rates are similar to U.S. tax rates under Eisenhower. They cap in the high eighties.

You Americans with your low tax... back in my day (and by that I of course mean, in my out of the way country), the top tax bracket of $180,000+ have to pay $58,000 a year plus 45c on every dollar over that. And that is just in federal income tax. Then there's the 10% goods and services tax, all the myriad of property taxes, state taxes, business taxes, etc. etc.

And I know that, by European standards, this aint much at all. Tax wise, we got it pretty easy.

So you'll forgive me if I don't sympathise with you for your tax burden.

(of course, you all have to pay through the nose for stuff like health care, so it probably balances out...)

Well, you got it pretty easy compared with Kiwi standards. At least you have that zero tax bracket (the first dollar I earn in New Zealand is taxed at 15%). This is what I would have to pay

15% for the first NZ$9,500 (to be 12.5% for the first NZ$12,500 from October)
21% until NZ$38,000
33% until NZ$60,000
and then 39%

Plus, we have to pay the 12.5% GST, local council rates and we have sweet diddly squat provided to us from the state. We are getting tax cuts in October, but it is a case of too little, too late - it will not stop the disastrous exodus of Kiwis.

No, vote for Bob Barr, because then the Libertarians won't vote for him. There we go.

No, vote for Bob Barr, because then the Libertarians won't vote for him. There we go.

The more right-leaning libertarians go to Barr, the more he can do to McCain what Nader did to Goar.

Hooray for the Nader effect!:tongue:

The more right-leaning libertarians go to Barr, the more he can do to McCain what Nader did to Goar.

Hooray for the Nader effect!:tongue:
Gore :p

Al Gore - "A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country".

The 30% Marrakech is talking about is not the entire tax in US either. The actual combined taxation level is about 40% average. Thus... From his 30% (33%?) tax bracket and 60k/yr IRS payment, I presume his income past tax is about $140,000-$180,000 (first 20k are untaxed). But what he pays in direct tax is only a part of the total taxation, just as for you.
Combined, he probably gives up about 70% of his income as tax. That is, gets less than 1/3 for himself. And that is with "himself" meaning him and his business expansion, not just personal spending.


BTW, you know what buggers me most? If you're trying to save the money for something, you get taxed twice. That's right. When I put whatever I saved into stocks, I still pay all the tax from the salary. Yet when I get the return, I have to pay again on it (unless going gray).
And who is generally saving money? People who don't have enough. [Yes, the situation for me is a bit different,] but still, it's indicative as a general concept.

The tax system is already quite socialist, any further and it's bordering on killing any incentive to work harder.

Now this is just silly, unless you can somehow proof that less people are going to attend college or work for higher pay. And since when does a high paying job necessary work "harder" than a low paying job?

I work more than anyone I know. I own multiple business and keep very busy. I also pay more taxes than most people I know. I for definitions sake am rich. Do I feel rich or act rich is a different story. I actually sometimes feel like slave labor. When I write a check to the IRS every month for 5k and then have to pay more at the end of the year I feel like I am getting ass raped. Not to mention all the B & O tax and taxes I collect for the great State of Washington. So I am one that laughs a bit at people complaining about taxes. Really there isn't to much to complain about. Especially when most hardly pay any taxes. The guy making 40k between two people paid 2.5% of his gross income in taxes. God I wish I paid 2.5% however with deductions and such I average in the 30% range per year which is more than the average American household contributes in two lifetimes of work. But hey I'm not bitchin.
i'm actually not too upset about my meager tax bill... heck i'm even tolerant of my paltry 800 dollar property tax bill, i just don't actually think either one of the candidates will change things much for me... though affordable state sponsered health care that doesn't hold pre existing conditions against you would be nice... i'm afraid to go to the doctor without insurance, not so much for the present bill, but out of fear that if they discover something serious like a heart condition i'll never be able to be covered for it again and have to decide in the long term between treatment and financial solvency.

So, you want the top fifty percent of the country to pay more than the ninety percent that they already pay? The bottom fifty percent of our country pays less than three percent of all taxes. Stop bitching, and pay up.
Here's a few sources:
http://wealthisgood.blogspot.com/2008/08/taxes-rich-pay-more-than-fair-share.html
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html

Wow, you actually linked to Rush Limbaugh. You win just because.

Try this sight to actually try and get some truth. It was recommended by GWB and Dick Cheney so no luck trying to call it liberal.

http://www.factcheck.org/

But who exactly is rich? Would you count a 28 year old guy, who spent most of his life on education in a highly specialized engineering profession, and now works 10+ hours a day, earning $115,000, as one of the rich?

No, this is one the problem I have with Obama's tax plan. He proposes raising taxes on people making over 250k. Granted, his plan is not to tax the ish out of them. In reality he looks to raise taxes on the upper 1% and more for the upper .1 and .01% Redistribution of wealth is not an horrible idea. The more wealth that is simply contained in the extreme upper classes does not have as significant positive effect. Someone making $5+million a year and now having to pay an additional 60k really doesn't affect their lives all that much. They can still vacation in Cabo. They can still pay cash for their AMG. They can still buy 7 houses and only spend time living in 3 throughout the whole year.

The redistribution of that wealth creating a decreased tax burden of approx. 2k for a middle class family (roughly 50k just for the sake) means that family will actually be able to put a little money away for their child's education, thereby promoting the greater good. Maybe they can use that extra money to pay their increasing fuel costs. Maybe they can use it to pay medical bills they've been putting on a credit card. Perhaps they can pay to keep their homes heated as oil and natural gas prices increase. That extra 2k after tax income will be put back into the economy because these people need the $ to survive.

The 30% Marrakech is talking about is not the entire tax in US either. The actual combined taxation level is about 40% average. Thus... From his 30% (33%?) tax bracket and 60k/yr IRS payment, I presume his income past tax is about $140,000-$180,000 (first 20k are untaxed). But what he pays in direct tax is only a part of the total taxation, just as for you.
Combined, he probably gives up about 70% of his income as tax. That is, gets less than 1/3 for himself. And that is with "himself" meaning him and his business expansion, not just personal spending.


BTW, you know what buggers me most? If you're trying to save the money for something, you get taxed twice. That's right. When I put whatever I saved into stocks, I still pay all the tax from the salary. Yet when I get the return, I have to pay again on it (unless going gray).
And who is generally saving money? People who don't have enough. [Yes, the situation for me is a bit different,] but still, it's indicative as a general concept.

The tax system is already quite socialist, any further and it's bordering on killing any incentive to work harder.

Your math is.... You're trying to say that if he makes 200k, after taxes he's only keeping 60k? Federal tax rates for 2008 (http://taxes.about.com/od/2008taxes/qt/2008_tax_rates.htm)

Here are the capital gains rates. (http://taxes.about.com/od/capitalgains/a/CapitalGainsTax_4.htm)

You show me how he's paying 70% of his income in taxes please.

Your math is.... You're trying to say that if he makes 200k, after taxes he's only keeping 60k? Federal tax rates for 2008 (http://taxes.about.com/od/2008taxes/qt/2008_tax_rates.htm)

Here are the capital gains rates. (http://taxes.about.com/od/capitalgains/a/CapitalGainsTax_4.htm)

You show me how he's paying 70% of his income in taxes please.

That is not what he is saying. He just didn't lay it out well. I mentioned that I pay around 60-80k in taxes per year. With a tax rate that varies but maintains the 30% + bracket. What he is trying to figure out is what my adjusted gross income is. Which is didn't get right. But it doesn't matter.

...

Wow... And you say you have it easy compared to the rest of Europe?

Yes he does, but before you start assuming that everything there must be horribly crappy, you need some information on how different a situation it is.

First off, here in the United States, we do not have living wages. We have minimum wages, which have never scaled up to living wages. In all of those European countries mentioned as worse--and presumably in his as well--living wages are set. This means that no matter what, so long as you have work, you can have a decent standard of living.

Secondly, the employment rates are usually 1% or lower, often because the vast government(which, sadly, is quite inefficient and wasteful) employs a significant portion of the population. (According to Snafturi, in Norway it's 50%.)

Thirdly, the entire country is organized in a different fashion. They do not have cities that are spread out with homes far away from most possible sources of good employment, with bedroom communities set dozens upon dozens of miles even further away. They have extremely good, reliable, efficient mass transportation, from massive bus networks to train networks, etc etc. In other words, they're set up far more efficiently.

They also have much greater variety of other services, such as healthcare, child care, psychological assistance, etc etc.

So, in short, they may have less money overall from their paychecks than we Americans do, but that's because they already pay for what we would have to pay for on our own otherwise.

A job that pays, for example, 100 dollars a week(fake number of math purposes) might only give them 20 dollars a week there, but that's practically all free money, with only so much needed for food expenses.

Whereas in the U.S. we might get 80 dollars from that 100 dollars, but then we have to spend 30 on healthcare, another 20 on gasoline, 15 on car payments, and then more so on food...it builds up to where they have more or less the same amount of spending power.

However, there are other differences. With so much government control over the economy, some pretty stupid mistakes can be made. (Can be, not will be. Very different.) Again, according to Snaf, in Norway they drove away information technology build-up despite the fact that they will need it after their oil exportation starts dropping, which it will because the oil will only last for so much longer.

Overall, their system has advantages and disadvantages, just like ours. Don't be so quick to dismiss it out of the sake of ideology. There's plenty of good things about it, and we could do many of those same things here without having to sacrifice the things that make our economy stronger and more wealth producing.

Redistribution of wealth is not an horrible idea. The more wealth that is simply contained in the extreme upper classes does not have as significant positive effect. Someone making $5+million a year and now having to pay an additional 60k really doesn't affect their lives all that much.
In order to extract something significant, it has to be millions.

And then, not all of these $5m is spent on vacations in Cabo. A lot is reinvested.


The redistribution of that wealth creating a decreased tax burden of approx. 2k for a middle class family (roughly 50k just for the sake) means that family will actually be able to put a little money away for their child's education, thereby promoting the greater good.
That is, as long as the extra taxation doesn't cut into what they get paid.


Your math is.... You're trying to say that if he makes 200k, after taxes he's only keeping 60k?
Not exactly. 70% is the total taxation - from taxing the companies to taxing the purchases. So more like making $340k, but $100k is paid by company in taxes; getting $240k, but paying $80k in tax; then, of the $160k left, paying $30k in other taxes, and then, out of the $130k spent, $30k of them go to various taxes on purchases and products (say, vehicle tax). Numbers are more or less random, just to total out.

That can be mitigated really with a cheap car. I did a little calculating for a couple employees that thought they were saving money on the bus. It turns out that they could actually be ahead with a cheap car even in today's prices. Reason being is the time you spent waiting and then riding public transportation. I calculated the time they wasted into hours worked at their current rates. With the same amount of time spent at home per week they could actually put an extra $50 in thier pockets. I know individual results would vary but really if you look at the whole picture and break it down it really isn't the best way for most.
It isn't just buying the car itself, though; there's also insurance, gas, repairs and maintenance stuff like oil changes. On average it's nearly 1/5th of one's income, I think.

It isn't just buying the car itself, though; there's also insurance, gas, repairs and maintenance stuff like oil changes. On average it's nearly 1/5th of one's income, I think.
the real calculation is "if i go on the bus how much does it cost and how much money do i make overall" vs "if i buy a car how much does it cost and do i earn more"

few people are cutting into their work time by taking the bus. the time spent would not make them more money if their commute time were shorter.

which is not to say that they might not regret the time they are spending on the bus that they could be spending at home with the family but thats a different calculation.

That is not what he is saying. He just didn't lay it out well. I mentioned that I pay around 60-80k in taxes per year. With a tax rate that varies but maintains the 30% + bracket. What he is trying to figure out is what my adjusted gross income is. Which is didn't get right. But it doesn't matter.

Thank you for the clarification Sir.