Having 'skin in the game'......does anyone have better stats? - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Having 'skin in the game'......does anyone have better stats? (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 9/10/2012 6:08:01 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Sorry, I don't agree that there should be an arbitrary amount of income where you have to start paying taxes. EVERYONE should have to pay federal taxes, regardless of income. Personally, I'm a bigger fan of how it works in this state, where we don't have state taxes on income. But with the current system EVERYONE should have skin in the game if they want to haves the luxuries associated with living in this country

We'll have to disagree then. i believe that there is a baseline income below which there should be no income tax, because you need that amount of money simply to survive.

Or heaven forbid you rely on private instead of government charity or family support. I know such a policy would encourage strong families and growth of religious organizations and infuriate the left but I'm ok with that.

Posted: 9/10/2012 6:08:25 AM EDT

[#2]

Hell, I wouldn't really give a shit at all if 50% of Americans paid no federal income tax

If and only if

They had no withholding and had to write a check at the end of every month for their "fair share" - and even got refunded on April 15th.

They would quickly realize how much they pay in taxes (Even of which, FICA they wouldn't give back)

Posted: 9/10/2012 6:12:05 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Is it even possible to make 10K a year now working full time?

We have people in our county who live on communes who intentionally keep their income below taxable level so they don't have to pay taxes towards funding the military.

If you work full time at minimum wage you'll make more than 10K That figure was one I threw out there as an example. It costs more than 10K a year to keep even a absic roof over your head , food on the table, gas in the car.

Quoted:

Or heaven forbid you rely on private instead of government charity or family support. I know such a policy would encourage strong families and growth of religious organizations and infuriate the left but I'm ok with that.

The Depression showed that private charity is not up to the task alone. Even with all of the gov't programs that exist now, private charity isn't able to keep up with demand

Posted: 9/10/2012 6:18:03 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If people make so little money that they don't pay taxes that make our government function then they shouldn't be able to vote either. Voting should be tied to taxes. I'd be willing to be that if the vast majority of those making less than the minimum that could no longer vote themselves money would get off their ass and raise their income.

Sorry, I don't agree with disenfranchising someone because they don't make some arbitrary amount of income or pay taxes

Then good luck at fixing the problem when at least 45% of the population has figured out that they can vote themselves free money.

This is the, sad, truth. One of our two relevant political parties now survives on promising more and more free money. As a country, we're on a moving train headed for a canyon with no bridge. I really don't know how we can stop the train without something drastic, like taking away voting rights.

No way in hell it will ever happen though. Probably no way in hell we can actually stop the train either.

Posted: 9/10/2012 6:35:18 AM EDT

[#5]

You need to get accurate figures.

There is something like 310 million people in this country. Probably 33% or so are kids, so that means approximately 200 million adults.

Out of that 200 million, how many are retired (over the age of 65) or close to being retired? probably 33 % or so of that number, which would take you to approximately 140 million americans able to work. How many don't work, work part time jobs, or are on government aid?

Probably 40 million or so, which would cut you to 100 million people. If half don't really pay taxes you only have approximately 50 million americans paying taxes.

That sound right or way off?

Posted: 9/10/2012 6:38:29 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
You need to get accurate figures.

There is something like 310 million people in this country. Probably 33% or so are kids, so that means approximately 200 million adults.

Out of that 200 million, how many are retired (over the age of 65) or close to being retired? probably 33 % or so of that number, which would take you to approximately 140 million americans able to work. How many don't work, work part time jobs, or are on government aid?

Probably 40 million or so, which would cut you to 100 million people. If half don't really pay taxes you only have approximately 50 million americans paying taxes.

That sound right or way off?

Don't know for sure but I thought the 50 percent stat already removed children and people above retirement age.

Posted: 9/10/2012 6:38:43 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
If you work full time at minimum wage you'll make more than 10K That figure was one I threw out there as an example.

Minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. 40 hours a week x 52 weeks is 2080 hours. 2080 x 7.25= $15,080 a year.

Posted: 9/10/2012 6:40:17 AM EDT

[#8]

I am not sure. But what it comes down to is a lot of people who do not work full time due to being a child or retired, working part time, or on the take from the government.

.

Quoted:

Quoted:
You need to get accurate figures.

There is something like 310 million people in this country. Probably 33% or so are kids, so that means approximately 200 million adults.

Out of that 200 million, how many are retired (over the age of 65) or close to being retired? probably 33 % or so of that number, which would take you to approximately 140 million americans able to work. How many don't work, work part time jobs, or are on government aid?

Probably 40 million or so, which would cut you to 100 million people. If half don't really pay taxes you only have approximately 50 million americans paying taxes.

That sound right or way off?

Don't know for sure but I thought the 50 percent stat already removed children and people above retirement age.

Posted: 9/10/2012 12:06:55 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Is it even possible to make 10K a year now working full time?

We have people in our county who live on communes who intentionally keep their income below taxable level so they don't have to pay taxes towards funding the military.

If you work full time at minimum wage you'll make more than 10K That figure was one I threw out there as an example. It costs more than 10K a year to keep even a absic roof over your head , food on the table, gas in the car.

Quoted:

Or heaven forbid you rely on private instead of government charity or family support. I know such a policy would encourage strong families and growth of religious organizations and infuriate the left but I'm ok with that.

The Depression showed that private charity is not up to the task alone. Even with all of the gov't programs that exist now, private charity isn't able to keep up with demand

Nothing is up to the task of the people with their hands out right now....

Posted: 9/10/2012 1:16:12 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:

No income tax. No corporate tax. Everything except unprepared food is taxed at 15% federally.

Everyone has skin in the game.

Consumption tax is the way to go in a free market.

I agree 100%. I am sick of the bleeding hearts that think

poor people should not pay taxes. Most of them are in that

position because they are lazy.

The working for welfare rule did get some people to work

but it also has created a class that works the minimum

to get the most benefits. They have no drive to work more

because they will hit a point that they lose income when

they factor their salary and the loss on benefits they have

from earning more $$$.

Posted: 9/10/2012 1:26:35 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
The problem is taxing the income itself. Tax the products that get purchased (hello, Fair Tax). The reason it won't ever pass is because it puts wayyyyy to much power into the hands of the people. The Govt can't have the people taking power back....

GASP!!! Logic in GD???

Posted: 9/10/2012 1:32:20 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
You need to get accurate figures.

There is something like 310 million people in this country. Probably 33% or so are kids, so that means approximately 200 million adults.

Out of that 200 million, how many are retired (over the age of 65) or close to being retired? probably 33 % or so of that number, which would take you to approximately 140 million americans able to work. How many don't work, work part time jobs, or are on government aid?

Probably 40 million or so, which would cut you to 100 million people. If half don't really pay taxes you only have approximately 50 million americans paying taxes.

That sound right or way off?

The 47% is households, so kids aren't included.

Posted: 9/10/2012 1:38:53 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Problem is, there should be a line at some point below which the workers income should not be taxed at all, and I suspect that many of that 45 % or so who pay no Fed income tax fall within that bracket. You shouldn't be taxed on income thats so low that you pretty much need every dollar of it just to stay alive...thats why we have an individual deduction after all...Where that line is is up for debate, but taxing people down in the 10Kgross income range shouldn't happen, regardless of whether we think they should have"skin in the game".

Lets address things like the EITC that send rebates well beyond what the person actually paid in. Lets address the minimum alternative tax. Or the various deductions that make the tax code so intricate. .

Bullshit. If everyone had to pay the same tax they would vote for lower taxes and less government. That equals less overhead for businesses. Without government rigging the markets and playing favorites market competition in this scenario would drive down prices as overhead decreases making it affordable for the bottom half to pay a tax.

If your so fuckin worried about it just increase the minimum wage ten percent and tax ten percent. They break even but after a few election cycles with an emandment requiring all tax increases or decreases to be equal accross the board a LARGE majority of Americans would want more orf that money in their pocket.

Either way the only way to fix this mess is to get rid of the progressive tax system. The nation will NEVER vote in the nations best interest when someone else has to pay the bill.

There are lots of ways to implement a flat tax rate whether it is income or sales tax. I prefer income because people tend to be more proactive when they see a dollar amount taken from them on a piece of paper every two weeks. Sales tax wont work well because it is essentially the same as inflation or a progressive tax in it's results because they are hidden taxes figured into the cost of production. People don't seem to notice the higher prices and lower wages they get from hidden taxes.

Posted: 9/10/2012 1:45:06 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
You don't seem to consider how much of our insane level of spending is due to entitlement programs. If we get that under control and everyone has to contribute something, even if it's only a couple hundred bucks a year, our deficits will be cut drastically.

LOL
You must be young. Here are some tips from an old man: No matter how much revenue is raised, it will never be enough to put a dent in the deficit. No matter how much revenue is raised, the debt will never be paid down.

The problem is that Congress is addicted to spending money. If it raised $10 T a year in revenue, it would spend $11T. If all entitlements were eliminated Congress would simply find something else to spend the money on.

Posted: 9/10/2012 1:47:40 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You don't seem to consider how much of our insane level of spending is due to entitlement programs. If we get that under control and everyone has to contribute something, even if it's only a couple hundred bucks a year, our deficits will be cut drastically.

LOL

You must be young. Here are some tips from an old man: No matter how much revenue is raised, it will never be enough to put a dent in the deficit. No matter how much revenue is raised, the debt will never be paid down.

The problem is that Congress is addicted to spending money. If it raised $10 T a year in revenue, it would spend $11T. If all entitlements were eliminated Congress would simply find something else to spend the money on.

the people wouldn't let that happen if it wasn't presumed that someone else had to pay for it. Even most of the middle class who will suffer most of the burden still thinks that it will fall on the rich. There just aren't enough rich people. They also don't realize those taxes are overhead to the economy and they actually pay them all as a consumer and employee. Direct taxation would change that.

Posted: 9/10/2012 2:23:45 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Bullshit. If everyone had to pay the same tax they would vote for lower taxes and less government. That equals less overhead for businesses. Without government rigging the markets and playing favorites market competition in this scenario would drive down prices as overhead decreases making it affordable for the bottom half to pay a tax.

If your so fuckin worried about it just increase the minimum wage ten percent and tax ten percent. They break even but after a few election cycles with an emandment requiring all tax increases or decreases to be equal accross the board a LARGE majority of Americans would want more orf that money in their pocket.

It isn't BS that there is a base amount of salary that at a minimum is what is required to pay for basic living expenses. Nothing will change my mind that that amount, whatever society deems it to be, should not be taxed. Even a little.

Increase the minimum wage? That must be the first time that someone has actually advocated for that here.

Posted: 9/10/2012 2:35:14 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If someone makes $10,000 a year, you are leaving them with $9,000 a year. A group that traditionally is completely ignored in politics... So a million angry poor people are going to start rioting or something? Thats when the 'kid gloves' come off and rounds go live. 10% isnt enough skin, lets get them with more skin in the game, lets do half.

now the 10k guy makes 5k. and the 100k guy makes 50k. Guess who can still survive without government assistance? The more you take from the lower class, but still want to make it illegal to sleep in parks and live in cardboard boxes, the more you will have to support them through the government. Conservatives cant have it both ways

So with that line of logic I suppose you want to tax the "rich" at 75% then? Who said tax the poor at 50%.

"Fair" is some utopian idea....like everyone deserves an 'easy' life. Life is tough, get a helmet.

There is a tax level that is required to sustain the insane levels of spending that is going on. Right now, taxes can be low due to America taking on debt, but if we want to be self sustainable one day, and keep spending as much as we do, then taxes will have to go up. 75% tax on a guy making 100k will leave him with 25K to live off of. 75% tax on a guy making 10k will leave him with 2.5k.

10k guy will be living in his car in front of your house, so be ready for that, unless you want to support section 8 housing.

The alternative is a heavily progressive tax, merely because the cold financial fact is the richer guy can afford it.

You don't seem to consider how much of our insane level of spending is due to entitlement programs. If we get that under control and everyone has to contribute something, even if it's only a couple hundred bucks a year, our deficits will be cut drastically.

You, me, and everyone else with common sense knows that shit is never going anywhere.

Entitlements are here to stay.

Posted: 9/10/2012 2:40:13 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
The solution is government built highrise concrete barracks, bare concrete rooms with no door and a concrete slab to sleep on. armed officer stationed on every floor. temperature regulated to 55 degrees. basic, meals (grains, potato, wholesale meat) available for free. You can live there for free as long as you want, even if you make 120k a year, but if you want better, you have to move out.

There should always be a minimal fallback to at least sustain existence. section 8 in nice houses with lavish food stamp rights is not the answer, but its the best we can do, apparently.

That line of thinking is precisely how we arrived at our current state of affairs. The question then becomes what does "sustain existence" mean? The politicians have used that question to convince the majority of voters that nice section 8 housing, lavish food stamp, big screen TV, "affordable" transportation, cell phones, medical, and dental rights are the minimal fallback to sustain existence. Your line of thinking is a guarantee of dismal failure.

Posted: 9/10/2012 2:47:14 PM EDT

[#19]

My solution is to institute a flat tax with the lower portions of income being exempt. The first 20,000 of income you earn would not be taxed, but anything after that would be taxed at 10%.

So if you make 15K/year you don't pay any Fed income tax, if you make 30K you are taxed on 10K of your income, and if you make 1M/year you are taxed on 980K of your income.

Posted: 9/10/2012 2:51:18 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:

If people make so little money that they don't pay taxes that make our government function then they shouldn't be able to vote either. Voting should be tied to taxes. I'd be willing to be that if the vast majority of those making less than the minimum that could no longer vote themselves money would get off their ass and raise their income.

Sorry, I don't agree with disenfranchising someone because they don't make some arbitrary amount of income or pay taxes

Then they should be taxed. It isn't right they only take and pay nothing, then vote ensuring that it will remain that way.

I believe in a flat tax. Same percentage for all. Then you won't have one group wanting to raise or lower a group's taxes. You're all in it together.

I figure 10% should work in today's world.

If you're making 15 or 20k, that 1500-2000 isn't going to make the difference between homeless or not.

Posted: 9/10/2012 2:51:36 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

My solution is to institute a flat tax with the lower portions of income being exempt. The first 20,000 of income you earn would not be taxed, but anything after that would be taxed at 10%.

So if you make 15K/year you don't pay any Fed income tax, if you make 30K you are taxed on 10K of your income, and if you make 1M/year you are taxed on 980K of your income.

You would still have people that vote for free shit.

The only way to get control of this land is for everyone to pay taxes.

Fair tax with no prebate

Posted: 9/10/2012 2:52:30 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

10k guy will be living in his car in front of your house, so be ready for that, unless you want to support section 8 housing.

The alternative is a heavily progressive tax, merely because the cold financial fact is the richer guy can afford it.

10K guy with ZERO income tax rate will be living in front of your house in his car, as that would barely pay for rent, let alone any other living expenses.....

Quoted:

Then good luck at fixing the problem when at least 45% of the population has figured out that they can vote themselves free money.

Wanting something for nothing is a human condition that would not be limited to the 45% who don't pay federal tax.

Depends where you live. Many places starting rent is only 200-400 a month.

If it isn't that way where you are, and you're dire straits you could always move.

Posted: 9/10/2012 2:55:18 PM EDT

[#23]

I make less than 33k a year. I also work full time 40 hours, overtime when available, and I'm taking some college courses on the side. No kids. I still cant afford jack shit in the scheme of things. What grinds my gears are able bodied people who get more than me in 'benefits' because their dumb asses spawned some crotch fruit or they found a dr willing to call them 'disabled'. I'd rant some more but I have to get to sleep since I have work at 6 am.

Posted: 9/10/2012 2:57:23 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Problem is, there should be a line at some point below which the workers income should not be taxed at all, and I suspect that many of that 45 % or so who pay no Fed income tax fall within that bracket. You shouldn't be taxed on income thats so low that you pretty much need every dollar of it just to stay alive...thats why we have an individual deduction after all...Where that line is is up for debate, but taxing people down in the 10Kgross income range shouldn't happen, regardless of whether we think they should have"skin in the game".

Lets address things like the EITC that send rebates well beyond what the person actually paid in. Lets address the minimum alternative tax. Or the various deductions that make the tax code so intricate. .

Well then , lets look at :the line"

Lets say the line is.............25k. Nobody makin 25 k pays income tax as shit is expensive right??

Then I, who make more than that should have a standard deduction of.........you guessed it 25k. I can see libs heads exploding with the thought that some friggin asshole capitalist with a fucking job (GASP) wants a 25 k standard deduction.

That shit will NEVER happen. Poor folks , aka fucking moronic losers who spend more time drunk than at work, are a special interest group of votes and never ending suckholes for money given away by retardedly guilty , yet equally moronic baboons who think forced charity via the tax code and welfare in all its forms is somehow saintly.

When in reality it is the yoke of oppression put there specifically to keep a voting block in one parties camp.

Fuck welfare, in all its forms , FBHO and especially FJR

Posted: 9/10/2012 3:01:33 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Depends where you live. Many places starting rent is only 200-400 a month.

If it isn't that way where you are, and you're dire straits you could always move.

It takes money to move, unless you're a single guy whose entire possessions can fit into a duffle bag

Beginning rents around here are $600-700/ month for a single bedroom apartment

Posted: 9/10/2012 3:14:12 PM EDT

[#26]

Flat tax over $25K or consumption tax. No loopholes. No deductions. Investment income included. Single page form, actually there really shouldn't have to be a form. Whatever that number is, is the number the Government gets to spend. PERIOD.

Posted: 9/10/2012 3:18:56 PM EDT

[#27]

This reminds me of a 'Count Down' episode in which Olberman was actually CRYING on set because he was talking about how hard it was for his poor sick mother, to afford medical care.

I wanted to reach through the TV and pound him in the face. Here he is... earning millions of dollars via MSNBC (back in the day) and he didn't see HIMSELF responsible to help his mom... he felt it was the GOVERNMENT'S JOB to do so.

I just saw some liberal commentator talking about how hard it was for his Mom to get care in a Nursing home. When another commentator said "Why don't you let her live with you?" He couldn't come up with a response at all... it was the GOVERNMENT'S job to care for his mom... He wasn't going to do it.

And yet... the dweebs say "It takes a village to raise a child."... what they really mean is that 'It takes a village's FINANCES to raise MY CHILD... care for my mother... etc.

Posted: 9/10/2012 3:27:55 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Sorry, I don't agree that there should be an arbitrary amount of income where you have to start paying taxes. EVERYONE should have to pay federal taxes, regardless of income. Personally, I'm a bigger fan of how it works in this state, where we don't have state taxes on income. But with the current system EVERYONE should have skin in the game if they want to haves the luxuries associated with living in this country

We'll have to disagree then. i believe that there is a baseline income below which there should be no income tax, because you need that amount of money simply to survive.

Or heaven forbid you rely on private instead of government charity or family support. I know such a policy would encourage strong families and growth of religious organizations and infuriate the left but I'm ok with that.

I disagree... the problem is that BASIC living is not the issue... a sack of rice, potatoes, hamburger, and vegetables costs a lot less than the boxed, over priced, over packaged, crap that is availalbe to be purchased with EBT cards. IT is ridiculous. I can't afford to feed my family... I hear this all the time, and yet what they really mean is "I can't afford to feed my family the food that I want to feed them." The number of people who are obese but getting foodstamps is ridiculous. How can they be so overweight if they are too poor to eat?

How can the Government be responsible for Cable TV??? What 'need' is there for Government funded (Government required fees on companies to be paid by PAYING custormers) Cell phones? The real thing is that private charity is smart enough to NOT PAY FOR THESE sorts of things. Our Government is simply manipulable.

Posted: 9/10/2012 3:32:02 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
So if you figure that "nearly half" of Americans don't pay taxes that's a rough figure of 150million right?

If the "bottom 50%" makes less then 33K a year then would it be fair to assume that the "average income" is maybe 10K?

If so, if you taxed them at a low rate of 10% then that's around 150billion dollars to add to the tax pie. Not as much as the "top 50%" (around 1 trillion I think) but still almost the same amount as the revenue from corporate taxes (around 180billion).

Skin in the game. That will finally make people start to pay attention I think.

There are roughly 237 million working-age people in the US, according to BLS after 2010 census. 237 million / 2 = 118.5 million people that should be taxable, according to the "skin-in-the game" premise.

One thing I have noticed is that even when I let myself be taxed in the "poverty bracket", the IRS still sends a refund. They have accountants who I think have a job to make sure the bottom 50% get their refunds, while making sure the top 50% get milked for everything they can.

I don't agree with Federal Income Tax, and I live in one of the 3 States that voted against the 16th Amendment. The Federal government has the power to tariff foreign goods to raise revenue if they want, as the Founders did, and were embarassed with how much money they had in our Nation's first fiscal cycle. What was wrong with the US up until 1910?

If you want and support Federal Income Tax, we should have a progressive tax rate that increases as your income decreases. We would then see levels of prosperity like no other time in our history, since the punitive nature of Federal Tax would target the lowest income groups, and people would simply work their way out of that kill zone bracket.

I'm not a believer that Washington D.C. knows how to spend money well, so the less they have, the better off we are as a country. Let them tax foreign goods all they want, but stay out of the States.

Posted: 9/10/2012 3:55:21 PM EDT

[#30]

As someone posted above, that stat is BS because is is limited to "income taxes". However, people who have an earned income also pay the Payroll Tax (that is OASDI & Medicare on your paystub).

The OASDI part ENDS when you hit 110,000 (give or take). Therefore, if your salary is 10,000 a year, you pay $420.00 in OASDI. If your salary is $100,000, your pay $4,200 in OASDI taxes. If your salary is $1,000,000 a year, you pay $4,620 in OASDI taxes.

The "rich" pay a smaller percentage of their income in OASDI taxes than people who make less than $110,000. Also, the payroll tax only applies to earned income, and not to dividends, interest, etc...

Even people who do not pay income taxes pay the payroll tax if they have an earned income.

Sounds like skin in the game to me.

Posted: 9/10/2012 4:07:30 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

As someone posted above, that stat is BS because is is limited to "income taxes". However, people who have an earned income also pay the Payroll Tax (that is OASDI & Medicare on your paystub).

The OASDI part ENDS when you hit 110,000 (give or take). Therefore, if your salary is 10,000 a year, you pay $420.00 in OASDI. If your salary is $100,000, your pay $4,200 in OASDI taxes. If your salary is $1,000,000 a year, you pay $4,620 in OASDI taxes.

The "rich" pay a smaller percentage of their income in OASDI taxes than people who make less than $110,000. Also, the payroll tax only applies to earned income, and not to dividends, interest, etc...

Even people who do not pay income taxes pay the payroll tax if they have an earned income.

Sounds like skin in the game to me.

It is not as much skin in the game and not equal.

Fair tax with no prebate would even the playing field for all.

Posted: 9/11/2012 4:51:22 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You don't seem to consider how much of our insane level of spending is due to entitlement programs. If we get that under control and everyone has to contribute something, even if it's only a couple hundred bucks a year, our deficits will be cut drastically.

LOL
You must be young. Here are some tips from an old man: No matter how much revenue is raised, it will never be enough to put a dent in the deficit. No matter how much revenue is raised, the debt will never be paid down.

The problem is that Congress is addicted to spending money. If it raised $10 T a year in revenue, it would spend $11T. If all entitlements were eliminated Congress would simply find something else to spend the money on.

I don't disagree with the spending addiction but this thread is about cutting down on the government tit sucking. The point is how do we get people to stop voting for whoever will give them free money.

Posted: 9/11/2012 5:07:37 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
The "rich" pay a smaller percentage of their income in OASDI taxes than people who make less than $110,000.

Those rich people are also not going to see a higher percentage back in the form of SS, if they even collect SS. And they aren't likely to use Medicaid/Medicare.

Posted: 9/11/2012 5:15:16 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

No income tax. No corporate tax. Everything except unprepared food is taxed at 15% federally.

Everyone has skin in the game.

... I'm OK with this notion

Posted: 9/11/2012 5:17:25 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:

As someone posted above, that stat is BS because is is limited to "income taxes". However, people who have an earned income also pay the Payroll Tax (that is OASDI & Medicare on your paystub).

The OASDI part ENDS when you hit 110,000 (give or take). Therefore, if your salary is 10,000 a year, you pay $420.00 in OASDI. If your salary is $100,000, your pay $4,200 in OASDI taxes. If your salary is $1,000,000 a year, you pay $4,620 in OASDI taxes.

The "rich" pay a smaller percentage of their income in OASDI taxes than people who make less than $110,000. Also, the payroll tax only applies to earned income, and not to dividends, interest, etc...

Even people who do not pay income taxes pay the payroll tax if they have an earned income.

Sounds like skin in the game to me.

It is not as much skin in the game and not equal.

Fair tax with no prebate would even the playing field for all.

That's called moving to goal posts.

When someone points out that the talking point of "50% of people pay nothing" and "have no skin in the game" is BS, you start talking about equality.

This is what liberals do when they talk about the 99%.

Congrats on being the same thing that you claim to hate.

Posted: 9/11/2012 5:26:37 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

I don't disagree with the spending addiction but this thread is about cutting down on the government tit sucking. The point is how do we get people to stop voting for whoever will give them free money.

You can't. Even if you did, you'd still have the powerful paying for politicians who would act favorably towards THEM, so graft comes in all shapes sizes and economic categories.

Quoted:

That's called moving to goal posts.

When someone points out that the talking point of "50% of people pay nothing" and "have no skin in the game" is BS, you start talking about equality.

This is what liberals do when they talk about the 99%.

Congrats on being the same thing that you claim to hate.

I noticed that as well. Earlier the claim was that as long as the lower economic rungs paid ANYTHING, folks here would be happy. Now the claim is that there isn't enough paid in and certain groups need to pay more.

Posted: 9/11/2012 5:28:13 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The problem is taxing the income itself. Tax the products that get purchased (hello, Fair Tax). The reason it won't ever pass is because it puts wayyyyy to much power into the hands of the people. The Govt can't have the people taking power back....

GASP!!! Logic in GD???

I don't normally post here. That's the problem, I guess....

Posted: 9/11/2012 5:35:11 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I don't disagree with the spending addiction but this thread is about cutting down on the government tit sucking. The point is how do we get people to stop voting for whoever will give them free money.

You can't. Even if you did, you'd still have the powerful paying for politicians who would act favorably towards THEM, so graft comes in all shapes sizes and economic categories.

Quoted:

That's called moving to goal posts.

When someone points out that the talking point of "50% of people pay nothing" and "have no skin in the game" is BS, you start talking about equality.

This is what liberals do when they talk about the 99%.

Congrats on being the same thing that you claim to hate.

I noticed that as well. Earlier the claim was that as long as the lower economic rungs paid ANYTHING, folks here would be happy. Now the claim is that there isn't enough paid in and certain groups need to pay more.

When the bottom 50% are only paying something like 2% of the take, you realize that the 2% is most likely paid by those who are in the 47-50% group.

Posted: 9/11/2012 5:40:56 AM EDT

[#39]

My problem with the entire "numbers and statistics" is that I am never sure if they are taking into account people who have retired, and other people who have earned their right NOT to work. I've literally seen 100 different variations of the tax numbers that I no longer know what to truly believe....

Either way, the working class that earns less than $XX,XXX still need to pay for the services they are using by basing the tax system on consumption....

Posted: 9/11/2012 7:12:29 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

When the bottom 50% are only paying something like 2% of the take, you realize that the 2% is most likely paid by those who are in the 47-50% group.

And as I pointed out throughout this thread, theres a baseline of income that should be tax exempt.

If someones making below that amount, i don't expect them to pay Federal income tax.

Posted: 9/11/2012 7:32:13 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
You need to get accurate figures.

There is something like 310 million people in this country. Probably 33% or so are kids, so that means approximately 200 million adults.

Out of that 200 million, how many are retired (over the age of 65) or close to being retired? probably 33 % or so of that number, which would take you to approximately 140 million americans able to work. How many don't work, work part time jobs, or are on government aid?

Probably 40 million or so, which would cut you to 100 million people. If half don't really pay taxes you only have approximately 50 million americans paying taxes.

That sound right or way off?

It's nearly 50 percent of those who file taxes that pay no federal income taxes.

Posted: 9/11/2012 10:41:46 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You need to get accurate figures.

There is something like 310 million people in this country. Probably 33% or so are kids, so that means approximately 200 million adults.

Out of that 200 million, how many are retired (over the age of 65) or close to being retired? probably 33 % or so of that number, which would take you to approximately 140 million americans able to work. How many don't work, work part time jobs, or are on government aid?

Probably 40 million or so, which would cut you to 100 million people. If half don't really pay taxes you only have approximately 50 million americans paying taxes.

That sound right or way off?

It's nearly 50 percent of those who file taxes that pay no federal income taxes.

It has been, and continues to be improperly stated by people, though. That's my point.

And retired people have to file and pay fed taxes in some cases even though they are retired. Doesn't that suck?

Posted: 9/11/2012 1:01:54 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:

As someone posted above, that stat is BS because is is limited to "income taxes". However, people who have an earned income also pay the Payroll Tax (that is OASDI & Medicare on your paystub).

The OASDI part ENDS when you hit 110,000 (give or take). Therefore, if your salary is 10,000 a year, you pay $420.00 in OASDI. If your salary is $100,000, your pay $4,200 in OASDI taxes. If your salary is $1,000,000 a year, you pay $4,620 in OASDI taxes.

The "rich" pay a smaller percentage of their income in OASDI taxes than people who make less than $110,000. Also, the payroll tax only applies to earned income, and not to dividends, interest, etc...

Even people who do not pay income taxes pay the payroll tax if they have an earned income.

Sounds like skin in the game to me.

It is not as much skin in the game and not equal.

Fair tax with no prebate would even the playing field for all.

That's called moving to goal posts.

When someone points out that the talking point of "50% of people pay nothing" and "have no skin in the game" is BS, you start talking about equality.

This is what liberals do when they talk about the 99%.

Congrats on being the same thing that you claim to hate.

Actually the insult and the talking points you made are what

the liberals and the 99%ers make.

Social Security and Fica taxes are actually insurance premiums and that

is a different game that is being discussed here.

The fact is that most do pay these taxes. But many get EITC and Child tax

credits of over $6k from the IRS that they never paid in. That far offsets

the SS and Fica taxes they pay. In addition these people get food stamps,

Wic, Section 8 electric supplements etc. Much of this is paid for with Federal

funds. Federal grants are given to States, counties and cities. The people

that do not pay income tax enjoy the benefits of the the services provided

by the agencies that receive these federal funds.

The rich people you seem to dislike also own businesses that pay additional

federal taxes and they have to pay 50% of their employee's SS costs. So

the rich are paying far more SS funds than you seem to realize.

Posted: 9/11/2012 1:09:39 PM EDT

[#44]

Something I have not seen anyone post is the fact that many

of these people making low wages are young students. Young

students that are working part time jobs and are living at home

with their parents.

I have a 19 year old Son that is College Student. He works

part time at a Grocery store and make a little more than

min wage. He Files taxes and get all his withholding back.

I personally believe he should pay income tax as he is a

is an adult and he needs to pay his way through life.

I bet a great deal of the people that do not pay income

taxes are in the same boat.

Posted: 9/11/2012 1:23:01 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
The whole "50% of Americans don't pay taxes" argument is BS. Income tax finances about 30% of the federal budget. For the vast majority of Americans the payroll tax is a bigger chunk of their tax burden, and the payroll tax is brutally regressive. The only thing we really need to do at the bottom of the income curve is eliminate refundability of tax credits so the tax code isn't a defacto welfare program.

Around half don't pay federal income tax. That there are other federal taxes like the corporate tax doesn't change that.

They do pay (that is the ones not leeching off the system) the payroll tax............ but they get it back!!

Earned income rebate has become a total scam and was just a way to redistribute wealth before the government even calculates how much it has for programs and the like.

Posted: 9/11/2012 1:26:55 PM EDT

[#46]

Three words everyone needs to learn "Marginal Tax Rate" in NYC its about 65% of your gross income for a person making 2.75 million a year, now how do you feel about "Skin in the Game."

Every time someone buys $100 tank of gas $25 goes to the .Gov, that is Skin In The Game. Now how do you feel about it.

It's all a perspective, the problem lies in that the Gov spends 4 trillion, makes 2.3 trillion a year and has no budget.

There is the problem, spending problem. Politicians get elected by promising to spend, not save.

Posted: 9/11/2012 1:45:31 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Three words everyone needs to learn "Marginal Tax Rate" in NYC its about 65% of your gross income for a person making 2.75 million a year, now how do you feel about "Skin in the Game."

Every time someone buys $100 tank of gas $25 goes to the .Gov, that is Skin In The Game. Now how do you feel about it.

It's all a perspective, the problem lies in that the Gov spends 4 trillion, makes 2.3 trillion a year and has no budget.

There is the problem, spending problem. Politicians get elected by promising to spend, not save.

I agree with this but

1. That money goes to road maint and building. last year we hit the point that

the money collected from gas tax will not meet the needed amount to

maintain the roads.

2. A great deal of those that vote for these people are from the free shit army.

3. We are trying to elect people that want to cut spending and we have made

some headway. I sure hope the tide keeps moving our way.

Posted: 9/11/2012 2:05:00 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Bullshit. If everyone had to pay the same tax they would vote for lower taxes and less government. That equals less overhead for businesses. Without government rigging the markets and playing favorites market competition in this scenario would drive down prices as overhead decreases making it affordable for the bottom half to pay a tax.

If your so fuckin worried about it just increase the minimum wage ten percent and tax ten percent. They break even but after a few election cycles with an emandment requiring all tax increases or decreases to be equal accross the board a LARGE majority of Americans would want more orf that money in their pocket.

It isn't BS that there is a base amount of salary that at a minimum is what is required to pay for basic living expenses. Nothing will change my mind that that amount, whatever society deems it to be, should not be taxed. Even a little.

Increase the minimum wage? That must be the first time that someone has actually advocated for that here.

I would tax everyone...all need to feel the pain. As I don't want to see people dying of starvation/exposure, I would advocate that each community have a tent city shelter that serves a nutritious gruel to meet minimum RDA of calories/vitamins, etc.

Nobody would starve or freeze to death, but there would be motivation to work.

Posted: 9/11/2012 2:28:39 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:

When the bottom 50% are only paying something like 2% of the take, you realize that the 2% is most likely paid by those who are in the 47-50% group.

And as I pointed out throughout this thread, theres a baseline of income that should be tax exempt.

If someones making below that amount, i don't expect them to pay Federal income tax.

Then volunteer your own damn money to give them a free ride-quit stealing it from me!

Nick

Posted: 9/11/2012 3:08:19 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:

As someone posted above, that stat is BS because is is limited to "income taxes". However, people who have an earned income also pay the Payroll Tax (that is OASDI & Medicare on your paystub).

The OASDI part ENDS when you hit 110,000 (give or take). Therefore, if your salary is 10,000 a year, you pay $420.00 in OASDI. If your salary is $100,000, your pay $4,200 in OASDI taxes. If your salary is $1,000,000 a year, you pay $4,620 in OASDI taxes.

The "rich" pay a smaller percentage of their income in OASDI taxes than people who make less than $110,000. Also, the payroll tax only applies to earned income, and not to dividends, interest, etc...

Even people who do not pay income taxes pay the payroll tax if they have an earned income.

Sounds like skin in the game to me.

It is not as much skin in the game and not equal.
Fair tax with no prebate would even the playing field for all.

That's called moving to goal posts.
When someone points out that the talking point of "50% of people pay nothing" and "have no skin in the game" is BS, you start talking about equality.
This is what liberals do when they talk about the 99%.
Congrats on being the same thing that you claim to hate.

Actually the insult and the talking points you made are what

the liberals and the 99%ers make.
Social Security and Fica taxes are actually insurance premiums and that

is a different game that is being discussed here.
The fact is that most do pay these taxes. But many get EITC and Child tax

credits of over $6k from the IRS that they never paid in. That far offsets

the SS and Fica taxes they pay. In addition these people get food stamps,

Wic, Section 8 electric supplements etc. Much of this is paid for with Federal

funds. Federal grants are given to States, counties and cities. The people

that do not pay income tax enjoy the benefits of the the services provided

by the agencies that receive these federal funds.
The rich people you seem to dislike also own businesses that pay additional

federal taxes and they have to pay 50% of their employee's SS costs. So

the rich are paying far more SS funds than you seem to realize.

I stopped caring what you had to say with these the sentences.
Its clear you aren't talking to me, because I never once implied this.

In this thread, or ever.
No, its clear you are marking shit up so you can bust out your talking points.
Thank you for proving my point: you are acting just like the liberals on this issue. Facts be damned, you are going to get your talking points and sound bytes in regardless.

In the end, like a liberal, those who say "less than 50% of the people have a skin in the game" are lying.
And pointing out the fact that you are moving the goalposts isn't an insult, its reality.
It went from:

x% don't have a skin in the game

to "rich people" (whatever that is supposed to mean) are paying "more than you think" (as if, you have any clue as to what I think).
That's covered on the first day of moving the goalposts 101.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Having 'skin in the game'......does anyone have better stats? (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us