View Poll Results: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Income Taxes

Voters
112. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    38 33.93%
  • No

    72 64.29%
  • I don't know

    2 1.79%
Page 36 of 61 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 603

Thread: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

  1. #351
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 07:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,538

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    How much is a "living wage" in your opinion Glen?
    It would be however much would be enough to minimally feed, house, and clothe a family of four. And it would have to be set by each state, and then probably by region or county, and even then probably with oversight by the state anyway. It would be an administrative pain...but it's certainly doable. That way the states' rights crowd can set it as they see fit...and so can the nanny states.

    And if you'll think about it, you're paying anyway. If you're not paying higher prices at, say, Wal-Mart, in order to pay for that living wage, then you're paying higher taxes to provide for the public assistance their employees need to feed, clothe, and house their own families. You pay either way.

    Where's the proof? Right here, from not-exactly-friendly-to-Obama Forbes' magazine:

    Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.

    Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce.

    “The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs,” reads the report, available in full here.

    It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.” ...

    ...Other large retail chains have been the focus of similar reports in recent months. In October, two studies released to coincide showed that American fast food industry outsourced a combined $7 billion in annual labor costs to taxpayers. McDonald's MCD -0.45% alone accounted for $1.2 billion of that outlay.

    Yum Brands came in at a distant number two, with its Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and KFC subsidiaries costing $648 million in benefits programs for workers each year.
    (boldface mine)

    Like I said, you pay anyway - through higher prices, or higher taxes. But you pay anyway. Which, then, is the better way?
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  2. #352
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    It would be however much would be enough to minimally feed, house, and clothe a family of four. And it would have to be set by each state, and then probably by region or county, and even then probably with oversight by the state anyway. It would be an administrative pain...but it's certainly doable. That way the states' rights crowd can set it as they see fit...and so can the nanny states.

    And if you'll think about it, you're paying anyway. If you're not paying higher prices at, say, Wal-Mart, in order to pay for that living wage, then you're paying higher taxes to provide for the public assistance their employees need to feed, clothe, and house their own families. You pay either way.

    Where's the proof? Right here, from not-exactly-friendly-to-Obama Forbes' magazine:

    Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.

    Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce.

    “The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs,” reads the report, available in full here.

    “It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.” ...

    ...Other large retail chains have been the focus of similar reports in recent months. In October, two studies released to coincide showed that American fast food industry outsourced a combined $7 billion in annual labor costs to taxpayers. McDonald's MCD -0.45% alone accounted for $1.2 billion of that outlay.

    Yum Brands came in at a distant number two, with its Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and KFC subsidiaries costing $648 million in benefits programs for workers each year.


    Like I said, you pay anyway - through higher prices, or higher taxes. But you pay anyway. Which, then, is the better way?
    No no no, I'm not going to get into a WalMart debate.

    Okay, you know the state you live in. What would you believe is a "living wage" in your state, and why?

  3. #353
    Sage
    gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    uk
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,365

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    He sounds pretty wise, although I'm not sure that a brief period of anarcho-capitalism would cause a proper "night-watchman" minarchist state to emerge. The system of corruption that would come about could be too well financed to allow for a proper government to take limited necessary power. Any kook who thinks America is a "corpocracy" would agree with that.

    I think an-caps are nutjobs, as are people who want to completely abolish taxes.
    Wise? I'm not convinced

    He wrote the above in response to John Rawls ' A Theory of Justice'. Rawls account is pretty much (amongst academia) the bench mark for the theory of 'distributive Justice':

    "A Theory of Justice is a work of political philosophy and ethics by John Rawls. It was originally published in 1971 and revised in both 1975 (for the translated editions) and 1999. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls attempts to solve the problem of distributive justice (the socially just distribution of goods in a society) by utilising a variant of the familiar device of the social contract. The resultant theory is known as "Justice as Fairness", from which Rawls derives his two principles of justice: the liberty principle and the difference principle"

    "In A Theory of Justice, Rawls argues for a principled reconciliation of liberty and equality. Central to this effort is an account of the circumstances of justice, inspired by David Hume, and a fair choice situation for parties facing such circumstances, similar to some of Immanuel Kant's views. Principles of justice are sought to guide the conduct of the parties. These parties are recognized to face moderate scarcity, and they are neither naturally altruistic nor purely egoistic. They have ends which they seek to advance, but prefer to advance them through cooperation with others on mutually acceptable terms. Rawls offers a model of a fair choice situation (the original position with its veil of ignorance) within which parties would hypothetically choose mutually acceptable principles of justice. Under such constraints, Rawls believes that parties would find his favoured principles of justice to be especially attractive, winning out over varied alternatives, including utilitarian and right-libertarian accounts."

    Both accounts (Rawls/Nozick) have much intuitive appeal, but if you study them in depth they are not, in my opinion, totally convincing. What I would say, using social contract theory, Rawls starting point of the 'original position' is very compelling.

    A Theory of Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    RIP THE EUROPEAN FORUM 2016

  4. #354
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    It would be however much would be enough to minimally feed, house, and clothe a family of four. And it would have to be set by each state, and then probably by region or county, and even then probably with oversight by the state anyway. It would be an administrative pain...but it's certainly doable. That way the states' rights crowd can set it as they see fit...and so can the nanny states.

    And if you'll think about it, you're paying anyway. If you're not paying higher prices at, say, Wal-Mart, in order to pay for that living wage, then you're paying higher taxes to provide for the public assistance their employees need to feed, clothe, and house their own families. You pay either way.

    Where's the proof? Right here, from not-exactly-friendly-to-Obama Forbes' magazine:

    Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.

    Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce.

    “The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs,” reads the report, available in full here.

    It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.” ...

    ...Other large retail chains have been the focus of similar reports in recent months. In October, two studies released to coincide showed that American fast food industry outsourced a combined $7 billion in annual labor costs to taxpayers. McDonald's MCD -0.45% alone accounted for $1.2 billion of that outlay.

    Yum Brands came in at a distant number two, with its Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and KFC subsidiaries costing $648 million in benefits programs for workers each year.
    (boldface mine)

    Like I said, you pay anyway - through higher prices, or higher taxes. But you pay anyway. Which, then, is the better way?
    The Problem with the Progs who created the report and Forbes who is certainly friendly to Obama, is the first sentence is wrong, which makes the rest nothing but fluff.

    Walmart didn't cost taxpayers anything. The workers did. Period. End of story.

    Why people want to shut young people out of the workforce with this Living Wage crap is beyond me. Why do Prog hate young people? Do you have a plan for them? Some kind of government service deal? Perhaps a peoples Army to make sure everyone is following government directives?

  5. #355
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 07:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,538

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    No no no, I'm not going to get into a WalMart debate.

    Okay, you know the state you live in. What would you believe is a "living wage" in your state, and why?
    As my quote showed, it's not just Wal-Mart. It's also McDonald's, Yum Brands...and by extension, any company that pays minimum (or close to minimum) wage. Wal-Mart's just another symptom - though it's certainly the most obvious symptom.

    And I couldn't tell you what the living wage should be in my state - that would have to be the province of local economists and social experts who would have to work together to determine what those costs are, and what that local living wage should be. But Seattle's new mayor is on record advocating for a $15 minimum wage for city workers. Is that enough? I don't know...especially in a high-cost city like Seattle. But it probably is...if one is very, very careful with their living expenses.

    But that's the choice - either pay high enough prices to make sure the workers have a living wage...or pay higher taxes for the public assistance that minimum-wage workers need. But you will pay either way. Which, then, is the better choice?
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  6. #356
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 07:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,538

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    The Problem with the Progs who created the report and Forbes who is certainly friendly to Obama, is the first sentence is wrong, which makes the rest nothing but fluff.

    Walmart didn't cost taxpayers anything. The workers did. Period. End of story.

    Why people want to shut young people out of the workforce with this Living Wage crap is beyond me. Why do Prog hate young people? Do you have a plan for them? Some kind of government service deal? Perhaps a peoples Army to make sure everyone is following government directives?
    Ah. If the progressives said it, it automatically must be wrong or grossly inaccurate. is that it? Did you follow the link and read the report itself? You know very well that many, many workers who earn minimum (or close to minimum) wage are on public assistance, and all the report's doing is pointing out how much that public assistance adds up to.

    So...what in the study is wrong or inaccurate?

    Or will you continue to simply imply that if the progressives say it, it must be wrong?

    And on a completely different subject, I've got an invention that I need to get developed, patented, and manufactured. It's a safety device that (like all inventors, most of whom fail miserably) I'm sure will make things better all across the land. I'm not eager to say what it is, because it's one of those "why didn't I think of that before" things. You've got successful experience in this area - got any advice? I'd really appreciate it.
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  7. #357
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    As my quote showed, it's not just Wal-Mart. It's also McDonald's, Yum Brands...and by extension, any company that pays minimum (or close to minimum) wage. Wal-Mart's just another symptom - though it's certainly the most obvious symptom.

    And I couldn't tell you what the living wage should be in my state - that would have to be the province of local economists and social experts who would have to work together to determine what those costs are, and what that local living wage should be. But Seattle's new mayor is on record advocating for a $15 minimum wage for city workers. Is that enough? I don't know...especially in a high-cost city like Seattle. But it probably is...if one is very, very careful with their living expenses.

    But that's the choice - either pay high enough prices to make sure the workers have a living wage...or pay higher taxes for the public assistance that minimum-wage workers need. But you will pay either way. Which, then, is the better choice?
    $15 an hour is a "living wage" for a family of 4? That's $600 a week, pre-tax; $31,200 a year, pre-tax.

    That's not a "living wage", sorry.

  8. #358
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 02:51 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Answers:

    Yes

    No

    I don't Know

    The 2013 tax tables are below:

    Married Taxpayers Filing Jointly

    Head of Household

    Individual Taxpayers


    Married Taxpayers Filing Separate
    You can't equate federal income marginal tax rates on adjusted gross income and then assume that's representative of how much you actually pay. Here's total effective tax rate by income bracket, ie... what you actually want.

  9. #359
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    Ah. If the progressives said it, it automatically must be wrong or grossly inaccurate. is that it? Did you follow the link and read the report itself? You know very well that many, many workers who earn minimum (or close to minimum) wage are on public assistance, and all the report's doing is pointing out how much that public assistance adds up to.

    So...what in the study is wrong or inaccurate?

    Or will you continue to simply imply that if the progressives say it, it must be wrong?

    And on a completely different subject, I've got an invention that I need to get developed, patented, and manufactured. It's a safety device that (like all inventors, most of whom fail miserably) I'm sure will make things better all across the land. I'm not eager to say what it is, because it's one of those "why didn't I think of that before" things. You've got successful experience in this area - got any advice? I'd really appreciate it.
    My statement is about the premise of the report prepared by Progressives.

    People have choices. This study identifies people who have chosen a path of employment that requires their neighbors to foot part of their bill. That is not Walmart's fault. It's not Pizza Huts fault, or anyone fault but that of the worker. Period. The premise of the report is nothing but agenda driven pap.

    On the issue of living wage, should minimum wage be set at some rainbow coalition approved level considered "livable", young people entering the workforce will find it extremely difficult to get a job. Why don't you care about young people?

  10. #360
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 07:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,538

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    My statement is about the premise of the report prepared by Progressives.

    People have choices. This study identifies people who have chosen a path of employment that requires their neighbors to foot part of their bill. That is not Walmart's fault. It's not Pizza Huts fault, or anyone fault but that of the worker. Period. The premise of the report is nothing but agenda driven pap.
    Picture this: you don't have a college education (or maybe you do)...and the only jobs available are those that pay a minimum wage. So what do you do? Do you remain unemployed? Or do you take that job, even though conservatives look down on you for making such a poor career choice? And look at the workers next time you're at Wal-Mart - are they all teenagers, or are they mostly mature adults, who are of an age to have children or even teenagers in their homes?

    That's the way it is in third-world countries - you either take a job paying a pittance...or you don't get a job at all. That's where Ayn Rand's oh-so-philosophically-moral way of life would take us.

    On the issue of living wage, should minimum wage be set at some rainbow coalition approved level considered "livable", young people entering the workforce will find it extremely difficult to get a job. Why don't you care about young people?
    As I stated to TB above, it would have to be set by the state, or at the regional or even county level overseen by the state. And red states would be free to set it at where they think it should be...and so would blue states. And this doesn't mean that young people entering the workplace would have a harder time finding a job, either, since even though the workers would be paid more, pretty much all their money goes right back into the economy, back into the pockets of the business owners ANYWAY.

    Or we could do it like oh-so-tyrannical Australia does, where the minimum wage is about $16.81 USD...for adults. Teenagers get paid a bit less. And Australia hasn't had a recession in over twenty years. Just something to think about.
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

Page 36 of 61 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •