View Poll Results: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • True

    15 50.00%
  • False

    15 50.00%
Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 167

Thread: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

  1. #61
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,956

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    I wish there could be a rule: any thread dealing with economics, when someone uses the word "fair", they get shocked with 50,000 volts of stupid-curbing electricity. It'd make the board more realistic and scientific and less emotional and idiotic.
    I agree. I believe such discussions should also avoid prepositions and pronouns.

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    I agree. I believe such discussions should also avoid prepositions and pronouns.
    Caveman like economics. Gipper club dinner dead, eat meat good.

  3. #63
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,550

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    1. The minimum wage might be what only 3% of the US workforce is getting, but what you're not remembering is that a whole heck of a lot of the US workforce gets paid just a little more than the minimum wage (so the owners can say, "See - we don't just pay minimum wage!"), but MUCH less than what a living wage would require. But I'm sure you knew that already.

    2. If all those who are paid less than a living wage suddenly earn a living wage - including the VAST majority of Wal-Mart workers - then the social safety net can be slashed significantly. Food stamps, welfare, you name it. Sure, you'll pay a little bit more at Wal-Mart (but not nearly as much as you seem to think), but you'll pay less in taxes.

    FYI, here's how much prices would rise at Wal-Mart if they raised their entry-level wage to $12.50:

    Wal-Mart said last week that it would halt plans to open stores in D.C. because of a minimum-wage hike that would mandate a minimum hourly pay of $12.50.
    Executives said the pay increase would drive up prices for consumers.

    So how much would a higher minimum wage cost shoppers at Walmart?

    About 46 cents per trip, reports Caroline Fairchild at The Huffington Post.

    That figure is based on a 2011 study by CUNY's Stephanie Luce and University of California Berkeley's Ken Jacobs and Dave Graham-Squire.

    "Even if Wal-Mart decided to pass 100 percent of the cost on to customers, store prices would still only increase by 1.1%," Fairchild writes.


    In Right Wing world, though, that would result in massive unemployment, another recession, cats and dogs living together, and the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man stalking the streets of Manhattan.

    Attachment 67165202
    Walmart's annual sales volume is about $300 billion. Adding about $5K/year, for 2 million workers, is $10 billion which is about 3X more than that quoted 1.1% price increase to compensate by passing on 100% of that increased labor cost.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  4. #64
    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
    Today @ 02:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,471

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Walmart's annual sales volume is about $300 billion. Adding about $5K/year, for 2 million workers, is $10 billion which is about 3X more than that quoted 1.1% price increase to compensate by passing on 100% of that increased labor cost.
    Here's a link to the study itself - educate yourself as to whether they're making up stuff or not.

    Specifically, look at Table 3 on page 5, which shows how you significantly overestimated how much extra the workers would get. The majority of the workers get between $9-$12 per hour...and they would both get less than $3K extra per year...part time workers in that group would get an extra $1.6K per year. So before you go blowing stuff off, try looking at the hard data first, please.
    “To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

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

  5. #65
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,550

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    Here's a link to the study itself - educate yourself as to whether they're making up stuff or not.

    Specifically, look at Table 3 on page 5, which shows how you significantly overestimated how much extra the workers would get. The majority of the workers get between $9-$12 per hour...and they would both get less than $3K extra per year...part time workers in that group would get an extra $1.6K per year. So before you go blowing stuff off, try looking at the hard data first, please.
    Nonsense. That assumes that only those workers now making less than the new MW would see any pay increase. Reality dictates that those now making MW + X would likely continue to do so. It is unrealistic to expect that a manager, who now makes $13/hour, would accept that as fair pay when they used to get at least $5/hour more than their lowest paid co-workers.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  6. #66
    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
    Today @ 02:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,471

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Nonsense. That assumes that only those workers now making less than the new MW would see any pay increase. Reality dictates that those now making MW + X would likely continue to do so. It is unrealistic to expect that a manager, who now makes $13/hour, would accept that as fair pay when they used to get at least $5/hour more than their lowest paid co-workers.
    And if you run a business, you know that the amount you pay your managers is not that great a concern - that's only one person's salary compared to what, twenty, thirty, forty other lower-level workers? In the big picture, the cost of raising the manager's pay is peanuts compared to the cost of raising the wages of the lower-level workers.
    “To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

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

  7. #67
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,550

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    And if you run a business, you know that the amount you pay your managers is not that great a concern - that's only one person's salary compared to what, twenty, thirty, forty other lower-level workers? In the big picture, the cost of raising the manager's pay is peanuts compared to the cost of raising the wages of the lower-level workers.
    Fair enough but not only managers at Walmart now make $12/hour or more. My point is that raising the pay of only those at the bottom is unrealistic. The likely impact of a much higher MW is the further reduction in schedualed hours for part-timers and concentrating staff only during peak sales periods. Not only retail sales are affected by MW increases and many businesses (e.g. landscaping and janitorial services) have much higher labor costs to total sales ratios.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Denio Junction
    Last Seen
    11-13-14 @ 12:09 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,039
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Thanks for making anything else you said irrelevant - ignored.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crossroads View Post
    Well, first off, you're a dick.

    Second, even if every single American worked literally as hard as they could, THERE WOULD STILL BE PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE FAIRLY POOR, EVEN BY TODAY'S STANDARDS. That is because, inevitably, not everyone can "Get the promotion". The further up you go, the fewer positions there are. Not everyone can be rich, obviously, and not everyone can even be "middle class", EVEN IF the so called "failures" did everything the "right way". It is just inherent in the system itself. Now, obviously, very poor people often don't exercise the highest degree of logic when it comes to pulling themselves out of poverty, but there are most often a wide number of factors that help keep them poor, even things as simple as they way they are brought up and raised (or not raised) by their parents.

    To help correct for this automatic imbalance, a system should exist with a mechanism to account for that inherent inequality, as even if everyone worked equally hard, some would STILL be poor. So yes, throw them (at the very least) a freakin bone, or two.

  9. #69
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by mpg View Post
    So you think there CAN be a claim that they do not pay at least their fair share?
    Without knowing the percentages one pays you can not make that determination if they do or don't pay their fair share.Because on the surface if someone who earns a billion a year paid 10 million in taxes it looks like a lot but it is really 1% of their income.While someone who makes 30,000 a year pays 4,500 in taxes doesn't look like much but it is 15% of that person's income.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  10. #70
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Neither. "Fair Share" is a poor and arbitrary notion that shouldn't factor into income tax levels. "Fairness" is not a good measurement for law as it's a completely subjective notion that has no definitive answer. Additionally, to often action that could be viewed as "unfair" can be attempted to "recitfy" something entirely seperate that they deem to also be "unfair".

    IE...it's "unfair" that certain people have so much money, so we'll "unfairly" take a substantially amount away from them.

    Fairness isn't the basis for which our tax code should be decided.
    Thank you. The statement was made by a DPer who is on the right side of the political spectrum. I didn't identify who it was because I didn't want to get points for calling the DPer out. The statement was made as an argument for not raising the taxes on the rich. Similar statements are made by others for the same reason. When you first hear read it, it sounds like a reasonable statement, but let me assure you its not. The idea that a group (10% or other) is not relevant unless they pool there money together and pay their taxes as a group. Everyone pays their taxes as individuals.


Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •