How much of our earnings is enough?

Pretty simple question, it's estimated that American's pay about 50% of earnings towards taxes and fees. At what point is it too much?

When will you say, enough already, you (the govt.) needs to stick to an income level. (Keep in mind that, every time you or I get a raise or earn more money the govt. gets an increase too. If we must stick to a predetermined budget why should we not expect our govt. to?

lefty louie said:

Pretty simple question, it's estimated that American's pay about 50% of earnings towards taxes and fees.

Click to expand...

You must be mistaken:

At what point is it too much?

Click to expand...

Do you notice anything peculiar about the graph above (which is total government reciepts... federal + state + local... as a percentage of total output)?

There are two types of people in this world.

1.) Those who are able to extrapolate meaning from incomplete data sets.

If we must stick to a predetermined budget why should we not expect our govt. to?

Click to expand...

Output and income have been increasing since this nation was founded. Sure, there have been periodic hiccups, but the trend is undoubtedly north-northeast.

So i ask you... why should government expenditures and receipts be kept constant?

Are you forgetting cell phone fees, cable TV fees, gas tax, road tax, alcohol tax, sales tax, inheritance tax, waste disposal fee, tolls, the list could go on for days.

lefty louie said:

Are you forgetting cell phone fees, cable TV fees, gas tax, road tax, alcohol tax, sales tax, inheritance tax, waste disposal fee, tolls, the list could go on for days.

Click to expand...

That figure takes into consideration all aspects of government receipts, including interest on a plethora of loans and perpetual agreements.

lefty louie said:

Pretty simple question, it's estimated that American's pay about 50% of earnings towards taxes and fees. At what point is it too much?

When will you say, enough already, you (the govt.) needs to stick to an income level. (Keep in mind that, every time you or I get a raise or earn more money the govt. gets an increase too. If we must stick to a predetermined budget why should we not expect our govt. to?

Click to expand...

During WWII the government came up with the with holding of taxes from your check. If one had to write a check to the government every April instead of having some with held every week, the percentage would be much lower. Most Americans wouldn't stand for the government taking as much as they do.

This goes back to what one doesn't have, one doesn't miss it. If you never see the total amount of money you make, you don't really know how much goes to the government. You'd be surprise at how many people think the net amount they get is actually what they earn and not the gross.

lefty louie said:

Pretty simple question, it's estimated that American's pay about 50% of earnings towards taxes and fees. At what point is it too much?

When will you say, enough already, you (the govt.) needs to stick to an income level. (Keep in mind that, every time you or I get a raise or earn more money the govt. gets an increase too. If we must stick to a predetermined budget why should we not expect our govt. to?

Click to expand...

It’s not really a matter of how much you pay, what matters is what you get for your taxes. Europeans pay a higher percentage of income to taxes but they get more services, such as healthcare included and a broad safety net.

Perotista said:

This goes back to what one doesn't have, one doesn't miss it. If you never see the total amount of money you make, you don't really know how much goes to the government. You'd be surprise at how many people think the net amount they get is actually what they earn and not the gross.

Click to expand...

Oh but you do see how much you are paying every year. You must certify and sign that your tax filing for federal and state are correct. So you should know how big a bite the government takes out of your pay. I support a flat tax, one rate for all.

Old Sarge said:

Oh but you do see how much you are paying every year. You must certify and sign that your tax filing for federal and state are correct. So you should know how big a bite the government takes out of your pay. I support a flat tax, one rate for all.

Click to expand...

Should is the correct word. Everyone should. How many people think when they get a refund that the refund is basically a gift from the government so to speak? What system of taxes I would like or support, I never been sure. I leaned toward the flat tax a long time ago. But I think a national sales tax on what one buys or consumes would be much fairer to use a leftest word or better. What percentage, I haven't the faintest idea not being a financial guru. The rich always buy the most expensive stuff, have the most expensive cars and houses and the like. Fair to them. I would exempt medical and food. But beyond that, how one would break that down, I'd have to let the experts decide. Whichever way we go, it would have to be tinkered and played with probably for years to get it right.

Perotista said:

Should is the correct word. Everyone should. How many people think when they get a refund that the refund is basically a gift from the government so to speak? What system of taxes I would like or support, I never been sure. I leaned toward the flat tax a long time ago. But I think a national sales tax on what one buys or consumes would be much fairer to use a leftest word or better. What percentage, I haven't the faintest idea not being a financial guru. The rich always buy the most expensive stuff, have the most expensive cars and houses and the like. Fair to them. I would exempt medical and food. But beyond that, how one would break that down, I'd have to let the experts decide. Whichever way we go, it would have to be tinkered and played with probably for years to get it right.

Click to expand...

In some cases a sales tax is fairer however what you are suggesting is really a VAT. In that every item along the way is taxed and the end user is the one that gets the shaft. No I believe a flat tax is the way to go.

Tim the plumber said:

You own things because the state says so. That is the only reason you own anything. That we live in this democratic capitalist world means that ownership within the state's rules is governed by all the law and process that we have is secondary.

In the 1960's the state generally took lots of money, tax, for the owning of stuff. Capital tax and tax on assets were the way lots of tax was collected.

Since then the baby boomers who voted for that sort of tax rejeme have grown up and got lots of stuff. They now have changed the tax system to tax earnings. Selfish types.

Click to expand...

Federal taxes, which are the majority of taxes, were never based upon taxes on assets. Since 1913, there was a tax on income. During and after WWII, top income tax rates were high, which did a lot of good things, especially lower income inequality. Since lowering those taxes in the late 1970s, income inequality has overrun the robber baron days in the 1920s.

lefty louie said:

Pretty simple question, it's estimated that American's pay about 50% of earnings towards taxes and fees. At what point is it too much?

When will you say, enough already, you (the govt.) needs to stick to an income level. (Keep in mind that, every time you or I get a raise or earn more money the govt. gets an increase too. If we must stick to a predetermined budget why should we not expect our govt. to?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily so. The government only taxes REPORTED and TRACEABLE income.
What is hidden under the rock in the backyard they will never know about.
Even so, Joe & Sally Paycheck are small potatoes to them anyway.

PleasantValley said:

Not necessarily so. The government only taxes REPORTED and TRACEABLE income.
What is hidden under the rock in the backyard they will never know about.
Even so, Joe & Sally Paycheck are small potatoes to them anyway.

Click to expand...

That (bolded above) assertion is not true with a sales or excise tax - where you got the money or even where you live makes no difference. Those taxes are based only on where the money was spent.

ttwtt78640 said:

That (bolded above) assertion is not true with a sales or excise tax - where you got the money or even where you live makes no difference. Those taxes are based only on where the money was spent.

Click to expand...

Completely true. I thought we were only talking about income taxes.
Yes, to your point, there are sales taxes, excise taxes, school taxes, property taxes, road taxes, 1/3 of the price of gas at the pump is all taxes, the list goes on.
Depressing....

PleasantValley said:

Completely true. I thought we were only talking about income taxes.
Yes, to your point, there are sales taxes, excise taxes, school taxes, property taxes, road taxes, 1/3 of the price of gas at the pump is all taxes, the list goes on.
Depressing....

Click to expand...

Much of the federal income tax code is also based on how, where and upon who that income was later spent. It makes little sense to call something an income tax while two folks with exactly the same gross income must pay a different amount of tax on that identical income.

ttwtt78640 said:

Much of the federal income tax code is also based on how, where and upon who that income was later spent. It makes little sense to call something an income tax while two folks with exactly the same gross income must pay a different amount of tax on that identical income.

Click to expand...

True again.

I read once where a wealthy man said he had four lawyers.
One for payroll and labor laws
One for state, local and federal taxes
One for when he knows he is right,
and another lawyer that lurks in the shadows for when he knows he is wrong.

So, really, it is all about who has the most and best lawyers.

lefty louie said:

Pretty simple question, it's estimated that American's pay about 50% of earnings towards taxes and fees.

Click to expand...

Where exactly are you getting such a silly estimate?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...hats-the-average-americans-tax-rate/98734396/

USA Today Article said:

the average American's effective tax rate is 29.8%. This is in addition to any consumption-based taxes paid, such as sales tax, property tax, or other taxes on specific items."

Click to expand...

Of course, this is skewed quite a bit as well given that most Americans pay almost no income tax at all, and Social Security taxes are paid back in retirement.

lefty louie said:

At what point is it too much?

Click to expand...

Depends on who you are, and what you make. If you're poor then you're clearly not benefitting very much at all from the government. If you're wealthy then obviously the system that our society has built is benefitting you greatly. As a result it would only make sense that you pay significantly more.

There is an old saying in the legal profession that, "Possession is 9/10 of the law." Well if that's true what good is the law if you don't have any possessions? The reality is that about 90% of what the government does is protect wealthy people from poor people. It insures that all property is transfered in an orderly and non-violent manor that radically favors the person who already has the property.

So the question you need to ask yourself is if the government disappeared tomorrow how much of your wealth would you be able to keep? No more police, no more military, no more national guard. FDIC doesn't exist any more. Even if you can get your money out of the bank what good is it? It's really nothing more than green paper without the government to back it. The deed to your house? Burn it. The title to your car? Shred it. They're not worth anything anymore.

Poor Americans and lower income Americans likely wouldn't loose much at all. They probably don't own a house or a car, and even if they did there's nothing fancy about it that would make it worth trying to take by force. Conversely if you have a mansion on the beach what's to stop a group of homeless people from just taking it over? Are you going to risk your life fighting 10 homeless people to death to keep your house? You could maybe hire private guards but that would cost you a lot more than what the government was charging you for police, and in the end you'd have no guarentee that those private guards wouldn't just say **** it and decide the house belonged to them now.

There's a lot of rich assholes who have been living in a civilized society for so long they've forgotten why we created them in the first place. So long as you're able to retain more wealth and secure a better life as a result of the government than you could without it you have realistically no right to bitch about taxes.

lefty louie said:

When will you say, enough already, you (the govt.) needs to stick to an income level. (Keep in mind that, every time you or I get a raise or earn more money the govt. gets an increase too. If we must stick to a predetermined budget why should we not expect our govt. to?

Click to expand...

The government is not an individual. The government is of the people, by the people, for the people. If there are more people, and those people make more money, then it only makes sense that it would cost the government more money to help protect the additional people, and make sure we have the infrastructure necessary to support them all. Inevitably that government's budget should always grow larger over time.

Now what is the exact % of your income that should be contributed to the central pot is diffcult to know. But given that wealthy assholes who should be contributing the most to government are generally paying lower tax rates than that of much of the middle class and lower income Americans something is definately off in our system.

PleasantValley said:

True again.

I read once where a wealthy man said he had four lawyers.
One for payroll and labor laws
One for state, local and federal taxes
One for when he knows he is right,
and another lawyer that lurks in the shadows for when he knows he is wrong.

So, really, it is all about who has the most and best lawyers.

Click to expand...

That is certainly one way to look at it. I look at it as lawyers making the laws such that lawyers must be used to take full advantage of them.

One example: As the legal guardian for my incapacitated father, I must file an annual accounting with the county clerk/court. The only way to do so is via an E-file account which mandates the use of a lawyer (since only lawyers can create E-file accounts). I supply the bank statements and proof of being bonded but the lawyer gets $600 as a "service fee" to photocopy and transfer that information to the county clerk/court (who adds a $30 "processing fee") using their E-file account.

ttwtt78640 said:

That is certainly one way to look at it. I look at it as lawyers making the laws such that lawyers must be used to take full advantage of them.

One example: As the legal guardian for my incapacitated father, I must file an annual accounting with the county clerk/court. The only way to do so is via an E-file account which mandates the use of a lawyer (since only lawyers can create E-file accounts). I supply the bank statements and proof of being bonded but the lawyer gets $600 as a "service fee" to photocopy and transfer that information to the county clerk/court (who adds a $30 "processing fee") using their E-file account.

Click to expand...

a shame, but true.
Anyone who ever contested a traffic ticket knows all you need to do is to pay a lawyer and it will go away with nothing on your record and you do not even have to be there.
I have come to realize all you need to do is shovel some money to someone in the legal profession and all is well.
What a racket.

If I could go back to being a kid, little John would train hard and become a lawyer then a politician.
Then i would make everyone in the state have to have a little John sticker on their windshield or they could not drive.
State and local police would get a cut for enforcing the little John sticker law, and of course, 1% would go to me.

Come to think of it, don't we already have a few things like that already?

And not 1 answer to a simple question, "How much is too much?"

Let's see if maybe you'll answer it simply with this:

Is 10% too much?
20%
30%
40%
50%
55%
60%
70%
75%
80%?

At what point do you throw your arms up and say, "WTF, how much of what I earn are you going to leave me with?"

Don't overcomplicate this folks.

lefty louie said:

And not 1 answer to a simple question, "How much is too much?"

Let's see if maybe you'll answer it simply with this:

Is 10% too much?
20%
30%
40%
50%
55%
60%
70%
75%
80%?

At what point do you throw your arms up and say, "WTF, how much of what I earn are you going to leave me with?"

Don't overcomplicate this folks.

Click to expand...

You must be new here.

lefty louie said:

And not 1 answer to a simple question, "How much is too much?"

Let's see if maybe you'll answer it simply with this:

Is 10% too much?
20%
30%
40%
50%
55%
60%
70%
75%
80%?

At what point do you throw your arms up and say, "WTF, how much of what I earn are you going to leave me with?"

Don't overcomplicate this folks.

Click to expand...

The top rate should be the highest amount the government can levy without reducing revenue due to reaching the maximum on the utility curve. We have been here before and this was my post:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gove...axes-rates-post1065058481.html#post1065058481

Old Sarge said:

In some cases a sales tax is fairer however what you are suggesting is really a VAT. In that every item along the way is taxed and the end user is the one that gets the shaft. No I believe a flat tax is the way to go.

Click to expand...

No tax along the way, just when the item is bought by the consumer.

Perotista said:

No tax along the way, just when the item is bought by the consumer.

Click to expand...

That's the most regressive tax. The wealthy consume but a fraction of their income while the poor consume all of it. Thus, the poor will be paying the highest p% of their income in taxes.

Perotista said:

No tax along the way, just when the item is bought by the consumer.

Click to expand...

Do you trust the money hungry congress not to restart an income tax along with a national sales tax? I sure don't. The VAT in Europe was supposed to replace income taxes as I remember. But now they have both.