Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

tres borrachos said:

How much is a "living wage" in your opinion Glen?

Click to expand...

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?

Glen Contrarian said:

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Gipper said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Glen Contrarian said:

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?

Click to expand...

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?

tres borrachos said:

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?

Click to expand...

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?

ocean515 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Glen Contrarian said:

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?

Click to expand...

$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.

pbrauer said:

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​

Click to expand...

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.

Glen Contrarian said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

ocean515 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

tres borrachos said:

$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.

Click to expand...

Depends on where you live, doesn't it? In the MS Delta, that's enough to make do without public assistance (esp. now that Obamacare takes care of the health care costs). But in Seattle, not so much. That's why it must be set by the state, probably with respect to regions or counties within that state.

Glen Contrarian said:

Depends on where you live, doesn't it? In the MS Delta, that's enough to make do without public assistance (esp. now that Obamacare takes care of the health care costs). But in Seattle, not so much. That's why it must be set by the state, probably with respect to regions or counties within that state.

Click to expand...

So in order to live in the Delta on $15 an hour, you would be okay as long as you were receiving an entitlement from Obamacare. Is that correct?

Glen Contrarian said:

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.



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.

Click to expand...

Looks like a bunch of people should move to Australia then. Oh that's right, could be problems on the horizon with all the auto manufacturers shutting down their assembly plants in the country. Wonder why they are putting all those people out of work?

So the Progressive answer is to create more regulatory agencies anchored in each state, or perhaps even in each county in a state, and/or region, empowered with deciding how people should live.

I'm sorry, but that has got to be one of the more poorly thought out ideas I've seen on this subject. Please tell me this isn't circulating around the Progressive Machine websites.

ocean515 said:

Looks like a bunch of people should move to Australia then. Oh that's right, could be problems on the horizon with all the auto manufacturers shutting down their assembly plants in the country. Wonder why they are putting all those people out of work?

So the Progressive answer is to create more regulatory agencies anchored in each state, or perhaps even in each county in a state, and/or region, empowered with deciding how people should live.

I'm sorry, but that has got to be one of the more poorly thought out ideas I've seen on this subject. Please tell me this isn't circulating around the Progressive Machine websites.

Click to expand...

So in your eyes the Australian economy's about to go down the tubes? Hm. How many recessions have they been through in the past twenty years? ZERO. How many have we been through? Two...including one that was the worst since the Great Depression. So our oh-so-great capitalist system doesn't have a whole lot of room to talk, does it?

tres borrachos said:

So in order to live in the Delta on $15 an hour, you would be okay as long as you were receiving an entitlement from Obamacare. Is that correct?

Click to expand...

Yes, I believe so. The cost of living there is pretty cheap...as long as one is careful.

Glen Contrarian said:

Yes, I believe so. The cost of living there is pretty cheap...as long as one is careful.

Click to expand...

So you propose that the WalMart workers there go from one entitlement program because their wages are too low to slightly higher wages and a different entitlement program in order to "live".

Think about how absurd that is.

tres borrachos said:

So you propose that the WalMart workers there go from one entitlement program because their wages are too low to slightly higher wages and a different entitlement program in order to "live".

Think about how absurd that is.

Click to expand...

It's not "slightly" higher wages - going from $10/hour (which is more than most Wal-Mart workers get) to $15/hour is a 50% wage hike. I think that qualifies as something a heck of a lot better than "slightly".

And when people make more, they get less in subsidies to pay for their PRIVATE health insurance through Obamacare. That, too, is important to remember.

Sean.McDonnell said:

No, if you make enough money to be in the highest tax bracket, you have a larger responsibility to the state. You owe your financial success in part to the nation we live in which allows you to prosper. That and tax dollars building schools, libraries, and roads gives other citizens the ability to prosper, bolstering the economy of the nation as a whole.

Click to expand...

Have you ever considered......no, I suppose you haven't.

It's not the state that makes people successful. It's the people who make the state successful.

Glen Contrarian said:

Depends on where you live, doesn't it? In the MS Delta, that's enough to make do without public assistance (esp. now that Obamacare takes care of the health care costs). But in Seattle, not so much. That's why it must be set by the state, probably with respect to regions or counties within that state.

Click to expand...

Actually the "living wage" concept could depend upon lots of things but most include the number of dependents (like the federal poverty level) and cost of living (locality pay adjustment).

Glen Contrarian said:

It's not "slightly" higher wages - going from $10/hour (which is more than most Wal-Mart workers get) to $15/hour is a 50% wage hike. I think that qualifies as something a heck of a lot better than "slightly".

And when people make more, they get less in subsidies to pay for their PRIVATE health insurance through Obamacare. That, too, is important to remember.

Click to expand...

If you make $1 an hour today, and your boss raises it to $2 an hour, that's a 100% wage hike. Does that mean your boss is paying you a living wage because he's given you a better than "slightly" raise?

ttwtt78640 said:

Actually the "living wage" concept could depend upon lots of things but most include the number of dependents (like the federal poverty level) and cost of living (locality pay adjustment).

Click to expand...

True. The only reason I was leaving out the number of dependents is to simplify things - that would open up a whole new can of worms...and I ain't enough of a fisherman to have any use for all those worms.

Glen Contrarian said:

So in your eyes the Australian economy's about to go down the tubes? Hm. How many recessions have they been through in the past twenty years? ZERO. How many have we been through? Two...including one that was the worst since the Great Depression. So our oh-so-great capitalist system doesn't have a whole lot of room to talk, does it?

Click to expand...

For those who don't make excuses, I'd suggest they would cheer our capitalist system. For those who demand others think for them, perhaps not.

So, I guess people have a decision to make, move to Australia, or get off your ass and get busy.

BTW, there are more people living in Southern California, than live in all of Australia, so the apples your trying to compare are looking like lemons.

Here is a chart from the Royal Bank of Australia. Kind of a roller coaster I'd say...

tres borrachos said:

If you make $1 an hour today, and your boss raises it to $2 an hour, that's a 100% wage hike. Does that mean your boss is paying you a living wage because he's given you a better than "slightly" raise?

Click to expand...

Last year my oldest son's fiance (it's been a six-year courtship) was making slightly over $2 a day. Even in the Philippines that's not a living wage.

Your question, though, makes little sense. It's not a logical question. It's sorta like asking if climbing from one molehill to another (doubly-tall) molehill is somehow as good as going from a foothill of a mountain to a point 50% higher up that mountain...

...and like your question, comparing molehills to mountains simply doesn't work.

ocean515 said:

For those who don't make excuses, I'd suggest they would cheer our capitalist system. For those who demand others think for them, perhaps not.

So, I guess people have a decision to make, move to Australia, or get off your ass and get busy.

BTW, there are more people living in Southern California, than live in all of Australia, so the apples your trying to compare are looking like lemons.

Here is a chart from the Royal Bank of Australia. Kind of a roller coaster I'd say...

Click to expand...

Now compare that long-term growth to America's.

Glen Contrarian said:

Last year my oldest son's fiance (it's been a six-year courtship) was making slightly over $2 a day. Even in the Philippines that's not a living wage.

Your question, though, makes little sense. It's not a logical question. It's sorta like asking if climbing from one molehill to another (doubly-tall) molehill is somehow as good as going from a foothill of a mountain to a point 50% higher up that mountain...

...and like your question, comparing molehills to mountains simply doesn't work.

Click to expand...

An increase from $10 an hour to $15 an hour, in your estimate, was a good increase because it's a 50% increase.

I showed you that the percentage of increase is irrelevant.

"Living wage" sounds good, Glen, but in reality, you really can't define it, and apply it.