Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Taxes are too high

Taxes are too high
Thread Tools
mindwaves
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Irvine, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 03:10 PM
 
Here is the deal. Every paycheck I earn, an obscene amount of taxes are being taken out. My combined tax (federal plus state is about 33% and combined with my 401k which I have taking out 12% and my CA tax (when I go and buy anything from the store) is about 8% so in all, if I spend anything, I am left with 47% of my paycheck. Something seems wrong. Taxes are waaaayyy too high. Thoughts?
     
cszar2001
Photo Architect
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bamberg, Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 03:20 PM
 
Those taxes buy you something. The problem is that you take these things for granted.
Visit countries that have low taxes and compare.
If you have an accident an ambulance comes and pick you up; they will send a helicopter if necessary.
In some other countries you die - plain and simple.
"Microsoft is a cross between the Borg and the Ferengi. Unfortunately, they use Borg to do their marketing and Ferengi to do their programming." Simon Slavin

Me on Flickr.
     
fireside
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Floreeda
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 03:39 PM
 
Originally posted by cszar2001:
If you have an accident an ambulance comes and pick you up; they will send a helicopter if necessary.
i think you gotta pay for that ambulance ride.
     
macroy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ellicott City, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 03:47 PM
 
Originally posted by mindwaves:
Here is the deal. Every paycheck I earn, an obscene amount of taxes are being taken out. My combined tax (federal plus state is about 33% and combined with my 401k which I have taking out 12% and my CA tax (when I go and buy anything from the store) is about 8% so in all, if I spend anything, I am left with 47% of my paycheck. Something seems wrong. Taxes are waaaayyy too high. Thoughts?
You forgot FICA, state, and local taxes(if applicable)... but you included 401K which is actually a good thing since its not a tax and its taken out pre tax. But cszar2001 is right...you do get a lot of benefits from it... although I'm not sure the ambulance is a good example as you do pay for it (medical bills)...
     
cszar2001
Photo Architect
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bamberg, Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 03:51 PM
 
Originally posted by fireside:
i think you gotta pay for that ambulance ride.
Not in Germany.
All I wanted to show is that there are things that are paid for by your taxes that you take for granted.
Clean streets, a functioning water supply, electricity, ... - all that is at least partially financed by your money.
Have a look at other countries where you have to bribe every official if you need a birth certificate, ... and see what you like better.
"Microsoft is a cross between the Borg and the Ferengi. Unfortunately, they use Borg to do their marketing and Ferengi to do their programming." Simon Slavin

Me on Flickr.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 04:03 PM
 
You are absolutely right; taxes are too high. We should privatize everything, like George Bush wants. The police, the army, the fire department, the roads, the water, the national parks, etc. That way, you only use what you pay for. So, let's say you decide to go on a trip to Yellowstone, and you live in Michigan, like I do. I'd have to shell out money for tolls all the way, and if I have an accident on the way, I'll have to pay for the police response, and the fire department response, and, if I stop at a rest area, I'll have to pay for water to drink, as well as a toll for using the rest area parking space. Gee, suddenly, vacation doesn't sound so good.

I have a better idea. Why don't we stop giving some of the world's largest corporations incentives and tax breaks, which increases their profit margins, at our expense? We allow companies, like Wally World, to hammer us for breaks to come into our communities, while they lie about the benefits they'll bring to the local economy (while their own employees dine on publicly funded clinics, because they can't afford healthcare), or Ford Motor Company, which just rolled out the new Mustang. The employees assembling the new Mustang were trained with a $5 million dollar grant from the federal government, but Ford gets to keep all the profits from the car. These companies convince some obviously not too smart indivduals to give these tax breaks, and they get to keep the profits as well. Why is it that the world's largest company, and the world's second largest automaker, Ford, get public assistance? Why is it, that when some megamillionaire builds a sports stadium, the public, including those who don't go to that stadium, get stuck with most of the bill, and the team owner gets to keep the profits? Your politicians will tell you that we live in a free market society; that's just double speak for "I got mine, you get yours."
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
ReggieX
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, ON
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 04:31 PM
 
A 401K isn't a tax.
The Lord said 'Peter, I can see your house from here.'
     
Logic
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 04:34 PM
 
Originally posted by mindwaves:
Here is the deal. Every paycheck I earn, an obscene amount of taxes are being taken out. My combined tax (federal plus state is about 33% and combined with my 401k which I have taking out 12% and my CA tax (when I go and buy anything from the store) is about 8% so in all, if I spend anything, I am left with 47% of my paycheck. Something seems wrong. Taxes are waaaayyy too high. Thoughts?
Don't you live in the US? I thought you had very little taxes there.

Here I only pay 38% tax and that's it. That gives me "free" healthcare, security and schools as well as several other things.

I don't get it

edit to add: I forgot VAT that varies from 7-25%.

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
Powaqqatsi
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The City Of Diamonds
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 04:34 PM
 
Originally posted by mindwaves:
Here is the deal. Every paycheck I earn, an obscene amount of taxes are being taken out. My combined tax (federal plus state is about 33% and combined with my 401k which I have taking out 12% and my CA tax (when I go and buy anything from the store) is about 8% so in all, if I spend anything, I am left with 47% of my paycheck. Something seems wrong. Taxes are waaaayyy too high. Thoughts?
You call that a lot of tax ? good one
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 04:47 PM
 
Originally posted by cszar2001:
Those taxes buy you something. The problem is that you take these things for granted.
If you consider the proportions of what goes where, slightly less than half of my federal taxes actually buys me anything. The rest goes to people who do not pay taxes at all. State and local taxes tend to be much better about this; there is no 100% guarantee, of course, but it is a much better proportion.
If you have an accident an ambulance comes and pick you up; they will send a helicopter if necessary.
That's not really the best example, as most ambulance services in the US are either private or state-funded, not federally-funded.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
cszar2001
Photo Architect
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bamberg, Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 05:05 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
If you consider the proportions of what goes where, slightly less than half of my federal taxes actually buys me anything. The rest goes to people who do not pay taxes at all. State and local taxes tend to be much better about this; there is no 100% guarantee, of course, but it is a much better proportion.

That's not really the best example, as most ambulance services in the US are either private or state-funded, not federally-funded.
Of course there are a lot of things that are paid for with your tax money which have nothing to do with what you actually need.
That`s one of the drawbacks of living in a western society.
You have to take care of everyone. The phrase "nobody get`s left behind" comes to mind.

Big companies are basically blackmailing the government. They want tax cuts - or they are going to fire people. At least that`s what they say.
And no government can afford to loose jobs. Believe me - we know.
Germany has lost tens of thousands of jobs in the past 10 years and has a huge unemployment problem. That makes us even more vulnerable to corporate blackmail.

As for the ambulance - that`s one of the things we can afford with our tax money.
"Microsoft is a cross between the Borg and the Ferengi. Unfortunately, they use Borg to do their marketing and Ferengi to do their programming." Simon Slavin

Me on Flickr.
     
Eriamjh
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 05:07 PM
 
Welcome to the real world.

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
drive-thru
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 05:09 PM
 
Think about it this way, the government 'owns' and runs the country you're living in.
If you're not prepared to pay for the privilege of living there nor for its upkeep then there are plenty of other people who would gladly pay a lot more than 53% of what they earn to do so.
You get what you pay for...minus the part which goes into bureaucracy and to other people.

This is really for another thread, but, can someone briefly explain a little about how the US health system (in terms of hospitals, ambulances and general doctors) is funded. Is it all privately run (you buy your own health insurance or get it in benefits from employers)? Am I right in that if you can't pay for it the government pays somehow?
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 05:40 PM
 
It's basically private; you get it from your employer, if he chooses to offer you insurance, and you usually have to pay certain deductibles. I'm one of the 45 million uninsured at the moment, because I'm unemployed. There are some public clinics, but they generally aren't the best, so it's possible you may not get very good care, and they're used primarily for taking care of illnesses and emergencies, and not for preventive health care.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
awcopus
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 05:41 PM
 
Taxes in America are too high or not high enough, depending on your perspective. If you believe that the government should have to pay up front for everything it and its constituents demand, then taxes are too low, which is why we're running a deficit (annual debt based on the difference between the current year's expenditures and the current year's income). If you believe that the government should be more limited in its scope of operations, than you probably believe that taxes are too high.

I think our government bureaucracy is absolutely too large and that in general we simply don't need the government to be doing (or attempting to do) as much as it does. To the extent that government ever involves itself in any endeavor, it is inevitably very inefficient and sometimes monstrously corrupt.

The drug war is insane and should be ended immediately. That will save about 100 billion dollars a year. Also, it should be criminal for any private citizen or group or company to get special tax advantages or loopholes... we need one tax code for all of us, equally applied, period. No more corporate welfare, which both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of. Government involvement in our health care system is making it less responsive and more expensive than it can and should be. Socialized medicine is happening de facto in this country and it is NOT a good thing.

I say, limit federal taxes to the support of a justice system and a military sufficient to defend our borders from attack (no more world policeman nonsense!). A flat tax of 10% would be terrific. Otherwise, let the market rule, but enforce fraud and coercion laws forcefully. And remember, criminalize any and all parties to corporate welfare.
     
Disgruntled Head of C-3PO
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In bits and pieces on Cloud City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 05:48 PM
 
Originally posted by cszar2001:

In some other countries you die - plain and simple.
Bad example, ya they will pick you up but you get one hell of a bill when in hospital. Some people are really sick and can't afford treatment so they die.
"Curse my metal body, I wasn't fast enough!"
     
mindwaves  (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Irvine, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 06:00 PM
 
Originally posted by ReggieX:
A 401K isn't a tax.
I know it isn't, but I am still left with 47% of my paycheck.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 06:08 PM
 
Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Bad example, ya they will pick you up but you get one hell of a bill when in hospital. Some people are really sick and can't afford treatment so they die.
Partly because people don't want a universal health care system. Their mentality is that they shouldn't have to pay for people who don't work and shouldn't be able to get health care anyway.

In reality, whenever those uninsured people are admitted into a hospital, those who do have health care, pay for them. Your premiums go up because more and more people can't afford health care.

There's no point in not having a universal health care system, you're already paying for it.
     
djohnson
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 06:17 PM
 
Originally posted by Eriamjh:
Welcome to the real world.


Be glad that you make enough money to qualify for the highest tax bracket. I am guessing you dont have kids, yup they are a tax deduction... Oh and I am betting there are no charitable contributions(ie church, good will, etc), yup more tax deductions... Oh and student loan interest, oh yeah, that's a tax deduction...

Sounds like you need to figure out how you can pay less taxes like the rest of us...

Oh and 401k != tax If you make enough to put in 12%, dont complain!
     
fireside
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Floreeda
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 06:27 PM
 
Originally posted by olePigeon:
Their mentality is that they shouldn't have to pay for people who don't work and shouldn't be able to get health care anyway.
there are people who work and still can't afford heath care. insurance is expensive isn't it?
     
Mr. Blur
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Somewhere, but not here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 06:55 PM
 
(me thinks this should be in the political lounge now....)

well, i am in canada where taxes are higher than the usa...yeah, i'd like to keep more of my money too but i also understand why the taxes are there and all the things they pay for.

what makes it really hard to take is that we have a federal gov't that for the last number of years has run huge surpluses - which basically means they are taking more money than they need. couple that with all the money they waste (the other canadians on the board will know what i am talking about....) and it makes for a lot of resentment from some quarters. those responsible for the collecting and doling out of tax dollars have to stop thinking that it is "their" money, when in fact it is *ours.*
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity...
     
nredman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Minnesota - Twins Territory
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 06:57 PM
 
Originally posted by mindwaves:
Taxes are waaaayyy too high. Thoughts?
Noooooo....didn't you get the rebate check from that tax cut bush got us all?
     
wdlove
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 07:05 PM
 
I am greatly enjoying my Bush tax cut. According to what happens in November we make look back with fond nostalgia to the taxes that we are paying currently. Bush will not raise them, the other party we will have to pay for their promises.

"Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense." Winston Churchill
     
ReggieX
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, ON
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 07:10 PM
 
Conservative tax cut = borrowing.
The Lord said 'Peter, I can see your house from here.'
     
Krusty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 07:10 PM
 
Originally posted by fireside:
there are people who work and still can't afford heath care. insurance is expensive isn't it?
Very true .. and old friend of mine does art restoration contract work. Pay is good but the work schedule is erratic and tends to be feast or famine pay-wise. Of course, there is no health insurance with such work. To get the absolute cheapest emergency-only type health care for his family of four costs more than his mortgage
     
awcopus
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 08:01 PM
 
Originally posted by wdlove:
I am greatly enjoying my Bush tax cut. According to what happens in November we make look back with fond nostalgia to the taxes that we are paying currently. Bush will not raise them, the other party we will have to pay for their promises.
The refund check was <drum roll> $300. Meanwhile, Bush's spending binge... over $80 billion to the airlines, which are still going bankrupt, $300 million dollars to PROMOTE MARRIAGE, what the hell is that.... you don't think taxpayers end up paying for these and other (war & reconstruction of Iraq) Bush "promises"?
     
fireside
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Floreeda
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 08:25 PM
 
Originally posted by wdlove:
Bush will not raise them, the other party we will have to pay for their promises.
our children will be paying for bush's promises.
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 08:32 PM
 
People seem to forget the government is in debt, and Bush's tax break has just made it worse, even pre-9/11.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Gankdawg
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 08:56 PM
 
Originally posted by wdlove:
I am greatly enjoying my Bush tax cut. According to what happens in November we make look back with fond nostalgia to the taxes that we are paying currently. Bush will not raise them, the other party we will have to pay for their promises.


You (not wdlove) forgot about:

-gas taxes
-property taxes
-city taxes
-county taxes
-sales taxes (if your state has one; mine does not)
-beer and wine tax
-cigarette tax
-the undecipherable taxes on your phone bill, cable bill, electric bill, etc.
-etc and so on.

We pay enough taxes. No more!!!!
( Last edited by Gankdawg; Oct 3, 2004 at 09:02 PM. )
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 09:15 PM
 
Originally posted by Gankdawg:


You (not wdlove) forgot about:

-gas taxes
-property taxes
-city taxes
-county taxes
-sales taxes (if your state has one; mine does not)
-beer and wine tax
-cigarette tax
-the undecipherable taxes on your phone bill, cable bill, electric bill, etc.
-etc and so on.

We pay enough taxes. No more!!!!
And the government is supposed to pay for itself? George Bush is creating more and more spending. The Iraq war is very costly. The high taxes you are paying are going towards things like his war. You can't simply cut the taxes.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
ringo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 09:18 PM
 
Income and Sales taxes in California are higher than in a lot of other states. You could move, but would you be able to make as much somewhere else?

What are you tax returns like? Are you witholding more than you need to? You have some control over this, cut your witholding a little if you would rather have more $ each check and less at the end of the year.
     
MacmanX
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NC, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 09:41 PM
 
Re: 401k is not a tax

Originally posted by mindwaves:
I know it isn't, but I am still left with 47% of my paycheck.
Don't forget to take a tax credit on your 401k contributions when you file. (If you are eligible, of course.)

Cheers!
Satellite deployment by:
Ace Moving Co.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2004, 11:25 PM
 
Originally posted by wdlove:
I am greatly enjoying my Bush tax cut. According to what happens in November we make look back with fond nostalgia to the taxes that we are paying currently. Bush will not raise them, the other party we will have to pay for their promises.
And do you believe that if Bush expands the war on terror, it's going to be done for free? No matter who gets elected, taxes are going up sooner, rather than later. If I overload my credit cards, I have to pay more interest, for a longer time period, just to get the privilege of living a good life for a short period. The size of the government has exploded under Bush (and Republicans are always talking about shrinking the government). The moral of the story is; you don't get anything for nothing. If it looks to good to be true, it is.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
torsoboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2004, 12:07 AM
 
Originally posted by fireside:
there are people who work and still can't afford heath care. insurance is expensive isn't it?
Yea, health insurance is VERY expensive... most people can not afford it by themselves. A lot of companies do not offer much help either to their employees. Last year health insurance rates rose 10% and this year they rose another 14%. It's a shame that we have to pay so much for so little. Last year i paid (with help from my employer) about $6,000 in insurance costs and used about $1,200. But i have a $1,000 deductible so I actually used $200 from the $6,000 I gave them. It sucks, but I need to keep paying just in case something big were to come up. I wish people would quit suing their doctors for every small thing that happens... from what i hear, that is a major contributor for everything being so expensive.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2004, 12:28 AM
 
Originally posted by fireside:
there are people who work and still can't afford heath care. insurance is expensive isn't it?
Yes, it is. But that's not the reason given. Most uppity Republicans (and some Democrats) think that if you can't afford it, you're obviously some lazy minority or immigrant who isn't working hard enough. Everyone wants our borders closed so illegal immigrants can't come in, but then no one wants to pick crops for a living. So do we give health insurance to those immigrants working our nation's fields? Hell no, they're all lazy immigrants, remember? They should get "real" jobs.
     
Diggory Laycock
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2004, 06:36 AM
 
Politics forum?
     
RAILhead
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2004, 09:51 AM
 
Originally posted by awcopus:
The refund check was <drum roll> $300. Meanwhile, Bush's spending binge... over $80 billion to the airlines, which are still going bankrupt, $300 million dollars to PROMOTE MARRIAGE, what the hell is that.... you don't think taxpayers end up paying for these and other (war & reconstruction of Iraq) Bush "promises"?
I bet you went and deposited/cashed that $300, didn't you? Mine was $820.00 FWIW.

Maury
"Everything's so clear to me now: I'm the keeper of the cheese and you're the lemon merchant. Get it? And he knows it.
That's why he's gonna kill us. So we got to beat it. Yeah. Before he let's loose the marmosets on us."
my bandmy web sitemy guitar effectsmy photosfacebookbrightpoint
     
macvillage.net
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2004, 10:09 AM
 
Originally posted by KarlG:
You are absolutely right; taxes are too high. We should privatize everything, like George Bush wants. The police, the army, the fire department, the roads, the water, the national parks, etc. That way, you only use what you pay for.
Not to pick on you....

but every so often, people actually talk about privatizing th epolice fire dept, and even the roads here in NJ...

I'm curious how many want a company like Microsoft charging you by the mile to use the roads when you get off your driveway, parking lot, etc.?

People have seriously rallied at the idea (not many, but people have).


Then again, there was a town a few years ago who wanted to have a managment company (they typically take contracts to oversee private communities) to run the township. Hire the company, and they act as everything from mayor, to city council. Why not just sign your soul to the devil?
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2004, 10:25 AM
 
Originally posted by cszar2001:
Of course there are a lot of things that are paid for with your tax money which have nothing to do with what you actually need.
That`s one of the drawbacks of living in a western society.
You have to take care of everyone. The phrase "nobody get`s left behind" comes to mind.
And that's what I'm disputing? Why should everyone be taken care of? Most are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, if only they could be weaned off of this sickening culture of dependency that we've developed over the past hundred years. For those who cannot -a tiny minority, but one worth mentioning- the story is different. But why should we not leave behind those who refuse to stand on their own two feet?
Big companies are basically blackmailing the government. They want tax cuts - or they are going to fire people. At least that`s what they say.
If they can't afford to keep people on, then they can't afford to keep people on. This is perhaps the simplest lesson of economics: you can't spend money that doesn't exist. Granted, our current government seems to ignore this on a regular basis, but the alternatives being presented are no better at it.
And no government can afford to loose jobs. Believe me - we know. Germany has lost tens of thousands of jobs in the past 10 years and has a huge unemployment problem. That makes us even more vulnerable to corporate blackmail.
So -and this is an honest question- what is causing these job losses? You can't possibly think it's all just corporations being evil, can you? Yes, there are corporations with policies that most sane people would find outright reprehensible, but these are by no means the majority, and with only a tiny number of exceptions worldwide haven't got the clout to bring down entire economies.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2004, 10:31 AM
 
Originally posted by torsoboy:
Yea, health insurance is VERY expensive... most people can not afford it by themselves. A lot of companies do not offer much help either to their employees. Last year health insurance rates rose 10% and this year they rose another 14%. It's a shame that we have to pay so much for so little. Last year i paid (with help from my employer) about $6,000 in insurance costs and used about $1,200. But i have a $1,000 deductible so I actually used $200 from the $6,000 I gave them. It sucks, but I need to keep paying just in case something big were to come up. I wish people would quit suing their doctors for every small thing that happens... from what i hear, that is a major contributor for everything being so expensive.
It is indeed; in fact, most doctors nowadays have to take out insurance against it.

The biggest problem, though, is in the drug industry, which has become one of the most corrupt in the world. If the drug companies were made to answer for their crimes, most of the healthcare "problem" in the US could be solved.

We really do need to require all companies to provide health insurance for their employees. That's how I'd like to see it done.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2004, 10:54 AM
 
Originally posted by drive-thru:
Think about it this way, the government 'owns' and runs the country you're living in.
Runs, perhaps. but the ownership part is nonsense. The government owns some land, yes -indeed, back before the personal income tax it made most of its money off of land sales- but privately-owned land is, and should be, exactly that: private.
[quote]If you're not prepared to pay for the privilege of living there nor for its upkeep then there are plenty of other people who would gladly pay a lot more than 53% of what they earn to do so.
You get what you pay for...minus the part which goes into bureaucracy and to other people.
Which, has already been established, is over half of "what I pay for". It doesn't sound like a good deal.
This is really for another thread, but, can someone briefly explain a little about how the US health system (in terms of hospitals, ambulances and general doctors) is funded. Is it all privately run (you buy your own health insurance or get it in benefits from employers)?
Many hospitals are privately owned, but not all of them are. The same is true of ambulance services.

As for doctors, once again it's generally a case of private practice. The government runs an insurance program called Medicare which covers senior citizens, and all doctors must accept this insurance or else lose their licenses. Other than that, doctors are free to accept or not accept other insurance companies as they choose

When I speak of "accepting insurance", by the way, not accepting a given sort of insurance doesn't mean that a person with that insurance can't see them. For this reason, usually today we speak of "in-network" and "out-of-network". For in-network doctors, the payment process is usually automatic; the person pays some amount at the time of service (usually a small co-pay or deductible), and then the insurance company handles the rest. For out-of-network doctors, usually the person pays up front and then the insurance company reimburses .

The two major types of insurance in the US today are HMO (Health Managemt Organizations) and PPOs (Preferred Provier Organizations), though variants on both of these systems exist. HMOs tend to be much stricter about keeping costs down; for example, for almost anything other than check-ups they require a referral from a specially-designated doctor before covering the procedure at all. They also tend to be very strict about their networks for this reason. Great emphasis is placed on preventive care, and some procedures may need to be proved to be medically necessary before HMOs will cover them. However, the cost savings resulting from this strict behavior are often passed on to the consumer, with the result being that HMOs are usually relatively inexpensive. PPOs are more expensive than HMOs, but also tend to allow for considerably more freedom of choice. HMOs have long had a bad reputation, because they're seen as "medicine-by-bureaucracy". However, they are quite possibly the most popular form of insurance today, largely because of the price.

PPOs are older than HMOs, and are sometimes called "traditional insurance" for this reason. They tend to be significantly more lenient in their policies of what procedures they will cover. They also tend to pay a larger proportion of the cost of a procedure than HMOs will. This makes them popular with doctors, which in turn tends to mean larger network coverage. However, all of this literally comes at a price; PPOs tend to be significantly more expensive than HMOs are.

Variants of these two systems exist, but they tend to fall into a spectrum of cost versus choice with HMOs on one end and PPOs on the other. Many nationalized healthcare systems run closer to the HMO model, though the network-strictness doesn't apply since under such a system all doctors must be "in-network", as it were.
Am I right in that if you can't pay for it the government pays somehow?
Nope. If you can't pay then it comes out of the hospital's pockets. Portions of this get passed onto the doctors.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2004, 12:54 PM
 
Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Not to pick on you....

but every so often, people actually talk about privatizing th epolice fire dept, and even the roads here in NJ...

I'm curious how many want a company like Microsoft charging you by the mile to use the roads when you get off your driveway, parking lot, etc.?

People have seriously rallied at the idea (not many, but people have).


Then again, there was a town a few years ago who wanted to have a managment company (they typically take contracts to oversee private communities) to run the township. Hire the company, and they act as everything from mayor, to city council. Why not just sign your soul to the devil?
I was being facetious. Services that are used by the public, for general public good, should be paid for through public taxes. If it were up to George Bush, most of the things I mentioned would be privatized, which would give him and his rich friends another way to make money, while further disenfranchising a segment of the population that he doesn't care about, or for, anyway.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2004, 01:40 PM
 
Originally posted by mindwaves:
My combined tax (federal plus state is about 33%
That seems awfully high. I don't know how much money you make, but even the top 20% pay an effective total (income & payroll) federal tax rate of around 20%. The middle class pays 13%. (link)

I can't believe your state taxes are high enough to get you to 33%.

I was curious so I looked at my paystub and found the following:

Gross: 2119
Deposit (take-home pay): 1353, or 60% of my paycheck.
Federal income tax: 200 (10%)
State: 95 (4%)
Social security: 125 (5%)
medicare: 29 (1%, can that be right, it seems small?)

Those are all the federal or state taxes (federal total = 16% and state total = 4%). The other half of my total deductions was for benefits, or savings like additional retirement savings, or medical savings accounts that save me money. Remember that the reason you're socking a lot of that money away is because it's better to sock it away than spend it now!
     
cszar2001
Photo Architect
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bamberg, Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2004, 01:49 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
And that's what I'm disputing? Why should everyone be taken care of? Most are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, if only they could be weaned off of this sickening culture of dependency that we've developed over the past hundred years. For those who cannot -a tiny minority, but one worth mentioning- the story is different. But why should we not leave behind those who refuse to stand on their own two feet?
Why you should take care of everyone?
Pretty simple actually: because it`s a lot cheaper that way.
If you don`t take care of those people crime rates go through the roof - and you have to pick up the cost anyway. You need a bigger police force, more prisons, courts, ....
Social inequality leads to violence.
"Microsoft is a cross between the Borg and the Ferengi. Unfortunately, they use Borg to do their marketing and Ferengi to do their programming." Simon Slavin

Me on Flickr.
     
blythe
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2004, 01:55 PM
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you think federal taxes are too low, then instead of making everyone pay more, go ahead and make a contribution yourself. After all, YOU are the one who thinks taxes are too low, right?

1. Make check payable to the "Bureau of the Public Debt"
2. In the memo section of the check, make sure you write "Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public "
3. Mail check to -

ATTN DEPT G
BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
P O BOX 2188
PARKERSBURG, WV 26106-2188


http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdfaq.htm#opdfaq42
blythe
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2004, 08:32 AM
 
Originally posted by KarlG:
I was being facetious. Services that are used by the public, for general public good, should be paid for through public taxes. If it were up to George Bush, most of the things I mentioned would be privatized, which would give him and his rich friends another way to make money, while further disenfranchising a segment of the population that he doesn't care about, or for, anyway.
Yeah, because heaven forfend that you recognize a new business opportunity, get investors to give you seed money, and launch a business to take advantage of the new opportunity. Heaven forfend that you then hire unemployed folks around you, thereby creating jobs and improving the economy as well as personal economies of your new employees. Whyever would you want to try and compete?
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
Krusty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2004, 09:27 AM
 
Originally posted by blythe:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you think federal taxes are too low, then instead of making everyone pay more, go ahead and make a contribution yourself. After all, YOU are the one who thinks taxes are too low, right?
I don't know if you are purposefully missing the point or just being immensely shallow. People don't think taxes are too low because we just *love* being taxed. We think taxes are too low because our budget sheet has gone from $236 billion in the black to $422 billion in the red in 4 short years. We'd all love to pay lower taxes (or none at all). But what we want more than that is to NOT pay taxes 5, 10, 20 years from now on interest accrued from all the red ink NOW. Same reason a person doesn't run up credit card debt .. it WILL cost you more in the long run.

The Congressional Budget Office (primarily staffed by Republicans) even admits that approximately $270 billion of the $422 billion shortfall is due to the tax cuts (the other 150 being from War in Iraq). Having a handful of people making voluntary payments won't solve the deficit problem (which, again, is the point of repealing the Bush tax cuts). Characterizing people who think we should have a balanced budget as people who have some burning inner desire to pay more is patently false and just plain ridiculous .... which is why your "epiphany" solution of voluntary payment has never been taken as a serious point by anyone over the age of 13 and why you keep having to "say it before and say it again". Its not a realistic solution (meaning a a reliable strategy to guarantee enough revenues to cover expenses) and everyone knows it. This budget deficit is not a "personal" issue of whether some wants to pay more or less in taxes, its a national issue of whether we are going to actually collect enough funds to pay for our expenditures ... or stick our heads in the sand and let someone else worry about how to pay for it later so we can grab 25 - 40 bucks a month more for ourselves.
     
blythe
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2004, 10:56 AM
 
Originally posted by Krusty:
I don't know if you are purposefully missing the point or just being immensely shallow. People don't think taxes are too low because we just *love* being taxed. We think taxes are too low because our budget sheet has gone from $236 billion in the black to $422 billion in the red in 4 short years. We'd all love to pay lower taxes (or none at all). But what we want more than that is to NOT pay taxes 5, 10, 20 years from now on interest accrued from all the red ink NOW. Same reason a person doesn't run up credit card debt .. it WILL cost you more in the long run.

The Congressional Budget Office (primarily staffed by Republicans) even admits that approximately $270 billion of the $422 billion shortfall is due to the tax cuts (the other 150 being from War in Iraq). Having a handful of people making voluntary payments won't solve the deficit problem (which, again, is the point of repealing the Bush tax cuts). Characterizing people who think we should have a balanced budget as people who have some burning inner desire to pay more is patently false and just plain ridiculous .... which is why your "epiphany" solution of voluntary payment has never been taken as a serious point by anyone over the age of 13 and why you keep having to "say it before and say it again". Its not a realistic solution (meaning a a reliable strategy to guarantee enough revenues to cover expenses) and everyone knows it. This budget deficit is not a "personal" issue of whether some wants to pay more or less in taxes, its a national issue of whether we are going to actually collect enough funds to pay for our expenditures ... or stick our heads in the sand and let someone else worry about how to pay for it later so we can grab 25 - 40 bucks a month more for ourselves.
I did not mean to imply that voluntary payments are going to solve the budget deficit. You came up with that conclusion yourself to strike down a straw man. My position is that federal taxes are too high irrespective of whether the country is running huge deficits or surpluses because we are spending too much on non-essential or unconstitutional programs. You claim that you would love to pay less taxes. Unfortunately, you and those who are like you (Republican and Democrat) also love to spend on all sorts of social programs and corporate welfare. You used the analogy of a person with a credit card. If you put too much onto a credit card, what are your options? You can either restrict your spending and pay down the credit card, or you can rob someone at gunpoint to pay for all the things that you wanted to put on the credit card. Forcing people to pay taxes involves the treat of force. Demanding taxes to pay for defense and to enforce regulations that prevent states from warring against each other makes sense because it is right to threaten force to prevent greater violence and lawlessness for everybody (not just an influential demographic). Why do you insist on raising taxes as a way of reducing the debt? Why not by reducing spending? That's how millions of people regulate their finances every day. Perhaps it's because you don't want your favorite handout program to be axed and consider it "essential". Why is it that liberals love to come up with "compassionate" programs and then insist that everyone or the "rich" pay for it? Liberals act like they are the paragons of virtue and compassion and criticize conservatives of being selfish, when all they do to lift a finger to help people is to force others to pay for that help. If you really were compassionate yourself, you would sacrificially give and not force others to do so on your behalf. Since apparently at least half of this country wants these programs as you seem to, you are all free to help pay for them by donating. Otherwise, you should insist that these programs be cut and donate your money to private charities that would perform the same function. You may make the argument that it's pointless to donate to relieve the debt because the money will just be spent on something else anyway. Well, that would prove my point. If you give more money to the feds, they'll just find a way of spending it on pork that'll upset half the country. Until a balanced budget amendment and a requirement for a supermajority to raise taxes passes congress, I'm content to have massive deficits to pressure the government to lower spending. Perhaps this is a failed strategy, as there are powerful interest groups that demand their bread and circuses no matter the cost, but we need to do something to lower spending. That�s the point I�m trying to make. Spend less or shut up and pay for your beloved program yourself.
blythe
     
Krusty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2004, 08:21 PM
 
Good points, all in all
Originally posted by blythe:
I did not mean to imply that voluntary payments are going to solve the budget deficit. You came up with that conclusion yourself to strike down a straw man.
It wasn't to strike down a straw man ... you implied that people should send money to pay down the debt if they "think taxes are too low". My point was simply saying that nobody wants to pay higher taxes ... they want to erase the deficit. If it means, unfortunately, somewhat higher taxes, then thats what we are prepared to do if necessary rather than simply ignore the problem. But then you went on to say ...

Originally posted by blythe:

My position is that federal taxes are too high irrespective of whether the country is running huge deficits or surpluses..... <SNIP for brevity>
.... but we need to do something to lower spending.
... which I largely agree with. We need to have the guts to cut spending OR raise taxes to balance the budget. I think you've assumed I'm all for higher spending -- which I'm not. But at this point .. over 400 billion per year in the hole .. it is unrealistic to think that that much will be cut from spending (that's nearly 20% of the entire budget ... I don't see any realistic scenario where that much could be trimmed in a hurry). Look at spending on education .. on "social programs" . Completely doing away with these things wouldn't even be enough and would likely end up undercutting us down the road. Head on over to taxpolicycenter.org sometime and peruse historical tax rates in America ... especially since the 1940s. What you'll find is:
Personal tax rates at the low and middle incomes is comparable then to now.
Personal tax rates at the high end is WAY DOWN (70% - 94% for most of that time period and 50% during all but the last two years of Reagan). Now the cap is 35%. (it was 39.6% under Clinton, still extremely low historically speaking).
Corporate taxes rates between 45 and 52.5% all the way until nearly the end of the Reagan era. 35% now (and under Clinton too, BTW). Basically about 2/3 what they were prior to our first deficit problem under Reagan/Bush I
Percent of revenue derived from Corporate taxes vs. individual income taxes: almost exactly equal in the 40s. About 2:1 individual to corporate in the 60s and now a WHOPPING 5:1 individual vs corporate (due to largely to loopholes, incorporating companies offshore to avoid paying taxes, and of course .. the rate cuts)
The percent of GDP collected in taxes today is less than any time in the last 50 years. Yet personal rates for lower and middle class people have been about the same (actually, they've lowered a bit but payroll taxes have risen to offset this). The reductions have obviously come from the corporate/rich guy end. I DON'T think that "sticking it to the rich guy" or big corporations is the answer but I DO think that going back to (approximately) the tax structure we had in the 90s is probably called for because:
A) it paid the bills
B) it STILL is the second lowest rates on corporations and the wealthy that have been levied in the last 60 years (really just a few percent higher than right now ... primarily at the top end). The biggest "welfare" problem we have in this country is of the corporate type ... they're giving much less and getting much more than before .. and a large chunk of our "liberal" expenditures (such as the EPA) are to clean up or limit the mess they, not individuals, make.

The Clinton era tax structure was nominally higher than today and it worked without unduly burdening businesses or the wealthy (2nd lowest rates in the last 60 years, remember?). Make no mistake .. there have been large tax cuts -- but for everyone except lower and middle class individuals. We get thrown a $300 bone while huge cuts are going on elsewhere.

Originally posted by blythe:

That�s the point I�m trying to make. Spend less or shut up and pay for your beloved program yourself.
Excellent point. I could say exactly the same thing about the $150 billion war in Iraq that I've NEVER supported along with any other program that doesn't benefit me personally or that I don't support.. Too bad that picking and choosing isn't legally allowed .. our budget expenses are theoretically on things that benefit all of us.. BTW, on a side note ... I assume that you are aware that Bush + Republican House and Republican Senate have increased spending nearly 3 times faster on average than did Clinton. Take away the various wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, and "Terror") and this bunch of yo-yo's have still increased spending an average of 50% faster per year than Clinton (check out the raw budget numbers .. its all in black and white). All while cutting taxes. Simply Brilliant
     
blythe
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2004, 10:51 PM
 
Originally posted by Krusty:
If it means, unfortunately, somewhat higher taxes, then thats what we are prepared to do if necessary rather than simply ignore the problem.
Who is the "we" you are referring to? Could it perhaps be the Democrats that compose half this country? If so, then you all should put your money where your mouths are and solve the problem by voluntarily increasing YOUR taxes by the method I listed above. I don't mean to pick on Democrats. Both parties love to spend and are guilty. Democrats are just more vocal about whining about the bill these days.
blythe
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:32 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,