heckofajobbrownie Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Sometimes, Heck, people have to work multiple jobs to bridge the gap. Not a pretty picture but nobody said folks should make a 'living wage' if what they do does not warrant that level of wage. I'd tell this guy to get an additional job. He'd be better off in the long run. Also, maybe get some training that might put him in a position to increase his earning power over time. But that's irrelevant to our discussion. You're saying we should tax this guy. If you want to, imagine a guy who works 60 hours a week at $12 and hour, now he makes $36,000 a year. You want to tax him more too? You want to make sure he's paying some income tax? I don't. I'm saying the notion that the right repeats constantly - that half of America doesn't pay any tax (flat out wrong) and everyone should have to pay some tax (based on the flat out wrong part) - isn't just factually inaccurate, it also doesn't make a whole lot of sense. No matter how much harder you want Americans to work, this is the fact: the median income for Americans in 2010 was $26,000 and change. 50% of Americans make that, or less than that, a year. And that's why they pay no income tax - because they don't make a whole lot of money. The problem is the "not making a whole lot of money" part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Yes and no. They have to pay half, but just pass most of that cost on to you in the form of a lower wage. You pay most of it one way or the other. But I think you're right about the figures. I plugged them into an online FICA calculator. That might have given me the self-employment number. I think so. That look like about the percentage I pay. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Yeah, nice catch. We're nothing if not accurate here on The Browns Board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Yeah, nice catch. We're nothing if not accurate here on The Browns Board. Heh. Maddow uses it for show prep I hear. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 If the problem is,"the "not making a whole lot of money" part", I fail to see how working only 1 job rather than multiple jobs is irrelevant. Generally speaking you make more money if you work more jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 If the problem is,"the "not making a whole lot of money" part", I fail to see how working only 1 job rather than multiple jobs is irrelevant. Generally speaking you make more money if you work more jobs. John, that's my point - that this worker, and millions like him, works a full week and doesn't make all that much money, and the fact that he doesn't pay income tax doesn't bother me in the least. You differed on that. So, do you think that worker needs to start paying income taxes or not? If so, what does that accomplish? We're trying to see if you buy the rhetoric and the reality, or just the rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 And here's the precise figure: median US wage in 2010 was $26,363. As you know, that means 50 percent of workers earned less than or equal to $26,363.55 in 2010. These are basically the half of all earners who don't pay income taxes because they don't make enough money. They just pay all of the other taxes we levy. My worry is that we make too many workers that only make $26,363 or less, and not enough workers to compete in the world economy, and to make more than $26,363. To me, that's the problem. And addressing it is really a question of education and job training and a whole host of other considerations. To you, the problem is that these people don't pay any income taxes. I don't think what you want is for these people to have less money, but the reality is that what you're suggesting will lead these people to have even less money. And many people on the right agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 The initial point was that about 50% of the population pays no income tax, including many 1%ers. That means 50% cover the gap. As demographics confinue to shift away from the 50% who cover the gap to those 50% who don't pay income taxes, the system will 'crumble' under its own weight. I'm sure the actuarial tables illustrating this train wreck are buried because, pretty much, nobody wants to face that reality. NOBODY Neither putting the people currently paying no income tax nor placing the 1%ers into a 100% income tax bracket will be enough to fully close the gap. We both know that. I can live with people paying no income tax because they actually work. Education and Training are oftentimes called out as the solution but, we both know, that many educated or - especially non-educated - people cannot be trained. In part, this the number of success stories coming out of Training Programs. So - arguably (?), those uneducated (or uneducatable) or untrained (or untrainable) are becoming a larger percentage of the population. I believe creating more manufacturing is part of the solution because people don't necessarily need to be (book) educated to earn a wage. Of course, technology has changed the manufacturing landscape since I worked piece-work during my college years so, some sort of training might be needed. However, uneducated folks (in the traditional sense) can earn a wage. How many of these have the work ethic to work in this environment is another story. It's interesting that you cited both Education and Training but not a cut in spending. Is voracious spending a given, due to a number of factors, including aging populations, etc? Do you believe the current model will be able to sustain itself as a smaller percentage of the population need to pay a larger percentage of a 'drunken sailor' spending model? I believe there will be a strong backlash - maybe people like that term better - if government spending continues to spiral (regardless if we agree about what should be done - I believe we both believe that spending will spiral). There will be a tipping point, IMHO. THAT issue is more important than whether Johnny at the 7-11 pays income tax, or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 I see you've gone back and changed "pay no taxes" to "pay no income taxes" in your original post. And now you're talking like you never claimed that 50% of Americans paid no taxes. A little disingenuous, but at least it's now correct. And you're now arguing that you don't care that the working poor don't pay income taxes, which is 180 from what you started out arguing in this post. So, congrats, John. You just argued for a progressive income tax code, where the working poor are exempt from the income tax through lower rates and things like the Earned Income Tax Credit. Or what the right calls "redistributing the wealth." So your gut instinct was more Republican. After you thought about it for a few minutes, you decided the Democratic position made more sense. And it's a good thing, too, because if there's anyone who makes me laugh more it's someone who rails against tax increases of any kind, especially those on "the job creators", hates capital gains taxes, estate taxes, wants the top rates cut, wants corporate rate cuts ...but then finally finds the one group of Americans who need to have their taxes raised: the poor. This is essentially what every Republican candidate is arguing for right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 The Republican primary is pretty entertaining though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 >>I see you've gone back and changed "pay no taxes" to "pay no income taxes" in your original post. And now you're talking like you never claimed that 50% of Americans paid no taxes. A little disingenuous, but at least it's now correct. And you're now arguing that you don't care that the working poor don't pay income taxes, which is 180 from what you started out arguing in this post.>> Maybe it's just a matter of me doing what you, apparently, never do: 'stand corrected". I apologize, Heck. >>So, congrats, John. You just argued for a progressive income tax code, where the working poor are exempt from the income tax through lower rates and things like the Earned Income Tax Credit. Or what the right calls "redistributing the wealth.">> Not at all. My point is that the system will crash under its own weight if some types of actions are not taken. I said that taking every penney from "1%ers" won't cover the gap. What about this don't you understand or refuse to accept.?? So your gut instinct was more Republican. After you thought about it for a few minutes, you decided the Democratic position made more sense. And it's a good thing, too, because if there's anyone who makes me laugh more it's someone who rails against tax increases of any kind, especially those on "the job creators", hates capital gains taxes, estate taxes, wants the top rates cut, wants corporate rate cuts ...but then finally finds the one group of Americans who need to have their taxes raised: the poor. This is essentially what every Republican candidate is arguing for right now. And you never uttered a word about curtailing spending. You fall into the category of wanting to squeeze and squeeze the working public so your academic exercises can be implemented. By the way, I am unclear of whom you are describing as 'Left' And 'Right'. I assume its not nearly as simple as saying, "Democrat" and "Republican". Is the Right always Right and is the Left always Left? Are some people Left on certain subjects and Right on others? My guess is that a heck of a lot of people cross your pigeon holes more often than you'd admit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 And you never uttered a word about curtailing spending. You fall into the category of wanting to squeeze and squeeze the working public so your academic exercises can be implemented. By the way, I am unclear of whom you are describing as 'Left' And 'Right'. I assume its not nearly as simple as saying, "Democrat" and "Republican". Is the Right always Right and is the Left always Left? Are some people Left on certain subjects and Right on others? My guess is that a heck of a lot of people cross your pigeon holes more often than you'd admit. John, you're really outdoing yourself. You began this post by asserting that the main problem was that 50% of Americans at the bottom didn't pay any taxes, and that they should. Then you got corrected on that, because it wasn't true. And then what do you have the balls to say now? That I want to "squeeze and squeeze the working public so your academic exercises can be implemented." Dude, you just spent the first few posts saying we needed to tax the working public more. Meanwhile, I argued that we shouldn't tax them more. And then you accuse me of wanting to tax them more. How do you get to make that statement? And what academic exercises are you talking about? And then you break out a pathetic straw man argument. Apparently there's nothing between changing the top tax rates from 35% to 39%, back to where they were before Bush, and confiscating 100% of their income. What part of that don't I understand? The part that nobody gives a shit about, because no one is suggesting that we do that. Plus, I mention curtailing spending all the time. In fact, I mentioned it in this very thread - that you need to deal with the main drivers of the debt, which are entitlements and military spending. Other than everything you said, great post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 John, you're really outdoing yourself. You began this post by asserting that the main problem was that 50% of Americans at the bottom didn't pay any taxes, and that they should. Then you got corrected on that, because it wasn't true. And then what do you have the balls to say now? That I want to "squeeze and squeeze the working public so your academic exercises can be implemented." I don't recall saying the main problem was that................ I might have said it but I don't remember (you should buy into this type of statement in a NY minute :-)Dude, you just spent the first few posts saying we needed to tax the working public more. Meanwhile, I argued that we shouldn't tax them more. And then you accuse me of wanting to tax them more. How do you get to make that statement? There is a difference between the working public and the so-called working poor, Heck. If you continue to feed the spending engine, who wll be burdened with more taxes? The working poor? The 1%ers? The working public? You lost me.And what academic exercises are you talking about? And then you break out a pathetic straw man argument. Apparently there's nothing between changing the top tax rates from 35% to 39%, back to where they were before Bush, and confiscating 100% of their income. What part of that don't I understand? The part that nobody gives a shit about, because no one is suggesting that we do that. Plus, I mention curtailing spending all the time. In fact, I mentioned it in this very thread - that you need to deal with the main drivers of the debt, which are entitlements and military spending. Other than everything you said, great post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 John, if the median wage in America is $26,363, that's half of the country that makes that or less. That's a large share of the working public. So if you don't want to increase the tax burden on these people (since they don't make very much) who else should have their taxes increased to pay for all the government spending? Anyone? Are there any revenue increases to be had here? What would you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 >>So if you don't want to increase the tax burden on these people (since they don't make very much) who else should have their taxes increased to pay for all the government spending? Anyone? Are there any revenue increases to be had here? What would you do?>> I would cut with a very jagged knife, Heck. What else is there to do? Oh yea - cut earmarks.................like 1/12th of 1 % of the Federal Budget. I can't stop laughing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 You keep suggesting that I proposed cutting earmarks as a solution. Except that I didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Now that John has you backtracking, I have to laugh. You didn't inhale, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 "I think we should go with plan A, because this this and this" "But plan B is horrible and has these flaws" "Right but I said A" "How dare you keep talking about B, such a horrible plan" "No, B is wrong for these reasons and I don't want to address it again" "AH HA! You're backtracking. Why are you talking about B? I knew I was right" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Welcome to The Browns Board, Woody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 I think he enjoys not being surrounded by idiots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 I think he enjoys not being surrounded by idiots Actually woody is just smart enough to know that all he need do is to insult cal and kiss Hecks butt for dog treats. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Insulting Cal does have a way of making one feel like an asshole. But in our defense, what else are you supposed to do with him, reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Heck - you don't try to reason with me, because you know you'd fail to win me over as a dem voter convert. it's what you do in real life, I think. I think you get paid to figure out emotional arguments that are affective in influencing the middle of the road voters. I was in the military, I've said many times that I know there is a lot of waste. There is more waste in our welfare and other entitlements systems. But with you libs, the only waste in in the military, that you all don't respect a whit. Meanwhile, as to John's point about why an Air Force... Basically, the Air Force must exist because of SAC. Strategic Air Command. That's my opinion. The other services can have their own transports and fighters... but it doesn't seem to me, to be a place in any of the other services for the strategic bombers and missiles. Although, that function IS tied in to the attack class nuclear warhead submarines in the Navy. Not a bad question, John. But like with most things, to much centralized is too much bureaucratic inefficiency. Combining the functionality of all the different services would be an unmanageable burden, so to what degree is it most efficient to divide up the functionalities of our self defense systems?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Actually woody is just smart enough to know that all he need do is to insult cal and kiss Hecks butt for dog treats. WSS It's funny that you all like it when it's all of you against me, but when Vapor starts posting, and then Woody jumps in, somehow the fact that there are a few guys who are now on my side (for the most part) is too much to handle. Woody speaks his mind. So what? You guys can't take more than one person who thinks you're all exceedingly uninformed? Plus, he's being introduced to Cal, who is the most ignorant man I've ever met, for the first time. Trust me - as a liberal guy, it really does take some getting used to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Woody speaks his mind. So what? You guys can't take more than one person who thinks you're all exceedingly uninformed? Plus, he's being introduced to Cal, who is the most ignorant man I've ever met, for the first time. Trust me - as a liberal guy, it really does take some getting used to. I don't even consider myself liberal and Cal baffles me daily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 I am super-human. I have the ability to clout liberals' feeble emotional psyches with logic, jokes, and reason. They hate that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 It's funny that you all like it when it's all of you against me, but when Vapor starts posting, and then Woody Against you? On your side? Do you think these guys are in lockstep with your ideology? Or me with anyone else here? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 I'm not sure you understood what I said, and now I don't understand what you are getting at. I'm saying for a while I was the only voice that wasn't from the right wing, or the extreme right wing, or where you are - the "I'm not really for anything, just don't like liberals" wing. Now Vapor and Woody are in here, using sound, evidence-based arguments, and even something that's plainly obvious, like that Cal is insane and noxious, must mean something about him trying to win "dog treats." Of course, you agree that Cal is horribly lost, you just don't say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Against you? On your side? Do you think these guys are in lockstep with your ideology? Or me with anyone else here? WSS When I first came to the forum and posted my toxic liberal faggot views, a bunch of posters ganged up on me. Heck was posting more rarely at the time so it was a little much for me. As for why I typically find myself on the same side of an argument as heck or woody is because they also use logic and evidence to fuel their arguments. Whereas, when I see stuff from cal and T, I see gut emotional reactions from under a tin foil hat. I'm trying to argue with you in other threads, but right now you're changing the subject every time I come back to the same point I'm trying to make. I don't always agree with heck and woody though, for example, I think Woody's got his head up his ass when it comes to gun control because he hasn't put together a cohesive argument for his views. On this forum, I find that most of the views I'm arguing against are arguments of ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 You might have missed Tupa's tenure in here. He was about as smart a conservative as I've run into in a while. I expect him to serve in conservative politics, or conservative administrations in the future, if he isn't already. I wouldn't even let someone know about all of his posts in here should he ever be up for confirmation. We need more of him on the other side, not less, even though I completely disagree with him on some issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.