Socialist Nirvana

[bart]

Here are the latest figures released by the IRS. The top 5 out of 100 wage earners are paying more than 50% of the bills the federal government rings up.

What is really interesting is that the less productive among us, get what amounts to a free ride on the backs of those who make more than $28,528 per year. Basically, 1 out of 2 Americans pay a pittance of their fair share.

Percentile AGI Threshold %age of Federal Income Tax Paid
Top 1% $292,913 33.89%
Top 5% $127,904 53.25%
Top 10% $92,754 64.89%
Top 25% $56,085 82.90%
Top 50% $28,528 96.03%
Bottom 50% <$28,528 3.97%

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

Before the Socialists raise hell, lets say there was a house with ten tenants, and you made the most money, so you would pay $650 a month for rent. The next two guys would pay about $90 apiece, the next two about $65, and the other 5 would pay $8 each. Since you believe in our progressive tax system, I am sure you would be honored to pay "your fair share" for your less fortunate roommates. By the way, if you didn't, the property manager would garnish your wages, sieze your property and put you in jail.

Then think about what incentives your roommates would have to earn more... All they would do is end up having to pay more for rent and keep a smaller and smaller percentage of their marginal earnings for themselves.

This says to me National Sales Tax now. Give the power back to the people to decide how much taxes to pay and put restrictions on how much money government can spend.

 

[Swass]

True that Brother.

 

[GogglesPisano]

You're leaving out the fact that the top 1% owns 50% of the wealth in this country, and the top 10% owns 90%. Why shouldn't they be taxed more, they certainly won't feel it as much as the rest of us?

And you have to ask how they got to be in the top percentile. Usually they had the good sense to be born into it, or at least into the environment that would propel them into it (right schools, family connections.)

The rich have been getting far richer than the rest of us over the past thirty years. Is that a good thing? History shows it isn't.

And don't fool yourself, there is not a single commercial pilot in this country in the top 1%

 

[Vladimir Lenin]

It's called a tax on a quality of life, as simple as that and it should be increased, if anything.

People pay luxury tax on more expensive cars, why not tax life?

I see nothing wrong with this approach

 

[Timebuilder]

You won't hear from a liberal without hearing about "feelings".

"feelings..........nothing more than feelings........" as the 70's song said.

When you look at "old money" a great deal of it is in chartiable trusts, such as the Pew and Annenberg groups.

Far more money is NEW money.

Remember, Pisan, we are talking out INCOME. Monies that people are making NOW.

It doesn't bother me at all that the wealthy own most of the property. That IS fair, after all, isn't it? On the other side, they provide most of the jobs in this country because of how they invest their money. Suppose you tried to make the wealthy pay more money than they do now? Where would that investment money go then? China? Then the Chinese would have more jobs. Until a few months ago, the job that I had existed ONLY because a rich guy bought an airplane and put it on leaseback on a charter certificate. No rich airplane owner, no job.

I refer you to the even better example of the group of friends who would get together and have dinner, splitting the check equally. The situatuion changes from good to bad when they start to share the diner expense UNequally, which is our current tax structure. If you have never heard it, I'll look it up and post it here.

A flat tax or a sales (consumption) tax would be far more "fair" than our current system of punishing those who are the economic foundation of our country.

 

[Snakum]

Flat tax ... problem solved. And as an added bonus, those c@cks@kers at the IRS are flipping hamburgers.



Minh

 

[bart]

No, the income tax in this nation is not a tax on wealth. It is a tax on income. If it were a tax on wealth, then a percentage of all that you own would be seized by force each year.

Lenin, you believe so strongly in making the system even more oppressive (or regressive in socialist parlance) in the long run, you wind up killing the goose. Wealth is created, not seized. Once there is a disincentive for wealth creation (rewards do not out weigh risks and efforts) then the individuals that have the talents to create wealth stop.

Then there is nothing to fuel your gigantic stealing machine (or wealth distribution scheme as socialists are apt to call it). What is funny is, the day you begin making real money and have important things to spend it on (like a family, or related collective as you may call it), I will bet that your tune changes and you will begin looking for ways to preserve your finances against those that would take it from you.

The system you idealize with your avatar is now a smoldering heap in the ashbin of history, which is well where it belongs. In the end, all that it was was a system that robbed individuals of free choice and consolidated power to a selected few. In a free system, anyone may rise to lead, given good decision making. Some have more difficulties to overcome than others for sure, however life is built like that. We are not all here for the same reason and some people have different priorities than others.


Like my sign off says, life is not fair and it is not supposed to be.

 

[capt_zman]

Tax Brackets—2003 Taxable Income

Joint return
$0–$14,000 10.0%
14,000–56,800 15.0
56,800–114,650 25.0
114,650–174,700 28.0
174,700–311,950 33.0
311,950 and up 35.0

Source: Tax Foundation.

Let's take a look at the average pilot and see what the graduated tax brackets do for our community.

1st year - Average at most airlines, we'll pay 15%. So let's assume we make $40,000 our first year, which equates to $6000 in taxes, for a net of $34,000.

2nd year - We come off of probation and graduate to the 25% bracket. We made $80,000 our second year, which equates to $20,000 in taxes for a net of $60,000.

Now let's see here. We busted our butt the first year and really scraped by. We grossed double the money, but netted only 76% more money. Where did the other 24% go? That's right, we did the same job and were rewarded for our loyalty and hard work, but we were penalized 24% because we now make more money. But wait a minute, we still have to buy the same clothes, eat the same food, and pay for the same expenses as last year, albeit that those prices have risen due to inflation. Whether our income has increased 76% or not, we still have to pay the same sales tax on all of these items, unless we splurge and buy a "luxurious" item. At least we have a choice on whether or not we want to spend our hard earned income on "luxurious" items.

3rd and 4th year - Let's say we're making $100,000 at the end of our 4th year. That's $25,000 in taxes for a net of $75,000.

5th year - We finally make captain, our dream job, our perverbial light at the end of the tunnel. We are now in the 28% bracket making $120,000 per year. This year we pay $33,600 in taxes for a net of $86,400.

Finally a captain, making the "huge bucks". Oh but wait a minute, we've increased our salary by 20%, but our net increase is only 15%. Again, where did the other 5% go? It must be that with all of the added responsibility of being a captain, we are penalized 5%. Wrong, we have to pay more tax because we make the "big bucks" now. We net an extra $11,400 a year and now we pay more tax than last year? Jeez, we've been with the company for 5 years and the loyalty and dedication has resulted in another 5% penalty. All of our expenses are increasing due to cost of living and inflation, so why do we have to pay extra? It's not like we have a choice in any of this, we're just doing what we're suppose to be doing: living, working, raising a family, etc., yet still getting penalized because we make more money per year. Funny, we paid almost as much in tax this year as we netted in our first year.

What a darn shame.

 

[Ivan Yankenoff]

Taxes are marginal so you can't multiply your yearly gross times the tax bracket. Everyone's first 14,000 is taxed at 10%. The next money between 14,000 and 56,800 is taxed at 15% and so forth.

So your numbers are incorrect. If you made 40,000, your tax would be 5,300. 80,000 equals 13,620 in tax. 100,000 equals 18,620 in tax and 120,000 equals 23,720.50 in tax. Not quite as bad as you make it out to seem.

 

[Vladimir Lenin]

Not quite as bad as you make it out to seem.

I knew the capitalists were cooking the books somehow

thanks, Vanya

 

[GogglesPisano]

Right, let's penalize those that do well while rewarding the lazy who aren't willing to improve. Now isn't that special.

Why do you automatically label people who don't do well lazy? Are you of the Ann Coulter persuasion ("working families are families in which no one works.")

How about regional F/O's, are they lazy?

As I've said before, rising disparity in income has never been healthy for society. History proves it.

 

[LR25]

Before the Socialists raise hell, lets say there was a house with ten tenants, and you made the most money, so you would pay $650 a month for rent. The next two guys would pay about $90 apiece, the next two about $65, and the other 5 would pay $8 each. Since you believe in our progressive tax system, I am sure you would be honored to pay "your fair share" for your less fortunate roommates. By the way, if you didn't, the property manager would garnish your wages, sieze your property and put you in jail.
[/B]

I dont think your talking about taxes, you mean Wellfare.

The difference is, the people busting there a$$ for the $25,000 doing everything they can to survive, and the other people trying there hardest to squeeze evey dime they can out of me and you(government), which includes the people busting there a$$ for the $25,000.

 

[Timebuilder]

The "lazy" are not identified by low wages. They are identified by a preference for government support programs over making the best use of their God-given talents to provide for themselves and their families.

Sometimes, making the best use might mean taking an adult literacy course. Sometimes it might mean taking a job, period.

There are two very easily identified kinds of people: makers, people who make things happen, make goods and services, and make payments out of their hard earned income for taxes, and takers, people who have decided that they are victims, are unable when they are actually unwilling, who take government money instead of earning money on their own, and who are always looking for a new way to work the system through lawsuits or special programs.

 

[secks]

I knew the capitalists were cooking the books somehow

thanks, Vanya

Uh, the fact still remains that the top 5% of wage earners pay over half the taxes. Plus, those numbers don't account for other taxes levied upon U.S. citizens (state, county, city, and municipality taxes). Those numbers are just the beginning.

 

[secks]

takers, people who have decided that they are victims, are unable when they are actually unwilling, who take government money instead of earning money on their own, and who are always looking for a new way to work the system through lawsuits or special programs.

*cough* civil servants *cough*

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

Well this info is certainly interesting but someone alluded to other taxes as well besides wage/earnings. Still have to pay property tax, state and local wage tax if applicable, gas tax, sales tax, phone tax (25%), and on and on. All in the name of the children and peace and safety of course. It would be interesting to see what the average American tax bill/burden actually comes to. Speculate there are several organizations out there who have computed those numbers.
With more and more jobs leaving the country the guberment's tax base is getting less which means a greater burden for those working. In addition, with wage concessions there is less to tax. Pretty soon it will only the be the politicians, entertainers, and trial lawyers - the cream of the crop in society - paying the majority of taxes (not!).

 

[Timebuilder]

My income is the lowest it's been in 25 years due to my furlough, but I'm still trying to improve my finacial/job situation and I don't believe the rich paying higher taxes to support me is the answer.

Same here.

I'm using some other talents to explore an area that is related to my broadcasting experience, but requires that I actively promote myself to agencies, stations, and producers.

Heck, I'd like to be one of those people who gets to complain about paying most of the taxes!!

 

[Vladimir Lenin]

Heck, I'd like to be one of those people who gets to complain about paying most of the taxes!!

they're not complaining...

it's the middle-aged hopefuls who are still under the impression they will someday make it only to loose their millions to the govt.

 

[Fly-n-high]

Every socialist country (present day or in history) is either collapsing or has already disintegrated. To think that you believe that Socialism (or Communism) is a better approach than capitalism blows my mind!

Earlier one of you liberal wack-jobs said that rising disparity in income has never been healthy for society. I would like you to cite some real examples. Then I would like you to cite some examples of a succesfull Socialist society.

You want to see how socailsm ruins your country just look at Canada and the UK.

If you really want to give your hard earned money to the govt then go ahead and write them a check...they won't turn it down. Then you can quit telling me to do it.

 

[mar]

Collapse and Disintegration

<<Then I would like you to cite some examples of a succesfull Socialist society>>

A. Sweden
B. Denmark
C. Norway

Shall I continue?