[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
I want to see some numbers here. For example, let’s take individuals and families of four.[/quote]
Can’t do it. Area’s are too different.
For instance: On Long Island, 60k/year is poor. you’ll be living pay check to p[ay check trying to pay your mortgage and utilities and food and taxes ect. Upstate (NY), that’s upper middle class. You’ll own four quads, a huge piece of property, a big ass house, and enough firearms and ammunition to rival Concord.
(A bit of an exaggeration, but I know a guy who moved from one to the other and went from going paycheck to paycheck to living in near luxury).
The government has all kinds of lands in the sand drawn. For example, ever since I have been married and owned a house (for ~5 years), I was in the same income tax bracket;in this rough time frame, I used to get over 2000$ back in income tax refund.
Then I started a new job and made 13K more than I did at that job and guess what? I was in a new bracket and now I only got back 500$ at the end of the year.
[/quote]
A few points here:
Remember that “being” in a new tax bracket only means that dollars over that bracket baseline are taxed at the higher rate. So given no change in write-off’s, exemptions, or federal changes to tax rates your income tax due from year to year was exactly the same; however, at some point during that $13,000 of additional income, that income started getting taxed at a higher rate. The reason your income tax return declined because you were relatively underwithholding taxes on that additional income compared to the income up to that level.
This is type of confusion that our current tax code brings. We would be much better off with a system that allows everyone to easily project their tax, regardless of income.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I don’t think he did as “net benefit” means net: benefiting more than what is given or paid in return.
An idea that a serviceman provides less back than he provides in return would be quite mistaken.
They are net givers, clearly.[/quote]
Absolutely, like I said I don’t think he intended to have potentially implied that. But there are problems with the equation. For example: the Pritzker family, known for their sometimes abusive and creative use of tax shelters, recognize very little income as most of their assets have been offshore for generations, yet they receive massive tax breaks on depreciation of the structures of their hotels and the tax breaks that they receive from locales for building new ones. In this case, their tax paid is clearly less than the net present value of the benefit that they receive from the government.
Likewise, how are we to consider a CEO of a defense contractor. Clearly their tax paid would be far less than the net benefit that they received from the government.
An interesting thought, but clearly a stretch. It also might be of interest to note that by far and away the largest portions of the annual federal budget go to pay for Social Security, Defense (not including Iraq), and Medicare. So while it may be fun and easy to talk about those who are dependent on the government, the fact of the matter is that those who are the most dependent on it for their expenditures are our servicemen/women and our senior citizens.
Now I’m not for anyone, of able body and able mind, being reliant on the masses to pay for their laziness. But…only 10% of our federal budget goes to pay for Unemployment and Welfare.
For perspective on DOD spending, specifically, the 2008 requested budget (higher than the baseline previously-passed figure) is 484 billion out of 2.99 trillion total budget expenditures. Or, 16.2%.
Which is not as big a percentage as, at least by my reading, your post seems to suggest.
One question for you: I am curious as to what you mean by dis-incentive to save. Do you believe that there is no incentive (potential return for risk taken) for capital accumulated? [/quote]
Since I brought it up, the answer is pretty simple.
If you get a 5% return and the (reported!!!) inflation is more than 5% and that is not even counting in capital gains taxes, why save?
Why take actions that will invariably lead to having less money?
Since people save now to consume more later, what sense does it make to postpone consuming when you not only not get nothing in return but lose money?
All that you are doing right now by saving is to finance federal debt because they steal it via inflation.
Expect when you invest abroad and profit when the dollar tanks.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
For perspective on DOD spending, specifically, the 2008 requested budget (higher than the baseline previously-passed figure) is 484 billion out of 2.99 trillion total budget expenditures. Or, 16.2%.
Which is not as big a percentage as, at least by my reading, your post seems to suggest.[/quote]
Sorry if it suggested that. My post was intended to highlight the point that the actual amount of dollars going to Unemployment and Welfare as of 2007 actual numbers was only 53% of what we spent on Military expenditures, not including Iraq.
And that it was only 30% of what we spent on the combination of Social Security and Medicare.
Let’s put that into perspective for a second: if we figure inflation at 5% per annum, over the course of the next 4 years, with no other change to those spending programs, Social Security alone will basically cause twice the increase of a tax burden as Unemployment and Welfare.
We have some damn serious issues to deal with from a fiscal standpoint the least of which being people “living on the dole”, and neither party is talking about it. Everyone is stuck on political cliches and soundbites for the media. That includes the dems and pubs.
[quote]orion wrote:
ajcook99 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
One question for you: I am curious as to what you mean by dis-incentive to save. Do you believe that there is no incentive (potential return for risk taken) for capital accumulated?
Since I brought it up, the answer is pretty simple.
If you get a 5% return and the (reported!!!) inflation is more than 5% and that is not even counting in capital gains taxes, why save?
Why take actions that will invariably lead to having less money?
Since people save now to consume more later, what sense does it make to postpone consuming when you not only not get nothing in return but lose money?
All that you are doing right now by saving is to finance federal debt because they steal it via inflation.
Expect when you invest abroad and profit when the dollar tanks.
[/quote]
In the short term, I completely understand the emotion here. But something to ponder and add to your formula:
We have to remember that money saved also has future utility outside of it’s current earnings. One of the best quotes I’ve heard is “Your sole financial purpose in life is to replace your income with your savings.” This highlights the fact that even the money saved is parked in a “Folgers can” and buried, in the future that deflated money still has the utility that it can replace you having to earn wages.