The tax increase Bush didn't...doesn't mention

Poststructural Pub
21

They have, and because it is generally correct. In my 20 years in the Navy, the great majority of the enlisted folks that I’ve met came from lower or maybe middle class backgrounds (depends upon how you would define middle class), and working class folks. Not to say that folks that come from other backgrounds are less patriotic, just that they have many more options, in general. ..and yeah, I know someone is going to tell me the story of how anyone can become anything they want, etc., etc. While I don’t dispute that is a good goal, it is not possible, in every case.

Thanks. All the Best, Tom

22

Younger people tend to have less money.

It is difficult for poor people to get into the military because of rules dealing with felonies. Poor are disproportionately arrested and therefore have less opportunities to get into the military.

The people that come out of college would (hopefully) be smart enough to be officers.

Not the main factors, just things to think about.

23

Yaaay! Suck on that, Finland!

24

Are you serious? Any reliable sources to back up that statement? I have never heard of the poor being excluded from the military disproportionately, but then I could have missed that article.

At any rate, all of this is non sequitur…are we still talking about the alternative minimum tax?

Robin

25

I have to disagree with you there. There are more poor/lower middle class enlisted folks than any other category, I’d bet.

Tom

26

I wasn’t trying to say that poor people did not make up a large section of the military. I was more just remembering the old “go to war or go to jail” recruiting policies have changed over the years. During peace time it seems that the military is not a way out of a bad neighborhood in the way it was in the past. The military, even with the restrictions still have a large number of non-wealthy people in spite of the restrictions.

Posting before coffee…

Back to taxes

27

You know, I think I take acception to this statement. Did you mean to suggest that enlisted folks are dumber than officers, or if anyone had a college degree that they would be too smart to be enlisted? Officers may have college degrees, but that, by itself, doesn’t make them smarter, or even better solider/sailors.

There are plenty of folks who served in the enlisted ranks who have college degrees and could be officers if they so desired. In my case, I have a college degree, and I was accepted in a commissioning program where I would have become an officer upon completion. Instead, I chose to remain enlisted- I guess I’m just not that smart, eh?

I assume that you did not mean it that way, but just thought that I would stick up for the enlisted folks.

Tom

28

Then their take home is now $168,183… that’s before state taxes, understand. Sure, they’re better off - but the point about the tax system being regressive is that they’re penalized for having found some success in their lives. And by the way, how many families like that do you suppose there are? My guess is that there are far more families of four that make under $50K / year that pay a far less tax than those making that $278,450 number.

A flat tax of 15% on every wage earner. No loopholes. Everyone pays 15% of their income.

In years past I’ve read were some economists have figured out that the revenue to the fed would increase substantially if it were done in this way…e.g., eradicating any and all loopholes for putting money into offshore accounts, among other tax shelters.

29

I meant some people that have had formal education would have the opportunity to join at the higher pay scale of an officer and therefore not be one of the enlisted. I did not mean to say that officers were smart. :stuck_out_tongue:

30

Got it!!

Tom

31

:laughing:

32

Sorry folks - I just caught an error in here… these tax tables are from 1998… I think they’ve changed a tad since then. I’m looking up the ones for 2004 (you’d think they’d be available, given the time of year). These tables came from an IRS website, and I automatically assumed they’d be the most recent, but they weren’t. Sorry.

33

Here’s a start:

Where Tax Brackets Come From
Congress establishes tax rates that apply to different levels of taxable income. Current law provides rates from 10% to 35%. The higher your income, the higher your tax rate.

http://www.fairmark.com/begin/bracket.htm

(there’s a table for filing “single” at the bottom of that page).

34

Here’s a table for those filing jointly, for a couple that is making $400,000 annually:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/02/pf/expert/ask_expert/


Note - the bottom line is that ‘the more you make, the higher the rate you pay’.

That’s what is regressive about income taxes.

35

No, that is the exact opposite of regressive.

Here’s a dictionary definition: http://www.answers.com/regressive&r=67

“3. Decreasing proportionately as the amount taxed increases: a regressive tax.”

I think you are using the word to mean “screwed up” or “counterproductive” or vaguely negative or something. I guess the word sounds like a disparaging adjective. But “regressive” is actually a technical term meaning inversely proportional.

Caj

36

Fair play, Caj.

I hereby vote for “Screwed Up” to describe the tax “scheme” that is currently in use.

:wink:

37

Doesn’t really fit my sense of fairness.

Let’s take someone making $7/hr (Note: minimum wage is currently $5.15) x 40- hr/wk grosses 14,560. Skim 15% or $2184 and he has $12,376 left.

2003 HHS Poverty Guidelines
Size of
Family Unit 48 Contiguous
States and D.C.

  • 1 $ 8,980
    2 12,120
    3 15,260
    4 18,400
    5 21,540
    6 24,680
    7 27,820
    8 30,960

SOURCE: Federal Register, Vol. 68, No. 26, February 7, 2003, pp. 6456-6458. http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/03poverty.htm

Okay,the table doesn’t come out looking so good, but that would put this worker right at the poverty line for a family of 2.

Someone grossing $280,000 pays 15% or $42,000 and gets to keep $238,000. (Even at the current top marginal rate of 35% and ignoring all deductions, the bill would be $98,000 leaving $182,000 live on.) Poverty is not an issue here and this person can certainly consider himself more highly rewarded for his labor than the poor schmuck making $7/hr.

And said schmuck would have to spend everything he earns to stay alive and can never get ahead, while the high-dollar guy has all sorts of options for spending, saving and investing. If he’s smart enough to actaully deserve that pay scale he can leverage himself into never having to worry about money again.

I realize that a sense of fairness is extremely subjective, and may well link to how a person feels about how tax money is actually used, but I don’t think you have to be a socialist to feel that there is something inherently unfair about this. Of course, as a dyed-in-the-wool Bolshevik I think that second guy should be PUT UP AGAINST THE WALL AND SHOT WITH THE REST OF THE CAPITALIST RUNNING PIGDOGS AND … sorry, got a little carried away there.

Roger

38

I guess I must be Capitalist Running Pigdog - cuz Roger, I see nothing wrong with your scenerio.

The person making $280,000 probably has at the very least a college education, and probably an advanced degree. They invested time and energy into making themselves “highly employable”, so it’s only “fair” that they get some type of value back on that investment. They probably also have some years of employment history and experience to offer - you don’t usually walk into a starting salary of $280,000.

The person making $7 an hour may have a degree, however it may be a useless one as far as earning a living wage. Or they are still high school or college age. Or they don’t have any additional schooling OR skills to offer an employer. They probably haven’t been working for a long time, either.

Life isn’t “fair” (that’s one of my favorite sayings to my kids!). Why should someone - due to planning, skills, opportunity, or just plain dumb luck - that is able to earn $280,000 have to pay more percentage wise of his income to taxes than someone - due to poor planning, no skills, bad opportunity, or plain bad luck - who earns $7/hr?

Missy

39

But then, if life isn’t fair, why shouldn’t tax rates be lopsided? It sounds like people who argue a flat rate do so on the basis of fairness.

I figure that fairness doesn’t even enter into it. The purpose of taxes is simply to fund the government and public works. If you’re choosing the tax rates, your goal is getting the revenue you want while minimizing the impact on people and on the economy.

If that means higher rates for some people, well, that isn’t meant to be some sort of moral judgement of their character. Nor is it really fair or unfair; it’s just the set of rates that optimizes the returns.

But making moral arguments about taxes is like building a castle in a swamp. If we all paid a “fair” amount for all the benefits of citizenship and civilization, we’d be broke.

Caj

40

Or, they could have come from a background where they were not able to attend college. Maybe they had to work to help the family and are unable to get financial help. Maybe their IQ ins’t quite high enough for them to become a CEO.

Of course someone should keep a good portion of their money if they are making a lot, but just because someone is making $7.00 per hour doesn’t mean that they have poor planning, or are a deadbeat. Someone needs to do that type of work, and they should at least make a living wage to do so.

Tom