Catholic Online Forum

The first interactive Catholic Forum on the web
It is currently 21 May 2013 05:36

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2013 11:57 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: 08 Jan 2003 09:29
Posts: 3266
Location: Jefferson County, West Virginia, Religion: Roman Catholic
...as a result of the tax law. :violin:

Thanks lawmakers!!

On the bright side, I am thankful to have a job!

_________________
Andrew McAllister

Respect for the dignity of every innocent human being from conception/fertilization, without exception, without compromise, without apology.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2013 12:09 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 05 Oct 2004 07:39
Posts: 8540
Location: Northern VA, USA
Everyone's will go down by about 2%. Because the Obama tax cuts expired.

I haven't seen my actual impact yet. Won't see it for sure until the end of the month because of the weirdness of payroll. I'll pass on the amount when I know reliably.

On the benefits side, my family's benefits will cost $234/year more. But we get a lot more for it. Lab and imaging costs go down to $0. Urgent Care costs down to $50 from $200. On the whole, a net improvement for us.

_________________
ImageJeff StevensImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2013 14:19 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2003 13:32
Posts: 4930
Kardinal wrote:
Everyone's will go down by about 2%. Because the Obama tax cuts expired.


That is the first time I have heard this expiration called the "Obama tax cuts" expiration? My understanding is that due to the faltering economy there was a payroll tax holiday that reduced social security payments and NOW the holiday is over. All the other tax cuts were the Bush tax cuts and they were actual tax cuts NOT simply a holiday that deferred payments. NOW, the Bush tax cuts have been expired for the 'rich' and the Obama tax increases as a result of Obamacare have begun to kick in -this in addition to an intentional expiring of the payroll tax holiday WILL decrease take home pay. ALL this intentional PRESIDENT OBAMA expiration (tax increase) in a still faltering economy is part of President Obama's 'balanced' approach to spending more money than he has to spend by claiming virtual savings ten years into the future (well beyond his limited term in office) and taxing the American people some more right now.

We are winning the future NOT! We are mortgaging the future of our country and our posterity.

Things look far far from improved from my perspective.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2013 14:27 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 05 Oct 2004 07:39
Posts: 8540
Location: Northern VA, USA
dlm wrote:
Kardinal wrote:
Everyone's will go down by about 2%. Because the Obama tax cuts expired.


That is the first time I have heard this expiration called the "Obama tax cuts" expiration? My understanding is that due to the faltering economy there was a payroll tax holiday that reduced social security payments and NOW the holiday is over.

Correct. But I figure if it's fair to call the increase a tax increase, then it's fair to call it a tax cut when they were cut.

dlm wrote:
All the other tax cuts were the Bush tax cuts and they were actual tax cuts NOT simply a holiday that deferred payments.

No, it was a real cut. They weren't deferred; it's not like we're going to have to pay them back.

dlm wrote:
NOW, the Bush tax cuts have been expired for the 'rich'

Well, sort of. They raised taxes on people making over...what is it, 450k? I'm not crying for them.

dlm wrote:
and the Obama tax increases as a result of Obamacare have begun to kick in

Really? My premiums went up $236/year. That's not much. And that's not a tax increase, that's a premium increase.

dlm wrote:
-this in addition to an intentional expiring of the payroll tax holiday WILL decrease take home pay.

Of course.

dlm wrote:
ALL this intentional PRESIDENT OBAMA expiration (tax increase) in a still faltering economy is part of President Obama's 'balanced'

Well, now you're reading minds.

dlm wrote:
approach to spending more money than he has to spend by claiming virtual savings ten years into the future (well beyond his limited term in office).

I'd love to hear your ideas for what to cut. Even Republicans balk at cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Defense...and there's literally no other cuts that would bring us to fiscal responsibility. Though I'm in favor of cutting all three.

dlm wrote:
We are winning the future NOT! We are mortgaging the future of our country and our posterity.


Thongs look far far from improved from my perspective.[/quote]
I agree wholeheartedly. Things are not improving. I'm not opposed to tax increases, but we have GOT to cut spending too, and in areas that are politically dangerous, but absolutely necessary.

Though I snickered at the misspelling. :) Thongs are far from improved, in fact, they're a major step backward in modesty and appropriateness.

_________________
ImageJeff StevensImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2013 14:43 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2003 13:32
Posts: 4930
Kardinal wrote:
I'd love to hear your ideas for what to cut. Even Republicans balk at cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Defense...and there's literally no other cuts that would bring us to fiscal responsibility. Though I'm in favor of cutting all three.


I would love to hear my ideas for what to cut as well -as would be evidenced by the elected representatives that would do such IF ever a budget was allowed to be passed through the leftist controlled Senate.

As it stands now in effect for all intents and purposes I and ALL Americans that are represented by the House of Representatives are being taxed without representation. As long as the Senate continues to hold the appropriations process hostage and President Obama continues to spend under continuing resolutions based upon a long ago passed bloated Democrat budget with increases built into it MY IDEAS are not being heard.

Something better happen quick because people are growing sick and tired of being ruled over rather than served by an executive and his political party that seem by actions to care nothing about my ideas at all -all this while telling me they have a mandate and speak for me!

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2013 15:15 
Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2009 15:57
Posts: 2774
Jeff, "Well, sort of. They raised taxes on people making over...what is it, 450k? I'm not crying for them."., really are you so jealous of success that you wish ill of those achieving success? Those evil, dirty, no-good, high-achieving rich people are already paying around 40% of the total US tax, why should they pay more than you, are you more of a citizen, have you hired anyone lately? I never hear the taxpayers yelling we need to eliminate all the exemptions and deductions in the tax code as a means to increase revenue, it's always "let's get the other guy, but not me". We need a flat tax, no exemptions, no deductions and no excuses before we can start serious talks about the need, if any, to raise more tax on Everyone.

I'm all for reducing medicare and Social Security, we can start by raising the eligibility age to 70; we can stop paying $4,000 for $1,000 motorized scooters and similar scams; we can stop covering anyone and anything not covered by the original plans as voted on and approved and we can force the government to return all the money it stole from those programs, with interest.

_________________
BobA

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2013 15:27 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 05 Oct 2004 07:39
Posts: 8540
Location: Northern VA, USA
bali wrote:
Jeff, "Well, sort of. They raised taxes on people making over...what is it, 450k? I'm not crying for them."., really are you so jealous of success that you wish ill of those achieving success?

Nope. I'm just aware that they are far more capable of paying for the debts they have incurred via their election of politicians unwilling to make spending cuts than those who make less.

I make good money. I am not complaining about the increase in my taxes. The accusation that I am motivated by jealousy is insulting.

bali wrote:
Those evil, dirty, no-good, high-achieving rich people are already paying around 40% of the total US tax

Well, no, they're not.

bali wrote:
have you hired anyone lately?

Yes. Every day I hire someone. We've had this discussion before, Bob. The middle class does the hiring in the US, far more than the rich.

bali wrote:
I never hear the taxpayers yelling we need to eliminate all the exemptions and deductions in the tax code as a means to increase revenue, it's always "let's get the other guy, but not me".

Shockingly, I believe I just said what you said never happens.

bali wrote:
We need a flat tax, no exemptions, no deductions and no excuses before we can start serious talks about the need, if any, to raise more tax on Everyone.

I disagree. Taxing someone making $18,000 a year the same rate you tax someone making $180,000 a year is fundamentally unjust. It could prevent the former person from EATING or having a roof over their head. It prevents the latter from taking a vacation in the Bahamas and instead they have to take a vacation in Miami.

bali wrote:
I'm all for reducing medicare and Social Security, we can start by raising the eligibility age to 70; we can stop paying $4,000 for $1,000 motorized scooters and similar scams; we can stop covering anyone and anything not covered by the original plans as voted on and approved and we can force the government to return all the money it stole from those programs, with interest.

Good starts, I concur. Eliminate the cap on Social Security, and means test those who receive it but don't need it. Bill Gates don't need no social security.

But we're still left with about $1.2t to cut.

_________________
ImageJeff StevensImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2013 15:31 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 05 Oct 2004 07:39
Posts: 8540
Location: Northern VA, USA
dlm wrote:
Kardinal wrote:
I'd love to hear your ideas for what to cut. Even Republicans balk at cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Defense...and there's literally no other cuts that would bring us to fiscal responsibility. Though I'm in favor of cutting all three.

I would love to hear my ideas for what to cut as well

Ain't nothin' stopping you from saying what you'd like to cut here, Daniel.

dlm wrote:
-as would be evidenced by the elected representatives that would do such IF ever a budget was allowed to be passed through the leftist controlled Senate.

Well, if the House would propose a budget that the Senate liked, that would solve the problem, wouldn't it? The Senate has every bit as much right to refuse to pass a budget they don't like as the House Leadership has to refuse to pass a budget it doesn't like.

I love this "holding hostage" talk. The other guy is always "holding the American people hostage by not doing [what I want them to do]". Both sides use the rhetoric, both sides do what inspires it, the only difference is who you agree with.

dlm wrote:
Something better happen quick because people are growing sick and tired of being ruled over rather than served by an executive and his political party that seem by actions to care nothing about my ideas at all -all this while telling me they have a mandate and speak for me!

Sounds to me like an elected Senate and executive are using their Constitutional authority to represent what they think their constituents want them to do. If they didn't want this guy, they shouldn't have voted for him. It's simply inaccurate to say he's ruling over when he was duly, legally, and constitutionally elected.

As much as we oppose him, he is not "ruling over".

_________________
ImageJeff StevensImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2013 19:07 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2003 13:32
Posts: 4930
Kardinal wrote:
Sounds to me like an elected Senate and executive are using their Constitutional authority to represent what they think their constituents want them to do. If they didn't want this guy, they shouldn't have voted for him. It's simply inaccurate to say he's ruling over when he was duly, legally, and constitutionally elected.

As much as we oppose him, he is not "ruling over".
I just pointed out exactly how he and the leftist horde is ruling by ignoring the Constitutional requirement for an annual budget rather than serving by passing an annual budget. His lip service and yours do not change that reality. I am not one of the koolaid drinking cult of personality worshipers.

You want to carry water for President Obama tell others not to believe their lying eyes and explain why black is white, bad is good and tax increases are not bad, -all this this cover up President Obama's failed grasp of economics and flawed ideologically premised actions -fine. However. do not expect me to join with you in the delusional exercise. Instead, expect me to oppose it.

I agree THEY wanted the guy -he told them THEY were the ones THEY were waiting for; however, were we disagree is exactly what legitimate powers the guy has in a limited three branched government -this EVEN IF he was legitimately elected to SERVE (not rule) all the people as an executive that is supposed to uphold and defend the Constitution.

ALL the American people is who Obama serves -NOT just his horde -his office is not for a district NOR for another country NOR the world -IT is for ALL Americans -not illegal aliens -not mideast jihadists. However, it is clear as evidenced by his speeches, statements, and actions that President Obama is a corrupt tyrannical divider; not a uniter. His selective enforcement and subversion of laws all favored towards HIS community organized constituents is corruption plain and simple.

What President Obama and the leftist horde is doing is not legitimate -advancing Communism; yes -tyrannical; yes -legitimate; no.

It is obvious that some are quite pleased at the injustice being perpetrated by President Obama right now; however, THEY will not continue to benefit forever at the material and spiritual expense of others and a reckoning will surely come if not here on Earth then surely at Judgment.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2013 19:12 
Offline
Forum Staff
Forum Staff
User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2002 11:50
Posts: 18854
Location: USA
Quote:
Taxing someone making $18,000 a year the same rate you tax someone making $180,000 a year is fundamentally unjust


Could you explain what you mean to me on that? Taking an arbitrary 10% of their incomes would be 1800 and 18,000 respectively, what ever is unfair about that? and before someone dwells on the 10% I chose that number just for discussion.

_________________
Bob C


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2013 19:14 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2003 13:32
Posts: 4930
bali wrote:
"Well, sort of. They raised taxes on people making over...what is it, 450k? I'm not crying for them."


Equality under the law -what a novel concept; one completely missed by some who instead want 'fairness' decreed and imposed by a government ruling class that focuses on redistribution RATHER than guaranteeing opportunity. SOCIALISM kills.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2013 19:26 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 05 Oct 2004 07:39
Posts: 8540
Location: Northern VA, USA
BobC wrote:
Quote:
Taxing someone making $18,000 a year the same rate you tax someone making $180,000 a year is fundamentally unjust


Could you explain what you mean to me on that? Taking an arbitrary 10% of their incomes would be 1800 and 18,000 respectively, what ever is unfair about that? and before someone dwells on the 10% I chose that number just for discussion.

I did, in the sentence following it.

_________________
ImageJeff StevensImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2013 19:27 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2003 01:07
Posts: 14648
Location: Sydney, Australia
Bob C,

While not absolutely unjust in itself, a flat rate tax is comparatively unjust when compared with a progressive tax. The reasons usually given are as follows:

Quote:
The higher one's income, the greater the fraction of it that tends to consist of economic rent rather than rewards for any commensurate contribution to production. By definition, economic rent is a factor payment exceeding that required to place a factor in its most productive use, so it can be taxed away entirely without impairing wealth production. Consequently, in the absence of taxes specifically levied on economic rent, a steeply progressive tax on the highest incomes can be expected to fall almost exclusively on economic rent, minimizing the excess burden of such taxation.

In a market economy, the larger an investment is, the higher its rate of return. This is due to both economies of scale and the increased range of investment opportunities. In addition to these economic forces, those who control greater amounts of capital within a society are able to participate more directly in shaping government policy, often in ways that further maximize their wealth. Thus, due to both economic and political realities within a market economy, it is a natural process for the wealthiest individuals and firms in a society to become disproportionately wealthier over time. In order to prevent the political instability resulting from the natural stratification of the populace into an ever smaller and wealthier aristocracy or moneyed class, and an ever larger working class, free market democracies should support progressive taxation and programs to enhance economic opportunity for the lower and middle classes.

In response to the concern that progressive taxation creates an unfair psychological burden on the wealthy; if the utility gained from income exhibits diminishing marginal returns, as many psychologists assert (see Weber-Fechner law), then for the tax burden to be shared in a utilitarian way the tax-bill must increase non-linearly with income.

As income levels rise, marginal propensity to consume tends to drop. Thus it is often argued that economic demand can be stimulated by reducing the tax burden on lower incomes while raising the burden on higher incomes

People with higher income tend to have a higher percentage of that in discretionary income, and can thus afford a greater tax burden (this is the “vertical equity” argument), e.g., a person earning exactly enough money to pay for food and housing cannot afford to pay any taxes without its causing material damage, while someone earning twice as much can afford to pay up to half their income in taxes.

Some believe that the wealthy have a disproportionately greater interest in maintaining societal goods typically supported by taxation such as security of property rights, defense and infrastructure, as they have much more to lose if these fail than do the poor. Public investments in defense and foreign aid often support assets abroad whose expropriation is a far greater risk than is the risk involving domestic investments.

As long as after-tax income is a strictly increasing function of gross income, there is a monetary incentive to increase compensation received. Indeed, for any particular income goal, the higher the tax rate, the more compensation one must receive to reach that income goal. For this reason, progressive income tax may increase the incentive to produce among the largest producers (if higher production is truly associated with higher compensation).



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressiv ... ementation

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2013 19:29 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 05 Oct 2004 07:39
Posts: 8540
Location: Northern VA, USA
dlm wrote:
You want to carry water for President Obama

No, I don't. As my other comments make quite clear.

I stand for truth and accuracy.

dlm wrote:
However. do not expect me to join with you in the delusional exercise.

I asked you a civil question. If you don't wan to answer it, the only credibility you're harming is your own.

_________________
ImageJeff StevensImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2013 19:50 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2003 13:32
Posts: 4930
Seamas O Dalaigh wrote:
While not absolutely unjust in itself, a flat rate tax is comparatively unjust when compared with a progressive tax. The reasons usually given are as follows.


This is nothing new. It seeks to replace objective equality under the law with a subjective 'fairness'. IT is in essence simply a method used to redistribute wealth.

By analogy a progressive tax system would be comparable to a government issued speeding ticket with a fine amount derived from and based upon income OR comparable to an electric bill amount derived from and based upon income

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs - Karl Marx

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2013 19:53 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2003 13:32
Posts: 4930
Kardinal wrote:
dlm wrote:
You want to carry water for President Obama

No, I don't. As my other comments make quite clear.

I stand for truth and accuracy.


We argue ideology. You claim not to support leftist ideology each and every time we are in opposition.

It has been quite clear to myself for quite some time what you stand for each and every time you stand for it.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2013 20:05 
Offline
Forum Staff
Forum Staff
User avatar

Joined: 05 Sep 2002 16:11
Posts: 8600
Location: Eastern NC
Given that there's no accurate Circular E in play, yet, there's no accurate way to have this discussion.

I know the first paycheck of the year was not representative of our situation for this year for us. The second one will be my husband's employer's best guess. Perhaps by February IRS will get it sorted out.

Meanwhile, our health insurance would have doubled last year with no noticeable additions to coverage, so we switched to a plan that has nearly 100% coverage up to a point, then a huge doughnut hole, and then 90% coverage for the rest of the year, it amounts to about half the coverage for the same amount of money we had been paying. The company is one I would list in the top 5. I'd say Jeff is pretty lucky in his health insurance coverage, certainly compared to us.

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2013 20:08 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 05 Oct 2004 07:39
Posts: 8540
Location: Northern VA, USA
Rose West wrote:
Given that there's no accurate Circular E in play, yet, there's no accurate way to have this discussion.

Circular E? Forgive my ignorance, but I don't know what that is.

Rose West wrote:
I'd say Jeff is pretty lucky in his health insurance coverage, certainly compared to us.

I work for a health care company, and a decent size one. I would expect good coverage.

It's not as good as what I had at the consulting company, but that was in a different environment.

_________________
ImageJeff StevensImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2013 20:57 
Offline
Forum Staff
Forum Staff
User avatar

Joined: 05 Sep 2002 16:11
Posts: 8600
Location: Eastern NC
Kardinal wrote:
Circular E? Forgive my ignorance, but I don't know what that is.


Circular E is the IRS publication that tells employers how much to withhold from our paychecks for all the various categories that we pay into. All the states with income taxes will have a similar document.

Near as I can tell, this is the most recent one published. There was no point in spending the taxpayers' money on assembling and printing it while the questions known as the fiscal cliff were still in the air. Until Circular E is updated for 2013, it's not clear what we will be paying. We can have a vague idea, based upon the numbers that we've heard (the 2% and that sort of thing), but after Circular E we'll know plus or minus ten or twenty dollars per check, and after we file our 2013 taxes a year from now, we'll know for sure.

In any case, it's going to kill us at our house. Every penny was spent on something we considered necessary as it was.

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2013 21:22 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: 05 Oct 2008 20:28
Posts: 1610
Location: Dorchester, MA, USA
Coming down to the end of 2012, many people and entities were also waiting for the government to determine and report on the adjustment to benefits. Not just individuals waiting to hear what their social security check would be, but places like my father's nursing home didn't know what they were going to be billing because the county/state didn't know what medicaid patients would be receiving.

_________________
Rob


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2013 06:48 
Offline
Forum Staff
Forum Staff
User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2002 11:50
Posts: 18854
Location: USA
So Jeff and James,

You are both stating that someone should be taxed more because they can afford it? That certainly does not seem fair to me.

_________________
Bob C


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2013 16:44 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2003 01:07
Posts: 14648
Location: Sydney, Australia
Bob C,

Quote:
...someone should be taxed more because they can afford it?


I don't think that an accurate summary.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2013 05:35 
Offline
Forum Staff
Forum Staff
User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2002 11:50
Posts: 18854
Location: USA
Seamas O Dalaigh wrote:
Bob C,

Quote:
...someone should be taxed more because they can afford it?


I don't think that an accurate summary.


That is how I see the statement.

_________________
Bob C


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2013 08:09 
Offline
Forum Staff
Forum Staff
User avatar

Joined: 05 Sep 2002 16:11
Posts: 8600
Location: Eastern NC
BobC wrote:
Seamas O Dalaigh wrote:
Bob C,

Quote:
...someone should be taxed more because they can afford it?


I don't think that an accurate summary.


That is how I see the statement.


I agree that's how it reads.

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2013 08:34 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 05 Oct 2004 07:39
Posts: 8540
Location: Northern VA, USA
The government has a legitimate right to reasonable taxation.

Gotta get it from somewhere. Taking it from the poor takes away essentials, taking it from the rich takes luxuries. The latter option is far preferable.

_________________
ImageJeff StevensImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2013 08:37 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: 08 Jan 2003 09:29
Posts: 3266
Location: Jefferson County, West Virginia, Religion: Roman Catholic
Hey, you all hi-hacked my venting thread! ha!

This is about me, not the Federal Government! :tsk:

_________________
Andrew McAllister

Respect for the dignity of every innocent human being from conception/fertilization, without exception, without compromise, without apology.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2013 08:47 
Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2009 15:57
Posts: 2774
For any who are still disillusioned about the total US tax load paid by the top 5% earners:

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Share_of_Total_Income_and_Taxes_Paid_by_Income_Group_in_2011.jpg
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Lower income earners are not penalized by the Federal Tax system but by State and Local Taxes; changing the Federal Tax rate to penalize those who are successful does not help the lower classes of earners, it only hurts the upper earners and does little to nothing to reduce our deficit. It's class warfare and an attempt at equalizing and redistributing wealth; socialist, marxist and/or communist strategies but certainly not democratic.

If anyone wants to support this administration's strategies that is their right but don't try to do so while claiming otherwise.

_________________
BobA

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2013 09:15 
Offline
Forum Staff
Forum Staff
User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2002 11:50
Posts: 18854
Location: USA
Kardinal wrote:
The government has a legitimate right to reasonable taxation.



Absolutely, and the citizens have a right to reasonable and responsible use of the right to tax

Quote:
Gotta get it from somewhere. Taking it from the poor takes away essentials, taking it from the rich takes luxuries. The latter option is far preferable.


To whom? The poor probably. Most of my life I have been part of what sociologists would call the middle class and probably the lower middle class, paying my taxes never deprived me of anything.

Unfairly taxing the rich does give some relief to the poor (or so it seems) but the rich buy things like yachts, guess who are hired to build the yachts...members of the lower and middle class, if less yachts are sold, less will be built, thus more persons will be put out of work.

And yacht building is a serious business in Florida.

_________________
Bob C


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2013 09:40 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 05 Oct 2004 07:39
Posts: 8540
Location: Northern VA, USA
BobC wrote:
Unfairly taxing the rich does give some relief to the poor (or so it seems) but the rich buy things like yachts, guess who are hired to build the yachts...members of the lower and middle class, if less yachts are sold, less will be built, thus more persons will be put out of work.

The amount of impact to the luxury business is approximately the same as the tax differential collected. If the debt savings is low, then the economic impact is likewise low.

The difference is that the government then spends that money employing someone, either a government worker or a contracted worker, which also generates economic activity. The rich have a tendency to put a portion of their money in financial devices that generate no economic activity, such as bonds and cash.

_________________
ImageJeff StevensImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2013 10:11 
Offline
Forum Staff
Forum Staff
User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2002 11:50
Posts: 18854
Location: USA
Quote:
The difference is that the government then spends that money employing someone, either a government worker or a contracted worker, which also generates economic activity.
While a government job does in fact put income in someones pocket far to many government jobs are not much more then "make work" those jobs produce nothing and only cause our taxes to rise, how many times have you heard the phrase "nonessential government workers"

Quote:
The rich have a tendency to put a portion of their money in financial devices that generate no economic activity, such as bonds and cash.

Depending on the type of bonds that may or may not be true.

_________________
Bob C


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2013 13:30 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2003 13:32
Posts: 4930
Kardinal wrote:
The difference is that the government then spends that money employing someone, either a government worker or a contracted worker, which also generates economic activity. The rich have a tendency to put a portion of their money in financial devices that generate no economic activity, such as bonds and cash.


Theft is theft no matter the reason. Inequality under the law is unjust no matter the reason.

The government is not profit driven nor is it a wealth creator -the government is an expense. Government is tasked legitimately with getting things done regardless cost NOT because it is most cost effective -it is by all intents and purposes an agreed upon limited necessary evil.

I would agree with you that a government employing someone moves money around; HOWEVER, this movement is not directed toward wealth creation and as such it embodies an opportunity loss. Further, the government employee pursues efforts directed by government that may very well (as in the case of President Obama) be further detrimental to economic growth and wealth creation.

Government is supposed to serve and uphold the law -right now it does less and less of this at greater and greater expense to the people financially, physically, and spiritually.

Among many things just as illegitimate, this government employs many who perform or promote abortion worldwide -it employs many who promote homosexual sex normalcy worldwide -it employs many who seek to curtail religious freedoms -it employs many who seek to subvert the laws of the land -what of these costs and damage being done to the common good? To paraphrase the leftists now running roughshod over the American people -what about the children -if defunding government saves one innocent life is it not worth the effort to do such?

This is not a discussion about some innocuous financial transaction or economic ideology -this is a discussion about how to fund the beast with some suggesting it quite okay to fund the beast and to do so through illegitimate and unjust means!

Why would those who wish to fund good do so illegitimately? This is often the question that portends the aha moment when one realizes exactly what the leftists are doing under the guise of legitimate governance. The funding necessarily translates into the doing -it is not the path that must be legitimate for some but the destination. Any means necessary...

The next question of course is one where naivete is no longer -why would anyone expect those who wish to fund and promote evil to do so legitimately?

I know what these people stand for.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2013 13:34 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2003 13:32
Posts: 4930
Kardinal wrote:
The rich have a tendency to put a portion of their money in financial devices that generate no economic activity, such as bonds and cash.


How dare they.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2013 13:54 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 05 Oct 2004 07:39
Posts: 8540
Location: Northern VA, USA
dlm wrote:
Kardinal wrote:
The difference is that the government then spends that money employing someone, either a government worker or a contracted worker, which also generates economic activity. The rich have a tendency to put a portion of their money in financial devices that generate no economic activity, such as bonds and cash.


Theft is theft no matter the reason. Inequality under the law is unjust no matter the reason.

Taxation is theft? Hm.

That's a position the Church disagrees with.

_________________
ImageJeff StevensImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2013 14:17 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2003 13:32
Posts: 4930
Kardinal wrote:
dlm wrote:
Kardinal wrote:
The difference is that the government then spends that money employing someone, either a government worker or a contracted worker, which also generates economic activity. The rich have a tendency to put a portion of their money in financial devices that generate no economic activity, such as bonds and cash.


Theft is theft no matter the reason. Inequality under the law is unjust no matter the reason.

Taxation is theft? Hm.

That's a position the Church disagrees with.


When taxation is used as a means to redistribute wealth it is by definition theft -though some call it fair taxation. Taking from one to give to another is theft -though some may call it charity.

Government control and central planning of the economy aimed at fair outcomes and resulting in preferential treatment for some is Socialism & Tyranny -though some may call it Democracy.

The Church is quite clear on all these things.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2013 14:26 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 05 Oct 2004 07:39
Posts: 8540
Location: Northern VA, USA
dlm wrote:
Kardinal wrote:
dlm wrote:
Kardinal wrote:
The difference is that the government then spends that money employing someone, either a government worker or a contracted worker, which also generates economic activity. The rich have a tendency to put a portion of their money in financial devices that generate no economic activity, such as bonds and cash.


Theft is theft no matter the reason. Inequality under the law is unjust no matter the reason.

Taxation is theft? Hm.

That's a position the Church disagrees with.


When taxation is used as a means to redistribute wealth it is by definition theft -though some call it fair taxation. Taking from one to give to another is theft -though some may call it charity.

Government control and central planning of the economy aimed at fair outcomes and resulting in preferential treatment for some is Socialism & Tyranny -though some may call it Democracy.

The Church is quite clear on all these things.

Indeed? Can you cite church teaching that indicates such?

_________________
ImageJeff StevensImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2013 14:32 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2003 01:07
Posts: 14648
Location: Sydney, Australia
Bob C,

Quote:
That is how I see the statement.


It does not accurately summarise any of the seven reasons I gave you.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2013 14:45 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2003 13:32
Posts: 4930
Kardinal wrote:
Indeed? Can you cite church teaching that indicates such?


I would say that the topic was covered quite adequately here:

Catholic Online Forum • The Ends Don't Justify the Means...Ever? or Define "Lying"

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2013 14:48 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2003 13:32
Posts: 4930
Seamas O Dalaigh wrote:
Bob C,

Quote:
That is how I see the statement.


It does not accurately summarise any of the seven reasons I gave you.


Ah -but what of the effect; the action; the means RATHER than the reasons for employing said means.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group