How Your Income Stacks Up

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Why do you hate America and advocate Socialism, Charles?

If it's a household income chart then we are somewhere in the top 10% supposedly. Somehow I don't feel like I'm in the top 10%, but I spent YEARS - okay, most of my life, in the bottom....

i just get tired of hearing the "oh the rich should pay their fair share" when in fact, they pay proportionally more than everyone else. that hardly sounds like a "fair share" to me.

[ScottThuy 140]

The Biggest problem I have with this system of taxation is.... not long after it's implemented there will be some "emergency" reason to start up an income based tax again... perhaps starting with the rich.

IN the end we will be right back where we started paying an income tax AND a consumption too.

I dont think so.. I think there would be an initial accross the board tax and then they would have higher taxes on luxury items to go for the wealthier people... I dont have a problem with that either.. different tax structures for different classifications of items or services... necessities at a lower rate than luxuries...

[NickD 203]

We seem to be the self appointed police department of the world, someone has to pay for it. So typical about taxes, starts an argument as who is going to pay for them. If not one homeowner against another homeowner, homeowners against corporations.

We could switch the argument to why are our taxes so high and what are we gaining from them.

[slim 1,525]

Whatever happened to living within our means?

If you guys really want to stick it to big government - take a pay cut. Give them less money and force them to make due. If you can do it, why can't they?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Its regressive, poor and lower class spend almost all their income on stuff they need, while the rich only spend a portion of it. As a percentage of income, the poor will be paying much more with such a system.

The proposed fair tax, in Senate bill form, provides for monthly rebates for the value of the tax for "basic necessities" which means the porr would get back almost all they pay and since they have the option of using tax free sources such as thrift shops for many purchases, they may get back MLORE than they pay.

Please read about what you speak before you condemn something.

[SMR 368]

Its regressive, poor and lower class spend almost all their income on stuff they need, while the rich only spend a portion of it. As a percentage of income, the poor will be paying much more with such a system.

So the rich don't spend more than the poor? What are they doing with the money? Unless they are hiding it under their mattresses, they are doing something with their money. Even if they are simply investing it, that leads to economic growth and employment of others. If someone makes more money but spends the same amount, why should you tax them more? They aren't using anything more. If they are spending more, they will pay more taxes.

More to the point, as has been pointed out, the fair tax provides for a tax rebate equal to the tax paid on "necessities," so such a tax system would still be progressive since the rich spend more income on "luxuries."

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

if things were really fair, we'd all pay the same flat rate, wouldn't we?

I'd be on board with a flat tax on every dollar earned - whether actively or passively. Those in the higher income brackets most likely would not be.

[rebeccajo 14]

The proposed fair tax, in Senate bill form, provides for monthly rebates for the value of the tax for "basic necessities" which means the porr would get back almost all they pay and since they have the option of using tax free sources such as thrift shops for many purchases, they may get back MLORE than they pay.

Please read about what you speak before you condemn something.

Does Alla shop at the thrift store?

So the rich don't spend more than the poor? What are they doing with the money? Unless they are hiding it under their mattresses, they are doing something with their money. Even if they are simply investing it, that leads to economic growth and employment of others. If someone makes more money but spends the same amount, why should you tax them more? They aren't using anything more. If they are spending more, they will pay more taxes.

More to the point, as has been pointed out, the fair tax provides for a tax rebate equal to the tax paid on "necessities," so such a tax system would still be progressive since the rich spend more income on "luxuries."

Are you an idiot?

[Jenn! 918]

The proposed fair tax, in Senate bill form, provides for monthly rebates for the value of the tax for "basic necessities" which means the porr would get back almost all they pay and since they have the option of using tax free sources such as thrift shops for many purchases, they may get back MLORE than they pay.

Please read about what you speak before you condemn something.

Here is the "prebate" schedule - I think the amounts are significant, but the tax is still somewhat regressive. One major advantage is that the FairTax would also ensure that illegal immigrants would pay their "fair share'. Also, no more working off the books.

[ScottThuy 140]

I like the fact that there would be no working off of the books anymore... but bartering would increase as was done over 100 years ago to avoid paying a tax whiskey

[PhiLandShiR 18]

Before the end of this presidential term it will be a lot worse.

Nonsense.

[Nikita2Charles 32]

GREED< GREED<GREED

OURCOURCING< OURSOURCING<OUTSOURCING

Even with this income bracket it all depends on where you live, you can be in the top 10 earning wise in the Sillicon Valley but still not living la vida loca because the cost of living is so High out here.

Back when I was in High school, all the news and college counselor was telling us computer sciences is going to be the key to the future, The potential Job growth for the students will be enormous like you'll get a Job as soon as you get out of college.

For a short period of time during the dot.com it was like that, recruiters used to come on Campus and making Job offers right before Graduation, around Spring break.

The bubble bust, and in addition to those Job loss, a lot of these folks moved back to Asia and started their own start up companies, with the expertize they got here, they are able to offer lower cost by hiring people in their countries and compete for jobs contracts here.

I personally had an experience when I applied for a Software engineer position for my wife 5 years ago, The HR lady was kinda honest, it was a position my wife was qualified for and the hiring manager like her resume, but a couple of weeks later there was no news, when I spoke the the lady, and she gave me some insight on the Job.

This position is reserved for someone with an H1 from Chennai India, Had she been in India she would have goten the Job.

It's illegal but how many more companies are doing it? I was so upset and I wished i had a recorder but I would not want to get her into trouble for being honest and letting me know what's the situation.

My little brother was studying computer sciences at that time, with all this madness him and most of his friends switch majors, some went to Electrical, Electronics, mechanical. Whereas these kids are like computer Wiz, at 12years old one of them wrote their own programs, my little brother wrote some audio mixing applications for ringtones,

All that talent just got wasted, and people wondering what's happening to US, now those kids in school are not only competing against their classmate, their neighbor, their countrymen, their are competing against the world, they are as bright as anybody else in the world but THEY ARE AT A MAJOR DISADVANTAGE DUE TO THE COST OF LIVING HERE.

Companies will keep sending Jobs overseas for cheaper labor, I've had to train people i know from asia whose going to replace the folks i've been working with for years.

I've refused several time to go to Asia to train them, so the option was to bring them here. There were a few who decided to go to Asia to train the engineers there, 1 gentleman in particular was there for 5MONTHS

They asked him to fly back on Thursday right before a schedule layoff and He got his Pink Slip on Monday.

Earlier on it was small items stuff that was going overseas, but now we are talking about high paying Jobs leaving the country, then people will wonder why we are having this deficit, if the people are not working and the money is not coming in

WHERE"S THE TAXES coming from?

We keep shooting ourself in the foot, and corporation don't care about anybody it's all about the bottom line, the Gross Margin, Anything for a BUCK.

From a team of 187 down to only 3 of us, 184 engineers salary lost, 184 families, 184 federal and state income tax lost.

Now those folks have been replaced In Singapore, Are we going to get any Taxes from their salary, are they going to visit the local restaurants, the car dearlearship.

the $230Million that used to be coming from Milpitas, the city, the state and the Country get something from that EXPORT but now

the $230M is being done in Singapore because of a Major 10 year Tax Break to the company by the sing govt.

Either way you look at it, I don't beleive in protectionsm because we are living in a global economy but we have to stop shooting ourself in the foot and if you think the corporation are the ones who will take the initiative, dream on we'' ll see most of the developing nations passing us by.

I am fearful for the new generation coming up with that kinda trend, my kid might have to go to Asia to make a living, or live here under low paying service jobs, Or he might have some great ideas and set up his own business.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Nikita2Charles

[PhiLandShiR 18]

With the amount of taxes we have to pay, and the little money we have left over after taxes, we fall in the bracket where we shouldn't have to pay taxes.

Think we live in a socialistic society that makes me wonder why we work our cans off.

You make that sound like its a bad thing...

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.

Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potentialities and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.

Friedrich Engels, one of the founders of modern socialist theory, and Henri de Saint-Simon, a French Utopian Socialism theorist, advocated the creation of a society that allows for the widespread application of modern technology to rationalise economic activity by eliminating the anarchy of capitalist production. This would allow for wealth and power to be distributed based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is disagreement among socialists over how and to what extent this could be achieved.

On the other hand....

A republic is a form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch and the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government. The word 'republic' is derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as "a public affair".

Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. The most common definition of a republic is a state without a monarch. In republics such as the United States and France the executive is legitimated both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. In the United States, Founding Fathers like James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to only having direct democracy, and this usage is still employed by many viewing themselves as "republicans". In modern political science, republicanism refers to a specific ideology that is based on civic virtue and is considered distinct from ideologies such as liberalism.

Most often a republic is a sovereign country, but there are also subnational entities that are referred to as republics. For instance, Article IV of the Constitution of the United States "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." The Soviet Union was a single nation composed of distinct and legally sovereign Soviet Socialist Republics.

To me it seems that a socialist state would, when run correctly, provide a better living environment for its citizens that the current form of govermnent we have now.

Just my 2 cents for the day....

-P

[SMR 368]

Does Alla shop at the thrift store?

Are you an idiot?

I'm glad we were able to keep things civil and not revert to logical fallacies.

I would be interested to know where you think capital comes from to start new businesses and where you think new jobs and economic growth come from if not from new businesses. Note that banks are a form of investment, since you receive a return on your money and your money is being used to promote business growth and home construction.

My point is that no matter how much money you have, if you are investing it, it isn't increasing your standard of living. It doesn't get you anything until you spend it. We should tax people based on what they use.

We should be encouraging people to save money and plan for the future. The pattern of Americans at large that don't plan for the future is what led us to the current economic downturn. The banks can be seen as the enablers, but it was average Americans who spent money they didn't have and purchased houses they couldn't afford. A tax scheme that only taxes when you spend would encourage people to save money and take care of themselves.

As far as thrift stores, I don't know about Alla, but I find it interesting that you seem to think that thrift stores are beneath some people. I make enough money to put me on the upper end of the chart, but my wife and I still shop at thrift stores. They have good stuff and it's a lot cheaper. If someone thinks they deserve to pay less taxes for better services because they don't have enough to get by, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to be shopping at thrift stores.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

I'm glad we were able to keep things civil and not revert to logical fallacies.

I would be interested to know where you think capital comes from to start new businesses and where you think new jobs and economic growth come from if not from new businesses. Note that banks are a form of investment, since you receive a return on your money and your money is being used to promote business growth and home construction.

My point is that no matter how much money you have, if you are investing it, it isn't increasing your standard of living. It doesn't get you anything until you spend it. We should tax people based on what they use.

We should be encouraging people to save money and plan for the future. The pattern of Americans at large that don't plan for the future is what led us to the current economic downturn. The banks can be seen as the enablers, but it was average Americans who spent money they didn't have and purchased houses they couldn't afford. A tax scheme that only taxes when you spend would encourage people to save money and take care of themselves.

As far as thrift stores, I don't know about Alla, but I find it interesting that you seem to think that thrift stores are beneath some people. I make enough money to put me on the upper end of the chart, but my wife and I still shop at thrift stores. They have good stuff and it's a lot cheaper. If someone thinks they deserve to pay less taxes for better services because they don't have enough to get by, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to be shopping at thrift stores.

It was a lot cheaper ... until the rich folk started shopping there and they cranked up the price on everything... now its too pricy for most...

-P

Edited December 29, 2009 by PhiLandShiR