How tight is the United States budget, really?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : How tight is the United States budget, really?

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · Next
Author Message

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 37,742,489
RAC: 14,793
Message 1295488 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 9:15:56 UTC - in response to Message 1295486.
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 16:15:32 UTC

--

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31140
Credit: 11,304,231
RAC: 20,202
United Kingdom
Message 1295490 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 9:34:27 UTC

Peoples tax affairs are a private matter between them and the taxman, and accountants or tax advisors if they have them. It might not be criminal for someone to ask another person to reveal their tax affairs, but it would probably be criminal for Seti to print them here.


Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 37,742,489
RAC: 14,793
Message 1295497 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 10:16:54 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 16:15:09 UTC

--

Profile Uli
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 00
Posts: 9584
Credit: 5,305,294
RAC: 3,917
Germany
Message 1295499 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 10:21:55 UTC - in response to Message 1295480.

bobby, how about you make your last federal income tax return available publically here in the seti forums so we can first get an idea why you pay as little or as much as you do? The math of military pensions is available to the public and it looks like you're pretty close. My personal military pension is my personal military pension. I followed the rules, did what I was told, and was shot at a few times while I was active duty. Although I was not shot at as much as some of my other brothers-in-arms, I did what I was asked to do and now the deal is that I get my pension. If you want to attack military pensions, talk to your representative and tell him we need to balance the federal budget on the backs of military veterans still alive today by taking away their military pensions. (Another good math problem to work out and see what the actual truth is!)

WinterKnight, I'm not ignoring you. The idea of having the states collect ALL federal taxes has merit. I like that idea.

Ex, I'm glad to see that you're finally on-board for cutting federal spending. Thank you.

I never asked you. But you challenged Bobby. I don't agree, that just because someone runs for a public office, should disclose their tax returns. That should be up to thr IRS. We have privacy laws and they should apply to us equally.
____________
Pluto will always be a planet to me.
Order your 15th Seti Anniversary Shirt today. Just PM me for details.
Cash Donation Specialist

Seti Ambassador

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31140
Credit: 11,304,231
RAC: 20,202
United Kingdom
Message 1295501 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 10:36:27 UTC

In the UK, anyone who takes up public office, whether local Councillors or MP's has to declare publicly any interests whether political or financial that might be seen to affect their decision making. They have to state any interests in property, company shareholdings, directorships, other payments from various bodies, memberships of various committees, expenses incurred in their public positions, etc etc. What they are not required to do is to reveal their private tax affairs.





Profile Uli
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 00
Posts: 9584
Credit: 5,305,294
RAC: 3,917
Germany
Message 1295511 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 10:59:03 UTC

Chris. there is no difference here between prvate and public. Anything disclossed to the IRS is zipped lips.
____________
Pluto will always be a planet to me.
Order your 15th Seti Anniversary Shirt today. Just PM me for details.
Cash Donation Specialist

Seti Ambassador

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8505
Credit: 23,108,902
RAC: 16,058
United Kingdom
Message 1295525 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 11:37:16 UTC - in response to Message 1295501.

In the UK, anyone who takes up public office, whether local Councillors or MP's has to declare publicly any interests whether political or financial that might be seen to affect their decision making. They have to state any interests in property, company shareholdings, directorships, other payments from various bodies, memberships of various committees, expenses incurred in their public positions, etc etc. What they are not required to do is to reveal their private tax affairs.

Reading this "Congress members back legislation that could benefit themselves, relatives" in the Washington post it would appear as though it is lawful, even if unethical, to help yourself in Congress.

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31140
Credit: 11,304,231
RAC: 20,202
United Kingdom
Message 1295532 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 12:05:05 UTC
Last modified: 15 Oct 2012, 12:12:45 UTC

I have no links with this Council and their rules are the same as any other Council, and are publicly viewable. Parts 2 & 3 are relevant. Private tax details are not required. Unless you are squeaky clean in private you don't get to be in public office. If you are found out later, then you get chucked out.

Disclosure of information

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,647,928
RAC: 3,030
United States
Message 1295535 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 12:25:13 UTC - in response to Message 1295480.

bobby, how about you make your last federal income tax return available publically here in the seti forums so we can first get an idea why you pay as little or as much as you do?

Why should I want to do a thing like that? Who here has asked you to do it? You were the one comparing the cost of your taxes to the price of cars. I've said in other threads that I'm in the top 5% of earners in the US, though not in the top 1%, which should give you an idea of my income. Any more than that is between me, my employer and the IRS.

The math of military pensions is available to the public and it looks like you're pretty close. My personal military pension is my personal military pension. I followed the rules, did what I was told, and was shot at a few times while I was active duty. Although I was not shot at as much as some of my other brothers-in-arms, I did what I was asked to do and now the deal is that I get my pension.

Quite, you are entitled to your military pension, regardless of how much you contributed to it.

If you want to attack military pensions, talk to your representative and tell him we need to balance the federal budget on the backs of military veterans still alive today by taking away their military pensions. (Another good math problem to work out and see what the actual truth is!)

Why is an exploration considered an attack? Lest anybody forget, when starting down this path I said:

Presumably that would be a government expenditure you and others (myself included) here would not argue to cut.

So why the defensiveness?
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 10226
Credit: 1,529,677
RAC: 239
United Kingdom
Message 1295537 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 12:35:24 UTC - in response to Message 1295535.


Why is an exploration considered an attack? Lest anybody forget, when starting down this path I said:

Presumably that would be a government expenditure you and others (myself included) here would not argue to cut.

So why the defensiveness?


It would've been better to highlight state pensions instead. Military Line personnel deserve their pensions regardless of any budget deficit as they have no guarantees that they will alive the next day.

The rest of us, unless we meet misfortune can see the next & the day after & the day after that.

What should be highlighted is the waste within government departments, which this economic crisis has shown is a worldwide government issue.
____________

Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 8549
Credit: 31,385,480
RAC: 57,904
United States
Message 1295540 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 12:45:27 UTC

^ Well said !!
____________

Old James

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,647,928
RAC: 3,030
United States
Message 1295567 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 13:53:56 UTC - in response to Message 1295479.

That's not the truth.

The truth of the matter is if you give every leech in the U.S. $96,000/year from the producers, there would be one big party in Vegas and the Boardwalk and the next year, this country would crash and turn into a country no better off than Somalia.

That's nothing but ideology, an aggressively misanthropic kind. None of the Founders of my country, nor the mythical Jesus ever referred to the unfortunate as "leeches" and nobody who does deserves anybody's respect.

But thanks for proving me right. Like I guessed, our disagreement clearly does not have to do with math anyway, but with psychology and character -- your lack of any.


Ok, let me get you back on topic and a little closer to the truth.

http://www.irs.gov/file_source/pub/irs-soi/09in11si.xls

Wow, the IRS has the 2009 data available publicly now. I wish I could be that efficient. Keep in mind this is the first year President Obama was in office and blaming Bush 43 for everything. This was his honeymoon period. The numbers have gotten worse since then.

Ok, now, take a look at line 29. Scroll over to column L. That number there is $204,322,325,000. That's the total taxable income for returns greater than $10 Million Dollars. Greater than $10M -- that's MILLION.

8,211--------------Returns GREATER than 10 MILLION dollars
$204,322,325,000---Total taxable income from them
$1,133,650,000,000--to try to shore up this deficit
$16,176,000,000,000--to try to eventually start lowering this debt

So, you tell me, what would happen if we had a 100% tax bracket for anyone making more than $10M?

I know you want a 100% tax bracket for anyone making more than $1B and "what ever it takes" tax bracket for those making between $2M and $1B.

But what if we had a 100% tax bracket of all those making $10M and more?

Ya know, there were a lot of people in here that where pretty excited when you showed up and said you were going to show me the math. They were all hoping you were going to "put me in my place," finally. But I'm afraid you disappointed them. You disappointed me also. I was hoping you'd be the one to help me spread the truth.

But I guess we'll just have to wait and see what our next president of the United States does and see if he can COERCE Harry Reid into doing SOMETHING/ANYTHING towards actually fixing the financial mess the tax and spend nanny state of the last few decades has created.


Some other numbers from columns K and L to ponder:

Total taxable income: 4,861,134,463
%age of the total earned by those with taxable incomes < $50K: 7.8
%age of the total earned by those with taxable incomes > $500K: 18.6
%age of the total earned by those with taxable incomes > $2M: 9.2
%age of the total earned by those with taxable incomes > $10M: 4.2

Total # of returns with taxable income: 81,865,180
%age of taxable returns in the < $50K range: 35.2
%age of taxable returns in the > $500K range: 0.9
%age of taxable returns in the > $2M range: 0.1
%age of taxable returns in the > $10M range: 0.01

The taxable income of the top .1% of earners is > the bottom 35%. Please explain how broadening the tax base is going to help reduce the deficit.

Who here has said that any increase in taxes should be confined to the top 0.01% of people submitting a taxable return?
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...


Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 37,742,489
RAC: 14,793
Message 1295579 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 14:43:01 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 16:30:49 UTC

--

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,689,858
RAC: 1,300
United States
Message 1295586 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 15:03:43 UTC - in response to Message 1295480.

Ex, I'm glad to see that you're finally on-board for cutting federal spending. Thank you.

Yes, cut spending. However this is a blanket statement. Me and you I'm sure have very different ideas on how to go about this.

I would cut various percentages from various places, yes, but my task would be twice as hard as yours Guy, because even though I would want to lower spending overall, I would want to significantly raise spending in certain areas.

Hard, but not impossible.
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31140
Credit: 11,304,231
RAC: 20,202
United Kingdom
Message 1295597 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 15:20:39 UTC

Come and try budgeting in the UK then. We are cutting spending on the armed forces, and spending more on the NHS. Neither are very popular. You think you have problems? ;-))

Profile Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 10226
Credit: 1,529,677
RAC: 239
United Kingdom
Message 1295673 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 17:32:21 UTC

Maybe get these two guys to run your economy? Can't do any worse now, can they?

US Economists win Nobel Prize
____________

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12135
Credit: 6,415,369
RAC: 8,061
United States
Message 1295712 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 19:07:58 UTC - in response to Message 1295413.

Guy, something is wrong big time. "Walmart workers, as a group, are the largest food stamp recipients in the country totaling $2.66 billion annually. That’s right, Walmart, a company that makes more than $400,000,000,000 a year is taking more than $2,660,000,000 out of tax payers pockets annually because they have refused to pay their workers a living wage. Not only has Walmart callously expected the taxpayers to pick up the slack, but the government has allowed them to get away with it! In fact, reports say Walmart has direct knowledge of this and directly assist employees in applications for both food stamps and Medicaid." Hayleys Comments

Ah, more cow pies.

What is the rate of pay? Is that a living wage? Could it have something to do with the minimum, er recommended, wage law?

Now why doesn't Walmart hire them for a 40 hour week? A much more interesting question. "the government has allowed them to get away with it!" er, the Government forces them to do it. But until you know why they don't have 40 hour work weeks, you will never see it. Once you see it from Walmarts' side of the fence, you blood will boil at the Government.


____________

Profile Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 10226
Credit: 1,529,677
RAC: 239
United Kingdom
Message 1295725 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 19:47:31 UTC - in response to Message 1295712.


Now why doesn't Walmart hire them for a 40 hour week? A much more interesting question. "the government has allowed them to get away with it!" er, the Government forces them to do it. But until you know why they don't have 40 hour work weeks, you will never see it. Once you see it from Walmarts' side of the fence, you blood will boil at the Government.


Now that I have to agree with. We're seeing it here due to the EU regulations & they want to cut the number of hours further......

...That's just pure craziness!
____________

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12135
Credit: 6,415,369
RAC: 8,061
United States
Message 1295742 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 20:40:30 UTC - in response to Message 1295725.


Now why doesn't Walmart hire them for a 40 hour week? A much more interesting question. "the government has allowed them to get away with it!" er, the Government forces them to do it. But until you know why they don't have 40 hour work weeks, you will never see it. Once you see it from Walmarts' side of the fence, you blood will boil at the Government.


Now that I have to agree with. We're seeing it here due to the EU regulations & they want to cut the number of hours further......

...That's just pure craziness!

Let me ask the dumb question ...

Does it cost Walmart more $$$ to hire two people at 20 hours a week or one at 40 hours a week? Same rate of pay. Here is a little factoid, there is something called the ETT in CA, JTT in AZ, a part of federal UI tax, which has a $7000 wage cap. So it does cost Walmart more in taxes to hire two people than one over the course of a year.

Clearly there are some other factors at work here, unless Walmart just wants to give the government money. Try and name them and what you think they cost Walmart.

____________

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13541
Credit: 29,380,772
RAC: 15,532
United States
Message 1295745 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 20:44:51 UTC - in response to Message 1295742.

Clearly there are some other factors at work here, unless Walmart just wants to give the government money. Try and name them and what you think they cost Walmart.


Up until recently (I don't know if this has changed), but most companies offered health insurance to full time employees (loosely defined as employees averaging over 28 hours per week). Personal sick days. Paid holidays. 401k or similar program(s).

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · Next

Message boards : Politics : How tight is the United States budget, really?

Copyright © 2014 University of California