How tight is the United States budget, really?

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

To post messages, you must log in.

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

AuthorMessage
Profile Uli
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 00
Posts: 10923
Credit: 5,996,015
RAC: 1
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.

Seti Ambassador
Not to late to order an Anni Shirt
ID: 1295499 · Report as offensive
Profile Uli
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 00
Posts: 10923
Credit: 5,996,015
RAC: 1
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.

Seti Ambassador
Not to late to order an Anni Shirt
ID: 1295511 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
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.
ID: 1295525 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
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 ...

ID: 1295535 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24875
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
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.
ID: 1295537 · Report as offensive
Profile James Sotherden
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 10436
Credit: 110,373,059
RAC: 54
United States
Message 1295540 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 12:45:27 UTC

^ Well said !!
[/quote]

Old James
ID: 1295540 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
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 ...

ID: 1295567 · Report as offensive
Profile Ex: "Socialist"
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 3433
Credit: 2,616,158
RAC: 2
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.
#resist
ID: 1295586 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24875
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
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
ID: 1295673 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
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.


ID: 1295712 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24875
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
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!
ID: 1295725 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
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.

ID: 1295742 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
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).
ID: 1295745 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1295747 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 20:48:02 UTC - in response to Message 1295745.  

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).

Good start, but there is more ... think government mandated ...

ID: 1295747 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1295754 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 21:17:51 UTC - in response to Message 1295712.  

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.



Gary,
Yep, you have hit at the heart of the problem.

Everyone,

A business is only going to pay an employee a portion of the profit the employee earns for the business. The business exists, after all, to make a profit. The more regulation and taxes on a business, the smaller a slice of the per worker profit the business can afford to pay the worker. When that slice becomes less than the government mandated 'minimum wage', the worker doesn't get hired.

I don't know the specifics of WalMart at the moment, but another company has been in the news of late about just this issue. Google 'Darden restaurants part time'. Everyone from The HuffPo to Fox Business has stories on it. Darden Restaurants (Red Lobster, Olive Garden, and others) isn't going to be hiring full time workers. It is starting in a few markets but will likely expand soon. The reason?

Part time workers get fewer (if any) benefits...

And

The ACA (Obamacare).

They don't have to provide health insurance on part time workers. A lot of businesses are planning to ditch employee health care and pay the penalty. The per-employee penalty is cheaper than the per-employee cost of a health plan. Now Darden has found a way to avoid the penalty too. Good for them!

You want to boost our competitiveness? One can start by getting rid of the BS regulations that tie business' hands. Let Government get out of the way of business, and US Business might just surprise ya.
ID: 1295754 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1295756 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 21:23:10 UTC - in response to Message 1295754.  

It is starting in a few markets but will likely expand soon. The reason?

Part time workers get fewer (if any) benefits...

And

The ACA (Obamacare).

They don't have to provide health insurance on part time workers.


So then I was right... benefits and healthcare are both what I mentioned earlier.
ID: 1295756 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11358
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1295757 - Posted: 15 Oct 2012, 21:29:26 UTC - in response to Message 1295747.  

Gary, it's amazing how it seems Costco prospers paying a living wage with benefits and without all the predatory practices on it's vendors. A different and successful business model.
ID: 1295757 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · Next

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


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.