DCUM Class warfare

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little off topic, but pertinent to the discussion of why everyone should pay some federal income tax if they earn wages. We have close to 50% of the population paying no federal income tax. Those individual's have no incentive to elect leaders who will be good use our federal monies prudently.

Of course they do. My kids don't contribute to my HHI, but they have a big interest in how we spend our money. Those called "takers" have more incentive to ensure that money is well spent, since they (supposedly) rely on it more.

Besides, the voting problems in this country don't result from deficiencies in incentive but in knowledge and judgment.

They have an incentive to want the efficient use of money. They also have an incentive to take as much as possible from those who pay taxes and have it redistributed to them.

Profound observation. Everyone, rich and poor, has an incentive to maximize their money.

PP said something incentives to spend wisely, and I addressed it. I don't know why you're raising this separate (and very obvious) point.

(I am asking myself why I should continue to engage with you, MWUN. You've become more hostile and more of a jerk. Yet, here I am).
I can't speak for the PP but I took him to be generally referring to the misaligned incentives of people who are voting how to spend other people's money.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little off topic, but pertinent to the discussion of why everyone should pay some federal income tax if they earn wages. We have close to 50% of the population paying no federal income tax. Those individual's have no incentive to elect leaders who will be good use our federal monies prudently.

Of course they do. My kids don't contribute to my HHI, but they have a big interest in how we spend our money. Those called "takers" have more incentive to ensure that money is well spent, since they (supposedly) rely on it more.

Besides, the voting problems in this country don't result from deficiencies in incentive but in knowledge and judgment.

They have an incentive to want the efficient use of money. They also have an incentive to take as much as possible from those who pay taxes and have it redistributed to them.

Profound observation. Everyone, rich and poor, has an incentive to maximize their money.

PP said something incentives to spend wisely, and I addressed it. I don't know why you're raising this separate (and very obvious) point.

(I am asking myself why I should continue to engage with you, MWUN. You've become more hostile and more of a jerk. Yet, here I am).

Get a username - seriously. If you think you're posts are being misjudged and/or quickly dismissed, it will help prevent that.

Anonymous wrote:I can't speak for the PP but I took him to be generally referring to the misaligned incentives of people who are voting how to spend other people's money.

I don't know why we would take it that way. PP explicitly referred to prudent use, and the point appeared to be that poorer people should pay more taxes so they'd be more invested. Paying more taxes wouldn't eliminate the general self-interests.

If PP (or you) was talking about the general conflict of interests, as I said, that's obvious and universal, so I don't see the point in discussing it. Poor people have a more direct interest in food stamps. Rich people have a more direct interest in the courts. What's the point of noting that in a discussion of taxation?

[Anonymous]

It is obvious the poster was talking about electing politicians who will make smart decisions with federal tax dollars. At no time did the poster make reference to individuals and their decisions with their finances. This country is in a severe debt crisis and yet Washington spends indiscriminately. Unless we are all vested in making sure our money (and yes our tax dollars are our money) is used wisely, it is only going to get worse. In any event, that is my take on the post.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:It is obvious the poster was talking about electing politicians who will make smart decisions with federal tax dollars. At no time did the poster make reference to individuals and their decisions with their finances.

Seriously, I now have no idea what you're talking about. Who said anything about personal finances?

Anonymous wrote:Unless we are all vested in making sure our money (and yes our tax dollars are our money) is used wisely, it is only going to get worse. In any event, that is my take on the post.

Yes, and as I said to the PP, we're all equally invested in using the money wisely, regardless of who contributed what portion. My kids care how we spend our money, teenagers care how their schools are run, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is obvious the poster was talking about electing politicians who will make smart decisions with federal tax dollars. At no time did the poster make reference to individuals and their decisions with their finances. This country is in a severe debt crisis and yet Washington spends indiscriminately. Unless we are all vested in making sure our money (and yes our tax dollars are our money) is used wisely, it is only going to get worse. In any event, that is my take on the post.

I agree. I think the stimulus was needed, but too much of it went to absolutely unneeded (and unwanted) pork barrel projects. I don't blame Obama - I blame the individual Senators and Congressmen who advocated for their friends and donors. I have no idea who works at the various departments that approves the most idiotic ideas.

The Interior Department gave Las Vegas $5.2 million to build the Neon Boneyard Park and Museum, which houses old neon signs casinos no longer use.

The Department of Agriculture gave the University of New Hampshire $700,000 to examine cow burps and flatulence.

The Institute of Museum and Library Services gave $615,000 to digitize Grateful Dead photographs, tickets, backstage passes, fliers, shirts, and other memorabilia because band members wanted that stuff to be free and public. By the way, the estate of band member Jerry Garcia is worth $40 million and Phil Lesh is worth $35 million.

More than $3 million in federal taxpayer money went to researchers at the University of California at Irvine so they can play video games such as World of Warcraft.

Nearly $1 million was spent on poetry in the Little Rock, Ark., New Orleans, Milwaukee and Chicago zoos to help raise awareness of environmental issues.

The California Academy of Sciences received $1.9 million in federal stimulus money to send researchers to Indian Ocean islands and east Africa, to capture, photograph, and analyze thousands of exotic ants for placement on the website AntWeb.org.

The Bureau of Land Management allocated $64 million for a huge, 2,900-acre firing range near Las Vegas. Last year, the park had $430,000 in revenues but cost $1.3 million to operate. The county, to make up the difference, spent $1 million from a fund to maintain swimming pools and, because of that, had to close at least one swimming pool during the summer.

The Government Printing Office spent $58,850 to publish a comic book of a space mouse to teach children the history of printing. Even if it sold all 5,500 copies, it stood to lose $31,350.

In July 2010, nearly half a million dollars in taxpayer money went to the XVIII International AIDS Conference in Vienna, where wine tasting and castle tours were among the events planned for the conference participants.

The Department of Health and Human Services gave researchers at Wake Forest University $144,541 of stimulus money to see how monkeys react under the influence of cocaine. It’s not clear how that was supposed to stimulate the economy.

http://thinkfree.freedomblogging.com/2011/08/06/u-s-clearly-has-a-spending-problem-not-a-revenue-problem/4653/

Sometimes I wonder if I could get $1M to open up a museum of dirty diapers. It's important for future generations to understand the dilemna moms are going through today on whether to use cloth or disposable, and if disposable, do they use expensive but supposedly eart friendly one or cheap regular ones?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is obvious the poster was talking about electing politicians who will make smart decisions with federal tax dollars. At no time did the poster make reference to individuals and their decisions with their finances. This country is in a severe debt crisis and yet Washington spends indiscriminately. Unless we are all vested in making sure our money (and yes our tax dollars are our money) is used wisely, it is only going to get worse. In any event, that is my take on the post.

I agree. I think the stimulus was needed, but too much of it went to absolutely unneeded (and unwanted) pork barrel projects. I don't blame Obama - I blame the individual Senators and Congressmen who advocated for their friends and donors. I have no idea who works at the various departments that approves the most idiotic ideas.

The Interior Department gave Las Vegas $5.2 million to build the Neon Boneyard Park and Museum, which houses old neon signs casinos no longer use.

The Department of Agriculture gave the University of New Hampshire $700,000 to examine cow burps and flatulence.

The Institute of Museum and Library Services gave $615,000 to digitize Grateful Dead photographs, tickets, backstage passes, fliers, shirts, and other memorabilia because band members wanted that stuff to be free and public. By the way, the estate of band member Jerry Garcia is worth $40 million and Phil Lesh is worth $35 million.

More than $3 million in federal taxpayer money went to researchers at the University of California at Irvine so they can play video games such as World of Warcraft.

Nearly $1 million was spent on poetry in the Little Rock, Ark., New Orleans, Milwaukee and Chicago zoos to help raise awareness of environmental issues.

The California Academy of Sciences received $1.9 million in federal stimulus money to send researchers to Indian Ocean islands and east Africa, to capture, photograph, and analyze thousands of exotic ants for placement on the website AntWeb.org.

The Bureau of Land Management allocated $64 million for a huge, 2,900-acre firing range near Las Vegas. Last year, the park had $430,000 in revenues but cost $1.3 million to operate. The county, to make up the difference, spent $1 million from a fund to maintain swimming pools and, because of that, had to close at least one swimming pool during the summer.

The Government Printing Office spent $58,850 to publish a comic book of a space mouse to teach children the history of printing. Even if it sold all 5,500 copies, it stood to lose $31,350.

In July 2010, nearly half a million dollars in taxpayer money went to the XVIII International AIDS Conference in Vienna, where wine tasting and castle tours were among the events planned for the conference participants.

The Department of Health and Human Services gave researchers at Wake Forest University $144,541 of stimulus money to see how monkeys react under the influence of cocaine. It’s not clear how that was supposed to stimulate the economy.

http://thinkfree.freedomblogging.com/2011/08/06/u-s-clearly-has-a-spending-problem-not-a-revenue-problem/4653/

Sometimes I wonder if I could get $1M to open up a museum of dirty diapers. It's important for future generations to understand the dilemna moms are going through today on whether to use cloth or disposable, and if disposable, do they use expensive but supposedly eart friendly one or cheap regular ones?

To set the record straight, that is a list of spending projects but it's not a list of stimulus projects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[quote=Anonymous
My "fair share" is already 1/3 of my income. Half the people in this country pay zip.

If there are married filing jointly and you have two dependent children you pay no income tax on at least $26000 of your income.

That's just using four exemptions and the standard deduction, so you probably have more tax-free income than that. The top income tax rate is indeed now 35%, but that's the marginal rate; it only applies to amounts over $373,650. That's taxable income, by the way, not gross income.

After you subtract the 26,000 you pay the same rates as everyone else; 10% up to 16,750 , 15% up to 68,650 and so on. If someone else is doing your taxes and he tells you that you are paying over 1/3 of your income in Federal income tax, it's not true. I hope you are not being cheated.

Other taxes everyone pays -- Social Security, sales tax, property tax.

Totally wrong. You apparently don't realize that a married couple each earning half of $400,000 can't take 4 exemptions. We each have extra withholding on top of 0 exemptions. Beyond a certain AGI, a percentage of your otherwise allowable deductions are phased out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"So are you saying everyone should aspire to be a CEO or lawyer? Who will teach your children? Deliver your mail? Watch your children while you are at work? Pave your roads? Police the community? Work at your grocery store or favorite restaurant? Your attitude is frankly astounding, and rather frightening. "

My attitude is that if you want higher income, you need to go into a higher paying profession. If not, don't complain when you can't stay afloat. I couldn't afford to be a teacher; maybe in retirement. It's a luxury to pursue a profession you want if it's not super high paying.

Are you for real? If you are the same person who has responded multiple times about how you chose a high-paying profession and those did not should shut up and suck it up, I agree with the PP you quoted; you are frightening.

To you and the OP: many of us don't care how much you make. My family would be considered middle class around here, but I realize that compared to most people in this country and in the world, we are very lucky to have a home, good food to eat, clean water to drink, a good education, etc. I did all the things that the rich people on this thread are patting themselves on the back for (working hard in school, etc.), but I don't feel that I am entitled to riches and luxuries based on this. I also prefer to have a profession that I believe helps others and contributes in a notable way to society rather than to pursue a career based purely on the hope for a high salary. I would not condemn you for making a lot of money; I would condemn you for your obvious and misplaced feelings of superiority and your lack of basic humanity.

I am for real, and I give a boatload of money to charity. I don't think you are superior because you chose a helping profession over a highly paid one. Of course, you should not think I chose my profession for high paid alone. That would be quite dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We don't own a home. Have previously, but not now. Residents of Texas, so no state income tax. Give cash to church, we don't bother tracking, minimal cash donations to other charities like St Judes, then donate house hold items to Salvation Army. So yes, standard deduction is better for us.

That quite frankly blows my mind. We already pay six figures in income tax, can't imagine what we'd pay if we settled for the standard deduction. You don't track your cash charitable contributions? I guess they're not hundreds every month.

Twice as much as you do. Yes, we donate about $3500 a month.
If you pay 6 figures in income tax, you make at least 3x as much as me. We donate $75-$125 month. I'm guessing from your statement that you donate thousands of dollars each month?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am for real, and I give a boatload of money to charity. I don't think you are superior because you chose a helping profession over a highly paid one. Of course, you should not think I chose my profession for high paid alone. That would be quite dumb.

Now you are going to play the charity card? Too late; you've made it abundantly clear what your priority is (having lots of money). And who said anything about being superior for being in a helping profession? It's just a choice about what works for me (fulfillment over wealth). Your statement says more about your need to feel superior than mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Totally wrong. You apparently don't realize that a married couple each earning half of $400,000 can't take 4 exemptions. We each have extra withholding on top of 0 exemptions. Beyond a certain AGI, a percentage of your otherwise allowable deductions are phased out.

Perhaps you should ask your accountant if he was using the instructions for 2010 or for an earlier year.

[Anonymous]

Class Warfare? All I can say is, "it's about f*cling time!"

[Anonymous]

OP sounds more like a Libertarian

[Anonymous]

Take line 46 on your 1040. Add back your pre-tax contributions to your 401(k) and your health care premiums and expense accounts.


Divide it by line 22 of your 1040. Look at the number.

I'm betting it is lower than you ever realized.

[Anonymous]

Oops I switched my line items

1. Take line 46 on your 1040.


2. Take line 22 of your 1040. Add back your pre-tax contributions to your 401(k) and your health care premiums and expense accounts.

Divide 1 by 2. Look at the number.

I'm betting it is lower than you ever realized.