GA illegal immigration bill ruins crops

Status
Not open for further replies.
DeafCaroline said:
Reba, ok, so, let's say on average a low income earner pays 8% interest deduction in taxes from their payroll.

Let's say they're earning 9 dollars an hour x 8 hours a day x 260 days (average number of work days in a year = $18,720. 8% of that is deducted from their cheques for taxes = 1496.70 cents. You say they get all that back plus more? And they don't have to pay anything in income tax either?
Click to expand...
It depends on the size family, so I don't know the exact figure for the cut off but that sounds close. Yes, they get back their tax withholding in a lump sum. Those who qualify also get back a lump sum for earned income tax credits. That's money that they didn't even pay in to the IRS.

EITC Home Page--It?s easier than ever to find out if you qualify for EITC

2010 Tax Year

Earned Income and adjusted gross income (AGI) must each be less than:

$43,352 ($48,362 married filing jointly) with three or more qualifying children
$40,363 ($45,373 married filing jointly) with two qualifying children
$35,535 ($40,545 married filing jointly) with one qualifying child
$13,460 ($18,470 married filing jointly) with no qualifying children

EITC Income Limits, Maximum Credit Amounts and Tax Law Updates
 
kokonut said:
I'm waiting for somebody start flipping yell about a strawman or sumthin. :hmm:

Um, the poor do not pay taxes, at least not on income taxes. :lol: Perhaps you need to define exactly what the income amount you're referring to as to constitute as being "poor."

The top 25% income earners pay 86% of all federal income taxes while the top 50% income earners pay 97% of all incomes taxes.

Here's a bit of history for ya.

In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a lower tax rate, the richest 1% pay 39% of all income taxes. They now pay more than double that share today.

Funny how a Canadian is trying to tell Americans about American taxes.
Click to expand...
Aww, the old "Get out of the USA" card. :roll:

Here is something to consider: (and I refuse to research it)
Is it possible that those top 1%'ers are making a much larger percentage of total income compared to 1980? Is this an indication that the top 1% have spread the earnings gap to such an insanely larger amount? Perhaps in 1980 those 1%'ers would command 20% of all income, compared to something like 45% now. Just a thought.
BTW, those numbers I used above are just for example.

When I was a kid, there were maybe 1 or 2 billionaires. Now there are hundreds...
 
DeafCaroline said:
So how did you advance from your low income jobs?
Click to expand...
As I said in my post, one either advances or moves on. In some cases, I moved on, in some I advanced.

One example of moving on: While I was attending my ITP, I earned money for my education by working in food service and housekeeping for a school. After I graduated, I moved on from that job (quit), and started working as an interpreter.

One example of advancing: When I was in the Navy, I studied, worked hard, took and passed tests, to advance in rate, starting as an E-1 and finishing as an E-7.
 
netrox said:
if not for minimum wages, how do you think you'd advance? :hmm:
Click to expand...
I don't understand your question. It's because I didn't want to work for minimum wages that I was motivated to advance. I didn't want to work 60 hours per week at $1.65 per hour (no overtime rate) for the rest of my life.
 
Reba, thanks for giving examples of how you advanced from minimum wage jobs - that was a great clear forthright answer. I really appreciate that.
 
kokonut said:
How she advanced? How about while working you look for a better position since you have now the experience under your belt? Or while working went to night school or take college courses for a shot at getting a better job/career once you have your degree?
Click to expand...
Yes, I did take evening classes so I could work during the day. I also took (and passed) as many CLEP tests as possible so I could save time and money on taking college courses.
 
Ok, something's not right. I'll just leave this thread alone - if we abolish minimum wage laws, fine with me. :)
 
netrox said:
if not for minimum wages, how do you think you'd advance? :hmm:
Click to expand...

I did minimum wage jobs to get the experience and went to school to advance.
 
saywhatkid said:
Aww, the old "Get out of the USA" card. :roll:

Here is something to consider: (and I refuse to research it)
Is it possible that those top 1%'ers are making a much larger percentage of total income compared to 1980? Is this an indication that the top 1% have spread the earnings gap to such an insanely larger amount? Perhaps in 1980 those 1%'ers would command 20% of all income, compared to something like 45% now. Just a thought.
BTW, those numbers I used above are just for example.

When I was a kid, there were maybe 1 or 2 billionaires. Now there are hundreds...
Click to expand...

Adjusted gross income (taxable income)
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in05tr.xls

Adjusted to current dollars.

1986 - Top 1% gross income of $285 billion dollars which leaves about $2.3 trillion dollars for the rest of the lower income earners from a total income of $2.5 trillion dollars. 285,000,000/2,500,000,000 = 11.4%

2005 - Top 1%. $1.5 trillion out of $6.0 trillion dollars on adjusted gross income. $1.5 trillion/$6 trillion = 25%

So, yeah, more people making more money in the top 1% in 2005 than in 1986 however there are more people outside of the top 1% bringing in more money combined ($1.5 trillion vs $4.5 trillion dollars). In other words, the biggest revenue makers for the Fed govt are those outside of the top 1% (i.e. those earning less than the top 1%). You can see why on taxing 100% on the rich will not work in paying off the debt. Revenue is not a problem...it's a spending problem.
 
reba said:
yes, i did take evening classes so i could work during the day. I also took (and passed) as many clep tests as possible so i could save time and money on taking college courses.
Click to expand...

clep??
 
Beowulf said:
So have I. Where is your empathy? Just because we were lucky enough to get out doesn't mean others will be as well. I am a firm believer in livable wages.
Click to expand...
That's great, but if you want to actually see a higher standard of living for people rather than just feeling all warm and fuzzy from declaring yourself a firm believer in livable wages, I'd recommend also being a firm believer in the Law of Unintended Consequences. You could start off by asking yourself this question: Why not just raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour? Anyone could live very comfortably off that. What could go wrong?

Beowulf said:
Seems pretty clear what the answer is. Make darn sure all Presidents are Democrats from now on. :giggle:
Click to expand...
Congress has to pass a spending bill before a President can sign it. Probably a more relevant question is who was in control of the Congress during the Reagan years, the Bush 41 years, and the Clinton years? As for Bush 43, one of the reasons Republicans got pounded so bad in 2006 and 2008 is that their base was sick of the excess deficit spending, which hit an whopping $455 billion. What happened after Democrats took control of the Congress and then the presidency? Enough that a whopping $455 billion deficit now seems astonishingly low.

DeafCaroline said:
The poor don't pay taxes? that's a big surprise to them

"The reality is that the income tax is one of a number of types of taxes that individuals pay, both over the course of their lifetimes and in a given year, and it makes little sense to treat it as though it were the only one that matters. Some 86 percent of working households pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes. In fact, low- and moderate-income people pay a much larger share of their incomes in federal payroll taxes than high-income people do: taxpayers in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale paid an average of 8.8 percent of their incomes in payroll taxes in 2007, compared to just 1.6 percent for taxpayers in the top 1 percent of the income distribution. ..."
Click to expand...
When they say payroll taxes, they mean mostly the FICA tax which goes to Social Security and Medicare (usually 6.2% and 1.45% respectively, for a total of 7.65%). It's really about double that because the employer has to match that. To an employer, that's considered part of an employee's compensation since it's part of the cost of employing someone, even if the employee never sees it. In other words, if the employer didn't also have to pay that tax, the employee would probably see that much more money in his paycheck.

The reason that graph is so regressive is there's a limit on the Social Security part of the FICA tax, which is the biggest part of the FICA tax. Only the first $100,000 of income can be taxed for that.

I'm really not a fan of Social Security and Medicare, or at least the way it's set up. Older people, by and large, are wealthier than younger people because they've had decades to work, save up, invest, and advance in their careers. What these programs are basically schemes to transfer wealth from younger poorer workers to older wealthier people. I really don't know why modern day progressives fight tooth and nail any attempt to fix the structural problems in the system. Given their rhetoric, I would think they'd be opposed to direct transfer of wealth from the less wealthy to the more wealthy. Maybe someone can explain this to me?

saywhatkid said:
Aww, the old "Get out of the USA" card. :roll:

Here is something to consider: (and I refuse to research it)
Is it possible that those top 1%'ers are making a much larger percentage of total income compared to 1980? Is this an indication that the top 1% have spread the earnings gap to such an insanely larger amount? Perhaps in 1980 those 1%'ers would command 20% of all income, compared to something like 45% now. Just a thought.
BTW, those numbers I used above are just for example.

When I was a kid, there were maybe 1 or 2 billionaires. Now there are hundreds...
Click to expand...
Apparently, it is possible. My question is why should I care? If some guy in my neighborhood becomes a billionaire because he created something a lot of people want, will it make me poorer? Will his new-found wealth make the rest of the pie any smaller for the rest of us?
 
kokonut said:
Adjusted gross income (taxable income)
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in05tr.xls

Adjusted to current dollars.

1986 - Top 1% gross income of $285 billion dollars which leaves about $2.3 trillion dollars for the rest of the lower income earners from a total income of $2.5 trillion dollars. 285,000,000/2,500,000,000 = 11.4%

2005 - Top 1%. $1.5 trillion out of $6.0 trillion dollars on adjusted gross income. $1.5 trillion/$6 trillion = 25%

So, yeah, more people making more money in the top 1% in 2005 than in 1986 however there are more people outside of the top 1% bringing in more money combined ($1.5 trillion vs $4.5 trillion dollars). In other words, the biggest revenue makers for the Fed govt are those outside of the top 1% (i.e. those earning less than the top 1%). You can see why on taxing 100% on the rich will not work in paying off the debt. Revenue is not a problem...it's a spending problem.
Click to expand...

Those percentages are pretty close reflections of the increased tax payments. Not exactly, but not far off. But geez, 1% of Americans earn 25% of the total income. :eek: No wonder Liberals become apoplexic with that kind of data.

Agreed somewhat on the spending. With all the gov't money flowing, why are the highways so crappy?
 
After immigrant bill that passed and signed by governor in Alabama so I still see a lot of Latinos in here so it looks like law has no effect, especially if they are legal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants may be less but no way to know about immigrant status unless you are police or ICE. I think that family of illegal immigrants may leave as family with completely legal immigrants stay here.
 
darkdog said:
That's great, but if you want to actually see a higher standard of living for people rather than just feeling all warm and fuzzy from declaring yourself a firm believer in livable wages, I'd recommend also being a firm believer in the Law of Unintended Consequences. You could start off by asking yourself this question: Why not just raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour? Anyone could live very comfortably off that. What could go wrong?


Congress has to pass a spending bill before a President can sign it. Probably a more relevant question is who was in control of the Congress during the Reagan years, the Bush 41 years, and the Clinton years? As for Bush 43, one of the reasons Republicans got pounded so bad in 2006 and 2008 is that their base was sick of the excess deficit spending, which hit an whopping $455 billion. What happened after Democrats took control of the Congress and then the presidency? Enough that a whopping $455 billion deficit now seems astonishingly low.


When they say payroll taxes, the mean mostly the FICA tax which goes to Social Security and Medicare (usually 6.2% and 1.45% respectively, for a total of 7.65%). It's really about double that because the employer has to match that. To an employer, that's considered part of an employee's compensation since it's part of the cost of employing someone, even if the employee never sees it. In other words, if the employer didn't also have to pay that tax, the employee would probably see that much more money in his paycheck.

The reason that graph is so regressive is there's a limit on the Social Security part of the FICA tax, which is the biggest part of the FICA tax. Only the first $100,000 of income can be taxed for that.

I'm really not a fan of Social Security and Medicare, or at least the way it's set up. Older people, by and large, are wealthier than younger people because they've had decades to work, save up, invest, and advance in their careers. What these programs are basically schemes to transfer wealth from younger poorer workers to older wealthier people. I really don't know why modern day progressives fight tooth and nail any attempt to fix the structural problems in the system. Given their rhetoric, I would think they'd be opposed to direct transfer of wealth from the less wealthy to the more wealthy. Maybe someone can explain this to me?


Apparently, it is possible. My question is why should I care? If some guy in my neighborhood becomes a billionaire because he created something a lot of people want, will it make me poorer? Will his new-found wealth make the rest of the pie any smaller for the rest of us?
Click to expand...

My only issue is that those at the top often decide how much they earn, at the expense of the rest. Then they complain about how much taxes are. They MUST realize that part of the end result of making such huge salaries will be increased taxes. Why does that not deter them?

I realize capitalism is a beautiful thing, but those billionaires might have had some luck working for them; think inheritance. Look at Paris Hilton. What hard work did she contribute?

As for the SS money, don't think about taking that away from us Baby Boomers at this stage. We have been paying in for nearly 40 years! You want us to forgo our benefits so Bill Gates can save some cash? Good luck with that.
 
Apparently, it is possible. My question is why should I care? If some guy in my neighborhood becomes a billionaire because he created something a lot of people want, will it make me poorer? Will his new-found wealth make the rest of the pie any smaller for the rest of us?
Click to expand...

And thus with his creation (patented or otherwise) more jobs get created because people want that product he created/invented. And being a billionaire means that money spent has to go to somewhere in supporting a company through buying their products or services. I'd say it's a win-win scenario. With his inventiveness he helped create possibly hundreds of jobs and his reward is that he became a billionaire as a result. And not just that, maybe he donates a lot of money to various charities, too, through his philanthropy.

I see nothing wrong with this American dream of being rich. And being "rich" is relative around here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top