25% of my income goes to taxes

[nereo]

reading these seemingly polar threads it occurs to me that it all comes down to a matter of perspective.  I look at taxes paid and services provided and think 'wow, i get all this for just ~1/3 or my income!'  Someone else might look around and say 'damn, they take 1/3rd of everything i make and this is all i get?!"
neither viewpoint is wrong - it's just interesting how we arrive at different conclusions.  FWIW, having always been on the low end of the wage earning scale, my total taxes have never been above a few thousand$.    I do find it a bit silly to think of taxes as a whole as being 'regressive' when i get to use the infrastructure as someone who earns $200k and pays 5-6x more in taxes than i do.

[projekt]

If you want the mustachian outlook on this, it all comes down to worrying about what you can control (your tax return and its associated deductions, the amount of work you do, who you do it for, where you live, and your saving rate) and not worrying about what you cannot control (the various tax rates).

You'll do a lot better planning how to make $70,000 instead of $35,000 than you will worrying about how much of the $35,000 is going to taxes, which have already been deducted from the paychecks. You'll retire faster spending $25,000 than $35,000 per year, regardless of your income tax rate.

If you want to cry a river about taxes, try running a small business and being astonished at how many taxes are applied. But I'd rather run a business with $150,000 profit and pay $50,000 in tax than be paid $35,000/year.

[The Architect]

Something that rarely gets discussed (but is being discussed here & now) is how *many* things we get taxed on. I'd rather have a 33% tax and call it good than have this hodge-podge of cooperate, personal, investment, federal, state, and etc. income taxes; taxes on goods produced, bought, and sold; taxes on property and wealth; fees (taxes by another name) for various government services; fines; and etc. It just deceives everyone into thinking we have low taxes and lets politicians straw-man their taxing policies, when really, we don't.

And the whole "your employer pays half of tax X for you!" junk is absurd - obviously, if he's paying half for you, you are directly costing him that half. Wages might not go up if that wasn't a thing, but the company would earn more and employees would cost less, which couldn't hurt.

What I meant was that I wish I could give the 28% of my income to non-profits and not pay taxes at all, since having been a public sector employee and being actively involved with some non-profits, I feel the latter are far better at managing money and using it for it's intended purpose. Of course, this would be an absolute nightmare to manage and at best would lead to a myriad of problems if all registered non-profits were eligible, so I'd never politically advocate for it.  I'll just b*tch about it from an ideological standpoint.

People like Buffet were talking about how glad they were to pay taxes and I wondered just the other day - what would happen if the government ran solely on donations or private expense? A scenario where it can only spend what it has, and can only get it by providing a service people are happy to pay for? Where some things considered government purview are done by private citizens (Speaking of, many roads are privately funded - in just about any housing or commercial development, those were paid for by the developer)?

It probably wouldn't work, but it'd be a cool place to live if it did.

[Gin1984]

Something that rarely gets discussed (but is being discussed here & now) is how *many* things we get taxed on. I'd rather have a 33% tax and call it good than have this hodge-podge of cooperate, personal, investment, federal, state, and etc. income taxes; taxes on goods produced, bought, and sold; taxes on property and wealth; fees (taxes by another name) for various government services; fines; and etc. It just deceives everyone into thinking we have low taxes and lets politicians straw-man their taxing policies, when really, we don't.

And the whole "your employer pays half of tax X for you!" junk is absurd - obviously, if he's paying half for you, you are directly costing him that half. Wages might not go up if that wasn't a thing, but the company would earn more and employees would cost less, which couldn't hurt.

What I meant was that I wish I could give the 28% of my income to non-profits and not pay taxes at all, since having been a public sector employee and being actively involved with some non-profits, I feel the latter are far better at managing money and using it for it's intended purpose. Of course, this would be an absolute nightmare to manage and at best would lead to a myriad of problems if all registered non-profits were eligible, so I'd never politically advocate for it.  I'll just b*tch about it from an ideological standpoint.

People like Buffet were talking about how glad they were to pay taxes and I wondered just the other day - what would happen if the government ran solely on donations or private expense? A scenario where it can only spend what it has, and can only get it by providing a service people are happy to pay for? Where some things considered government purview are done by private citizens (Speaking of, many roads are privately funded - in just about any housing or commercial development, those were paid for by the developer)?

It probably wouldn't work, but it'd be a cool place to live if it did.

For the first bolded, it won't change spending on employees.  I can tell you that for a fact.  PhD students, depending on the school, either pay FICA during the whole year, just the summer or not at all.  Yet, that does not change the wages for the students. 
For the second, the USA tried that.  It did not work. 

[Eric]

What I meant was that I wish I could give the 28% of my income to non-profits and not pay taxes at all, since having been a public sector employee and being actively involved with some non-profits, I feel the latter are far better at managing money and using it for it's intended purpose. Of course, this would be an absolute nightmare to manage and at best would lead to a myriad of problems if all registered non-profits were eligible, so I'd never politically advocate for it.  I'll just b*tch about it from an ideological standpoint.

People like Buffet were talking about how glad they were to pay taxes and I wondered just the other day - what would happen if the government ran solely on donations or private expense? A scenario where it can only spend what it has, and can only get it by providing a service people are happy to pay for? Where some things considered government purview are done by private citizens (Speaking of, many roads are privately funded - in just about any housing or commercial development, those were paid for by the developer)?

It probably wouldn't work, but it'd be a cool place to live if it did.

I'm not sure why you'd want the government to only spend what it had.  I realize that it was already 5 years ago, but think back to the Great Financial Crash.  Do you remember how states that have a balanced budget policy had to massively cut services and lay off workers in order to try and meet their drastically reduced inflows?  It was pretty terrible. 

The increased federal government spending (stimulus) is why we're now at the lowest unemployment rate in a decade and setting new stock market records instead of being mired in another Great Depression.  The monetary policies of the 1930s, where the feds also cut spending to match their lower receipts, is exactly why the Great Depression was so prolonged.  Deficit spending is a very useful tool that we all should be thankful for.  It's hard for me to even express how amazingly fast the recovery was from the GFC.  It's probably the worst economic debacle that we'll see in our lifetimes and we were mostly recovered after only 3 years and probably fully recovered now. 

Permanent deficit spending is probably not a great policy, but to completely remove the tool would make the country completely inept at fighting any sort of economic downward spiral and you can probably guarantee that the economy would permanently suck.  I highly doubt it'd be a cool place to live.

[Chuck]

I would complain less if the government made better use of my money. As it stands there is no way in hell I'm getting my money's worth.

[Eric]

I would complain less if the government made better use of my money. As it stands there is no way in hell I'm getting my money's worth.

I'm curious how you measure that.  Are you also calculating increased purchasing and bargaining power to offset inefficiencies that every large organization experiences?  At current service levels, what tax rate would you feel you're getting your money's worth?

[sheepstache]

Something that rarely gets discussed (but is being discussed here & now) is how *many* things we get taxed on. I'd rather have a 33% tax and call it good than have this hodge-podge of cooperate, personal, investment, federal, state, and etc. income taxes; taxes on goods produced, bought, and sold; taxes on property and wealth; fees (taxes by another name) for various government services; fines; and etc. It just deceives everyone into thinking we have low taxes and lets politicians straw-man their taxing policies, when really, we don't.

Indeed. And I thought that was the OP's point.

For the first bolded, it won't change spending on employees.  I can tell you that for a fact.  PhD students, depending on the school, either pay FICA during the whole year, just the summer or not at all.  Yet, that does not change the wages for the students. 
For the second, the USA tried that.  It did not work. 

Well, sure, now that the school knows the PhDs will work for the lower rate, they're not going to give them extra money when they don't have to :)
If the 7.5% were suddenly abolished, you'd certainly have some companies taking advantage of that to raise wages to attract better workers.

[gimp]

Insane. Here are my figures, slightly anonymized.

Total taxable income (includes things like grossed up relocation, signing bonus, etc, so it's not entirely representative) for 2014: $120k
Total taxes paid (state, federal, medicare, ss/oasdi, disability) (with deductions/exemptions for things like 401k, moving, various medical expenses and savings, personal exemption, etc): $35k
Actual tax rate: around 28.5%

Not counting: consumption taxes (as most are paid voluntarily), which are around 9% here. Not counting: things that the government forces me to buy, eg, liability insurance for driving, since I would do that even if not forced to.

If I'm paying a total, final, actual tax rate of 28.5% on $120k taxable income... and you're paying 25% of $35k... well, I've earned $35k and I was withheld at around 25% but in reality it was a fair bit lower.

I would complain less if the government made better use of my money. As it stands there is no way in hell I'm getting my money's worth.

I am. For example, the government gave me subsidized loans to go to school. That roughly tripled my expected salary. They invest in a lot of people; some investments don't pay off; the ones that do should pay back enough to cover the failed investments. For another example, I love to drive; there is a wonderful highway up to and through Alaska. Do you have any idea how expensive it is to build and maintain highways in those regions? Especially considering the low amount of traffic (sometimes I wouldn't see another car for hours; I drove right down the middle of the road because I was more worried about moose than being pulled over for driving on the double yellow.) I'm glad that my taxes go to support the maintenance of that road, and many others besides, that might be used by only a few thousand people a year. For a third example, since I have a bunch of money now, there are a lot of people out there who would love to pay my place a visit and steal what they can, but they don't because of the police services my taxes support. For a fourth example, part of my money goes to supporting the aforementioned people; this keeps their bellies full and a roof over their head so they don't feel the need to take my belongings by force.

Can things be improved? Of course. Is there a lot of spending I don't agree with? Certainly. But we can't have it piecemeal. We elect people who decide what the priorities are; we vote for them based on what they tell us their priorities are; they tend to do a decent job of lining up what they say with what they do (shush, cynics, I said a decent job, not a great job); they represent a lot of people, some of whom hold opinions with which I disagree. Compromise. A lot of people don't want to pay for what I'm glad is paid for, so it's a wash in the end.

[The Architect]

The increased federal government spending (stimulus) is why we're now at the lowest unemployment rate in a decade...

We're also at the lowest work-force participation rate in 30 years....

[Eric]

The increased federal government spending (stimulus) is why we're now at the lowest unemployment rate in a decade...

We're also at the lowest work-force participation rate in 30 years....

And highest consumer confidence in a decade.  The point is that the economy is humming along now, no matter the measure.

[dandarc]

I'm not sure what you mean about the school deciding whether a PhD student pays FICA. Everybody working in the USA has to pay FICA except for certain nonresident aliens with certain nonimmigrant classifications. Whether you have to pay FICA purely comes down to whether you are in those classifications. It has nothing to do with what school you work at.

Example: http://f2.washington.edu/fm/tax/student/fica

It is definitely an exemption - not sure why, but it is there.  You've got to be working less than 20 hours / week for the school and be taking enough credits to be a student to be exempt.

[AgileTurtle]

I'm not sure what you mean about the school deciding whether a PhD student pays FICA. Everybody working in the USA has to pay FICA except for certain nonresident aliens with certain nonimmigrant classifications. Whether you have to pay FICA purely comes down to whether you are in those classifications. It has nothing to do with what school you work at.

Not sure if that is true. I think some gov workers are exempt. I know a firefighter who does not contribute.

[MDM]

I'm not sure what you mean about the school deciding whether a PhD student pays FICA. Everybody working in the USA has to pay FICA except for certain nonresident aliens with certain nonimmigrant classifications. Whether you have to pay FICA purely comes down to whether you are in those classifications. It has nothing to do with what school you work at.

From http://www.aktcpa.com/assets/blogger/ohsu-phd-presentation-combined.pdf:

Scholarships, Fellowships, and Stipends
(1099-MISC or 1098-T)
 Scholarships and fellowships are payments to students for
which no services are rendered or required. These awards
are granted for the purpose of off-setting the cost of tuition,
room and board, fees and/or other incidental expenses of
attending the University.
 The IRS classifies scholarship/fellowship payments as
Miscellaneous Income. Not taxes are withheld from these
payments, although the University does report the payments
to the IRS. If the scholarship/fellowship awards are not used
by the student to offset the cost of qualified tuition and certain
other expenses specified in the tax law then these moneys
should be reported as income to the IRS by the student.

It would seem the bit about "no services" is nice legal fiction - ask any grad student what would happen to the stipend if the grad student stopped doing what the advisor wants....

But even though it is fiction, it is still legal: people receiving these stipends don't pay FICA but also don't get to fund IRAs with this money.

[Ricky]

Something that rarely gets discussed (but is being discussed here & now) is how *many* things we get taxed on. I'd rather have a 33% tax and call it good than have this hodge-podge of cooperate, personal, investment, federal, state, and etc. income taxes; taxes on goods produced, bought, and sold; taxes on property and wealth; fees (taxes by another name) for various government services; fines; and etc. It just deceives everyone into thinking we have low taxes and lets politicians straw-man their taxing policies, when really, we don't.

Indeed. And I thought that was the OP's point.

Exactly. You guys "get" me. Sure, I can move and avoid the ~4% effective income tax in NC but I'll end up paying the difference in sales tax, property tax, etc...It's the fact that I had never really considered how much collectively tax I am really paying. And as it stands, its somewhere like 21.5%. So that amount just on my INCOME is already outrageous in my opinion on a $35k income, which greatly decreases my spending power. On top of that, sales tax and everything else erodes it further depending on what I buy of course.

[2lazy2retire]

Yes....this was one of the first things I figured out while still in school...taxes eat up so much of my earnings. So I moved to countries where there is no income tax or very very low ones...and I will stay here until I FIRE.

For those that didn't look here is the list of the 10 countries:

• United Arab Emirates
• Oman
• Bahrain
• Qatar
• Saudi Arabia
• Kuwait
• Bermuda
• Cayman Islands
• The Bahamas
• Brunei

Going to play devil's advocate here... as you and Sol seem to be recommending how easy is it for most to get up and move to a place like Qatar or Kuwait? And then on top of that, find a decent paying job so you can keep up with your expenses and maintain a savings rate? Also, make sure you can speak and write in Arabic!

Well if we are been selective - then you could manage ok in Bermuda, Cayman and Bahamas with English - also a lot of those Arab countries are popular destinations for highly skilled individuals who are attracted by the low to zero taxes and high payin jobs, very few of them I suspect speak or write arabic.

[Eric]

Something that rarely gets discussed (but is being discussed here & now) is how *many* things we get taxed on. I'd rather have a 33% tax and call it good than have this hodge-podge of cooperate, personal, investment, federal, state, and etc. income taxes; taxes on goods produced, bought, and sold; taxes on property and wealth; fees (taxes by another name) for various government services; fines; and etc. It just deceives everyone into thinking we have low taxes and lets politicians straw-man their taxing policies, when really, we don't.

Indeed. And I thought that was the OP's point.

Exactly. You guys "get" me. Sure, I can move and avoid the ~4% effective income tax in NC but I'll end up paying the difference in sales tax, property tax, etc...It's the fact that I had never really considered how much collectively tax I am really paying. And as it stands, its somewhere like 21.5%. So that amount just on my INCOME is already outrageous in my opinion on a $35k income, which greatly decreases my spending power. On top of that, sales tax and everything else erodes it further depending on what I buy of course.

This may or may not be true.  As mentioned above, it's not like that 21% goes into a black hole never to be seen again.  You actually receive services back for that money.  If there was no government, you could end up paying way more than 21% in fees to cover what your taxes cover now.  Or not.  There's not enough information to go on and it's probably impossible to calculate.  But the point is you can't just automatically conclude that you'd be better off with an extra 21%.

[NoraLenderbee]

It gets really crazy when you consider the built in taxes for gas phone service etc. That you know exist but don't consciously think about.

On top of that, built into the price of anything you buy are all the taxes of the business you bought it from.  Mom and pop little shops and huge corporations alike are merely pass thru entities, whose customers bear their tax burden.

Yeah, if you add it all up, we're paying at least 150% of our income in taxes. We're all gonna starve! ;)

[Northerly]

Ricky, I feel your pain. Several years ago I was self-employed and could not believe the tax hit, especially when including the employer portion of FICA (self-employment tax). Then I transitioned into a job in state government (Alaska), where I discovered the following:
-No SS tax (one of the few SS exempt states for state employees). Both the employee and employer portions of your income that would have gone into SS are instead put into a 403b program, in which you instantly vest 100%
-No more pension scheme (thank goodness!), but instead a defined constribution plan (401a), in which you vest gradually until fully vested in 5 years
-In addition, a 457 plan is available, which provides another $18,000 of tax deferred space

Obviously, because of all the tax sheltering going on, my FIRE date is dramatically closer than it would be in the private or federal government sectors on the same nominal salary.

Also, there is no state income or sales tax here. COL is higher, but not that much higher. Just sharing this to say that relocating to a situation like this (a few other states are similar) even for 6-8 years could have huge long term implications for you.

As it happened, I lived here already, so there was no dramatic relocation. But knowing what I know now, relocating would have been worth it.

[jka468]

Something that rarely gets discussed (but is being discussed here & now) is how *many* things we get taxed on. I'd rather have a 33% tax and call it good than have this hodge-podge of cooperate, personal, investment, federal, state, and etc. income taxes; taxes on goods produced, bought, and sold; taxes on property and wealth; fees (taxes by another name) for various government services; fines; and etc. It just deceives everyone into thinking we have low taxes and lets politicians straw-man their taxing policies, when really, we don't.

Indeed. And I thought that was the OP's point.

Exactly. You guys "get" me. Sure, I can move and avoid the ~4% effective income tax in NC but I'll end up paying the difference in sales tax, property tax, etc...It's the fact that I had never really considered how much collectively tax I am really paying. And as it stands, its somewhere like 21.5%. So that amount just on my INCOME is already outrageous in my opinion on a $35k income, which greatly decreases my spending power. On top of that, sales tax and everything else erodes it further depending on what I buy of course.

This may or may not be true.  As mentioned above, it's not like that 21% goes into a black hole never to be seen again.  You actually receive services back for that money.  If there was no government, you could end up paying way more than 21% in fees to cover what your taxes cover now.  Or not.  There's not enough information to go on and it's probably impossible to calculate.  But the point is you can't just automatically conclude that you'd be better off with an extra 21%.

I don't think anyone is debating the fact that it's an overall benefit to society to pay SOME taxes, rather people are fed up with the abusive amounts they end up paying when it all adds ups. I'd have no problem paying somewhere in the realm of 15-20% in total taxes, but, as I stated earlier, I'm no where near rich (I'm under 6 figures) yet I pay >25% on just income, not counting gas, tolls, sales, alcohol, car registration, FCC phone taxes, etc. It is getting downright criminal.

[Cromacster]

Something that rarely gets discussed (but is being discussed here & now) is how *many* things we get taxed on. I'd rather have a 33% tax and call it good than have this hodge-podge of cooperate, personal, investment, federal, state, and etc. income taxes; taxes on goods produced, bought, and sold; taxes on property and wealth; fees (taxes by another name) for various government services; fines; and etc. It just deceives everyone into thinking we have low taxes and lets politicians straw-man their taxing policies, when really, we don't.

Indeed. And I thought that was the OP's point.

Exactly. You guys "get" me. Sure, I can move and avoid the ~4% effective income tax in NC but I'll end up paying the difference in sales tax, property tax, etc...It's the fact that I had never really considered how much collectively tax I am really paying. And as it stands, its somewhere like 21.5%. So that amount just on my INCOME is already outrageous in my opinion on a $35k income, which greatly decreases my spending power. On top of that, sales tax and everything else erodes it further depending on what I buy of course.

This may or may not be true.  As mentioned above, it's not like that 21% goes into a black hole never to be seen again.  You actually receive services back for that money.  If there was no government, you could end up paying way more than 21% in fees to cover what your taxes cover now.  Or not.  There's not enough information to go on and it's probably impossible to calculate.  But the point is you can't just automatically conclude that you'd be better off with an extra 21%.

I don't think anyone is debating the fact that it's good to pay SOME taxes, rather people are fed up with the abusive amounts they end up paying when it all adds ups. I'd have no problem paying somewhere in the realm of 15-20% in total taxes, but, as I stated earlier, I'm no where near rich (I'm under 6 figures) yet I pay >25% on just income, not counting gas optional, tolls optional, sales optional, alcohol optional, car registration optional, FCC phone taxes optional, etc. It is getting downright criminal.

Yes there are taxes everywhere.  Consumption taxes are all optional.  The only bummer is if you live in a place that taxes groceries.

Edit:  Optional may be a poor choice of words, the tax itself is not optional.  The consumption of the product is optional.

[jka468]

Something that rarely gets discussed (but is being discussed here & now) is how *many* things we get taxed on. I'd rather have a 33% tax and call it good than have this hodge-podge of cooperate, personal, investment, federal, state, and etc. income taxes; taxes on goods produced, bought, and sold; taxes on property and wealth; fees (taxes by another name) for various government services; fines; and etc. It just deceives everyone into thinking we have low taxes and lets politicians straw-man their taxing policies, when really, we don't.

Indeed. And I thought that was the OP's point.

Exactly. You guys "get" me. Sure, I can move and avoid the ~4% effective income tax in NC but I'll end up paying the difference in sales tax, property tax, etc...It's the fact that I had never really considered how much collectively tax I am really paying. And as it stands, its somewhere like 21.5%. So that amount just on my INCOME is already outrageous in my opinion on a $35k income, which greatly decreases my spending power. On top of that, sales tax and everything else erodes it further depending on what I buy of course.

This may or may not be true.  As mentioned above, it's not like that 21% goes into a black hole never to be seen again.  You actually receive services back for that money.  If there was no government, you could end up paying way more than 21% in fees to cover what your taxes cover now.  Or not.  There's not enough information to go on and it's probably impossible to calculate.  But the point is you can't just automatically conclude that you'd be better off with an extra 21%.

I don't think anyone is debating the fact that it's good to pay SOME taxes, rather people are fed up with the abusive amounts they end up paying when it all adds ups. I'd have no problem paying somewhere in the realm of 15-20% in total taxes, but, as I stated earlier, I'm no where near rich (I'm under 6 figures) yet I pay >25% on just income, not counting gas optional, tolls optional, sales optional, alcohol optional, car registration optional, FCC phone taxes optional, etc. It is getting downright criminal.

Yes there are taxes everywhere.  Consumption taxes are all optional.  The only bummer is if you live in a place that taxes groceries.

Edit:  Optional may be a poor choice of words, the tax itself is not optional.  The consumption of the product is optional.

I know this site loves to bike around, but in reality due to rent/housing price considerations there are actually many jobs that make financial sense to drive to, hence I would argue that for many, a car, gas, car registration and (sometimes) tolls are not optional consumption choices (minimizing a car's use though is an optional choice). I will give you that alcohol is optional, and for other items, no matter how fricking frugal anyone is, they will still end up buying something at some point, hence sales tax (and my state does charge sales tax on groceries).

[Eric]

Exactly. You guys "get" me. Sure, I can move and avoid the ~4% effective income tax in NC but I'll end up paying the difference in sales tax, property tax, etc...It's the fact that I had never really considered how much collectively tax I am really paying. And as it stands, its somewhere like 21.5%. So that amount just on my INCOME is already outrageous in my opinion on a $35k income, which greatly decreases my spending power. On top of that, sales tax and everything else erodes it further depending on what I buy of course.

This may or may not be true.  As mentioned above, it's not like that 21% goes into a black hole never to be seen again.  You actually receive services back for that money.  If there was no government, you could end up paying way more than 21% in fees to cover what your taxes cover now.  Or not.  There's not enough information to go on and it's probably impossible to calculate.  But the point is you can't just automatically conclude that you'd be better off with an extra 21%.

I don't think anyone is debating the fact that it's an overall benefit to society to pay SOME taxes, rather people are fed up with the abusive amounts they end up paying when it all adds ups. I'd have no problem paying somewhere in the realm of 15-20% in total taxes, but, as I stated earlier, I'm no where near rich (I'm under 6 figures) yet I pay >25% on just income, not counting gas, tolls, sales, alcohol, car registration, FCC phone taxes, etc. It is getting downright criminal.

Okay, but the point I was making is that you may actually be getting more benefit from your tax dollars than you're paying.  So in essence, you've increased your spending power from paying taxes, rather than having taxes decrease your spending power.  This is variable based on the person/family and the services they use, but I think this is especially true if you're on the lower end of the income scale or if you have lots of kids.  And of course it moves to the other end of the spectrum as you make more and more money.

[jka468]

Exactly. You guys "get" me. Sure, I can move and avoid the ~4% effective income tax in NC but I'll end up paying the difference in sales tax, property tax, etc...It's the fact that I had never really considered how much collectively tax I am really paying. And as it stands, its somewhere like 21.5%. So that amount just on my INCOME is already outrageous in my opinion on a $35k income, which greatly decreases my spending power. On top of that, sales tax and everything else erodes it further depending on what I buy of course.

This may or may not be true.  As mentioned above, it's not like that 21% goes into a black hole never to be seen again.  You actually receive services back for that money.  If there was no government, you could end up paying way more than 21% in fees to cover what your taxes cover now.  Or not.  There's not enough information to go on and it's probably impossible to calculate.  But the point is you can't just automatically conclude that you'd be better off with an extra 21%.

I don't think anyone is debating the fact that it's an overall benefit to society to pay SOME taxes, rather people are fed up with the abusive amounts they end up paying when it all adds ups. I'd have no problem paying somewhere in the realm of 15-20% in total taxes, but, as I stated earlier, I'm no where near rich (I'm under 6 figures) yet I pay >25% on just income, not counting gas, tolls, sales, alcohol, car registration, FCC phone taxes, etc. It is getting downright criminal.

Okay, but the point I was making is that you may actually be getting more benefit from your tax dollars than you're paying.  So in essence, you've increased your spending power from paying taxes, rather than having taxes decrease your spending power.  This is variable based on the person/family and the services they use, but I think this is especially true if you're on the lower end of the income scale or if you have lots of kids.  And of course it moves to the other end of the spectrum as you make more and more money.

I'd highly doubt that I'm getting more benefit. Free market economics would crush the inefficiency of government in many of these areas, and there are many supporting papers for this. Like I said, I'm far far from a total anarchist, the government is absolutely useful in some capacities, but it has far exceeded its reach over the past 40 years.

As well, I understand your point about variability in services used, but to this point I think there should be checks and balances associated with that. I'm of the view that if you and/or your children are a net drain on the economy then you should not have voting rights.

[Eric]

As well, I understand your point about variability in services used, but to this point I think there should be checks and balances associated with that. I'm of the view that if you and/or your children are a net drain on the economy then you should not have voting rights.

Surely you can't be serious.  Let's only let rich land owners vote.  What could possibly go wrong?

[stuckinmn]

I'm torn on this proposal- the rich landowner side of me wants to support it, but the equality loving freedom side hates it. 

[The Architect]

As well, I understand your point about variability in services used, but to this point I think there should be checks and balances associated with that. I'm of the view that if you and/or your children are a net drain on the economy then you should not have voting rights.

Surely you can't be serious.  Let's only let rich land owners vote.  What could possibly go wrong?

Might amend that to "If you are a net drain, you can't vote on matters involving taxes" or some such. I've felt that way when a vote for increased property taxes comes up.

[nereo]

As well, I understand your point about variability in services used, but to this point I think there should be checks and balances associated with that. I'm of the view that if you and/or your children are a net drain on the economy then you should not have voting rights.

Surely you can't be serious.  Let's only let rich land owners vote.  What could possibly go wrong?

Might amend that to "If you are a net drain, you can't vote on matters involving taxes" or some such. I've felt that way when a vote for increased property taxes comes up.

I'm sorry, but I have to side with Eric on this one - eliminating 50% of the voting populace would undermine the good things about our government. 

[Gin1984]

I'm not sure what you mean about the school deciding whether a PhD student pays FICA. Everybody working in the USA has to pay FICA except for certain nonresident aliens with certain nonimmigrant classifications. Whether you have to pay FICA purely comes down to whether you are in those classifications. It has nothing to do with what school you work at.

There are different rules based on being a student, where the funding is coming from, state vs private school, etc.

[The Architect]

I'm sorry, but I have to side with Eric on this one - eliminating 50% of the voting populace would undermine the good things about our government.

Read your post again. If 50% are a net drain, it seems to me we have a problem on our hands - only 50% are supporting everyone else's earnings. How sustainable is that? (No really, has it been that way forever or is it a recent thing? I can't find any graph of such a thing with a quick search...).

Might amend that to "If you are a net drain, you can't vote on matters involving taxes" or some such. I've felt that way when a vote for increased property taxes comes up.

And you'd be eliminating every retired public employee and former military member who draw a government pension as well as everyone who lives on SS. All can be said to be a drain on government money, yet all have contributed into it in one form or another while working.

If you're dealing with people who are paying the tax, or have paid more into the tax than out, you'd obviously write the rule differently. Specifically, retirees  who choose to own homes (and pay the property tax) should be allowed to vote on property taxes; but people who don't own property should not as the increase doesn't directly affect them - other than to possibly let them take money from someone else (excepting that they will pay property taxes through increased rents at some point).

Government workers of all stripes would be an interesting case, but most don't directly benefit from an increase in taxes and so could largely be excused as "working" despite being a net drain.

[Eric]

I'm sorry, but I have to side with Eric on this one - eliminating 50% of the voting populace would undermine the good things about our government.

Read your post again. If 50% are a net drain, it seems to me we have a problem on our hands - only 50% are supporting everyone else's earnings. How sustainable is that? (No really, has it been that way forever or is it a recent thing? I can't find any graph of such a thing with a quick search...).

There's no problem at all.  You probably think "net drain" only means the poorest people on welfare.  But in reality, pretty much every family that is even within spitting distance of the median income doesn't pay the amount of taxes that would cover the benefits they receive, including, but not limited to, k-12 education for every child, library, subsidized post-secondary education, subsidized student loans, roads, police, fire, and military.  In fact, probably every single family with school aged kids that isn't earning $100k (which is most of them) is technically a "net drain".  And it could be a lot higher than $100k depending on how many kids or the value placed on their education.

So setting aside the blatant unconstitutionality and elitism, what you're actually proposing is that majority of middle class families with children shouldn't be able to vote.  You're a real man of the people!  Honestly, it's so ludicrous that I don't even know why we're talking about it. 

Might amend that to "If you are a net drain, you can't vote on matters involving taxes" or some such. I've felt that way when a vote for increased property taxes comes up.

And you'd be eliminating every retired public employee and former military member who draw a government pension as well as everyone who lives on SS. All can be said to be a drain on government money, yet all have contributed into it in one form or another while working.

If you're dealing with people who are paying the tax, or have paid more into the tax than out, you'd obviously write the rule differently. Specifically, retirees  who choose to own homes (and pay the property tax) should be allowed to vote on property taxes; but people who don't own property should not as the increase doesn't directly affect them - other than to possibly let them take money from someone else (excepting that they will pay property taxes through increased rents at some point).

Rents don't increase with property taxes?  I'll be sure to inform my landlord.

[The Architect]

There's no problem at all.  You probably think "net drain" only means the poorest people on welfare.  But in reality, pretty much every family that is even within spitting distance of the median income doesn't pay the amount of taxes that would cover the benefits they receive, including, but not limited to, k-12 education for every child, library, subsidized post-secondary education, subsidized student loans, roads, police, fire, and military.  In fact, probably every single family with school aged kids that isn't earning $100k (which is most of them) is technically a "net drain".  And it could be a lot higher than $100k depending on how many kids or the value placed on their education.

I was thinking those on government aid and those drawing government salaries. It'd be difficult math to run (again, my main ire against the current setup), but I think you're probably correct that I'm excluding some private earners who are actually net drains.

Edit: I realized you're straw manning me here - my point is not that net loss people should not vote, it is that people who do not pay tax X should not vote on tax X. Many elections have nothing to do with taxes, so everyone would still vote for most things.

If you're dealing with people who are paying the tax, or have paid more into the tax than out, you'd obviously write the rule differently. Specifically, retirees  who choose to own homes (and pay the property tax) should be allowed to vote on property taxes; but people who don't own property should not as the increase doesn't directly affect them - other than to possibly let them take money from someone else (excepting that they will pay property taxes through increased rents at some point).

Rents don't increase with property taxes?  I'll be sure to inform my landlord.

Not directly. In rent controlled areas, or in subsidized housing, or when the tax rate goes up in the middle of your lease, or when other market factors are forcing lower rental margins, a renter won't feel the increase the way an owner will. And a renter won't know that the increase is due to their own vote and likely blame the greedy landlords, when really, the landlords are just keeping their margin the same.

[johnny847]

I'm not sure what you mean about the school deciding whether a PhD student pays FICA. Everybody working in the USA has to pay FICA except for certain nonresident aliens with certain nonimmigrant classifications. Whether you have to pay FICA purely comes down to whether you are in those classifications. It has nothing to do with what school you work at.

There are different rules based on being a student, where the funding is coming from, state vs private school, etc.

Gin1984 is correct. In my case, I do not pay FICA as a grad student. My university does not withhold it. Which also means they're not making an employer contribution to SS or Medicare either. My large public school is confident enough that they are willing to risk any possible legal liability for not paying FICA tax on my behalf (and really, there is no legal liability, because it is correct to not withhold FICA for grad students). I even get paid with a W-2, meaning I can contribute to IRAs, and I don't pay FICA tax.

To categorically say that every working person except for "certain nonresident aliens with certain nonimmigrant classifications" pays FICA is wrong.

[austin]

As well, I understand your point about variability in services used, but to this point I think there should be checks and balances associated with that. I'm of the view that if you and/or your children are a net drain on the economy then you should not have voting rights.

Surely you can't be serious.  Let's only let rich land owners vote.  What could possibly go wrong?

Welcome to the wacky world of libertarianism.

[johnny847]

Sounds like a great way to save money.

What exactly are you implying here? Is it that I should take this opportunity to save money (which I do) or that you think it's a fishy way for my university and myself to save money?

[mom2_3Hs]

I have used TurboTax for the last several years, and we have averaged 11% federal taxes on $110K, and 2% on state (plus 7.5% Medicare/SSI, but that was only on earned income, so an effective rate of maybe 5%).  There are specific things we did to reduce our tax burden; for example, participating in our state's 529 plan for our kids' college savings was a 20% tax credit (up to $1K of credit).  Not bad, considering that investment is doing as well or better than the stock market.  We used pre-tax dollars to pay for health insurance, HSA, childcare, etc. which also reduces our tax burden. 

[CDP45]

In Germany you'd pay >33% on 100K USD income. So maybe stop bitching?

You get free college in Germany and dramatically cheaper healthcare.

You also get what you pay for.

[alsoknownasDean]

I believe in my tax return last year about 16% of my income went to tax (1.5% of this to fund our public health system), it'd be probably in the low 20% range now (new job, and the levy for the health system has increased to 2%). My marginal tax rate is 32.5%.

Also, of the 9.5% superannuation contributions made on top of my salary, my superannuation fund pays 15% tax. Most things I buy here have a 10% GST, and there's the other indirect taxes and charges.

Honestly though, I don't mind it, and think the amount I'm paying is pretty reasonable considering what I get in return.

[nereo]

I'm sorry, but I have to side with Eric on this one - eliminating 50% of the voting populace would undermine the good things about our government.

Read your post again. If 50% are a net drain, it seems to me we have a problem on our hands - only 50% are supporting everyone else's earnings. How sustainable is that? (No really, has it been that way forever or is it a recent thing? I can't find any graph of such a thing with a quick search...).

To clarify, what I meant was that mathematically, every person MUST be either a 'drain' or a 'source' (i.e. they must pay for more than they take, or they must take more than they pay).  The "50%" figure is admittedly a rough simplification.  In reality I'm certain it would be more than 50%, because what we are looking at is the median amount paid in taxes, not the mean.  There are a lot more people who earn less than the US mean salary of $69,821.  The median income was only $50,500 last year.  In short - the majority of workers earn less than the average (mean) salary.  Since it's reasonable to assume there's a tight correlation between earnings and absolute tax dollars paid, most people pay less than the average (mean) amount in taxes.  Judging how much services a person uses is logistically impossible - that part of the equation is a rough estimate at best.  But if resources are evenly distributed or if resources go more towards those below the average income, then most workers are a net drain.

...and this isn't surprising.  It's the natural result of having a wealth distribution where there are lots of people who earn below the average and relatively few who earn much, much more.

[legacyoneup]

consider all of these taxes as repayment of the loans your government has already made to you, by providing you with a free public education, free protection from criminals, free postal delivery, free national defense, free transportation infrastructure, free fire suppression, free environmental protections, free banking and currency regulation, free use of the judiciary and penal systems, free internet and electricity infrastructure, and the free scientific and medical research that has made your life the amazing bounty of easy awesomeness that is today.  You're welcome.

Oliver Wendell Holmes once said "I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization."

+1.

Well said!

[LalsConstant]

It gets really crazy when you consider the built in taxes for gas phone service etc. That you know exist but don't consciously think about.

On top of that, built into the price of anything you buy are all the taxes of the business you bought it from.  Mom and pop little shops and huge corporations alike are merely pass thru entities, whose customers bear their tax burden.

Yeah, if you add it all up, we're paying at least 150% of our income in taxes. We're all gonna starve! ;)

Actually if you consider that most people are debtors this is effectively what is happening.

[2lazy2retire]

As well, I understand your point about variability in services used, but to this point I think there should be checks and balances associated with that. I'm of the view that if you and/or your children are a net drain on the economy then you should not have voting rights.

Surely you can't be serious.  Let's only let rich land owners vote.  What could possibly go wrong?

Might amend that to "If you are a net drain, you can't vote on matters involving taxes" or some such. I've felt that way when a vote for increased property taxes comes up.

Wow - you are on the wrong side of history here my friend and by about 50 years - during the 60's in a small place you may or may not have heard about one of the cornerstones of the Civil Rights movement of the time was an end to "The property franchise (which granted votes in local elections only to those who owned property)". That movement lead to what became known as the Troubles which continued for some 30 years - the toll 3700 lives lost, that in a poluation of just over 1 million

[jka468]

As well, I understand your point about variability in services used, but to this point I think there should be checks and balances associated with that. I'm of the view that if you and/or your children are a net drain on the economy then you should not have voting rights.

Surely you can't be serious.  Let's only let rich land owners vote.  What could possibly go wrong?

I haven't read the rest of this thread to see where this discussion has gone, but this is clearly a false appeal to emotion. You don't have to be a "rich land owner" to not be a net drain on the economy; don't automatically bring a discussion to the lowest common denominator. I have never been rich and I have never owned land, but under this system I would have been able to vote since 19yo as every year I've been a net positive to the economy. There are plenty of 18yos working min wage who would also be able to vote under this system.

As well, I understand your point about variability in services used, but to this point I think there should be checks and balances associated with that. I'm of the view that if you and/or your children are a net drain on the economy then you should not have voting rights.

Surely you can't be serious.  Let's only let rich land owners vote.  What could possibly go wrong?

Might amend that to "If you are a net drain, you can't vote on matters involving taxes" or some such. I've felt that way when a vote for increased property taxes comes up.

I'm sorry, but I have to side with Eric on this one - eliminating 50% of the voting populace would undermine the good things about our government.

And you'd be eliminating every retired public employee and former military member who draw a government pension as well as everyone who lives on SS. All can be said to be a drain on government money, yet all have contributed into it in one form or another while working.

This is not true at all. By definition pensions and SS have already been paid for; it's just a delay in receiving earned money. These people would be net neutral (and could argue net positive through taxes on consumption), hence they would have voting rights.

I suppose I could explain the totality of my ideas more, but in the end I think only about 15-25% of the voting population would be unable to vote at any given time per this plan. I just think it's silly to be taking more money from the government pot than you contribute, but then still getting a say as to how that money is spent.

[Raay]

In Germany you'd pay >33% on 100K USD income. So maybe stop bitching?

You get free college in Germany and dramatically cheaper healthcare.

You're not up-to-date. There have been no free colleges since 2005 in most German lands (since "Studiengebühren" became normal). Also, I pay 700 Euro per month for public health insurance (this is the highest possible rate, because of my income; if I had no income, being self-employed, I would pay the lowest rate of around 360 Euro per month, unless I applied for special reduced rates - only available for poor people). Private health insurance would be cheaper now, however, historically it tends to go up in price faster than the public variant (because it is used by many doctors as a hidden source of subsidies).

That said, the actual problem of taxes is that allocation is screwed up. With today's technology it would be very feasible to make it possible for every tax payer to allocate their taxes directly - no central planning of budgets through representatives. This would actually make paying taxes fun because you'd know you can make a difference and would get people interested in their local politics more. Somehow however there is no single country that I know which allows individual citizens to decide where they taxes go (with slight exceptions, e.g. I can select a church or opt out of paying the church tax entirely in Germany).

[2lazy2retire]

As well, I understand your point about variability in services used, but to this point I think there should be checks and balances associated with that. I'm of the view that if you and/or your children are a net drain on the economy then you should not have voting rights.

Surely you can't be serious.  Let's only let rich land owners vote.  What could possibly go wrong?

I haven't read the rest of this thread to see where this discussion has gone, but this is clearly a false appeal to emotion. You don't have to be a "rich land owner" to not be a net drain on the economy; don't automatically bring a discussion to the lowest common denominator. I have never been rich and I have never owned land, but under this system I would have been able to vote since 19yo as every year I've been a net positive to the economy. There are plenty of 18yos working min wage who would also be able to vote under this system.

As well, I understand your point about variability in services used, but to this point I think there should be checks and balances associated with that. I'm of the view that if you and/or your children are a net drain on the economy then you should not have voting rights.

Surely you can't be serious.  Let's only let rich land owners vote.  What could possibly go wrong?

Might amend that to "If you are a net drain, you can't vote on matters involving taxes" or some such. I've felt that way when a vote for increased property taxes comes up.

I'm sorry, but I have to side with Eric on this one - eliminating 50% of the voting populace would undermine the good things about our government.

And you'd be eliminating every retired public employee and former military member who draw a government pension as well as everyone who lives on SS. All can be said to be a drain on government money, yet all have contributed into it in one form or another while working.

This is not true at all. By definition pensions and SS have already been paid for; it's just a delay in receiving earned money. These people would be net neutral (and could argue net positive through taxes on consumption), hence they would have voting rights.

I suppose I could explain the totality of my ideas more, but in the end I think only about 15-25% of the voting population would be unable to vote at any given time per this plan. I just think it's silly to be taking more money from the government pot than you contribute, but then still getting a say as to how that money is spent.

Seriously think about what you are saying and which part of society will become disenfranchised by anything other that one person one vote. What f@*king century have I stumbled on here.

[Gin1984]

As well, I understand your point about variability in services used, but to this point I think there should be checks and balances associated with that. I'm of the view that if you and/or your children are a net drain on the economy then you should not have voting rights.

Surely you can't be serious.  Let's only let rich land owners vote.  What could possibly go wrong?

I haven't read the rest of this thread to see where this discussion has gone, but this is clearly a false appeal to emotion. You don't have to be a "rich land owner" to not be a net drain on the economy; don't automatically bring a discussion to the lowest common denominator. I have never been rich and I have never owned land, but under this system I would have been able to vote since 19yo as every year I've been a net positive to the economy. There are plenty of 18yos working min wage who would also be able to vote under this system.

As well, I understand your point about variability in services used, but to this point I think there should be checks and balances associated with that. I'm of the view that if you and/or your children are a net drain on the economy then you should not have voting rights.

Surely you can't be serious.  Let's only let rich land owners vote.  What could possibly go wrong?

Might amend that to "If you are a net drain, you can't vote on matters involving taxes" or some such. I've felt that way when a vote for increased property taxes comes up.

I'm sorry, but I have to side with Eric on this one - eliminating 50% of the voting populace would undermine the good things about our government.

And you'd be eliminating every retired public employee and former military member who draw a government pension as well as everyone who lives on SS. All can be said to be a drain on government money, yet all have contributed into it in one form or another while working.

This is not true at all. By definition pensions and SS have already been paid for; it's just a delay in receiving earned money. These people would be net neutral (and could argue net positive through taxes on consumption), hence they would have voting rights.

I suppose I could explain the totality of my ideas more, but in the end I think only about 15-25% of the voting population would be unable to vote at any given time per this plan. I just think it's silly to be taking more money from the government pot than you contribute, but then still getting a say as to how that money is spent.

No, a adult making minimum wage actual is a drain, fiscally.  You don't send in enough taxes to cover the cost the government spends on you. 

[jka468]

As well, I understand your point about variability in services used, but to this point I think there should be checks and balances associated with that. I'm of the view that if you and/or your children are a net drain on the economy then you should not have voting rights.

Surely you can't be serious.  Let's only let rich land owners vote.  What could possibly go wrong?

I haven't read the rest of this thread to see where this discussion has gone, but this is clearly a false appeal to emotion. You don't have to be a "rich land owner" to not be a net drain on the economy; don't automatically bring a discussion to the lowest common denominator. I have never been rich and I have never owned land, but under this system I would have been able to vote since 19yo as every year I've been a net positive to the economy. There are plenty of 18yos working min wage who would also be able to vote under this system.

As well, I understand your point about variability in services used, but to this point I think there should be checks and balances associated with that. I'm of the view that if you and/or your children are a net drain on the economy then you should not have voting rights.

Surely you can't be serious.  Let's only let rich land owners vote.  What could possibly go wrong?

Might amend that to "If you are a net drain, you can't vote on matters involving taxes" or some such. I've felt that way when a vote for increased property taxes comes up.

I'm sorry, but I have to side with Eric on this one - eliminating 50% of the voting populace would undermine the good things about our government.

And you'd be eliminating every retired public employee and former military member who draw a government pension as well as everyone who lives on SS. All can be said to be a drain on government money, yet all have contributed into it in one form or another while working.

This is not true at all. By definition pensions and SS have already been paid for; it's just a delay in receiving earned money. These people would be net neutral (and could argue net positive through taxes on consumption), hence they would have voting rights.

I suppose I could explain the totality of my ideas more, but in the end I think only about 15-25% of the voting population would be unable to vote at any given time per this plan. I just think it's silly to be taking more money from the government pot than you contribute, but then still getting a say as to how that money is spent.

Seriously think about what you are saying and which part of society will become disenfranchised by anything other that one person one vote. What f@*king century have I stumbled on here.

Why don't you fight for the right for convicted felons to vote?

I know exactly who would be disenfrachised. I almost forgot that I live in America where it's damn near impossible to not be a net positive on the system if one really wanted to; but then I remembered, my labor is supposed to be a subsidy for those who don't really want to.

[2lazy2retire]

As well, I understand your point about variability in services used, but to this point I think there should be checks and balances associated with that. I'm of the view that if you and/or your children are a net drain on the economy then you should not have voting rights.

Surely you can't be serious.  Let's only let rich land owners vote.  What could possibly go wrong?

I haven't read the rest of this thread to see where this discussion has gone, but this is clearly a false appeal to emotion. You don't have to be a "rich land owner" to not be a net drain on the economy; don't automatically bring a discussion to the lowest common denominator. I have never been rich and I have never owned land, but under this system I would have been able to vote since 19yo as every year I've been a net positive to the economy. There are plenty of 18yos working min wage who would also be able to vote under this system.

As well, I understand your point about variability in services used, but to this point I think there should be checks and balances associated with that. I'm of the view that if you and/or your children are a net drain on the economy then you should not have voting rights.

Surely you can't be serious.  Let's only let rich land owners vote.  What could possibly go wrong?

Might amend that to "If you are a net drain, you can't vote on matters involving taxes" or some such. I've felt that way when a vote for increased property taxes comes up.

I'm sorry, but I have to side with Eric on this one - eliminating 50% of the voting populace would undermine the good things about our government.

And you'd be eliminating every retired public employee and former military member who draw a government pension as well as everyone who lives on SS. All can be said to be a drain on government money, yet all have contributed into it in one form or another while working.

This is not true at all. By definition pensions and SS have already been paid for; it's just a delay in receiving earned money. These people would be net neutral (and could argue net positive through taxes on consumption), hence they would have voting rights.

I suppose I could explain the totality of my ideas more, but in the end I think only about 15-25% of the voting population would be unable to vote at any given time per this plan. I just think it's silly to be taking more money from the government pot than you contribute, but then still getting a say as to how that money is spent.

Seriously think about what you are saying and which part of society will become disenfranchised by anything other that one person one vote. What f@*king century have I stumbled on here.

Why don't you fight for the right for convicted felons to vote?

I know exactly who would be disenfrachised. I almost forgot that I live in America where it's damn near impossible to not be a net positive on the system if one really wanted to; but then I remembered, my labor is supposed to be a subsidy for those who don't really want to.

Finally the truth comes out - thanks for your honesty

[Gin1984]

As well, I understand your point about variability in services used, but to this point I think there should be checks and balances associated with that. I'm of the view that if you and/or your children are a net drain on the economy then you should not have voting rights.

Surely you can't be serious.  Let's only let rich land owners vote.  What could possibly go wrong?

I haven't read the rest of this thread to see where this discussion has gone, but this is clearly a false appeal to emotion. You don't have to be a "rich land owner" to not be a net drain on the economy; don't automatically bring a discussion to the lowest common denominator. I have never been rich and I have never owned land, but under this system I would have been able to vote since 19yo as every year I've been a net positive to the economy. There are plenty of 18yos working min wage who would also be able to vote under this system.

As well, I understand your point about variability in services used, but to this point I think there should be checks and balances associated with that. I'm of the view that if you and/or your children are a net drain on the economy then you should not have voting rights.

Surely you can't be serious.  Let's only let rich land owners vote.  What could possibly go wrong?

Might amend that to "If you are a net drain, you can't vote on matters involving taxes" or some such. I've felt that way when a vote for increased property taxes comes up.

I'm sorry, but I have to side with Eric on this one - eliminating 50% of the voting populace would undermine the good things about our government.

And you'd be eliminating every retired public employee and former military member who draw a government pension as well as everyone who lives on SS. All can be said to be a drain on government money, yet all have contributed into it in one form or another while working.

This is not true at all. By definition pensions and SS have already been paid for; it's just a delay in receiving earned money. These people would be net neutral (and could argue net positive through taxes on consumption), hence they would have voting rights.

I suppose I could explain the totality of my ideas more, but in the end I think only about 15-25% of the voting population would be unable to vote at any given time per this plan. I just think it's silly to be taking more money from the government pot than you contribute, but then still getting a say as to how that money is spent.

Seriously think about what you are saying and which part of society will become disenfranchised by anything other that one person one vote. What f@*king century have I stumbled on here.

Why don't you fight for the right for convicted felons to vote?

I know exactly who would be disenfrachised. I almost forgot that I live in America where it's damn near impossible to not be a net positive on the system if one really wanted to; but then I remembered, my labor is supposed to be a subsidy for those who don't really want to.

You don't actually know how much is spent on you, do you?  Because the above statement is so far from the truth it is funny.

[nereo]

As well, I understand your point about variability in services used, but to this point I think there should be checks and balances associated with that. I'm of the view that if you and/or your children are a net drain on the economy then you should not have voting rights.
(snip)
I haven't read the rest of this thread to see where this discussion has gone, but this is clearly a false appeal to emotion. You don't have to be a "rich land owner" to not be a net drain on the economy; don't automatically bring a discussion to the lowest common denominator. I have never been rich and I have never owned land, but under this system I would have been able to vote since 19yo as every year I've been a net positive to the economy. There are plenty of 18yos working min wage who would also be able to vote under this system.
(snip)
Why don't you fight for the right for convicted felons to vote?

I know exactly who would be disenfrachised. I almost forgot that I live in America where it's damn near impossible to not be a net positive on the system if one really wanted to; but then I remembered, my labor is supposed to be a subsidy for those who don't really want to.

As I said in my previous post, this would disenfranchise more than 50% of the voting population, and almost entirely eliminate the voting rights of not just those earning minimum wage, but almost everyone making under $50k/year (plus quite a few of those earning between $50k-69k).
If that's really your opinion, then... wow.  I mean, I'm just in shock.  All I can say is "really horrible idea".