The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: swampwiz on September 21, 2018, 04:33:39 PM
-
I was reading this, and it got me interested:
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/8/7/17658574/democratic-socialism-cost-medicare-college-sanders-deficits-taxes
It seems that with the Demosocialists gaining more & power, there is going to be a higher level of taxation, but also more "free stuff". As we Moustschians are past the stage of life of being a net "maker", shouldn't we be in favor of getting more benefits?
-
You realize not all of the posters here are FIRE yet, right?
Just checking.
-
I'd prefer to do what is best for the long term interest of the country. Conservative values are what made this nation an economic powerhouse lifting not only Americans out of poverty but helping lift the entire world.
If you want socialism, I'll collect the money for your plane ticket to Venezuela, if you sign a written contact promising to stay 5 years, or forfeit 3 times the amount to my favorite charity.
The stats; median US household income is two times what it takes to be in the worlds top 1%.
Venezuela,
The new wage amounts to a daily income of US $0.26, which barely covers a coffee or a pie $0.20 at prices listed on December 31, 2017. Merely increasing the minimum wage won’t solve the economic problems facing Venezuela, which currently suffers from inflation of around 3,000 percent, as well as food and medicine shortages.
The income situation in Venezuela is so poor that a person earning a minimum wage can only buy six percent of most basic goods.
https://panampost.com/sabrina-martin/2018/01/04/new-monthly-minimum-wage-in-venezuela-barely-enough-to-buy-daily-cup-of-coffee/
Now, let's find some more of those people that produce and take their money, so we can give it someone else.
-
The US is a socialist system, but instead of flowing benefits to "the people" you flow them to corporations and to rich folks. It does indeed make the business world strong and rich people richer. So I can see the appeal as long as you are on the end of the power structure that reaps these benefits.
-
I was reading this, and it got me interested:
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/8/7/17658574/democratic-socialism-cost-medicare-college-sanders-deficits-taxes
It seems that with the Demosocialists gaining more & power, there is going to be a higher level of taxation, but also more "free stuff". As we Moustschians are past the stage of life of being a net "maker", shouldn't we be in favor of getting more benefits?
I am not "past the stage of life of being a net maker." I am not in favor of receiving "more benefits."
-
It seems that with the Demosocialists gaining more & power,
Eh? The US Senate and House are controlled by ostensibly fiscal-conservative* Republicans, as is the Presidency. The Supreme Court is currently 4-4 and will soon be 5-4, leaning to conservative. Most of the state governors are Republican.
Where are these Demosocialists gaining more power? You mentioned Bernie so I assume you're talking about the US.
* Bwahahahahahaha. *wipes tears*
-
It seems that with the Demosocialists gaining more & power, there is going to be a higher level of taxation
There already is a higher level of taxation when you look at all taxes combined. In my state, income taxes have increased about 2/3 and property taxes are among the highest in the country. Sales taxes have about doubled in the last 40 years.
As we Moustschians are past the stage of life of being a net "maker", shouldn't we be in favor of getting more benefits?
Many, or most, Mustachians are making high incomes and paying higher taxes than ever, such as myself, since I'm single without kids, am paying much higher taxes. Of course, most households are actually net "takers" most of their working careers as well, including mustachians.
I would NOT like to see more benefits going to rich people. We have enough socialism providing benefits in the country without adding more to it for people that don't even need it. What's worse is the people that have large stashes claiming food stamps and such that were meant for the poor.
-
Democrats have reached a nearly nadir point in history. There is a chance in November that we may become a one party system unless the Democrats can take back the house or senate. My fear of that occurring is why I don't dare FIRE until the Midterm and possibly 2020 elections are over. The very real possibility exists for the loss of every social safety net in place.
-
I don't consider an equitable world where the less fortunate are cared for a threat to my goals, and therefore I support it. Even something "extreme" like basic income is not a threat because that's exactly the situation I'm trying to create for myself, so how can giving it to others hurt me?
-
Democrats have reached a nearly nadir point in history. There is a chance in November that we may become a one party system unless the Democrats can take back the house or senate. My fear of that occurring is why I don't dare FIRE until the Midterm and possibly 2020 elections are over. The very real possibility exists for the loss of every social safety net in place.
Good move to wait because the republicans would certainly like another shot at repealing or replacing the ACA, which just barely missed succeeding last time.
-
A few posts back BTDretire used Venezuela as an example of Socialism. Why don't the guys who don't like it look at Sweden, Norway, Germany, etc? These nations seem to have done some of the Socialistic things to help people that are admirable. I really think we could do more in the way of health care for all. It doesn't seem to have hurt those other countries to have done it. They have done it despite being so much smaller than the US. Amazing.
-
Yes. I have serious misgivings about socialism being the panacea so many take it to be. It has limitations and dangers. Not all the programs do what they're supposed to and giving your life and liberty to a bunch of elitist technocrats is as bad as giving it to a bunch of oligarchs. At least the oligarchs aren't under the illusion they're doing the world good as they turn your life into an upscale 1984.
That said, a solid safety net to keep a nation's citizens from falling through, a living wage, free or mostly free medical care (even if it isn't great), and restrictions on corporate greed and short sightedness need to be reigned in. It mostly works OK in Western Europe (I've lived there) and I'm confident it'll mostly work OK in the US if competently applied. ("Competent" being a key word - I'm looking at you Jerry Brown.) I'm OK paying more taxes to do that. Hell, I'd retire from being FIRE'd to do that. Maybe it's being ex-military and "taking one for the team" is a still a thing for me. But saying "fuck y'all, I got mine" isn't a view I can get behind. I'm definitely not sold a little socialism = economic disaster. Yes, Columbia is a dumpster fire. But Western Europe gets by rather well.
Right now in California we have a homeless epidemic that reaches beyond the traditional losers, junkies, drunks and the mentally ill. Now people with two or more jobs live on the streets and in growing numbers. When that demographic gets big enough we'll see a violent communist revolution. And don't say it can't happen because communism failed. People increasingly don't remember that. Leastways not the ones living on the street.
-
What makes you a maker or a taker?
I’ve retired, but am not collecting any benefits. I’m still paying taxes and still planning to contribute to my community.
-
What makes you a maker or a taker?
I’ve retired, but am not collecting any benefits. I’m still paying taxes and still planning to contribute to my community.
There are many variables, but on average, a household would be a net taker if paying less than $30K/yr in federal taxes, or when broken down per capita, closer to $12K/yr per household member in federal taxes.
That doesn't include state/local taxes and state benefits like those generous state pensions and healthcare benefits for retired state workers in my state, but they would typically already be included in the numbers above for not paying the $30K/yr in federal taxes.
-
Now that I am FIRE, I am an active volunteer in my community. I am more of a giver than I ever had time to be in my working years.
Also, if there's a contest for the most sloppily written subject line, this one is sure to be a top contender.
-
There is a difference between Democrats and Socialists, even though Socialists are currently making a concerted effort to take control of the Democratic Party. The average Democrat understands that taxing capital gains the same as regular income is a recipe for disaster because it will dissuade people from investing and growing the economy. Socialists think that money is magical and the solution to every problem is more taxes. Democrats support Universal Healthcare because it's been successfully implemented in every other major Western industrialized nation and it prevents people from going bankrupt from medical expenses. Socialists think that every single service people need should be provided by the government and absolutely nothing bad would come from that because all people are good at heart and always put the needs of others before themselves in every way. (Socialists are quite childish.)
So Democrats being in charge would be great, because we would get Universal Healthcare and protections from predatory financial institutions. Socialists being in charge would be a massive disaster of historical proportions.
-
There is a difference between Democrats and Socialists, even though Socialists are currently making a concerted effort to take control of the Democratic Party. The average Democrat understands that taxing capital gains the same as regular income is a recipe for disaster because it will dissuade people from investing and growing the economy. Socialists think that money is magical and the solution to every problem is more taxes. Democrats support Universal Healthcare because it's been successfully implemented in every other major Western industrialized nation and it prevents people from going bankrupt from medical expenses. Socialists think that every single service people need should be provided by the government and absolutely nothing bad would come from that because all people are good at heart and always put the needs of others before themselves in every way. (Socialists are quite childish.)
So Democrats being in charge would be great, because we would get Universal Healthcare and protections from predatory financial institutions. Socialists being in charge would be a massive disaster of historical proportions.
I guess you can't generalize. There was a recent vote to really prop up the military. Many extra billions of dollars were voted for the military. Now our military spending is like the next 5 countries combined. I've kind of wondered why we need more spending on the military since I don't see any "real" threats. So, who was watching the money pot and voted against it? It was about 6 Republicans and Bernie sanders, the avowed Socialist. I'm not sure the guys we have in there now aren't the ones to watch. They are cutting the money coming in and if the military spending is any indication, they may not be using the limited resources wisely.
All the Democrats voted for the military increase, by the way.
-
Few people actually want to study policy and make decisions based on data. I would hope mustacians are better than that. Like the 4% rule, there are ways to understand government that are much more nuanced than taxes bad, govt bad, capitialism good. It drives me crazy the stupid sound byte propaganda I hear. America is strong because we invented an awsome, effective form of governance that keeps our society stable and funds shared investments in infrastructure, social programs and defense. People have no clue about the problems pre-social security, pre unions, pre anti-trust. Average people dying on a filthy unmaintained street from lung disease working in coal mines is not the society I want, but it is what we get without good socialist government. I know the word is dirty in the US, but it is what we are.
Just my opinion, but I have a lot of data behind my views.
-
Few people actually want to study policy and make decisions based on data. I would hope mustacians are better than that. Like the 4% rule, there are ways to understand government that are much more nuanced than taxes bad, govt bad, capitialism good. It drives me crazy the stupid sound byte propaganda I hear. America is strong because we invented an awsome, effective form of governance that keeps our society stable and funds shared investments in infrastructure, social programs and defense. People have no clue about the problems pre-social security, pre unions, pre anti-trust. Average people dying on a filthy unmaintained street from lung disease working in coal mines is not the society I want, but it is what we get without good socialist government. I know the word is dirty in the US, but it is what we are.
Just my opinion, but I have a lot of data behind my views.
Well said. America is also strong because we were not bombed into oblivion in WWII and had a continent of untapped resources to draw on for our economy. We also reaped the benefit of social programs like public education.
As an aside, I thought two things based on the thread title:
1.) Will this thread be about the fact that deep-red states are net takers of federal dollars?
2.) This thread has a high probability of getting bumped to off topic within 36 hours.
-
What makes you a maker or a taker?
I’ve retired, but am not collecting any benefits. I’m still paying taxes and still planning to contribute to my community.
There are many variables, but on average, a household would be a net taker if paying less than $30K/yr in federal taxes, or when broken down per capita, closer to $12K/yr per household member in federal taxes.
That doesn't include state/local taxes and state benefits like those generous state pensions and healthcare benefits for retired state workers in my state, but they would typically already be included in the numbers above for not paying the $30K/yr in federal taxes.
Interesting figures, thank you for providing them. How should we interpret a person that pays significantly more than that, but over a shorter time span? For example, if a person pays 10 times that amount, but only for 1/10th the time as an average citizen, is that person still a net "taker" from society during years when they are paying less?
Regardless, the title of this thread doesn't really help the perception that people that FIRE want to become parasites on society. Most of us still plan to pay taxes (capital gains, sales tax, property tax, maybe even income tax!) and work to improve the community around us. I don't see why I have to sit in a beige cubicle working on powerpoint and collecting a paycheck every two weeks to be considered a contributing member of society?
-
Venezuela
With that one word =Venezuala, as an example of "socialism", you lose any kind of credibility.
-
Right now in California we have a homeless epidemic that reaches beyond the traditional losers, junkies, drunks and the mentally ill. Now people with two or more jobs live on the streets and in growing numbers. When that demographic gets big enough we'll see a violent communist revolution. And don't say it can't happen because communism failed. People increasingly don't remember that. Leastways not the ones living on the street.
So is the answer to keep doing what California is doing or is it to learn from California, Seattle, and Oregon and maybe consider that those highly taxed very liberal states might be doing something wrong?
-
Right now in California we have a homeless epidemic that reaches beyond the traditional losers, junkies, drunks and the mentally ill. Now people with two or more jobs live on the streets and in growing numbers. When that demographic gets big enough we'll see a violent communist revolution. And don't say it can't happen because communism failed. People increasingly don't remember that. Leastways not the ones living on the street.
So is the answer to keep doing what California is doing or is it to learn from California, Seattle, and Oregon and maybe consider that those highly taxed very liberal states might be doing something wrong?
Well, we can't look at Louisiana or Mississippi or Kentucky either because they're at the bottom of the pile in US poverty. The rest of the bottom 10 aren't exactly liberal strongholds either with the exception of New Mexico.
-
There is a difference between Democrats and Socialists, even though Socialists are currently making a concerted effort to take control of the Democratic Party. The average Democrat understands that taxing capital gains the same as regular income is a recipe for disaster because it will dissuade people from investing and growing the economy.
Does investing in stock, after the IPO, grow the economy?
-
I was reading this, and it got me interested:
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/8/7/17658574/democratic-socialism-cost-medicare-college-sanders-deficits-taxes
It seems that with the Demosocialists gaining more & power, there is going to be a higher level of taxation, but also more "free stuff". As we Moustschians are past the stage of life of being a net "maker", shouldn't we be in favor of getting more benefits?
It seams just from reading these forum that a large portion of mustachians are "makers" or at the very least have been significant contributors prior to FIRE and even contribute during FIRE. The secret sauce to MMM is that you need to start with a decent income to be able to save 50% or more every year. With a large income you end up being a maker.
There is indeed a subset of mustachians that are takers and hide behind "the good of society" comments hoping that they themselves get more free stuff because their lifestyle depends on it.
The US has become great because of capitalism with a hint of social laws. Pure capitalism without some checks has its harms. Too much socialism and the country stagnates, people go hungry and live in tent cities. Personally I think many of those European countries that people like to point fingers at being successful will prove themselves wrong. Germany has almost no military spending and Norway has tons of oil compared to its population which makes it difficult to compare The US to them. While Greece and Italy are barely holding their shit together. I do wish the US spent less on military and more on improving our healthcare delivery. In the next 10-30 years we will see how swinging too far social turns out. Hopefully the US can learn from the mistakes of others though I doubt it. Unfortunately Socialists seam to very quickly forget the past and think that their form of socialism is somehow different. It is not and like all others it will cause more harm than good in the long run.
-
I’m not a net taker at all. Call me Internet police or call the Internet police, but I don’t think people should get subsidies for AHCA just because they want want to FIRE. To me, that’s not FIRE, since you aren’t independent. I’m not a fan of Sanders style socialism, but then there’s the creepy Republicans. They are expanding the deficit when they should be paying it off, killing the good parts of AHCA (I pay my insurance, so why can’t I get a fair deal?) and giving big tax breaks to big business st the expense of ordinary taxpayers. All the while, there’s this kiss kiss with Russia. Drives me crazy how hypocritical they are. Socialists on the left, socialists on the right, it’s nuts.
-
The very real possibility exists for the loss of every social safety net in place.
If you really believe that, you have been brainwashed by either a crowd you should stop hanging out with,
or are a reading far left looney tunes websites.
Care to disclose which ones?
-
The very real possibility exists for the loss of every social safety net in place.
If you really believe that, you have been brainwashed by either a crowd you should stop hanging out with,
or are a reading far left looney tunes websites.
Care to disclose which ones?
If you want pure capitalism, I'll collect the money for your plane ticket to Somalia, if you sign a written contact promising to stay 5 years, or forfeit 3 times the amount to my favorite charity.
-
What makes you a maker or a taker?
I’ve retired, but am not collecting any benefits. I’m still paying taxes and still planning to contribute to my community.
There are many variables, but on average, a household would be a net taker if paying less than $30K/yr in federal taxes, or when broken down per capita, closer to $12K/yr per household member in federal taxes.
That doesn't include state/local taxes and state benefits like those generous state pensions and healthcare benefits for retired state workers in my state, but they would typically already be included in the numbers above for not paying the $30K/yr in federal taxes.
Does that include SS payments?
I guess it doesn't matter, for many years I have paid 2% to 3% of my total income to Federal taxes,
This years preliminary calculations show I'll be at about 3%. If you add in SS and Medicaid tax I'm up to 11%,
But still paying just over half of the $30k you mention.
Either way with or without SS tax, looks like I'm a taker.
-
The very real possibility exists for the loss of every social safety net in place.
If you really believe that, you have been brainwashed by either a crowd you should stop hanging out with,
or are a reading far left looney tunes websites.
Care to disclose which ones?
If you want pure capitalism, I'll collect the money for your plane ticket to Somalia, if you sign a written contact promising to stay 5 years, or forfeit 3 times the amount to my favorite charity.
Argh Matey, I could go there and be an optometrist, make a mint selling eye patches to the pirates.
Somalia is the wild west, I'm very happy in the good ole USA, where the little guy can do well with just a little luck, hard work and frugal spending.
-
The safety net programs will not disappear. You would have so much social unrest it would be chaos. The republicans undoubtedly will try to reduce them. I w 64 and my grandparents told stories of having to work at the bosses house for free in order to keep your job, working 7 days/week with no choice.
-
I was reading this, and it got me interested:
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/8/7/17658574/democratic-socialism-cost-medicare-college-sanders-deficits-taxes
It seems that with the Demosocialists gaining more & power, there is going to be a higher level of taxation, but also more "free stuff". As we Moustschians are past the stage of life of being a net "maker", shouldn't we be in favor of getting more benefits?
It seams just from reading these forum that a large portion of mustachians are "makers" or at the very least have been significant contributors prior to FIRE and even contribute during FIRE. The secret sauce to MMM is that you need to start with a decent income to be able to save 50% or more every year. With a large income you end up being a maker.
There is indeed a subset of mustachians that are takers and hide behind "the good of society" comments hoping that they themselves get more free stuff because their lifestyle depends on it.
The US has become great because of capitalism with a hint of social laws. Pure capitalism without some checks has its harms. Too much socialism and the country stagnates, people go hungry and live in tent cities. Personally I think many of those European countries that people like to point fingers at being successful will prove themselves wrong. Germany has almost no military spending and Norway has tons of oil compared to its population which makes it difficult to compare The US to them. While Greece and Italy are barely holding their shit together. I do wish the US spent less on military and more on improving our healthcare delivery. In the next 10-30 years we will see how swinging too far social turns out. Hopefully the US can learn from the mistakes of others though I doubt it. Unfortunately Socialists seam to very quickly forget the past and think that their form of socialism is somehow different. It is not and like all others it will cause more harm than good in the long run.
I like reading these "discussions" but don't waste my time responding as those that think they know what they're talking about aren't going to be dissuaded by logic, and anyway I have better things to do than type up dissertations on the subject. That said, the above is in my mind the best response to the "we care about everyone" groupies on this site. Please continue - thanks.
-
+1
-
What makes you a maker or a taker?
I’ve retired, but am not collecting any benefits. I’m still paying taxes and still planning to contribute to my community.
There are many variables, but on average, a household would be a net taker if paying less than $30K/yr in federal taxes, or when broken down per capita, closer to $12K/yr per household member in federal taxes.
That doesn't include state/local taxes and state benefits like those generous state pensions and healthcare benefits for retired state workers in my state, but they would typically already be included in the numbers above for not paying the $30K/yr in federal taxes.
Does that include SS payments?
I guess it doesn't matter, for many years I have paid 2% to 3% of my total income to Federal taxes,
This years preliminary calculations show I'll be at about 3%. If you add in SS and Medicaid tax I'm up to 11%,
But still paying just over half of the $30k you mention.
Either way with or without SS tax, looks like I'm a taker.
Yes, most people are takers. Yes, SS is included in the federal spending numbers.
-
What makes you a maker or a taker?
I’ve retired, but am not collecting any benefits. I’m still paying taxes and still planning to contribute to my community.
There are many variables, but on average, a household would be a net taker if paying less than $30K/yr in federal taxes, or when broken down per capita, closer to $12K/yr per household member in federal taxes.
The above is false.
Total federal income tax revenue is $1,587 billion/year. The US population is 326 million. So if you're paying more than $4,900/year in federal income taxes, you're paying more than you proportional share. Another way to look at this is that if you pay $400k in federal income taxes over your lifetime, you've already managed to pay more than your lifetime "share" of federal tax revenue. Making $190k/year for a decade would do the trick. Or $110k/year for 20 years. Or $70k/year for 40 years. And those numbers assume our hypothetical FIREee never pays so much as a a dollar in capital gains or dividend/interest taxes after hitting FIRE.
Note that even if we include payroll taxes ($1,162 billion/year, good for another ~$3,500/person/year) we're substantially short ($4,900+$3,500 = $8,400) of the numbers in the post above. I suspect the issue is that the poster above is including federal revenue from corporate income taxes and government spending that is funded by growing the national debt. I do not consider it my responsibility to pay more personal income tax so that companies wouldn't have to pay any income tax at all.* YMMV.
*Especially since higher corporate income tax rates tend to be passed on to consumers, so we're already paying those taxes through my day to day spending, we're just not getting "credit" for paying them if we look at the headline numbers on our 1040 forms.
-
Yes, Columbia is a dumpster fire. But Western Europe gets by rather well.
What’s wrong with Colombia?!
Sure there’s a little residual FARC tension but I’d hardly call it a dumpster fire!
-
Venezuela
With that one word =Venezuala, as an example of "socialism", you lose any kind of credibility.
There must be some sort of Godwin's law equivalent whenever anyone suggests this.
-
Somalia is a great example of why the rule of law is important. Venezuela is a great example of why democracy (real democracy not just the trappings of democracy) is important.
In neither case does socialism or capitalism really enter into the discussion.
-
There is a difference between Democrats and Socialists, even though Socialists are currently making a concerted effort to take control of the Democratic Party. The average Democrat understands that taxing capital gains the same as regular income is a recipe for disaster because it will dissuade people from investing and growing the economy.
Does investing in stock, after the IPO, grow the economy?
How do you think companies get the funding to expand their operations and create more jobs? When you invest, you are growing the economy, which is one of the reasons why I think people should invest a lot of their money. It's good for everybody.
-
No, companies only get the $ from an IPO. After that, it’s all a seconary market. The company sees none of it - stocks are a commodity after that, adding no production value.
-
Yes. I have serious misgivings about socialism being the panacea so many take it to be.
I know the fear that the pendulum will swing too far Left next time. But I think that when people talk about socialism in the United States, it's not Socialism Socialism. It's socialism. Small "s."
-
What makes you a maker or a taker?
I’ve retired, but am not collecting any benefits. I’m still paying taxes and still planning to contribute to my community.
There are many variables, but on average, a household would be a net taker if paying less than $30K/yr in federal taxes, or when broken down per capita, closer to $12K/yr per household member in federal taxes.
The above is false.
Total federal income tax revenue is $1,587 billion/year. The US population is 326 million. So if you're paying more than $4,900/year in federal income taxes, you're paying more than you proportional share. Another way to look at this is that if you pay $400k in federal income taxes over your lifetime, you've already managed to pay more than your lifetime "share" of federal tax revenue. Making $190k/year for a decade would do the trick. Or $110k/year for 20 years. Or $70k/year for 40 years. And those numbers assume our hypothetical FIREee never pays so much as a a dollar in capital gains or dividend/interest taxes after hitting FIRE.
Note that even if we include payroll taxes ($1,162 billion/year, good for another ~$3,500/person/year) we're substantially short ($4,900+$3,500 = $8,400) of the numbers in the post above. I suspect the issue is that the poster above is including federal revenue from corporate income taxes and government spending that is funded by growing the national debt. I do not consider it my responsibility to pay more personal income tax so that companies wouldn't have to pay any income tax at all.* YMMV.
Ya, that was my first thought, so I checked some numbers, the $12K is not as far off as you suspect.
"In FY 2018, total US government revenue, federal, state, and local, is “guesstimated” to be $6.28 trillion. Federal revenue is budgeted at $3.34 trillion; state revenue is “guesstimated” at $1.60 trillion; local revenue is “guesstimated” at $1.34 trillion."
So, $3.34trillion / 326M = $10,245, I didn't go as far as the $30k calculation.
Note this website has, "I'm stumped for a word meaning lots and lots" of information about government taxing and spending, Very Useful, sometimes hard to find your specific data, but, I have contacted them and got help.
https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/ GOBS and GOBS of data.
-
You get $10,200/year including revenue from corporate income tax, I get $8,400/year excluding corporate income tax.
So that explains about 1/2 of the total error in the original number posted by DreamFire.
-
You get $10,200/year including revenue from corporate income tax, I get $8,400/year excluding corporate income tax.
So that explains about 1/2 of the total error in the original number posted by DreamFire.
Yes, it's all rather confusing with lots of inputs, but, paging further down on the page,
https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/current_revenue
You will see Business as a separate category.
They pie chart even raises my number a little more.
-
There is a difference between Democrats and Socialists, even though Socialists are currently making a concerted effort to take control of the Democratic Party. The average Democrat understands that taxing capital gains the same as regular income is a recipe for disaster because it will dissuade people from investing and growing the economy. Socialists think that money is magical and the solution to every problem is more taxes. Democrats support Universal Healthcare because it's been successfully implemented in every other major Western industrialized nation and it prevents people from going bankrupt from medical expenses. Socialists think that every single service people need should be provided by the government and absolutely nothing bad would come from that because all people are good at heart and always put the needs of others before themselves in every way. (Socialists are quite childish.)
So Democrats being in charge would be great, because we would get Universal Healthcare and protections from predatory financial institutions. Socialists being in charge would be a massive disaster of historical proportions.
The problem with "Universal Healthcare" in other countries is we can't look at them in a vacuum. Have they only been able to successfully implement them because the United States is subsidizing them? The US pays for the bulk of healthcare research, and we also pay for the entirety of the securing of worldwide trade routes. If the countries that had Universal Healthcare had to pay for a blue water Navy and the entire medical lifecycle process, would they still be able to?
-
What makes you a maker or a taker?
I’ve retired, but am not collecting any benefits. I’m still paying taxes and still planning to contribute to my community.
There are many variables, but on average, a household would be a net taker if paying less than $30K/yr in federal taxes, or when broken down per capita, closer to $12K/yr per household member in federal taxes.
That doesn't include state/local taxes and state benefits like those generous state pensions and healthcare benefits for retired state workers in my state, but they would typically already be included in the numbers above for not paying the $30K/yr in federal taxes.
Interesting figures, thank you for providing them. How should we interpret a person that pays significantly more than that, but over a shorter time span? For example, if a person pays 10 times that amount, but only for 1/10th the time as an average citizen, is that person still a net "taker" from society during years when they are paying less?
You're welcome. As for someone paying 10 times that amount for 1/10th the time, they would still be a net taker over the long run and even more so for the the individual years they aren't paying those higher amount. Remember, the average person is a net taker, so it takes a lot more in paid taxes over someone's lifetime to overcome being a "taker".
Also, these figures have changed over time and will continue to change in the future, even when adjusting for inflation:
Per Household:
(https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/FedSpendingPerHousehold-619x1024.jpg)
Per Capita:
(http://i68.tinypic.com/29vx6r8.jpg)
Most people are net takers, especially your typical family of four. Example:
Household income of married couple with 2 kids $70,000
Total federal income tax $1139
And that's assuming they didn't contribute anything to a retirement account. Factor that in, and the family of four pays even less.
-
The problem with "Universal Healthcare" in other countries is we can't look at them in a vacuum. Have they only been able to successfully implement them because the United States is subsidizing them? The US pays for the bulk of healthcare research,
Do you have a source for this? Of the top 10 pharma, over half are non-US and do as much or more R&D as US Big Pharma (which is subsidized by socialist taxpayers).
It's more nuanced than "Americans pay more, therefore they do most of the healthcare research." There's a huge amount of profit to be made. Would Big Pharma simply stop doing R&D if their profit margin dropped from 40% to 20%?
and we also pay for the entirety of the securing of worldwide trade routes.
True dat.
-
@DreamFIRE Shrink that image! I ain't got a 48" wide monitor.
-
@DreamFIRE Shrink that image! I ain't got a 48" wide monitor.
Done.
-
Okay, now that a source is being posted, it is clear that the numbers being quoted are indeed false because they fail to take into account corporate income tax (which we all pay through higher prices and reduced wages even though it doesn't show up on our tax returns) and growth of the national debt.
-
The problem with "Universal Healthcare" in other countries is we can't look at them in a vacuum. Have they only been able to successfully implement them because the United States is subsidizing them? The US pays for the bulk of healthcare research, and we also pay for the entirety of the securing of worldwide trade routes. If the countries that had Universal Healthcare had to pay for a blue water Navy and the entire medical lifecycle process, would they still be able to?
Interesting perspective. Many of the European countries we look to with free healthcare are in fact subsidized by the US -- we cover much of the military costs they are able to avoid in exchange for their markets -- the US subsidizes much of Europe on military defense. If we didn't do this and they had to cover their own military expenses, one can only wonder how viable their other socialist functions would be. It would certainly change things significantly. All modern countries have a certain degree of socialism, the only question to debate is how much is good. We can't necessarily look to other countries as examples, as different factors are at play.
-
Interesting perspective. Many of the European countries we look to with free healthcare are in fact subsidized by the US -- we cover much of the military costs they are able to avoid in exchange for their markets -- the US subsidizes much of Europe on military defense. If we didn't do this and they had to cover their own military expenses, one can only wonder how viable their other socialist functions would be. It would certainly change things significantly. All modern countries have a certain degree of socialism, the only question to debate is how much is good. We can't necessarily look to other countries as examples, as different factors are at play.
Is this military "support" being done for them? Is this being done for the US? In the last few years I've heard the phrase "US Empire" batted about. I've also seen the phrase, "America First." Altruism is rare in this world.
-
Okay, now that a source is being posted, it is clear that the numbers being quoted are indeed false because they fail to take into account corporate income tax (which we all pay through higher prices and reduced wages even though it doesn't show up on our tax returns) and growth of the national debt.
I think "false" is not the right word here. Is someone who pays more than the per-capita share of tax collected but less than the per-capita share of spending a "maker" or a "taker"? That seems to be more a matter of opinion than fact.
-
Okay, now that a source is being posted, it is clear that the numbers being quoted are indeed false because they fail to take into account corporate income tax (which we all pay through higher prices and reduced wages even though it doesn't show up on our tax returns) and growth of the national debt.
I think "false" is not the right word here. Is someone who pays more than the per-capita share of tax collected but less than the per-capita share of spending a "maker" or a "taker"? That seems to be more a matter of opinion than fact.
Of the two sources of error I can certainly see room for debate about debt financed spending, although given that as a nation we're liable for that debt and would all suffer the consequences if it weren't repaid I'm still inclined to treat including that as misleading at best and false at worst.
But the corporate taxes seem more an open and shut case. Either "corporations are people," in which case if you include the income from corporate income tax you should also include corporations in the total number of individuals for calculating the total per capita share of taxes collected (after all corporations do benefit from government spending on infrastructure, education, research, national defense, etc), or corporations are not people, in which case you can either exclude that revenue from the calculation entirely, or assign it to the people who are paying higher prices, which would mean everyone is paying noticeably more taxes each year than shows up on their 1040.
This is especially true because the same poster pushing the erroneously high number (income + payroll + debt + corporate) is comparing it to solely the federal income tax liability of an example household. See below:
Most people are net takers, especially your typical family of four. Example:
Household income of married couple with 2 kids $70,000
Total federal income tax $1139
And that's assuming they didn't contribute anything to a retirement account. Factor that in, and the family of four pays even less.
Taking these factors together, it is clear that presenting a number of $12,000 in total federal spending per capita (which includes spending financed by personal income tax, payroll tax, debt, and corporate income tax) without including any disclaimers to that effect, and then using that number as a benchmark to compare against individual's federal income tax liability alone is actively misleading, and going to leave many readers of the thread with highly mistaken views how money flows through our economy.
-
Is this military "support" being done for them? Is this being done for the US? In the last few years I've heard the phrase "US Empire" batted about. I've also seen the phrase, "America First." Altruism is rare in this world.
Well it's an exchange agreement we have in place, so yeah.
-
Is this military "support" being done for them? Is this being done for the US? In the last few years I've heard the phrase "US Empire" batted about. I've also seen the phrase, "America First." Altruism is rare in this world.
Well it's an exchange agreement we have in place, so yeah.
Supporting Europe against the old USSR was definitely a necessity once. And Europe pulled its own weight once it rebuilt from WW II (with US money) for most of the Cold War. So their socialism definitely owes the US. That said, we continued to support Europe like zombies well after the Cold War for no particular reason I can discern. Yes, recently the Russians have been a pain recently. So? Putin may be an asshole but he doesn’t represent a world wide communist revolution. Just the usual BS foreign policy Russia’s pursued forever. A policy Europe is more than capable of thwarting with only token US support. If we want to shore up/improve our existing social welfare institutions I’m happy to see our military budgets take the first and biggest hits.
-
Right now in California we have a homeless epidemic that reaches beyond the traditional losers, junkies, drunks and the mentally ill. Now people with two or more jobs live on the streets and in growing numbers. When that demographic gets big enough we'll see a violent communist revolution. And don't say it can't happen because communism failed. People increasingly don't remember that. Leastways not the ones living on the street.
So is the answer to keep doing what California is doing or is it to learn from California, Seattle, and Oregon and maybe consider that those highly taxed very liberal states might be doing something wrong?
It's unfortunately really hard to say, because the whole issue is incredibly complicated.
You cannot separate the highly taxed liberalism from the intensely expensive cost of housing, "no growth" attitudes, etc.
People with money come here, because they like it or work here. People with money (workers in the Bay Area, retirees, etc.) buy property.
More people come here. Rents go up. The renters are pissed because it's $3000/month for 2 bedrooms. But that is, in fact, less money per month than buying the same place.
More people means higher rents. Pulling homes off market for AirBNB means higher rents. You could build more apartments - but that means more people, less parking, more traffic, and more strain on an already suffering infrastructure.
And as was mentioned before - it's so complicated because a fair number of the homeless are actually employed, but priced out.
Gosh I wish I had a solution to it, but I don't. I hate the traffic, I hate the congestion, I hate seeing the homeless (including the ones who just drift into town because "why not"). It's not going to be easy, that's for sure.
-
More people means higher rents. Pulling homes off market for AirBNB means higher rents. You could build more apartments - but that means more people, less parking, more traffic, and more strain on an already suffering infrastructure.
More people only needs to mean higher rents if you're building houses more slowly than people are moving in. In California's case, the people are already there. They already drive cars on the roads. They also happen to sleep in those cars. Wouldn't it be better to have actual homes for them?
The transition to more density won't be easy for a lot of California, I agree. Much of the Bay Area is already in a pretty bad place, where they're a bit too dense to allow for the free-flowing highways that suburban car-oriented land use requires, but not nearly dense enough to support the sort of public transit that would serve as a real alternative to car usage for most everyday trips. San Francisco has good urban bones, and could easily scale up their existing transit networks, but their residents seem just as interested in preventing new neighbors as any other municipality in the area.
Seattle is doing better. We've been building new housing at a record pace for the past couple of years, and it seems to actually be making a difference. Rents are stabilizing, homes often take more than a week to sell, and buyers can often demand concessions that were unheard of just last year. We're incrementally upgrading our infrastructure (transit, schools, sewers, parks, and more) to serve this larger population. We still have our share of growing pains and NIMBYs, but I think we're moving in the right direction.
-
More people means higher rents. Pulling homes off market for AirBNB means higher rents. You could build more apartments - but that means more people, less parking, more traffic, and more strain on an already suffering infrastructure.
More people only needs to mean higher rents if you're building houses more slowly than people are moving in. In California's case, the people are already there. They already drive cars on the roads. They also happen to sleep in those cars. Wouldn't it be better to have actual homes for them?
The transition to more density won't be easy for a lot of California, I agree. Much of the Bay Area is already in a pretty bad place, where they're a bit too dense to allow for the free-flowing highways that suburban car-oriented land use requires, but not nearly dense enough to support the sort of public transit that would serve as a real alternative to car usage for most everyday trips. San Francisco has good urban bones, and could easily scale up their existing transit networks, but their residents seem just as interested in preventing new neighbors as any other municipality in the area.
Seattle is doing better. We've been building new housing at a record pace for the past couple of years, and it seems to actually be making a difference. Rents are stabilizing, homes often take more than a week to sell, and buyers can often demand concessions that were unheard of just last year. We're incrementally upgrading our infrastructure (transit, schools, sewers, parks, and more) to serve this larger population. We still have our share of growing pains and NIMBYs, but I think we're moving in the right direction.
A solution to California's housing crisis exists. But it requires upending some of our automobile worship. Most of the population lives on the coast. That's where the industry, tourism, and rich people are along with overcrowding, low pay, and NIMBY attitudes. But there are plenty of low cost areas in the interior. If we had some nice and cheap rapid transit trains to the interior we could build lower cost housing there and people could commute to lower paying jobs on the coast. Public transit would still allow them transportation to the beaches for recreation and patronage to coastal shopping/restaurants. The lowest paid jobs could transfer to those interior areas (I'm guessing most rich people won't miss Mickey D's) so the employees would have a chance of a cheap apartment with a shot at upward mobility rather than homelessness and no shot at upward mobility. Rich urbanites would have to pay more competitive salaries to retain employees rather than have an artificial demand created by lousy housing.
It won't be an easy solution. We'd have to take the money Gov. Brown seems determined to spend on bureaucrats and put it towards a rail system - and probably tax more on top of that. Not to mention working the wheres, hows, etc. of placing it. Certain landlords would have to be placated, bribed, bullied legislated. And tons of environmental bureaucracy dealt with. I think a lot can be mitigated with elevated rail systems placed above or just on existing freeways. Though I shudder to think of the potential disaster of high speed rails with a significant earthquake.