BF2S Forums The Census

JohnG@lt wrote:

Pug wrote:

Absolutely it is relevant.  If you are forcing a tax on somebody, you have to consider expenses that aren't optional to determine whether it's fair or not.

Any enumeration of 'living expenses' is entirely arbitrary.

There is a minimum living expense, no?

JohnG@lt wrote:

Pug wrote:

How exactly is it's someone's fault to start their first job at $30k/year?  Hell, you don't think everyone starts at $300k do you?

No, of course I don't. But if you agree that a $30k a year job is (or should be) nothing more than a starter job, you'll also agree that the living expenses associated with one making $30k are much smaller than for someone making $150k with four kids. I could easily live on $30k a year by myself even here in NYC. I won't be living in a mansion but all my needs will be covered and I'll have spending money as well.

No, the minimum living expenses for both parties are the same.  That's were you start the bracket.

It's got to do with sacrifice.

Someone who has 45% of their pay left is sacrificing more than someone who has 75% left when they pay their taxes.

JohnG@lt wrote:

No. As I said before, you can be a bum on the street and cover all of the 'necessities'.

Yes, let's worry about taxing bums.  The system's going to be abused no matter what, but in truth the "free rides" are supposed to be helping them do something besides being a bum.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Then they should earn more money or seek a raise. I would see it as motivation, would you not?

No shit....

But until they do, let's punish them by taking a bigger chunk of their take home?

Pug wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Then they should earn more money or seek a raise. I would see it as motivation, would you not?

No shit....

But until they do, let's punish them by taking a bigger chunk of their take home?

Does it reward them for moving up the ladder or punish them for moving up the ladder?

I think the cheapest way to solve this is to kill everyone who makes less than $30k.  Seems almost as sensible as what you are proposing.

Perhaps the problem isn't with tax collection but the system?  I know that this year welfare is supposably implementing more control to force people to get their asses up off the happy couch.  Look, I'm the first person who is dishing out the Katrina fucks needed to get their asses out of the trailers.  So I get your point, but...

Yet, if everyone paid into the system, increased inflation would be the result

JohnG@lt wrote:

Pug wrote:

I think the cheapest way to solve this is to kill everyone who makes less than $30k.  Seems almost as sensible as what you are proposing.

Perhaps the problem isn't with tax collection but the system?  I know that this year welfare is supposably implementing more control to force people to get their asses up off the happy couch.  Look, I'm the first person who is dishing out the Katrina fucks needed to get their asses out of the trailers.  So I get your point, but...

We live in a society that preaches to never expect something for nothing and if you do find something that is 'free', you should be wary of it.

I can even get behind a graduated income tax as long as everyone is at least paying something into the system. Just under half of our population getting a free ride is absolutely ridiculous.

Just under half of your population doesn't work.

Someone mentioned before... people are willing to give a lot more information if they don't see IRS all over.
I don't see the big issue, i've always enjoyed filling census forms maybe i'm just weird.

Narupug wrote:

Galt you seem to be proposing that those who don't pay taxes, even when paying taxes would most likely cause problems, don't deserve a say in what we use tax dollars on and the like.  You're seriously proposing we go back to the 1700's where you only got a vote if you were a land owning white male?  You say it's the person making 30,000's fault for not making more, but everyone can't be making six figures because some jobs just need someone to do them and these jobs don't pay that much.  How can you fault the person making 30,000 when he may not have had much of a choice?  You also suggest that the poor don't deserve to have schools built near them because they don't pay taxes, how can you expect someone to even have the option to reach earning 300k when they can't even get a quality education? 

In the DOI it states that everyone has a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, don't you think that's kind hard when you want to deny them any help at all and let them rot?

No one is taking away their life, no one is denying their freedom, nor denying their right to pursue happiness.

When did I suggest that they don't receive schools built in their district? When did I say that tax money should be dispersed equitably? I merely suggested that those who pay zero in taxes really don't have a right to determine where tax money is spent via representation. Freeloaders should not be represented and the tax code should be fixed so that there are no freeloaders. If a man makes $30k a year, fine, I'm not asking him to say the same tax rate as a man making $300k. He should, however, pay something, don't you think? Is he not using roads? Is he not using the military to defend his home (yes, this one is abstract but it's still relevant)?

If that $3,000 in taxes he pays a year makes him stand up and hold accountable those who spend so much of their time thinking of new ways to sew corruption and waste then it will have accomplished it's mission. I never stated that I want to push that man so hard that he starves to death in the gutter, no, but when the politicians that run this country have made themselves accountable to only 53% of the population who is going to stand up and tell them "No."?

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

We live in a society that preaches to never expect something for nothing and if you do find something that is 'free', you should be wary of it.

I can even get behind a graduated income tax as long as everyone is at least paying something into the system. Just under half of our population getting a free ride is absolutely ridiculous.

Just under half of your population doesn't work.

Assuming you're not being facetious, it's more like 18% or something like taht... still horrible. And that's the REAL unemployment, not the statistic the government always spouts off.

Try again.

Population:
- 2008 estimate 303,824,640
labour force:
- 2008 estimate 155,200,000
Unemployment rate:
- 2008 (July) 5.5%
Employed people:
- 155,200,000 * 0.945 = 146,664,000
% people working:
- 146,664,000 / 303,824,640 = 48.27%

Even in 2008 when the participation rate was far higher then it is today and the unemployment rate was far lower, LESS then half your population was working. I wouldn't be surprised if 60% of your population doesn't have a job today.

DrunkFace wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Right now in business the richer a man is, the more he can reinvest into his company, which will increase the pay of his/her employee. It all trickles down in the end.

lol wut?

McDonald's is exceedingly rich. Do they pay their employees more then the local burger shop?
I haven't worked in either but I'm going to go out on a limb as say NO!

Profits very rarely ever trickle down to the employees, sometimes some of the upper management will get bonuses but that's about it.

People in R&D, Market and other more useful business skills get payed a lot more. Of course they wouldn't pay a mindless job a lot more than local business', unless they lack large amounts of employees.