Dems Raid Food Stamps to Pay Off Union Supporters

[rob]

I'm soooooo glad I'm not extremely wealthy, otherwise I'd have to pay all that tax.

 

Totally not worth it.

[rob]

I mean, CAN YOU EVEN IMAGINE????? Poor, poor bastards. Even having billions of dollars doesn't help assuage the indignity of heavy taxes. Oh, how they suffer.

 

IT'S JUST NOT FAIR!!!!!

[JayB]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

 

"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent"

 

Fairweather can you please help explain why Buffet pays 17 percent and his middle income secretary pays 30 percent? What's this about the rich paying more than the middle class? Forget taxing the rich, how about they just pay the same as I do? (I'm around 27 percent at last check) Fairweather, I would guess you're not rich, doesn't it bother you just a tiny little bit that the most wealthy among us pay the least in taxes?

 

Note that for people in that 1% bracket of the world (Buffet, Jobs, Gates etc etc) they usually don't pay any tax at all. Jobs for instance reports an income of $1 per year, the rest is all done through stock options which thanks to Bush are no longer taxed.(Thankfully for Jobs, Apple stock is going up) No capital gains tax is rad if you are paid in stock options, but how many folks on this board are paid in stock though? Not me.

 

-Nate

 

 

 

First of all, there's no way someone making $60K is paying 30% on all of their income. I know that because our gross income was more than that, our dividend income totaled about $300, and our effective federal tax rate was roughly ~12.5%. That's for a household composed of two adults taking the standard deduction.

Here's the tax schedule for 2008:

 

# 10% on income between $0 and $8,025

# 15% on the income between $8,025 and $32,550; plus $802.50

# 25% on the income between $32,550 and $78,850; plus $4,481.25

# 28% on the income between $78,850 and $164,550; plus $16,056.25

# 33% on the income between $164,550 and $357,700; plus $40,052.25

# 35% on the income over $357,700; plus $103,791.75

 

Even before all of the deductions and adjustments that reduce gross income to AGI, there's no way she's paying 30%, and there's no way she's paying taxes at a higher rate either. We have more taxable income, and we're paying less, and we have no special deductions or exemptions.

 

I'm not a fan of the current tax system - but as I'm sure you're aware, the reason that Buffet pays so little in taxes is that his income is composed primarily of interest and capital gains. The reason they've structured our tax code in this way is to promote savings, investment, and production.

 

Will the people at the bottom of the economic ladder be better off if it costs the company that employs them more to raise the capital necessary to finance the construction? If the potential returns associated with making an investment in a venture-stage company are lower, will people with the money be more or less likely to do so?

 

What's kind of amusing about this debate is that the rabid regressive nut-cases in Canada have reduced their corporate tax rate from 28% to 18%, and they plan to reduce it to 15% in 2012. They've also reduced their capital gains rate to 14.5%. Their treatment of interest income appears to be a bit more complicated, but it looks like they've tried to structure their tax incentives to promote investment in interest bearing assets across all income thresholds in general, and in Canadian assets in particular, by taxing them at lower rates. It looks like there's even a negative income tax on interest income for people in the lowest tax brackets.

 

http://www.taxtips.ca/dtc/enhanceddtc.htm

 

Is society better off with a tax system that maximizes savings, investment, and production - or one that discourages all three but satisfies subjective notions of fairness? That's really the question at play here.

 

 

 

[olyclimber]

Well its like a state incentive to be poor. In Communist China, the state fines you unless you kill off female your babies.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Well, it only make sense given that they're the one who are benefiting the most from the kind of society we live in.

 

They already pay more you moron.

[kevbone]

Well, it only make sense given that they're the one who are benefiting the most from the kind of society we live in.

 

They already pay more you moron.

 

More name calling from the right.

[eldiente]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

 

"

First of all, there's no way someone making $60K is paying 30% on all of their income. I know that because our gross income was more than that, our dividend income totaled about $300, and our effective federal tax rate was roughly ~12.5%. That's for a household composed of two adults taking the standard deduction.

Here's the tax schedule for 2008:

 

You have to assume that Buffet knows a few things about numbers. Nebraska has a 6% income tax, that puts her up to 30%. Maybe she should hire your accountant to score such a low rate? Since we don't know anything about what she's writing off, we can simply say " if you make 60k in Nebraska, 30% of your income is going to the government." I suppose Buffet could just make up a bunch of numbers, but again I'll go out on a limb again and say he knows more about the US tax code than most of us.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 12, 2010 by eldiente

[prole]

"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took all of it from them."

--Edward Albert Filene (1869-1937)

[JayB]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

 

"

First of all, there's no way someone making $60K is paying 30% on all of their income. I know that because our gross income was more than that, our dividend income totaled about $300, and our effective federal tax rate was roughly ~12.5%. That's for a household composed of two adults taking the standard deduction.

Here's the tax schedule for 2008:

 

You have to assume that Buffet knows a few things about numbers. Nebraska has a 6% income tax, that puts her up to 30%. Maybe she should hire your accountant to score such a low rate? Since we don't know anything about what she's writing off, we can simply say " if you make 60k in Nebraska, 30% of your income is going to the government." I suppose Buffet could just make up a bunch of numbers, but again I'll go out on a limb again and say he knows more about the US tax code than most of us.

 

 

-They base their tax assessments on Federal AGI

-The actual tax rate isn’t the same as the top marginal rate unless it’s a flat tax, which it isn’t.

-There’s a Federal deduction for state income taxes paid.

 

There’s no way anyone in Nebraska with an income of $60K per year has an effective tax rate of 30% on that income. We had a higher income than $60 when we were in Mass, they had a flat-rate of 5.3% on earned income, and our effective tax rate was still under 13%.

 

Buffet was wrong. The main point I believe that you’re trying to make here is that you think it’s wrong for income generated from investments to be taxed at a lower rate than income derived from wages or salaries, since the wealthiest Americans derive a far greater percentage of their income from investments.

 

I think you can still make that argument without recourse to the quip from Buffet, but that doesn’t settle the argument about which tax structure is best for society – which is what most people care about. I think that the general consensus amongst folks that study these things is that it makes more sense to tax consumption than savings, investment, or earned-income. If you think that’s incorrect – let’s hear why. Is it because you think that society will be worse off, because you don’t think such a system satisfies your notions of fairness, or both?

 

[prole]

Is it because you think that society will be worse off, because you don’t think such a system satisfies your notions of fairness, or both?

 

The historical record is clear...

 

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdcySIs2CQ8

[eldiente]

The problem here is that these "investments" aren't investments, they are a salary and should be taxed as such. Again, I think of S. Jobs and his $1 per year salary. His main source of cash is the stock that Apple gives him (worth billions) but he pays no taxes on this as it is an investment.

 

I would say that actual investments should be tax free. If your office pays you $500 and you put $50 into starting a lemonade stand, that should be tax free. No question. This is not the same as having your shares of Apple inc go up 5% while you sit on your ass. (This is just simply another source of income and you should be taxed on it)

 

[olyclimber]

well someone will be paying taxes on the investments when they are cashed in for actual money. until then, they are subject to market fluctuation. Its more tax deferment in Jobs case. And the taxes will be dependent on the stock value.

 

but how about this for avoid taxes? (car tabs/license):

 

http://gizmodo.com/5611196/the-mystery-of-steve-jobs-plateless-benz

 

 

[glassgowkiss]

That's because the moron's, formerly known as republicans, forced the democrats to "pay" for the stimulus up front which was moronic in every respect. It really isn't 'stimulus' if you simply shuffle it from one pocket to another.

 

 

You're in denial. The my daddy shoved it, my uncle watched it. Nobody "forced" me to do anything.

[billcoe]

Holy crap. What are all these folks going to do? I guess the local democrats are imitating the national democrats on this issue? "Let them eat cake!" Wow.

 

Washington cuts 5500 off LINK

 

Gregoire Orders 5,500 Families Cut From Welfare Rolls

 

Austin Jenkins | August 12, 2010 | Olympia, WA

 

 

More than 5,000 Washington families will lose their welfare benefits starting in February. That's just one of the cuts Governor Chris Gregoire ordered Thursday to keep the state budget from going into the red.

 

Despite a half billion dollar bailout from the feds, Washington state's budget is still in peril. So Governor Gregoire is getting out the budget shears.

 

Washington's welfare program – called WorkFirst – is one area where the Democratic governor has ordered deep reductions. That includes enforcing a strict five-year limit on receiving welfare benefits – even for families who are in compliance with welfare rules and actively looking for a job.

 

Robin Zukoski Zoo-kosk-key with Columbia Legal Services calls that draconian.

 

Robin Zukoski: "By definition these are the families that are the hardest to work with and the ones who face the most barriers and challenges to entering the world of work and they are the most vulnerable and they are the one who are going to be losing their benefits."

 

Also under the Governor's cuts, more than 2,000 working families in Washington will lose their child care subsidies starting in October.

 

Gregoire's social services director calls the cuts "painful," yet "necessary."

 

[JayB]

Holy crap. What are all these folks going to do? I guess the local democrats are imitating the national democrats on this issue? "Let them eat cake!" Wow.

 

Washington cuts 5500 off LINK

 

Gregoire Orders 5,500 Families Cut From Welfare Rolls

 

Austin Jenkins | August 12, 2010 | Olympia, WA

 

 

More than 5,000 Washington families will lose their welfare benefits starting in February. That's just one of the cuts Governor Chris Gregoire ordered Thursday to keep the state budget from going into the red.

 

Despite a half billion dollar bailout from the feds, Washington state's budget is still in peril. So Governor Gregoire is getting out the budget shears.

 

Washington's welfare program – called WorkFirst – is one area where the Democratic governor has ordered deep reductions. That includes enforcing a strict five-year limit on receiving welfare benefits – even for families who are in compliance with welfare rules and actively looking for a job.

 

Robin Zukoski Zoo-kosk-key with Columbia Legal Services calls that draconian.

 

Robin Zukoski: "By definition these are the families that are the hardest to work with and the ones who face the most barriers and challenges to entering the world of work and they are the most vulnerable and they are the one who are going to be losing their benefits."

 

Also under the Governor's cuts, more than 2,000 working families in Washington will lose their child care subsidies starting in October.

 

Gregoire's social services director calls the cuts "painful," yet "necessary."

 

Right on schedule.

 

"Before the inevitable pay and benefit cuts happen, they'll try to inflict as much pain on the public as possible with service cuts, then the lowest ranking members of the union will get laid off. Then, after these tactics have failed, pay and benefits will be cut to a level that the economy can actually finance."

 

Expect quite a bit more where that came from before the public sector unions move even a fraction of in inch towards shouldering the same burden of paying health-care and retirement costs that those in the private sector do.

 

Per Gregoire we'll be seeing across the board cuts in spending rather than targeting expensive anachronisms like the state's unionized print shop.

 

 

[Fairweather]

Holy crap. What are all these folks going to do? I guess the local democrats are imitating the national democrats on this issue? "Let them eat cake!" Wow.

 

Washington cuts 5500 off LINK

 

Gregoire Orders 5,500 Families Cut From Welfare Rolls

 

Austin Jenkins | August 12, 2010 | Olympia, WA

 

 

More than 5,000 Washington families will lose their welfare benefits starting in February. That's just one of the cuts Governor Chris Gregoire ordered Thursday to keep the state budget from going into the red.

 

Despite a half billion dollar bailout from the feds, Washington state's budget is still in peril. So Governor Gregoire is getting out the budget shears.

 

Washington's welfare program – called WorkFirst – is one area where the Democratic governor has ordered deep reductions. That includes enforcing a strict five-year limit on receiving welfare benefits – even for families who are in compliance with welfare rules and actively looking for a job.

 

Robin Zukoski Zoo-kosk-key with Columbia Legal Services calls that draconian.

 

Robin Zukoski: "By definition these are the families that are the hardest to work with and the ones who face the most barriers and challenges to entering the world of work and they are the most vulnerable and they are the one who are going to be losing their benefits."

 

Also under the Governor's cuts, more than 2,000 working families in Washington will lose their child care subsidies starting in October.

 

Gregoire's social services director calls the cuts "painful," yet "necessary."

 

Don't fall for this shit, Bill. Like JayB said above, what you're seeing here is nothing more than state union employees putting their own interests (in the form of extraordinary pay and benefits) above those of the poor. Behold the "caring" nature of Democrats.

[billcoe]

Right on schedule.

Yeah, I read what you wrote the other day, you called this one.....as if on cue....

 

Don't fall for this shit, Bill. Like JayB said above, what you're seeing here is nothing more than state union employees putting their own interests (in the form of extraordinary pay and benefits) above those of the poor. Behold the "caring" nature of Democrats.

I actually have close to zero knowledge of state budgets. This is something which state legislators apportion. I've seen some of the huge mandatory overcommitments to PERS retirement funds some states carry, but truthfully, do not know where it falls in the budget percentagewise etc. I see these kinds of story's all the time: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Sunday_Reflections/Public-sector-employees-are-the-new-fat-cats-93125624.html

 

5500 people ....Wow! That's a huge impact.

[JayB]

Right on schedule.

Yeah, I read what you wrote the other day, you called this one.....as if on cue....

 

Don't fall for this shit, Bill. Like JayB said above, what you're seeing here is nothing more than state union employees putting their own interests (in the form of extraordinary pay and benefits) above those of the poor. Behold the "caring" nature of Democrats.

I actually have close to zero knowledge of state budgets. This is something which state legislators apportion. I've seen some of the huge mandatory overcommitments to PERS retirement funds some states carry, but truthfully, do not know where it falls in the budget percentagewise etc. I see these kinds of story's all the time: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Sunday_Reflections/Public-sector-employees-are-the-new-fat-cats-93125624.html

 

5500 people ....Wow! That's a huge impact.

 

Plenty more where that came from here:

 

http://www.pensiontsunami.com/

 

The bottom line is that there's a finite pool of resources available to finance government. Those funds can be used to maximize the delivery of services that only the government can provide as efficiently as possible, they can be used as patronage schemes to maximize the private interests of the public employees who deliver them, or something in between. We're way closer to the latter than the former, and the pension-tsunami is only going to move the needle further away from a cost structure that delivers maximum benefits to the public at the minimum cost.

 

In Washington, at the state level, employee comp accounts for 60% of spending. That figure doesn't include the value of unfunded retiree healthcare and pension benefits that will eventually have to be paid for, so the real figure is certainly higher. I imagine the story is the same or worse at the city or county level.

 

The only cuts that I'm aware of amounted to a handful of furlough days that will apparently be at least partially paid back later via some bureaucratic maneuver like extra paid vacation or something like that. If someone wants to dredge up the details we can have a look.

 

I actually hope that they dig their heels in and resist all reforms. This will have two benefits. The first is that the public will be have a chance to see what the true aims and priorities of public sector unions are. The second is that it will hasten the inevitable collapse and restructuring of public finances.

 

There's no guarantee that the public will prevail in a prolonged political contest over how public funds are spent, but I'm glad the public sector unions are taking off the mask before things get started.

 

 

[prole]

Love how you tools spin this to further your ongoing pet-projects instead of recognizing it as an inevitable result of the failure of neoliberal model to "deliver the goods" i.e. the security and standard of living our parents enjoyed. We, "private-sector workers" should be considering what it's going to take to roll back thirty years of Reaganite attacks on the working and middle classes, not scheming how to bring "public-sector workers" down to our increasingly precarious, marginalized level.

[Nitrox]

Love how you tools spin this to further your ongoing pet-projects instead of recognizing it as an inevitable result of the failure of neoliberal model to "deliver the goods" i.e. the security and standard of living our parents enjoyed. We, "private-sector workers" should be considering what it's going to take to roll back thirty years of Reaganite attacks on the working and middle classes, not scheming how to bring "public-sector workers" down to our increasingly precarious, marginalized level.

 

I think you logged into the wrong account j_b.

 

 

[mattp]

The only cuts that I'm aware of amounted to a handful of furlough days that will apparently be at least partially paid back later via some bureaucratic maneuver like extra paid vacation or something like that...

 

Your dream is coming true, Jay. There have been hiring freezes and budget cuts imposed on agencies across the board for the last year and a half or so, maybe longer. The demands on these agencies haven't gone down, though, so salaried workers are working uncompensated overtime and temporary employees that are not entitled to benefits are doing work that used to be performed by career employees. You wouldn't be "aware" of it, though, because the State agencies are largely run by dedicated people who are struggling to do their jobs, and they are not busy spewing a bunch of political hoo hah such as what you have apparently been reading.

[j_b]

Despite regressive spin and crocodile tears, 30+ years of neoliberal laissez faire economics are responsible for the fiscal crisis, not public or union workers. Until people like JayB and other corporatist shills explain how the very same policies of deregulation, massive wealth transfer to oligarchies, and starving the beast (i.e destroying government and cutting social programs) are different than the ones that brought us where we are, they have very little credibility.

[prole]

The demands on these agencies haven't gone down, though, so salaried workers are working uncompensated overtime and temporary employees that are not entitled to benefits are doing work that used to be performed by career employees.

 

= "private sector efficiencies"

 

 

[Nitrox]

The only cuts that I'm aware of amounted to a handful of furlough days that will apparently be at least partially paid back later via some bureaucratic maneuver like extra paid vacation or something like that...

 

Your dream is coming true, Jay. There have been hiring freezes and budget cuts imposed on agencies across the board for the last year and a half or so, maybe longer. The demands on these agencies haven't gone down, though, so salaried workers are working uncompensated overtime and temporary employees that are not entitled to benefits are doing work that used to be performed by career employees. You wouldn't be "aware" of it, though, because the State agencies are largely run by dedicated people who are struggling to do their jobs, and they are not busy spewing a bunch of political hoo hah such as what you have apparently been reading.

 

If its such a punishing a job then the employees can just quit and take their skills elsewhere. Surely a private company would be in need of such selfless, dedicated, and highly trained personnel. From the sound of your post I'd bet they'd get paid more too, right?

 

 

[JayB]

Despite regressive spin and crocodile tears, 30+ years of neoliberal laissez faire economics are responsible for the fiscal crisis, not public or union workers. Until people like JayB and other corporatist shills explain how the very same policies of deregulation, massive wealth transfer to oligarchies, and starving the beast (i.e destroying government and cutting social programs) are different than the ones that brought us where we are, they have very little credibility.

 

There is no economic system in which the rate of government spending can exceed the rate at which the underlying economy grows indefinitely. No matter what the system, at some point the economic output is no longer sufficient to support the cost structure of the said government. We are at that point. There is no longer any room for debate.

 

The only issue associated with government spending that matters now is how to best spend the money that is available for government. If the purpose of government spending is to maximize the private well-being of those who deliver government services, then we shouldn't change a thing - other than to cut services to people who need them, and cut less-senior staff per union rules - so that the remaining public sector employees can continue to be exempt from financing the same share of their health care and pension benefits that private sector workers do, etc.

 

If the purpose is to maximize the delivery of services that only the government can provide, at the minimum cost to the public, then we'll have to change some things. Is selling alcohol a vital function of government that only the public sector can provide? How about printing documents? Etc, etc, etc.