Read this, Not Political Flaming Please. Taxes

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,979
I don't believe it. Never in my long service was I ever asked what party I belong to.
So? Demographic statistics are almost always estimated via random sampling. When multiple scientific surveys conducted by independent organizations consistently yield similar answers, you can have quite a bit of confidence that the results are reasonably accurate.

How can you say a day's wages if you can't define what a day's wages are? It's not a simple answer, but rather a method of educated guesses, feedback, adjustment, compromise, and so on. The wealthy do have disproportionate influence over laws that are enacted, so it's not really a matter of other groups deciding for them.
It very much is a matter of other people making those decisions; their influence is not nearly disproportionate enough to overcome the simple numbers disadvantage.

If I were to stand here and claim that athletes (or actors, or pick your group) make too much money, then I should also take on the responsibility of offering what amount constitutes the division, at least roughly, between "too much" and "not too much". Otherwise, on what possible basis can I rest my assertion that they make too much?

Again, how can someone say that Person A isn't paying their fair share unless they have at least some basis by which to determine what their fair share is. It simply is not reasonable to accept what comes down to, "Well, I don't even know what they are paying, but it isn't enough."
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
So? Demographic statistics are almost always estimated via random sampling. When multiple scientific surveys conducted by independent organizations consistently yield similar answers, you can have quite a bit of confidence that the results are reasonably accurate.
I don't have much faith in surveys. Too many opportunities for errors or data corruption.



It very much is a matter of other people making those decisions; their influence is not nearly disproportionate enough to overcome the simple numbers disadvantage.
I disagree. Only rich people can afford to have lobbists on their behalf, who have direct access to lawmakers.

If I were to stand here and claim that athletes (or actors, or pick your group) make too much money, then I should also take on the responsibility of offering what amount constitutes the division, at least roughly, between "too much" and "not too much". Otherwise, on what possible basis can I rest my assertion that they make too much?
OK, so then what is a proper amount for an actor? An athlete?

Again, how can someone say that Person A isn't paying their fair share unless they have at least some basis by which to determine what their fair share is. It simply is not reasonable to accept what comes down to, "Well, I don't even know what they are paying, but it isn't enough."
I never said any person isn't paying his fair share. I've responded to your earlier questions that were more relevant.
 
Last edited:

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
6,782
I don't know if this would be much better or not. Here would be a rather simple way to do it, though: Ask people what the income tax rate should be for people that make twice what they make. Then, for any given income, average the responses from those people that make between 25% and 75% of that amount.

Here would be an interesting poll question:

Would you support having your federal income tax rate be established by what is perceived to be your fair share among those people who make between 25% and 75% of what you make?

Example: If your income is $100,000, then people making between $25,000 and $75,000 will determine what fraction of your income you should pay in federal income tax, while if you make $40,000, then your tax rate will be determined by those people making between $10,000 and $30,000.

It would also be very interesting to ask people what they believe the fair tax rate would be for people earning twice what they earn, as well as ten and one hundred times what they earn and even one-half and one-tenth.

While an interesting notion, though, I don't think it is good. We are where we are largely because too many people believe it is okay to pass laws that apply to other people but not themselves, and I'm not just talking about tax rates. Congress routinely passes laws and exempts themselves, either explicityly or in practice. Just look at those workplace posters that are required to be posted where you work and you will find several examples.

Frankly, I think we would be in a lot better shape if we could simply require that whatever legislation is passed must apply equally to everyone.
It was a (sarcastic) rhetorical question; The point I was trying to make was, in your words, " too many people believe it is okay to pass laws that apply to other people but not themselves"

I hear a lot of middle class people saying we should tax the rich to death, but "rich" is relative. To those living on welfare, middle class could be considered rich. (some of) The middle class has their eye on the food on the rich man's table, well they should not forget that there's eyes on their food as well. I'll sum it up with, "Be careful what you wish for" and "don't wish it on others if you wouldn't wish it on yourself"
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,979
I thought it was at odds with your prior posts, but I wasn't sure and I don't do too good a job of keeping track of who is generally of what opinion. As I age, I am becoming an increasingly better approximation of a memoryless system.

Still, it would be very interesting to see what such a survey revealed and, assuming a static model, work out what the total federal revenue would be (from personal income tax) as a result.
 

loosewire

Joined Apr 25, 2008
1,686
I made a post on here about property taxes,I have something to add.

You are supporting pensions with property taxes,property is at a all

time low.Its hard to buy ,hard to sell without paying a lot of fee's that

are added at closing. One thing I left out,your property can go lower in

value,they can turn around and increase your taxes on a local level to

cover pension payments ,even if your property go"s down in value.
 

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
6,782
I thought it was at odds with your prior posts, but I wasn't sure and I don't do too good a job of keeping track of who is generally of what opinion. As I age, I am becoming an increasingly better approximation of a memoryless system.

Still, it would be very interesting to see what such a survey revealed and, assuming a static model, work out what the total federal revenue would be (from personal income tax) as a result.
Now I understand. No, it wasn't at odds with my other posts; well, if you look past the sarcasm it wasn't. I've been more or less agreeing with you on just about every point, but you've been seemingly on the "other side" - you must have been confusing me with someone else.
 

Thread Starter

maxpower097

Joined Feb 20, 2009
816
I hear a lot of middle class people saying we should tax the rich to death, but "rich" is relative. To those living on welfare, middle class could be considered rich. (some of) The middle class has their eye on the food on the rich man's table, well they should not forget that there's eyes on their food as well. I'll sum it up with, "Be careful what you wish for" and "don't wish it on others if you wouldn't wish it on yourself"
I think its pretty easy to tell if someones rich or not. If they own 3 houses they would be rich. IF they own a boat worth more then $100k and their not commercial fisherman their rich. If they own more then 15 cars their rich. Or if they make 100 times more then an average city worker their rich. Its not that hard. I'd say if you make more then $200k a year you qualify as rich. If you can't live on that and think your poor thats your problem.
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
Its on your voter registration which is where the military gets your information. Thats what they pull the draft from.
I sincerely doubt that. Selective service registration is madatory for all males ages 18-26; voter registration is not mandatory. In fact, many 18-26 year old's aren't even registered to vote. The military doesn't keep records of political membership. Using voter registration political party informaion might even be a violation of the Privacy Act.
 
Last edited:

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
6,782
I think its pretty easy to tell if someones rich or not. If they own 3 houses they would be rich. IF they own a boat worth more then $100k and their not commercial fisherman their rich. If they own more then 15 cars their rich. Or if they make 100 times more then an average city worker their rich. Its not that hard. I'd say if you make more then $200k a year you qualify as rich. If you can't live on that and think your poor thats your problem.
To that, the rich man may say "well if you don't own 3 houses, 15 cars, and a 100K$ boat, then you're probably not motivated. You didn't want to put forth the effort that I put forth to get here, or take the risks that I took to get here, so you don't deserve what I have. If you can't live on what you earn then that's your problem."
I'm not a rich man. I won't waste any more time defending "rich people" here because most of them do not deserve defense. It's my opinion that outside of very rare cases, there's a naturally occuring cieling to how much money you can make legitimately - I'm talking probably somewhere in the tens of millions. If you make more than that, then chances are that you didn't come by it all honestly. But too often there's this blanket condemnation of "rich people" which should be aimed I think realistically at a very tiny handful of people, but it's a shotgun, so it ends up pinned on anyone who own more than one house or a party boat. If you're rich and you came by your money honestly, through perserverence and hard work and carefully calculated risks, then that's awesome; I'm happy for you and I don't think you should have to carry the burden of paying for my milk & eggs and for my kids to go to college. But if you own 3 jets, a fleet of cars, 1/3 of the house and senate, entire counties, and sweatshops in china, well, I would like to see an end to you and your kind. I would like to see an end to legal bribes and blatant conflicts of interest between government and business. I would like to see you squirm as your illegitimate lifelines and resources are pulled out from under you one at a time and your empire collapses. I would like to see the government removed from the palm of your hand and put back in the hands of the people where it belongs, under lock & key, a tight watch, and several safeguards so as to make sure this does not happen again.
 

shortbus

Joined Sep 30, 2009
10,045
Well said Strantor!! I would say that most of the "rich" fall under that explanation, not all but most. There are few business or industrialist that got "rich" by paying the workers that made them that way a fair wage. That is without the vilified unions making them.

Like I said earlier in the thread, the ones that benefit are the ones that get to make the rules. There needs to be a way that a majority of the citizenship can pass or even petition for a amendment to the Constitution. The ones that can do it never will make a change that will change things for the better.

How can government officials justify getting richer during their time in office? When their wages are a matter of public record? That tells me something about what's going on in its self. But again I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
Its on your voter registration which is where the military gets your information. Thats what they pull the draft from.
I agree with Brownout. Selective Service has nothing to do with voting. The motor voter law provides for the various ways for registering to vote and you may have gotten a voters registration when you asked for your selective service registration. That doesn't mean the two databases are linked.

About 20 years ago, a member of the Admiral's staff asked me if "all my people voted." As an officer in charge and a Chief Petty Officer, I told them "it was none of their %$*king business if my people voted. I will not ask them that question. I will tell you that all of them had registered to vote, but them actually voting is none of my business." The person accepted my answer.

There were claims of "holding back" the absentee ballots from known military places, but I would have hoped any such claims were duly investigated at the time.
 

Thread Starter

maxpower097

Joined Feb 20, 2009
816
I agree with Brownout. Selective Service has nothing to do with voting. The motor voter law provides for the various ways for registering to vote and you may have gotten a voters registration when you asked for your selective service registration. That doesn't mean the two databases are linked.

About 20 years ago, a member of the Admiral's staff asked me if "all my people voted." As an officer in charge and a Chief Petty Officer, I told them "it was none of their %$*king business if my people voted. I will not ask them that question. I will tell you that all of them had registered to vote, but them actually voting is none of my business." The person accepted my answer.

There were claims of "holding back" the absentee ballots from known military places, but I would have hoped any such claims were duly investigated at the time.
You didn't read the fine print on your voter registration card that by registering to vote you also register for the draft if we have one? May be this has changed but it was on my card when I signed up. In Bush's first election I was registered a Dem. in a heavy republican area (Thus us having the RNC this year) Well I went in to vote with my family and the rest of my family was registered Republican from the 80's but were actually democrats at that point. I went in to vote and was informed the republican party had challenged my right to vote (Purge list I'm guessing) I was then escourted out of the voting booths. The rest of my family had no issues. Then Sept 11'th happened and I was thinking there may be a real possiblity of a draft. So decided not to renew my voter registration because I was under 30 and could not be drafted with no right to vote.

In recent news FL republicans put out a purge list with tons of names on them claiming non of the people were actually US citizens on it and had registered to vote. After many counties got the list here most are refusing to use the purge list because their finding over 35% are legal registered voters and citizens. So I dunno maybe things changed but thats why I remembered about the voter registration and the draft so well.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,979
About 20 years ago, a member of the Admiral's staff asked me if "all my people voted." As an officer in charge and a Chief Petty Officer, I told them "it was none of their %$*king business if my people voted. I will not ask them that question. I will tell you that all of them had registered to vote, but them actually voting is none of my business." The person accepted my answer.
The most certainly do not get voter registration info from the selective service database or vice versa.

If it wasn't any of their (or your) business if they actually voted, then what business was it of theirs (our yours) whether they were registered to vote?

In point of fact, both are part of the public record. So it was not improper for that staffer to ask the question nor would it have been improper for them to reject your answer and, if you continued to refuse to find out the information, to bring you up on charges. Having said that, I'm glad they accepted your answer and I've always felt that employers, including government and military, shouldn't say boo about elections, especially on an individual basis, at all. If they want to make an announcement encouraging people to register and vote, fine. If they want to give people an hour or two of paid time off in order to go vote, fine. If they want proof (of whatever kind they find acceptable) that the person voted before they get the pay for that time, fine.

I can go to the county elections office and find out not only if John Doe is registered to vote, but what party (if any) he is affiliated with and whether they actually did vote and, in most cases, the method used (polling place, early voting, absentee, etc). The one piece of information I cannot find out is how they voted on issues or who they cast their votes for. You do not have to say who you are or why you want it, either. Increasingly, this information is available online. Having all of that information be public record is a key element in monitoring the integrity of the elections process.

I'm curious (and that is exactly what it is), how can you be both an officer in charge and a Chief Petty Officer? Is that a Navy thing? In the Air Force, you have an OIC (Officer in Charge), who must be a commissioned officer, and an NCOIC (Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge), who must be enlisted. Does the Navy use the OIC title regardless of whether it is a commissioned or a non-commissioned billet?
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
You didn't read the fine print on your voter registration card that by registering to vote you also register for the draft if we have one?
As Joe has said, registering for the selective service is a seperate process from registering for voting. By not registering to vote, you do not prevent yourself from being drafted, if a draft becomes necessary. Registering for selective service in not optional for the required age group.
 
Last edited:

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
As an officer in charge and a Chief Petty Officer, I told them "it was none of their %$*king business if my people voted.
Hi Joe,

I contacted my state election office, and here is the informaion you can find out about the voting of John Doe: If he is actively registered, what state and congressional districts he is registered to vote in, what school board and city board districts he can vote in.

And nothing else.
 
Last edited:

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,979
Hi Joe,

I contacted my state election office, and here is the informaion you can find out about the voting of John Doe: If he is actively registered, what state and congressional districts he is registered to vote in, what school board and city board districts he can vote in.

And nothing else.
Since election laws are the province of the states, they do vary from state to state (and to a lesser degree from county to county). I have just spot checked several states and, in each of those instances, whether you actually voted is public record. In some of them you have to make a request to get access to the poll book and in a couple you had to pay a fee (typically about $10) to get a copy of the voter list (list of people that actually voted).

Poll books and voter lists are generally maintained by the county, not the state. So the state elections office may not have voting lists for the various counties. You might call your county elections office and ask them if the poll book or voter lists are public record and, if so, what are the procedures to access them.
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
I have just spot checked several states and, in each of those instances, whether you actually voted is public record. In some of them you have to make a request to get access to the poll book and in a couple you had to pay a fee (typically about $10) to get a copy of the voter list (list of people that actually voted).
Spot cheked by what methods? Can anyone replicate your results?
 

steveb

Joined Jul 3, 2008
2,436
My point is people are making millions of dollars a year and contributing nothing to our society.
Which people are making millions and not contributing to society? If this is your point, the article you referenced does not support it and seems to make the opposite point. Identify the real people that do not contribute to society and find an article that makes the case clearly with real data.

The article mentions several ways that these rich people avoid paying taxes.

One way is through medical expenses. Well, how do we know that there are not a few of those cases where the person has a serious illness and has huge medical bills? A poor person would burden our system with their medical bills that they could not pay, but the rich person pays his bills. In this case, the poor man is not contributing to society, but is burdening it.

Another way is by donating to charity. Hell, anyone can avoid all taxes by donating sufficiently to charity. Sure, the average Joe is going to feel the pain more than the rich guy, but maybe that's why the rich do it and the non-rich don't do it. If you are a billionaire already, and then you earn 1 million in income in one year, what is the big deal if you donate 1 million to charity and avoid paying tax? Seems to me that still contributes to society.

Yet another way is by investing in local and state government. Hmmm, effectively this serves the same purpose as a tax. - No problem there because that is a contribution to society.

Anyway, the woman used as the example has payed 10 million in taxes over the previous 6 years. Have you ever contributed that much money? So she has contributed more in 6 year than you will in your lifetime. How is that not a contribution to society?

I'm not saying this is the necessarily the way all cases go, but how can we judge anything from this article? It's too vague about the details. I like real data and examples that make sense before I identify this as a significant problem.

As the article points out, there are a lot bigger issues with out tax system than this. This includes the fact that a whole lot of middle class people are skipping out on paying any tax and many are cheating on their taxes. This idea that only the rich are evil and the poor are always the "salt of the earth" does not fly with me.
 
Last edited:

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,979
Spot cheked by what methods? Can anyone replicate your results?
Sure. You might start with a Google search on something like, "Can someone tell if I voted".

Here's the last site I checked:

http://www.clackamas.us/elections/oregonvoting.htm#15

Look at the third question from the end.

I didn't have to check Colorado, because I have been an election judge (and have served in every polling place capacity) since the 2004 General and one of the things I had to oversee what access to the voter list while the polls were still open. Poll watchers have the right to access that list in real time, meaning we had to give them the rings on which each person's ballot receipt (proof that they were given a ballot) was placed. In most cases, the poll watchers were partisan and their purpose was to compare who had voted against who is registered to vote so that they could call voters from their party who had not yet voted and try to get them to the polls (frequently offering to come pick them up). This was an annoyance to the judges because it makes it that much harder to keep the records straight. But the records are public record and the courts that such get-out-the-vote efforts are a legitimate use of them, so we worked out ways to make it work well.
 
Top