Flat Tax?

[HHSTigerFan]

Yeah, but how many of those superintendents are fully vested in pension and lifelong health insurance after only 5 years? That's the area of Congressional compensation that bothers me the most - they're willing to ask/demand that us "little people" accept the elimination of things like defined benefit retirement plans and retiree health coverage, even when those things were contractually promised and already earned, but the vast majority are insulated from ever making that same sacrifice themselves (as though federal employee retirement plans are somehow more viable than private sector or state/local govt plans).

After a quick search, found that in 2006 there were 413 retired members of congress receiving pensions of about $22 million.. No idea how many of them had put in near the minimum or maximum number of years, but what we are talking about is a drop in the bucket, looks .0000000064% of the US budget..

 

[Colleen27]

If you use percentages what you say might be true, but use real numbers and you couldn't be further from the truth..

But percentages are the only accurate means of comparison of something like tax liability. Otherwise you're just stirring the pot because 100% of a blue collar worker's income still wouldn't result in a comparable "real number" to a 10% tax in the top bracket.

 

[HHSTigerFan]

But percentages are the only accurate means of comparison of something like tax liability. Otherwise you're just stirring the pot because 100% of a blue collar worker's income still wouldn't result in a comparable "real number" to a 10% tax in the top bracket.

When I buy groceries at Wal-Mart, the nice lady working there doesn't scan my groceries and say "that will be 9.7% of your weekly pay"... if a business owner is paying $140K a year in income tax, does he really deserve to hear from a guy thats paying $600 a year that he isn't paying his fair share?

 

[Charade]

When I buy groceries at Wal-Mart, the nice lady working there doesn't scan my groceries and say "that will be 9.7% of your weekly pay"...

To make the sales tax like the income tax (progressive) you'd have to pay a sales tax based on your income. Those at the bottom would pay little or none, the middle would pay more and those at the top income levels would pay the most. That would make the sales tax just as "fair" as the income tax. Imagine trying to implement that if you could even get it passed into law. It would be a nightmare.

if a business owner is paying $140K a year in income tax, does he really deserve to hear from a guy thats paying $600 a year that he isn't paying his fair share?

Good point but the $ amount doesn't matter to most. They don't care that Warren Buffett paid 17 percent on an income of $41 million. They care that his secretary paid a higher percentage (30) of her $60K salary in income taxes. The unfortunate part of that is some of the details are missing. They say he paid 17 percent taxes on $41 million while she was taxed at 30 percent. They don't say what her effective rate is because most people don't pay the full rate of the bracket they are in. A lot of people, including Warren Buffett himself, thinks he should pay more (but he didn't).

 

[Colleen27]

After a quick search, found that in 2006 there were 413 retired members of congress receiving pensions of about $22 million.. No idea how many of them had put in near the minimum or maximum number of years, but what we are talking about is a drop in the bucket, looks .0000000064% of the US budget..

Does that mean it isn't worth re-evaluating? Those $300 toilet seats that people rant about are a small percentage too, but that doesn't justify wasteful spending in my opinion. And when it comes to Congressional compensation there is a fairness issue involved as well; it is wrong for Congress to demand sacrifices of private and lower-level public sector employees that they themselves are unwilling to make. A little leading by example would go a long way right now.

 

[HHSTigerFan]

Does that mean it isn't worth re-evaluating? Those $300 toilet seats that people rant about are a small percentage too, but that doesn't justify wasteful spending in my opinion. And when it comes to Congressional compensation there is a fairness issue involved as well; it is wrong for Congress to demand sacrifices of private and lower-level public sector employees that they themselves are unwilling to make. A little leading by example would go a long way right now.

So is the government better off paying this position $60K a year, with no health insurance or pension?? I think if you compare these jobs to those with comparable responsibilities in corporate America, you will find that they are underpaid at their current rate.. but people see that number and let their jealousy take over..

 

[Colleen27]

So is the government better off paying this position $60K a year, with no health insurance or pension?? I think if you compare these jobs to those with comparable responsibilities in corporate America, you will find that they are underpaid at their current rate.. but people see that number and let their jealousy take over..

I didn't say that, and in fact I already said that I don't take issue with the pay rate. But there is no sense whatsoever in pension and retiree health care for employees after 5 years of service. I personally don't think politics should be a career and to that end don't believe Congress should be offering a pension or retiree health care at all. But as far as the system as it stands, the benefit rules should be in line with the rest of the nation rather than in a privileged class all their own whereby even a one-term senator is entitled to lifelong benefits that would take decades of service to qualify for in any other position.

 

[HHSTigerFan]

I didn't say that, and in fact I already said that I don't take issue with the pay rate. But there is no sense whatsoever in pension and retiree health care for employees after 5 years of service. I personally don't think politics should be a career and to that end don't believe Congress should be offering a pension or retiree health care at all. But as far as the system as it stands, the benefit rules should be in line with the rest of the nation rather than in a privileged class all their own whereby even a one-term senator is entitled to lifelong benefits that would take decades of service to qualify for in any other position.

How is it a "privileged class" when anyone can run for that office?

Its a job that pays $174K a year, a well known job opening with really very little needed as far as education and job experience.. Yet last year in my district only 3 people applied.. my comparison our local school district hired a new supt, when that job was posted they had close to 100 people apply.. If its that great of a deal, why aren't more people applying?

 

[sam_gordon]

Could it have something to do with the amount of money it takes to compete for the job?

 

[HHSTigerFan]

Could it have something to do with the amount of money it takes to compete for the job?

So maybe the people in office aren't making the financial haul that some claim??

 

[eliza61]

Could it have something to do wi th the amount of money it takes to compete for the job?

It has a lot to do with it. which is why most politicians spend 50% of their time in fundraisers than working. Here in NJ where i'm from, in order to run for a state senate office from either party (you can run as an independant so I dont know the rules from that) you have to have a min warchest of 500K along with a boat load of signatures (which cost money or/and time) to even get to stage one.

Joe the plumber is not running for office without the cash.

Which is why so many millionaires can easily throw their hats in the ring. Bloomberg, whitman, trump and the rest don't have to worry about meeting financial obligations.

 

[Took]

That's a misleading statistic, though, because so much of the discussion about it assumes that 47% is a constant segment of the population that votes according to that specific issue.

In reality it is a shifting window; we paid quite a bit in income taxes as a dual income couple with no kids even though we were just starting out, pay almost none now as a single income family with 3 children, and will be paying more than ever in a few years when the kids start reaching adulthood. That is the pattern for most working and middle class families with children. Add to that figure the older generation living solely on social security and you get a pretty big number of people who aren't paying taxes at a given point in time, but most paid in the past or will in the future.

Yes, Colleen. This is absolutely true. MOST Americans pay income tax at some point. Here is a link to an article that offers some insights on the 47% number: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

 

[Took]

The problem as I see it, some politician is going to have to stand in front of America and say, were broke, and the only way to fix it is to cut cut cut. Social security, defense, education, farming subsides, free school lunch, food stamps, unemployment payments, Medicaid… the list goes on and on. Everything will need to be cut and we as American will need to live with that.

Any politician who does stand up and say that will not get elected or re-elected. People are too willing to have the wool pulled over their eyes with promises that cannot be kept, pretending there is nothing wrong so they can go back to watching the latest reality tv show.

How about we stay the heck out of other countries' problems? That ought to save a bit, too. Sure, we have a military, but we use it for defense, not offense or "policing."

 

[sam_gordon]

So maybe the people in office aren't making the financial haul that some claim??

So NOT what I said. As PP pointed out, it costs a LOT of money to run for office. Money that "Joe Sixpack" generally doesn't have.

Let me ask you this... going by percentage, how many politicians are the best applicant for the job? I'm not talking about being the "lesser of two evils", but shouldn't the goal be (if we're sticking with the 'job' analogy) to 'hire' the best applicant? When's the last time that happened?

For those of you who read novels, try out 'Executive Orders' by Tom Clancy.

 

[HHSTigerFan]

So NOT what I said. As PP pointed out, it costs a LOT of money to run for office. Money that "Joe Sixpack" generally doesn't have.

And I NEVER said YOU did.. I just don't have a problem paying a member of Congress $174K or vesting them in a pension plan after only 5 years..

 

[HHSTigerFan]

So NOT
Let me ask you this... going by percentage, how many politicians are the best applicant for the job? I'm not talking about being the "lesser of two evils", but shouldn't the goal be (if we're sticking with the 'job' analogy) to 'hire' the best applicant? When's the last time that happened?

Apparently they are the "best" or the voters wouldn't have elected them.. which leads me to believe the problem isn't the 535 people we send to Washington, rather who is sending them and why they are sending them..

Right now, people WANT the govt to hold their hands and do things for them, they also don't want to pay taxes.. Guess what?? Those two won't work together..

 

[sam_gordon]

Apparently they are the "best" or the voters wouldn't have elected them.. which leads me to believe the problem isn't the 535 people we send to Washington, rather who is sending them and why they are sending them.

I disagree. Voters can only select from those on the ballet. MANY times, there are two equally bad choices, so voters choose based on the "lesser of two evils". Or they are choosing based on a candidates views on a single topic. This also doesn't take into account those voters who select their candidate based solely on the letter that comes after their name.

Candidates need name recognition in order to gather votes. They get name recognition by putting their names (and positions) out in front of the public. That costs money. Even those who have money generally end up saying more why their opponent shouldn't be elected more than why they should.

As far as how much they are being paid & their pension... I think an employee is fully vested in my company after 3 years. So that doesn't bother me. But I don't think Congress should be able to vote themselves raises. Aren't we their bosses? Shouldn't we be able to approve (or not) their raises?

I also don't think their health care should be picked up 100%. How many companies in this country do that for their employees?

 

[HHSTigerFan]

I disagree. Voters can only select from those on the ballet. MANY times, there are two equally bad choices, so voters choose based on the "lesser of two evils". Or they are choosing based on a candidates views on a single topic. This also doesn't take into account those voters who select their candidate based solely on the letter that comes after their name.

Candidates need name recognition in order to gather votes. They get name recognition by putting their names (and positions) out in front of the public. That costs money. Even those who have money generally end up saying more why their opponent shouldn't be elected more than why they should.

As far as how much they are being paid & their pension... I think an employee is fully vested in my company after 3 years. So that doesn't bother me. But I don't think Congress should be able to vote themselves raises. Aren't we their bosses? Shouldn't we be able to approve (or not) their raises?

I also don't think their health care should be picked up 100%. How many companies in this country do that for their employees?

But anyone can get placed on the ballot, just a matter of getting your opinion heard..

And members of Congress get the same health insurance as 8 million other federal employees, currently members pay about 27% of the premium..

 

[Anne34]

Everyone thinks anyone who makes more than them is wealthy. I don't see why someone who has worked hard and gotten an education should be penalized by paying more than their fair share. Let's charge everyone the same 10% and we could save so much money by getting rid of the IRS altogether - take it right off the paycheck (or right off the welfare card) up front - no collecting, no filing!

I really think everyone should be paying something. We pay huge amounts every year since my husband works 60-70 hours per week. He's salary, but If he was paid per hour-it wouldn't be much.
Some people are so jealous of others who have gone to college & worked hard for many years to get where they are today. Better yourself if you can't make it on what you currently have.

 

[Anne34]

How about we stay the heck out of other countries' problems? That ought to save a bit, too. Sure, we have a military, but we use it for defense, not offense or "policing."