Tax return is nearly $3000 LESS because I worked part-time last year!

[ohlas]

Another benefit of a national sales tax is all the money that is missed in the underground economy. The people who don't pay taxes on their income. The "morally corrupt" who work in a cash only environment. Street corner pharmacist, ladies of the night, and people who make money under the table.

If drug dealers had to pay 5% more for their sneakers, that is additional money that the government is collecting from someone who wouldn't be paying taxes anyway.

For those who say they can't afford another tax. If you took home all the money you made and paid a flat sales tax, that would be a better way for you to determine how you want to spend the money that you are making.

so garage sales, ebay, craigslist are collecting the flat sales tax,,,, i get the point but then the debate starts on should we flat sales tax what food, houses, cars, do sinful things get a higher rate, there will always be a under ground market for everything.

Flat income for indv and corp is little better, you would just have more special intest groups for sneakers in washington with a flat sales tax...

 

[MrsPete]

But one could make a couple arguments...
1) If people were paid more they wouldn't qualify (or "need") for the "handouts".
2) YOU brought up businesses owners owe their employees a "fair wage". I agree.

However, what determines "fair"? Hence, my comment about asking people if what they make is "fair". Yes, employees agreed on a rate when they got hired. But, maybe the employee was desperate to have ANY paycheck to come in. Or maybe it was a fair wage to begin with, but that was years ago and the employee never got a C.O.L. increase in YEARS. So is that wage still "fair"?

Neither of those questions has anything to do with the point -- they're just red herrings trying to distract from the question. The real question is whether the boss owes them anything ABOVE AND BEYOND their paycheck. The paycheck which was agreed upon when the boss offered the job and the employee accepted it.

Is the wage fair? Who knows? They're hypothetical. I'd assume that the employee is working at the job where his skills will bring the most money. I'd assume that the boss is paying something along the lines of the market average (i.e., more for a surgeon, less for a construction worker).

But my comment was in response to the idea that the boss "owed" them a beer and was being cheap not to pony up. THAT has nothing to do with how he pays them. If you think it does, then perhaps he'd owe a beer to the guys who load his trucks and owe nothing to his in-house accountant - and that makes no sense. Either the boss is a generous guy who buys everyone a beer, or he owes no one a beer.

Wait a minute, I thought minimum wage was raised to a "living wage", how did that work out?? Oh it didn't, it just hurt the economy by raising costs on everything..

Which is what happens every time minimum wage is raised, even though the proponents insist that it won't happen THIS TIME. Minimum wage will never be a comfortable living.

I would say a fair wage is one that allows you to keep a roof over your head and food on your table.

I disagree. A fair wage isn't what you personally need to live -- aren't we past the days when a man with a family was paid more than a single girl living at home with her parents? A fair wage is what your service to your employer is worth.

A fair wage is what's average, expected, appropriate for the work you're doing. A low-skill job (like fast food) should pay less because the worker brings essentially no unique skills to the job; he isn't all that valuable to his employer since anyone could do his job. On the other hand, a person who has an investment in education, who has experience and/or leadership or management skills is more valuable to his employer -- he can demand a higher wage.

I guess that's why I'm confused. I just don't understand the point that is being made here.

Yeah, I'm not getting the point either. I think we all know that 150K is more than 75K -- even with a higher tax rate. What I don't see is why people who pay NO taxes should get a portion of someone else's taxes refunded to them.

Also, I think there is STILL incentive to get ahead. I got a 40% raise last year. As a result, I'm now paying 9% in taxes instead of the 4% I paid the year before. Guess what... I'm still making more money. If I got the raise to get to $150K as a PP suggested, yes, I'd be paying more (even a higher percentage) in taxes, but I'm STILL getting more money. Why is there NOT an incentive to make more?

If you received a large raise last year, you're not the EIC target audience. The workers in question are those who are low-paid; FOR THEM making a little more money takes away their government benefit -- for people in this situation, it IS an incentive NOT to work.

I've said before, I don't hold it against the people who take advantage of what's available, but I DO hold it against the government who puts such a system in place.

I'm sorry..what is a LEO? I believe that poster was saying they should be paid 45K not they were paid that.


This is the point I am trying to make as well. If you stay home and don't work you ahve $0 if you work and make $6K but the gov't "takes" $3K you still have $3K more than you did before. As you make more money, yes the gov't takes more money but you still have more money! I guess it's the glass 1/2 full or 1/2 empty thing. I choose to live my life with the glass 1/2 full!

I, too, am trying to figure out what a LEO is.

As to whether working to bring home "only" 3K is worthwhile . . . it'd depend upon one's circumstances. If you could stay home and make money doing something on the side (ebay, alterations, babysitting or something simliar) then you might easily SURPASS the 3K mark AND not have to adhere to someone else's schedule. On the other hand, if you'd be making 3K for a year 'til you proved yourself and could then expect to move up the ladder, then working for such a small amount would be very worthwhile. It'd also depend upon how many hours it took to earn that 3K and what kind of work expenses were required. And you'd have to consider what other benefits (insurance, pension, etc.) come along with the job.

Would have NO problem if minimum wage was scrapped, if a person feels they aren't making enough they can find another job..

As for the second part..Not much of a solution needed, how about they get a job that allows them to take care of themselves? Stop killing the business community with taxes and let the open markets do what they do best.

I'm totally with you. Wages wouldn't change significantly if we had no minimum wage. Employers would still have to pay enough to convince people that it's worth their time, and there'd still be financial competition for the best workers. The only difference would be that the government wouldn't have its nose in that portion of our lives.

Don't make that into, "I think low-skilled laborers should work for pennies." What I'm saying is that the government doesn't need to regulate that. The sun will rise and set without a law being made by the US government. Someone used the phrase "unintended consequences" of this or that tax rule -- that's what happens when the government and its laws become too large. People fall through the cracks, people find little cracks and take advantage of them, making them into big cracks. The less the government interfers, the better!

I think something that is misunderstood is the concept that people who are against entitlements have no concern for their fellow man. Nothing could be further from the truth. I prefer to give personally to people who are in need. Most of the time it is anonymous. I prefer to choose my recipients and administer it myself (or allow the charity of my choice to administer it). The government has a lousy track record of getting dollars to the right place efficiently.

Someone mentioned earlier that if entitlement programs were stopped, the charity system would clog up. But if we were taxed less, we could donate more. Wouldn't you?

I agree. I don't see that giving and giving and giving helps a person. Teaching him to work for himself, however, is a completely different story. It seems to me that the government is using our dollars badly, and I can't be supportive of that.

Really? Where? Where would you like someone with very few marketable skills going to get another job? Do you actually think that people work at minimum wage jobs because they don't WANT something better?

And you do realize there is a reason why there is a minimum wage law?

Let's say you're a low skill, minimum wage worker -- let's say you work at the local factory making widgets. Tomorrow the government says, "No more minimum wage." Why would that mean you'd lose your job? Why would that mean you'd even get a pay cut? If you and your employer have decided that your labor is worth X amount, then he'd still pay you X amount. If he decided that he'd cut that wage in half, you'd leave. You and everyone else, and he'd be out of business. That'd show him.

Seriously, though, if no minimum wage existed, employers would still be forced to pay what the market will bear. Need evidence? Consider the illegal immigrants who work in the "dirty jobs" that Americans don't want to do anymore. Do they work for pennies an hour? Nope. They work for essentially minimum wage paid under the table.

Minimum wage laws DID serve a purpose back when the Industrial Era was in its infancy. When society was making a switch from life on the farm to life in the cities, there was no standard for what a laborer's time was worth vs. what a professional's time was worth, etc. Likewise, there was no concept of a 40-hour work week, etc. Today those things are well established. The barter system is dead. Few of us live in an agricultural society. The need for the government to interfere with the employer /employee decision on pay is long gone. Today our economy is well-established, and the government only screws things up when it interfers.

but I'm actually all for a flat tax. Social engineering via the tax code has too many unintended consequences and creates too many loopholes. A flat tax rate with a fixed per-person deduction, with no other deductions or credits whatsoever, seems to me the best way to accomplish what taxation is supposed to accomplish - that is, funding the government rather than manipulating the populace's financial decisionmaking.

I agree completely. A flat tax would be easier and less expensive for everyone (except those who are paying literally nothing now).

Once again, you keep avoiding the very idea that some people are NOT ABLE to get a college degree. I'm going to come out and say what we all seem to be avoiding. Some People Are Not Smart Enough. No Amount Of Assistance Will Get Them A College Degree. What do you propose we do with these people?

You're right that we don't need to encourage EVERYONE to go to college. Traditionally, 20-25% of our society has worked in professional jobs. And about 25% of all Americans have a bachelor's degree (slightly higher for younger Americans). That tends to work out just about right.

So replace the words "college degree" with "job training".

Everyone isn't academic, but everyone needs SOME training beyond high school. Those who don't flourish in the classroom may do very well in beauty school, bricklaying class, etc. We teach some excellent vocational classes in our high school, and students can leave fully qualified to get an entry-level job in the electrical field, working as mechanics, as CNAs, etc. College isn't the only path to a better-than-minimum-wage job, but few people today will be really successful with ONLY high school under their belts.

I know a lot of people that didn't go to college and are doing quite well for themselves because they have a solid work ethic.. but heaven forbid we expect that!

While I know plenty of people my age and older who've done quite well for themselves with just high school, I think it's becoming harder and harder. I'm thinking specifically about a friend of mine (without a degree) who works as an executive secretary (she probably makes more than I do with my degree). She tells her kids all the time, "Look, I am doing well for myself only because of the years I've put in. I can't leave and go somewhere else without a degree. And YOU in your generation wouldn't be able to get your foot in the door of my job without a degree. You need more than I have."

And she's dead right. A bachelor's degree may not be the right route for everyone, but few of our children's generation will go beyond an average paycheck without more than a high school diploma. I'm not negating your comment about work ethic -- that's absolutely true too -- but I don't think hard work in and of itself is "enough" anymore.

You're against EIC? You think it is "stupid"? I think SS is stupid and would LOVE to put that money in my own retirement account. Instead, the entire fund will be bankrupt years before I am old enough to benefit (2046, under the current rules.) I would like to see kind of SS reform just as much as you would like to see the EIC eliminated.

I also am certain I could manage my SS money better than the government is doing. I think the very same thing about it as I think about EIC: I don't blame the individuals who are currently collecting SS payments -- they paid in, they deserve to get out -- but I do blame the government for creating an un-sustainable system.

I have no idea where you are from, but in my neck of the woods, most of the two-income families I know have both people working out of necessity and not for luxuries.

Keep in mind that our idea of "necessity" has vastly increased over the last couple decades.

For example, one of my grandmother's "family home" was a three-room house (note, I didn't say three bedroom house!). Her parents slept in the living room. They had a kitchen and a dining room, each dedicated to their respective tasks. The EIGHT kids slept in the attic, which was accessed though a ladder in the dining room. They were MIDDLE CLASS KIDS, kids of a farmer who owned several hundred acres. Several of them went on to two-year college. Incidentally, she was born in 1913 -- not quite 100 years ago.

Fast forward a generation. My father-in-law (and his two siblings) were raised in a two-bedroom house. One bedroom for the parents, one bedroom for the two boys and their sister.

Fast forward one more generation to my own family: We didn't have air conditioning. We kids all worked in the vegetable garden and canned produce. My mom traded kids hand-me-downs with our aunts. All our shorts were cut-off jeans. We had two pair of shoes at all times: One pair of dress shoes for church, one pair of tennis shoes. We shared bedrooms, but not with siblings of the opposite sex. We ate out every few months.

So what's necessary? Where's the dividing point? The necessity line is surely not where it's set today: Cell phones for everyone middle-school aged and up, a personal car for everyone old enough to drive, etc. I'm sure some people genuinely NEED to incomes literally for food on the table, and others NEED the two incomes because of past debt, but MANY could afford to let go of one income IF they were willing to live like people did just one generation ago.

 

[sam_gordon]

Neither of those questions has anything to do with the point -- they're just red herrings trying to distract from the question. The real question is whether the boss owes them anything ABOVE AND BEYOND their paycheck. The paycheck which was agreed upon when the boss offered the job and the employee accepted it.

Of course, YOU were the one who brought up the bosses owing their employees "fair" wages. I just asked for a definition.

Is the wage fair? Who knows? They're hypothetical. I'd assume that the employee is working at the job where his skills will bring the most money. I'd assume that the boss is paying something along the lines of the market average (i.e., more for a surgeon, less for a construction worker).

I'll be honest, I've never known what the "market average" is for my job. Whenever I've looked it up (according to the internet) I wasn't being paid "average".

But my comment was in response to the idea that the boss "owed" them a beer and was being cheap not to pony up. THAT has nothing to do with how he pays them. If you think it does, then perhaps he'd owe a beer to the guys who load his trucks and owe nothing to his in-house accountant - and that makes no sense. Either the boss is a generous guy who buys everyone a beer, or he owes no one a beer.

I agree, the boss doesn't "owe" anyone a beer... unless they agreed to be paid in beer.

I've said before, I don't hold it against the people who take advantage of what's available, but I DO hold it against the government who puts such a system in place.I, too, am trying to figure out what a LEO is.

A LEO is a Law Enforcement Officer (cop, policeman).

Don't make that into, "I think low-skilled laborers should work for pennies." What I'm saying is that the government doesn't need to regulate that. The sun will rise and set without a law being made by the US government.

I disagree. If employers didn't have to pay minimum wage the wages for THOSE jobs will drop. Because there are more people looking for work than there are jobs. Job 'x' has two candidates, 'a', and 'b'. 'a' says "I'll work for minimum wage'. 'b' says 'I'll work for 5 cents less an hour.' Now, let's be honest, these are not difficult jobs. Why would an employer pay the extra 5 cents an hour? B is happy he has a job, the employer is happy because he got a "cheap" worker. Now, 'c' wants a job. He's desperate. He's willing to do the job for 50 cents less, because 'hey, it's a paycheck'. Sorry 'b', you're on the unemployment line. See how this can work? Again, this only affects people at the bottom portion of the pay scale.

Let's say you're a low skill, minimum wage worker -- let's say you work at the local factory making widgets. Tomorrow the government says, "No more minimum wage." Why would that mean you'd lose your job? Why would that mean you'd even get a pay cut? If you and your employer have decided that your labor is worth X amount, then he'd still pay you X amount. If he decided that he'd cut that wage in half, you'd leave. You and everyone else, and he'd be out of business. That'd show him.

Except for the fact there are hundreds if not thousands of people willing to do the job for 1/2 pay because it's a paycheck. Aren't you and others saying people should take extra jobs to get income? Can't you say the same thing about taking a lower wage?

Minimum wage laws DID serve a purpose back when the Industrial Era was in its infancy. When society was making a switch from life on the farm to life in the cities, there was no standard for what a laborer's time was worth vs. what a professional's time was worth, etc.

The Industrial Era started in 1938? That was when the Federal Minimum Wage went into effect.

Likewise, there was no concept of a 40-hour work week, etc. Today those things are well established.

I thought the 40-hour work week was established because employers were forcing their workers to work extra hours and not give them extra pay.

So replace the words "college degree" with "job training".
Everyone isn't academic, but everyone needs SOME training beyond high school. Those who don't flourish in the classroom may do very well in beauty school, bricklaying class, etc. We teach some excellent vocational classes in our high school, and students can leave fully qualified to get an entry-level job in the electrical field, working as mechanics, as CNAs, etc. College isn't the only path to a better-than-minimum-wage job, but few people today will be really successful with ONLY high school under their belts.

Totally agree!

 

[HHSTigerFan]

Should we also have the govt institute a maximum wage, as some apparently want them controlling everything because we as regular citizens can't be trusted to handle our own lives?

When did we as people lose all respect for what we can accomplish without the govt holding our hands every step of the way?

 

[RRL38]

A fair wage is what's average, expected, appropriate for the work you're doing. A low-skill job (like fast food) should pay less because the worker brings essentially no unique skills to the job; he isn't all that valuable to his employer since anyone could do his job. On the other hand, a person who has an investment in education, who has experience and/or leadership or management skills is more valuable to his employer -- he can demand a higher wage.




Very well said!

 

[snowywhite89]

So how does that differ from what we currently have??

I have always supported a national sales tax, even for all, stops the tax cheats and basically gets rid of the IRS..

No write off. No tax credits. No negative or 0 taxes paid. All pay the same % for the money in that step (200K and 20K pay the same amount on the first 20K). Easy tax forms All personal income is taxed the same.

It does not eliminate the unreported income.

 

[luvsJack]

.Let's say you're a low skill, minimum wage worker -- let's say you work at the local factory making widgets. Tomorrow the government says, "No more minimum wage." Why would that mean you'd lose your job? Why would that mean you'd even get a pay cut? If you and your employer have decided that your labor is worth X amount, then he'd still pay you X amount. If he decided that he'd cut that wage in half, you'd leave. You and everyone else, and he'd be out of business. That'd show him.

Seriously, though, if no minimum wage existed, employers would still be forced to pay what the market will bear. Need evidence? Consider the illegal immigrants who work in the "dirty jobs" that Americans don't want to do anymore. Do they work for pennies an hour? Nope. They work for essentially minimum wage paid under the table.

And if I left, how exactly would I feed my family? Not everyone has the luxury of being able to walk off a job even if it doesn't pay enough. Someone who is making minimum wage now cannot possibly consider walking off a job without knowing there is another job waiting--like TODAY.

Many American companies moved to other countries because of the cheap labor (like I said, El Salvador for one). They don't seem to have a problem paying under minimum wage at all. I really don't think being on American soil make you better able to run a sewing machine. So, without the law, those companies did exactly the opposite of what you are saying they would do.

If they are paid under the table, how do you know they work for "essentially" minimum wage? And what is "essentially" minimum wage? Either it is or it isn't.

 

[ohlas]

No write off. No tax credits. No negative or 0 taxes paid. All pay the same % for the money in that step (200K and 20K pay the same amount on the first 20K). Easy tax forms All personal income is taxed the same.

It does not eliminate the unreported income.

im all for a flat federal sales tax, with the exception we dont start food is 2 %, cars are 7%, beer is 20% and sneakers are 10%... etc etc..

You would still have to have a corp tax of some kind i say make that a flat tax too, think of all the lobbyist that would be out of work...

Nice dream thou.

 

[luvsJack]

1. Charities, churches etc..

2. Because I want to take care of MY family, to be able to send MY kids to colleges they want to go to etc etc.. lets get back to dangling that carrot in front of people, not making them career welfare recipients...

If the charities can't keep up now, what on earth makes you think they will then? Churches run off tithes. If the members decide they don't want to tithe, then what? Pennies from heaven?

 

[StuckInKS]

The SS taxes have nothing to so with the refundable credits. All wage earners (W-2) have to pay SS taxes just like the self employed. The difference is the wage earners SS tax comes out weekly in their paychecks where as the self employed get hit at the end of the year. .

No, that is not the difference. Self-employed pay double the SS/Medicare tax as W-2 earners. The ONLY way to reduce this extra burden is through refundable tax credits. That was my point.

 

[rubato]

im all for a flat federal sales tax, with the exception we dont start food is 2 %, cars are 7%, beer is 20% and sneakers are 10%... etc etc..

You would still have to have a corp tax of some kind i say make that a flat tax too, think of all the lobbyist that would be out of work...

Nice dream thou.

Lobbyists out of work? Now that would be a dream, wouldn't it?

 

[ohlas]

And if I left, how exactly would I feed my family? Not everyone has the luxury of being able to walk off a job even if it doesn't pay enough. Someone who is making minimum wage now cannot possibly consider walking off a job without knowing there is another job waiting--like TODAY.

Many American companies moved to other countries because of the cheap labor (like I said, El Salvador for one). They don't seem to have a problem paying under minimum wage at all. I really don't think being on American soil make you better able to run a sewing machine. So, without the law, those companies did exactly the opposite of what you are saying they would do.

If they are paid under the table, how do you know they work for "essentially" minimum wage? And what is "essentially" minimum wage? Either it is or it isn't.

Isnt free trade awsome....

 

[HHSTigerFan]

If the charities can't keep up now, what on earth makes you think they will then? Churches run off tithes. If the members decide they don't want to tithe, then what? Pennies from heaven?

As opposed to the $14 trillion debt that our government has created trying to do everything for everyone?

 

[ohlas]

As opposed to the $14 trillion debt that our government has created trying to do everything for everyone?

What is that like 48k per man, woman and child in usa. I would be willing to borrow that money from one of the banks we bailed out. If i could get the government to never borrow any more money and get flat tax that can never go up in % rate.... oh i almost forgot to stop over spending.

 

[luvsJack]

As opposed to the $14 trillion debt that our government has created trying to do everything for everyone?

Why don't you answer the question? What do you suggest be done for those in need?

I can think of many things that they can stop doing that will cut expences without making it harder on the poor.

Do you even realize that not everyone is taking advantage of the government? Do you realize that MOST people (and YES it is MOST) on governement assistance want to get off, want to make more money? Do you realize that there are people who qualify for EIC that you better be darn GLAD they do the job they do? (and some that still qualify for government assistance, free lunch for thier kids, WIC, and all the other things that I am sure you hate).

There needs to be cuts in government spending. There needs to be adjustments made to the welfare system (by the way, another place of employment that has people with degrees of which many qualify for EIC). And probably to the income tax system.

But, while you are armchair quarterbacking the tax system, remember that if you make the taxes owed by low income people equal to more than they can pay you haven't fixed anything, you only make it worse.

 

[StuckInKS]

Big difference between EIC and the two you mentioned, already been over that..

I have read every post up to this point and have yet to see either credit mentioned. Some did mention the difference between refundable vs. non-refundable credits, but both the ones I mentioned are refundable -- like the EIC. The only difference I see is that one is available only to lower-income households and the other two are also available to higher-earning households.

 

[StuckInKS]

So now its MY problem someone didn't go out and get marketable skills?

Sometimes I think you say half of the stuff you say just to get a reaction.

Not everyone is a as perfect as you and made all of the 'right' choices. Good thing our govt is there to pick those people up with the EIC!

 

[StuckInKS]

I still say use a flat tax, but make it progressive. If you make less than $10K, you pay nothing. From $10,001 - $20K, you pay 1%. $20-$30K 3%, etc, etc. .

Because people have different abilities to pay. A single person making $30k may be able to afford a $900 tax bill in April. A family of 10 living on the same likely won't be able to afford it and may have to miss rent or bills that will be hard to catch up on. They may have to get govt assistance for rent and food just so they can pay their tax bill.

 

[ohlas]

Why don't you answer the question? What do you suggest be done for those in need?

I can think of many things that they can stop doing that will cut expences without making it harder on the poor.

Do you even realize that not everyone is taking advantage of the government? Do you realize that MOST people (and YES it is MOST) on governement assistance want to get off, want to make more money? Do you realize that there are people who qualify for EIC that you better be darn GLAD they do the job they do? (and some that still qualify for government assistance, free lunch for thier kids, WIC, and all the other things that I am sure you hate).

There needs to be cuts in government spending. There needs to be adjustments made to the welfare system (by the way, another place of employment that has people with degrees of which many qualify for EIC). And probably to the income tax system.

But, while you are armchair quarterbacking the tax system, remember that if you make the taxes owed by low income people equal to more than they can pay you haven't fixed anything, you only make it worse.

you got the answer u just didnt like it, the answer was the government is horrible let the churches do it again. stop fleeceing people that make more money thru taxes, to give it to the poor,,, who is going to pay the 14 trillion dollar bill??? not the poor.

 

[ohlas]

Because people have different abilities to pay. A single person making $30k may be able to afford a $900 tax bill in April. A family of 10 living on the same likely won't be able to afford it and may have to miss rent or bills that will be hard to catch up on. They may have to get govt assistance for rent and food just so they can pay their tax bill.

why would you have 8-9 children if you cannt pay your bills???