'ja get a tax cut?
President Bush Refuses to Give Civilian Workers Full Raise
- Thread starter demsformd
- Start date
I got a tax refund ($300),
and i got to claim a loss for my company since the economy sucks so bad.
Anyway, we are talking about CUTS. A tax cut passed before 9/11 vs. an automatic raise passed before 9/11. You make the choice.
PS-
Beware! The last Fosters I bought was made in Canada. I am boycotting them for false advertising. "Australian for beer", indeed.
and i got to claim a loss for my company since the economy sucks so bad.
Anyway, we are talking about CUTS. A tax cut passed before 9/11 vs. an automatic raise passed before 9/11. You make the choice.
PS-
Beware! The last Fosters I bought was made in Canada. I am boycotting them for false advertising. "Australian for beer", indeed.
K
Kain99
Guest
Geez red, take a valium!
yakky doodle
New Member
well, back on subject, i will say this. i am a fed employee. i have an annual performance appraisal, for which i get a cash bonus if I get a certain rating. considering i got that "certain rating" and thus will get a cash bonus (that significantly exceeds the 1% vrai mentioned), i will not cry too much about not getting the raise this next year. i'd rather it go to the servicemembers who are feeding their families with the assistance of food stamps while they are residing in a sandpit or trench for 6 months of the year away from their families missing birthdays and christmas. 
btw, here's a link to the story from Gov Exec
and here's the letter to the house and senate regarding the raises.
my only beef would be that they keep the same pattern of limiting pay raises for the SES executives, as well.
the article only mentions the general schedule (GS) employees.
btw, here's a link to the story from Gov Exec
and here's the letter to the house and senate regarding the raises.
my only beef would be that they keep the same pattern of limiting pay raises for the SES executives, as well.
the article only mentions the general schedule (GS) employees.
Last edited:
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
Let's Raise a Toast to Beers!
Alright, if you guys are going to get into this, I was stationed in W. Germany in the '80s, and got to try some of their good stuff. Anybody had some Bitburger beer, or Paulaner? How about Lowenbraugh(sp)? Actually, I found myself always returning to Bitburger - it was a pilsener, I believe.
Also made it twice to Oktoberfest in Munich, a couple of guys and I drove down there, stayed Thurs to Sun at the Giessen Kassern for $5 a night. I think the alcohol content is raised during brewing, for the fest. Because it kicks the s&!+ out of you, and after two or three liter mugs it gets hard to walk.
penncam
Alright, if you guys are going to get into this, I was stationed in W. Germany in the '80s, and got to try some of their good stuff. Anybody had some Bitburger beer, or Paulaner? How about Lowenbraugh(sp)? Actually, I found myself always returning to Bitburger - it was a pilsener, I believe. Also made it twice to Oktoberfest in Munich, a couple of guys and I drove down there, stayed Thurs to Sun at the Giessen Kassern for $5 a night. I think the alcohol content is raised during brewing, for the fest. Because it kicks the s&!+ out of you, and after two or three liter mugs it gets hard to walk.
penncam
Okay, folks - now that the thread has gone completely off-topic. I split it and moved the beer chat over to the "Chit Chat" forum so don't panic! There's no conspiracy here! It's still all intact, just in a more pertinent forum.
Read this thread!
You don't really refute dems argument, you just attack him. Then you bring up Our former Commander In Chief as if that has anything to do with the subject at hand. Then, lacking any legitimate argument, things got wacky. If you don't want to make your case, fine. I'll see you in Chit Chat. Otherwise:
How do you justify this pay cut ( if rescinding a tax cut is a tax raise, then rescinding a pay raise is a pay cut) when there is an obvious tax cut that could be minimally revised to get the money?
The fact that it is only 1% is even MORE reason to find the money elsewhere. Of all the possible ways to save money, our president chooses to cut the pay of the very people he just removed from their collective bargaining power. Good luck finding those workaholics you want to replace all the slackers you're going to be firing.
You don't really refute dems argument, you just attack him. Then you bring up Our former Commander In Chief as if that has anything to do with the subject at hand. Then, lacking any legitimate argument, things got wacky. If you don't want to make your case, fine. I'll see you in Chit Chat. Otherwise:
How do you justify this pay cut ( if rescinding a tax cut is a tax raise, then rescinding a pay raise is a pay cut) when there is an obvious tax cut that could be minimally revised to get the money?
The fact that it is only 1% is even MORE reason to find the money elsewhere. Of all the possible ways to save money, our president chooses to cut the pay of the very people he just removed from their collective bargaining power. Good luck finding those workaholics you want to replace all the slackers you're going to be firing.
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
Read this thread!
INRE to para 2, maybe I've had too much Jose C., but I don't follow your reasoning.
Para 3, is much the same - more rambling of a deluded mind. Good Night, and pleasant Democrap dreams.
penncam
Is it at all possible that MGKrebs and demsformd are in fact the same entity? With respect to the first paragraph, did you not notice noone else on the boards felt concerned enough to chime in on the thread? ie., no sympathy here.
INRE to para 2, maybe I've had too much Jose C., but I don't follow your reasoning.
Para 3, is much the same - more rambling of a deluded mind. Good Night, and pleasant Democrap dreams.
penncam
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I don't see what the problem is. I've worked for the government and with the government since I graduated High School 22 years ago. In the companies that I worked for, there were never any guaranteed raises, and I know of no companies that offer this deal. When times are good, raises are high. When times are bad, raises are small. Why do people who are performing service work be entitled to benefits that the public is not? Besides, I know a lot more government employees who are making more than their private sector counterparts than those who are making less. Plus, the job security and other benefits and perks that Government employees make far outweigh any alledged salary differences.
If Bush, Clinton, or any other President felt that there was a reason why the raises needed to be trimmed, that should be their call to make without a lot of people grandstanding to make points politically.
If Bush, Clinton, or any other President felt that there was a reason why the raises needed to be trimmed, that should be their call to make without a lot of people grandstanding to make points politically.
I just can't get upset about this. Many of the federal employees in this area (not all, but most) make a hell of a lot more money then I do in the private sector. However, my husband works for the State they haven't seen a raise (cost of living or otherwise) in over 5 years (except for the big wigs in Annapolis). But we pay the same taxes, etc as everyone else. They instituted a merit system to give employees bonuses for exceptional work except they never provided the funds for the bonuses and now because of the state budget crisis even that program is dead. So you will have to go cry somewhere else about your missing 1%.
That said, I do agree that it was a stupid move on Bush's part. For that small amount of money he could have found it elsewhere - like maybe making the foreign mining companies pay a more reasonable fee for mining in our country.
That said, I do agree that it was a stupid move on Bush's part. For that small amount of money he could have found it elsewhere - like maybe making the foreign mining companies pay a more reasonable fee for mining in our country.
Frank
Chairman of the Board
I worked for the Fed through most of the 90's. Somehow, I seem to remember many years in which we got screwed and got a much lower than anticipated cost of living adjustment. In fact, "how much" was always the buzz during the fall before. So the drop to 3.1 from 4.1 isn't worth arguing.
Maybe what we need is a separate thread regarding the tax cut, and who should get how much, and what it does to the economy, and whether or not it is "fair".
According to the IRS, here is the tax-paying breakdown...
Top 1% of wage earners pay 54% of all income taxes
Top 5% of wage earners pay 56% of all income taxes
Top 10% of wage earners pay 67% of all income taxes
Top 25% of wage earners pay 84% of all income taxes
Top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all income taxes
Bottom 50% of wage earners pay 4% of all income taxes.
A person at the 50% cutoff earns about $27000 per year.
Nobody who earns less than an average salary should argue that their taxes are too high. The top 1% is paying more than thirteen times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%.
Now - what WOULD be fair, IF you are going to give a tax cut? You can cut taxes for the bottom 50%, but they wouldn't get much anyway.
Maybe what we need is a separate thread regarding the tax cut, and who should get how much, and what it does to the economy, and whether or not it is "fair".
According to the IRS, here is the tax-paying breakdown...
Top 1% of wage earners pay 54% of all income taxes
Top 5% of wage earners pay 56% of all income taxes
Top 10% of wage earners pay 67% of all income taxes
Top 25% of wage earners pay 84% of all income taxes
Top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all income taxes
Bottom 50% of wage earners pay 4% of all income taxes.
A person at the 50% cutoff earns about $27000 per year.
Nobody who earns less than an average salary should argue that their taxes are too high. The top 1% is paying more than thirteen times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%.
Now - what WOULD be fair, IF you are going to give a tax cut? You can cut taxes for the bottom 50%, but they wouldn't get much anyway.
If I were a slickster politician, I'd give a 50% tax cut to the people on the bottom half of the earnings chart. I'd get credit for a 50% tax cut AND it would only cost about 2%. Yee-HA!
Besides, rich people should HAVE to pay for everything - right, Maynard?
Besides, rich people should HAVE to pay for everything - right, Maynard?
H
Heretic
Guest
Bingo, people don't want to think that much into something.
A possible reason to not do this is because most of these people will eventually work themselves up into the tax brackets and Im sure the politicians want them conditioned into paying that much in taxes.
Here is the ultimate loophole...
In gradschool I was a research/teaching assistant making about $15k a year and getting free tuition. BUT because it was considered financial aid there was almost nothing taken out of my checks ($50 every two weeks and thats it). I swear I had more money then than I do now making $65k a year.
A possible reason to not do this is because most of these people will eventually work themselves up into the tax brackets and Im sure the politicians want them conditioned into paying that much in taxes.
Here is the ultimate loophole...
In gradschool I was a research/teaching assistant making about $15k a year and getting free tuition. BUT because it was considered financial aid there was almost nothing taken out of my checks ($50 every two weeks and thats it). I swear I had more money then than I do now making $65k a year.
The way I see it
is that if the top 1% pay 54%of the taxes, but earn 98% of the money, they're already getting their tax break.
I agree that the 1% pay cut is probably a trivial amount in the big scheme of things. The part that is illuminating is what shrubbie chooses to do to save some bucks. He must have had 50 other options, and he chose this one.
Alex- there has been a lot of talk here about Homeland Security and giving the Prez the power to fire/reassign/promote people at will. What's your take on this?
The performance bonus issue is interesting. I will have to digest this info before twisting it into my liberal viewpoint- oops, I mean commenting on it.
No raise in 5 years- I don't get it? The economy was great, tax revenues must have been OK. How did this happen?
is that if the top 1% pay 54%of the taxes, but earn 98% of the money, they're already getting their tax break.
I agree that the 1% pay cut is probably a trivial amount in the big scheme of things. The part that is illuminating is what shrubbie chooses to do to save some bucks. He must have had 50 other options, and he chose this one.
Alex- there has been a lot of talk here about Homeland Security and giving the Prez the power to fire/reassign/promote people at will. What's your take on this?
The performance bonus issue is interesting. I will have to digest this info before twisting it into my liberal viewpoint- oops, I mean commenting on it.
No raise in 5 years- I don't get it? The economy was great, tax revenues must have been OK. How did this happen?
You're going to have to explain that one to me, Maynard.