President Bush Refuses to Give Civilian Workers Full Raise
- Thread starter demsformd
- Start date
jlabsher
Sorry about that chief.
Yes there truly is a national emergency. Not enough cash to give the federal workforce 1% more. On the other hand, plenty of cash to give political cronies and appointees:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/04/politics/04BONU.html?ex=1039582800&en=359a0d33ec86c7f3&ei=5006
Gotta love the guy, talks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/04/politics/04BONU.html?ex=1039582800&en=359a0d33ec86c7f3&ei=5006
Gotta love the guy, talks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.
Vrai- I can't find the original story anymore,( I think it was some statistics that the Commerce dept. released recently), but Nader refers to it here;
http://www.votenader.com/PublicInterest/pi-society_wealthdistribution.html
"Tax policy has shifted the tax burden off the shoulders of the wealthy and on to the middle class. "No sensible democracy would opt for an economic system in which the financial wealth of the top 1 percent of households exceeds the combined wealth of the bottom 95 percent."
Frank- I worded it that way because the repubs have been referring to attempts to roll back the tax cut as a tax raise. Seems like one of them there double edged sword kinda deals.
http://www.votenader.com/PublicInterest/pi-society_wealthdistribution.html
"Tax policy has shifted the tax burden off the shoulders of the wealthy and on to the middle class. "No sensible democracy would opt for an economic system in which the financial wealth of the top 1 percent of households exceeds the combined wealth of the bottom 95 percent."
Frank- I worded it that way because the repubs have been referring to attempts to roll back the tax cut as a tax raise. Seems like one of them there double edged sword kinda deals.
I used the IRS statistics at www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00inprel.pdf. They're not detailed enough that I can reproduce Frank's top 1%, 5%, 10%, etc cuts. But they're consistent with his figures. So...
Using them I can make a roughly similar assertion to what Frank said above:
The top 2% are paying more than 40 times the federal income taxes that the bottom 30% are. Of course, on average, the top 2% make 99 times more than the bottom 30%, so maybe that's not so upsetting after all.*
Here's a more complete set of statistics:
Those making ___ represent ___% of the returns, make ___% of the total money and pay __% of the taxes:
less than $15k; 30%; 4%; 1%
$15k - $30k; 23%; 10%; 4%
$30k - $50k; 19%; 15%; 9%
$50k - 100k; 20%; 28%; 22%
100k - 200k; 6%; 17%; 19%
greater than $200k; 2%; 26%; 44%
MGKrebs is wrong in his assertion that "if the top 1% pay 54% of the taxes, but earn 98% of the money, they're already getting their tax break. " According to the IRS stats, the top 2% make 26% of the money--not 98%.
Good question. I've always thought a flat tax would be fair. Using the same numbers from the source cited above, we can ask what percent flat tax would have to be charged for the government to collect the same amount of taxes it's receiving now. The answer is 16.1%. What effect would that have? Again, according to the report:
For those making ____ their average tax now is ___ and would become ___ under a flat tax scheme.**
less than $15k; $291; $969
$15k - $30k; $1502; $3516
$30k - $50k; $3810; $6275
$50k - 100k; $8800; $11150
100k - 200k; $23,729; $21,195
greater than $200k; $162,517; $95,477
So under a flat tax, the top two income tiers (representing 8% of taxpayers) get a cut. Everyone else gets a tax increase. Is that fair? Guess it depends on where you fall in the spectrum.
None of this answers your questions, but it does help shed some light perhaps on why there's different tax brackets.
*The top 2% are 2.8 million returns with total AGI of $1.6 trillion. Average AGI is thus $595,000. The bottom 30% are 38.6 million tax returns with total AGI of $233 billion. Average AGI is thus $6,000. And 595,000/6000 = 99. Yeah it's a rough approximation.
**Figure the average tax and average AGI in each of the 6 tiers, since the IRS stats give us the total AGI, total tax paid, and the number of tax returns per tier. To get the flat tax, solve for the percentage that when multiplied by the average AGI times the number of returns in each tier gives the same value of taxes as currently collected.
Nader's wrong (at least on the basis of adjusted gross income, which is how taxes are calculated): The top 2% earn 26% of the total AGI. The bottom 92% earn 57%. (See previous post.)
A sensible democracy would opt for an economic system that allows the financial wealth of anyone to rise to whatever level possible.
A nonsensical democracy (or rather a hard-line socialist or communist government) would attempt to forcibly redistribute wealth from those at the top to those at the bottom with the goal of making everyone's income identical. A few governments have tried this (think Cuba, China, Soviet Union, etc.), and have (a) failed at that goal, and (b) made everyone's lives--well, apart from those at the tippy-top--more miserable.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Nice work Doc...
It's always helpful to know what we're talking about in order to come to some kind of an agreement.
You've covered the "supply" side, IE, the income to the government. So now, what about the "demand" side?
I wonder if anyone is willing to look at the "brackets" and break down how much federal government each group gets for their money?
For starters, what is the bottom group (paying $291 each) getting from the feds?
The top group, for their $162k?
All modern liberal arguments about taxation and arguments of "fairness" stem from one thing: From each by his means, to each by his needs...as defined by me!"
This (failed) farce always looks at aggregate numbers "the top make SO much therefore they SHOULD pay so much!" and never at the reality. By definition, rich people should pay (162k/291) 556 times as much for a burger or a gallon of gas because it is not true to argue that the top is getting 556 times more out of the government. The obvious fact is that they are getting less than the bottom.
So, how much defense, infrastructure, regulation and National Parks are you using Mr. and Mrs. Citizen?
It's always helpful to know what we're talking about in order to come to some kind of an agreement.
You've covered the "supply" side, IE, the income to the government. So now, what about the "demand" side?
I wonder if anyone is willing to look at the "brackets" and break down how much federal government each group gets for their money?
For starters, what is the bottom group (paying $291 each) getting from the feds?
The top group, for their $162k?
All modern liberal arguments about taxation and arguments of "fairness" stem from one thing: From each by his means, to each by his needs...as defined by me!"
This (failed) farce always looks at aggregate numbers "the top make SO much therefore they SHOULD pay so much!" and never at the reality. By definition, rich people should pay (162k/291) 556 times as much for a burger or a gallon of gas because it is not true to argue that the top is getting 556 times more out of the government. The obvious fact is that they are getting less than the bottom.
So, how much defense, infrastructure, regulation and National Parks are you using Mr. and Mrs. Citizen?
Frank
Chairman of the Board
Well, two things - one is, libs DO do that - I remember reductions in increase of Social Security payouts being called "cuts", smaller than asked for increases in budgets called "cuts", and the Republicans being called on the carpet for it. The thing is, rolling back a tax cut IS raising taxes. If I "roll back" an increase in your salary - one that you're already getting - it's also called 'cutting' your salary. If I reverse a tax cut, it's a raise in taxes. That's not semantics - if *I* pay MORE taxes than I was paying before and my income didnt change, they were raised.
Only a lib would call it "rolling back", as if there is a 'normal' level of taxation which ought to exist. If Greenspan cuts interest rates, they're lower - if they then go back up, they are raised. Trouble is, Dems see taxation rates as some kind of 'right' of government, and tax cuts as a temporary measure, because they KNOW they expect to raise them back again.
I don't see the logic in that. Please refer to Gude's earlier point--should the rich pay 99 times more for their burgers at McD's too?
Yes. Get thee to a calculator. Now do 162517/595000. You get 27%. That's the percentage of income paid as taxes by rich folks (the average tax divided by the average income in the >$200k AGI bracket). Now do 291/6000. You should get 5%. That's the percentage of income paid by the average bottom 30% person.
27% > 5%
You are therefore reading this wrong.
I don't understand this. It’s my understanding that the senate has not yet voted on the fiscal 2003 Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill, which means that congress has yet to provide anything. It could still easily end up as a 4.1% when the Senate reconvenes in January. Besides vetoing the Treasury-Postal Bill, what authority does the president have to not give us what congress appoves? And if he does veto it, we will just be stuck under a continuing resolution until it does get passed. I find it unlikely the president will veto the entire bill for this one point though, so I think a 4.1% raise is still very possible.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Wonderful sense of humor...
...if you think about it.
The dems I mean. Seriously, can you imagine people who are four square behind any and all tax increases, across the board, plus all sorts of personal behavior taxes (IE, smoking and you know damn well cheeseburgers and beer are in the works!!!) a party for sustaining death taxes and marriage penalties, now raising a fuss over...over people not getting enough of a RAISE!!!???
A raise, money the individual gets to keep. More than before.
I guess the logic is thus: "Why, that's balderdash! How does that dummy Bush expect us to take MORE from everybody if he won't give it to them to start with?!!"
I can hear an argument based on people not getting what they were promised but come on. Shouldn't the real argument be to give everybody else, people not guaranteed ANY raise at all, a further tax cut equal to what the governmental employees are getting in the form of a real, live raise?
Well.
...if you think about it.
The dems I mean. Seriously, can you imagine people who are four square behind any and all tax increases, across the board, plus all sorts of personal behavior taxes (IE, smoking and you know damn well cheeseburgers and beer are in the works!!!) a party for sustaining death taxes and marriage penalties, now raising a fuss over...over people not getting enough of a RAISE!!!???
A raise, money the individual gets to keep. More than before.
I guess the logic is thus: "Why, that's balderdash! How does that dummy Bush expect us to take MORE from everybody if he won't give it to them to start with?!!"
I can hear an argument based on people not getting what they were promised but come on. Shouldn't the real argument be to give everybody else, people not guaranteed ANY raise at all, a further tax cut equal to what the governmental employees are getting in the form of a real, live raise?
Well.
Huh. Let's think about that for a minute. Government employees are paid out of our tax dollars. If they get a raise, they pay more taxes, which goes back into the pot and gets recycled. Wouldn't it make more sense to pay government employees less and make them tax exempt?
H
Heretic
Guest
Vrai-we already get paid less
Although inflation is less than our raise arround here where so many people are employed by the government the rent goes up almost an equal amount. Last year my rent went up by $35 a month, the year before it only went up by $10.
Although inflation is less than our raise arround here where so many people are employed by the government the rent goes up almost an equal amount. Last year my rent went up by $35 a month, the year before it only went up by $10.
yakky doodle
New Member
I've thought this for years. The only note I would make on this is that I would NOT be for reducing the incomes of the military. They are already paid entirely too little for the sacrifices they make (away from families, subject to round-the-clock recalls, lower standard of living b/c of their incomes). It's not uncommon for a married military couple to have the non-military spouse earning far more (if he/she works) for doing far less than his/her military spouse (in terms of putting their life on the line).
I think I would, however, be willing to lower my fed paycheck and not have to deal with the whole tax issue; of course, I haven't put all the thought into this from the perspective I'm in now as opposed to a couple years ago, so I'd have to digest this for awhile and post later. But on the surface, it seems to make sense.
Re: Didn't Bush
Yep, and he did. See the following link for his justification. http://www.opm.gov/oca/COMPMEMO/2002/2002-14.asp