Taxpayers?

BRUISER

BRUISER

silent.. but deadly
Moderator
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Location
Raleigh
Question: when did the freeloaders become more important than the taxpayers?

Answer: When politicians realized they could get paychecks for life by having the un-educated voting for them.

Remember this when voting.
 
Exactly why we should have a law that you cannot vote if you are not disabled and CHOOSE to live on welfare and pay no taxes . It's a given the non working ( peeps living off welfare only because they can and get away with it ) will vote for whoever keeps giving them others money (taxes). There is absolutely no racism or discrimination in that, it would apply to ALL deadbeats and prevent politicians buying votes.
 
mommucked said:
Exactly why we should have a law that you cannot vote if you are not disabled and CHOOSE to live on welfare and pay no taxes . It's a given the non working ( peeps living off welfare only because they can and get away with it ) will vote for whoever keeps giving them others money (taxes). There is absolutely no racism or discrimination in that, it would apply to ALL deadbeats and prevent politicians buying votes.
Click to expand...

RACIST!

thats what they say when we asked for people to at least show ID to vote.
 
You should have to provide a pay stub, submit to a IQ test and have a valid drivers license to vote. Not a ID card but a drivers license, you know the thing you use to drive to work, be a productive member of society... Hell, I'd even goes as far to say that anyone on any type of federal or state aid should be barred from voting because it's a conflict of interest.
 
I've said it before, albeit an unpopular thought, if you haven't served this country OR pay taxes OR own land OR been on unemployment more than once/longer than 6 months over a 5 year span...you don't vote. In reality, I don't really think that excludes a whole lot of people from voting, other than the perpetual system abusers.

Beyond that...provide a valid drivers license. And there should be a pre-voting test about the candidates, if you can't provide a passing grade on the platforms for which they're running...you're too ignorant about the candidates to vote anyway.
 
UTfball68 said:
Beyond that...provide a valid drivers license. And there should be a pre-voting test about the candidates, if you can't provide a passing grade on the platforms for which they're running...you're too ignorant about the candidates to vote anyway.
Click to expand...

It better be multiple choice, because I bet even the politicians themselves couldn't tell you from day to day what their platform was compared to what their actual agenda is.
 
If a law like this WAS passed, do you suppose it would cause anyone to get off their ass and get a job and be a responsible person so they could vote again?
 
mommucked said:
If a law like this WAS passed, do you suppose it would cause anyone to get off their ass and get a job and be a responsible person so they could vote again?
Click to expand...

No...but the likely outcome is the people voting are like minded and eventually vote the people in that they want, who usually aren't the same kinds of politicians to keep feeding the folks with their hands out. If nothing is filling those hands and you start getting hungry...that's pretty good motivation.
 
Here's the only rub (at least for me). I am a stay-at-home dad by choice currently. I have been approached by Smart Start and they have indicated that there is free tax-payer paid day care that I can put my son in so I can go back to work if I want to. The main reason that I don't take them up on that offer is that in Fall of 2015, my son will start Kindergarten and between now and then, I want to be his primary influence and not some outside person whom I don't know. Sure, there are some really good folks at some of these day cares, but at the end of the day, I know exactly what has been told and introduced to my child.

Now, my wife works and she brings home a decent income that allows me to do this, so I am in a special circumstance, but as I'm finding out, it's not as uncommon anymore as I once thought. More and more people are choosing to stay home and go back to the traditional one income family. Would I no longer be allowed to vote under that law?

Now, the real kicker comes in that we are at a tax bracket with her income that if she works 30 hours a week (her normal work schedule), she makes a certain level of income and is taxed such that we end up getting money back at the end of the year even with her deductions being as high as they can go. If she works MORE than the 30 hours, her paycheck is actually less because it shifts her into a higher tax bracket where they take out a substantial amount more in taxes. She has already had more taxes deducted this year (2014) than she did in the entire year of 2013, simply because her case load is higher. Irony at it's finest. Used to be "Work hard, play harder" - now it's "Work harder, pay more".
 
ManglerYJ said:
Here's the only rub (at least for me). I am a stay-at-home dad by choice currently. I have been approached by Smart Start and they have indicated that there is free tax-payer paid day care that I can put my son in so I can go back to work if I want to. The main reason that I don't take them up on that offer is that in Fall of 2015, my son will start Kindergarten and between now and then, I want to be his primary influence and not some outside person whom I don't know. Sure, there are some really good folks at some of these day cares, but at the end of the day, I know exactly what has been told and introduced to my child.

Now, my wife works and she brings home a decent income that allows me to do this, so I am in a special circumstance, but as I'm finding out, it's not as uncommon anymore as I once thought. More and more people are choosing to stay home and go back to the traditional one income family. Would I no longer be allowed to vote under that law?

Now, the real kicker comes in that we are at a tax bracket with her income that if she works 30 hours a week (her normal work schedule), she makes a certain level of income and is taxed such that we end up getting money back at the end of the year even with her deductions being as high as they can go. If she works MORE than the 30 hours, her paycheck is actually less because it shifts her into a higher tax bracket where they take out a substantial amount more in taxes. She has already had more taxes deducted this year (2014) than she did in the entire year of 2013, simply because her case load is higher. Irony at it's finest. Used to be "Work hard, play harder" - now it's "Work harder, pay more".
Click to expand...

If you went back to work why would you need a tax payer funded anything?Correct me if I am wrong but I thought Smart Start was for low income families? Also if you make more shouldn't you be taxed accordingly? Getting a refund is like loaning the Gov't money at no interest and I'm willing to be you get money back because you dont work and she can claim head of household as a tax credit.
 
ManglerYJ said:
Here's the only rub (at least for me). I am a stay-at-home dad by choice currently. I have been approached by Smart Start and they have indicated that there is free tax-payer paid day care that I can put my son in so I can go back to work if I want to. The main reason that I don't take them up on that offer is that in Fall of 2015, my son will start Kindergarten and between now and then, I want to be his primary influence and not some outside person whom I don't know. Sure, there are some really good folks at some of these day cares, but at the end of the day, I know exactly what has been told and introduced to my child.

Now, my wife works and she brings home a decent income that allows me to do this, so I am in a special circumstance, but as I'm finding out, it's not as uncommon anymore as I once thought. More and more people are choosing to stay home and go back to the traditional one income family. Would I no longer be allowed to vote under that law?

Now, the real kicker comes in that we are at a tax bracket with her income that if she works 30 hours a week (her normal work schedule), she makes a certain level of income and is taxed such that we end up getting money back at the end of the year even with her deductions being as high as they can go. If she works MORE than the 30 hours, her paycheck is actually less because it shifts her into a higher tax bracket where they take out a substantial amount more in taxes. She has already had more taxes deducted this year (2014) than she did in the entire year of 2013, simply because her case load is higher. Irony at it's finest. Used to be "Work hard, play harder" - now it's "Work harder, pay more".
Click to expand...


Not to dispute what you are saying...but it is damn near factually impossible with the US tax code. (I said damn near and I'll explain)
For simplicity's sake (I dont feel like looking up the actual brackets)

Lets say the tax brackets are
0-10,000 0%
10,001-35,000 10%
35,001-60,000 20%
60,001-100,000 30%

(These arent right..but just for example)

If you made 100k the first 35k is taxed at 10% and you owe $3,500 on that.
Then the next $25k is taxed at 20% and you owe $5,000 on that.
The final $40k is taxed at 30% and you owe $12,000 on that.

For a total tax burden of $20,500.

The brackets are not retro grade ...I.E if you make $60,001 the first $60k isnt taxed at the 30% rate only that last $1.


Now for the damn near...
There are certain "credits" (Earned income credit and child care credit) immediately come to mind. These are given up to an exact dollar amount. Beyond that they drop off either partially or in full. So it is possible if you were right up to the line you could see a reduction in year end if you passed that credit threshold. These thresholds are NOT calculated in with holdings...hence why they are credits. So you should see no difference in your pay checks.
 
1960011_10201668988231926_1263024188_n.jpg
 
jeepmedic said:
If you went back to work why would you need a tax payer funded anything?Correct me if I am wrong but I thought Smart Start was for low income families? Also if you make more shouldn't you be taxed accordingly? Getting a refund is like loaning the Gov't money at no interest and I'm willing to be you get money back because you dont work and she can claim head of household as a tax credit.
Click to expand...


I also agree with being taxed accordingly if you make more. But, at the threshold that she is at, when she works say 33 hours, her paycheck is LESS than if she works 30 hours. This disincentivises (is that a word?) working longer. If you are going to get paid less for 33 hours of work than you do for 30 hours, most logical people would say screw working those 3 hours. She unfortunately can't due to her patient load.

Yes, the idea of Smart Start is for low income families. Again, we are just at the threshold of being considered low income. We qualify for reduced lunch at school, but we don't qualify for food stamps. We have someone from school readiness (some kind of Smart Start off-shoot) come to see my son twice a month. We aren't on welfare, WIC, cash for clowns, Medicaid, Medicare, Farm Aid, Band Aid or Roll Aids and we don't have an Obama phone. We are just normal people that believe in working hard and getting paid for it. Any and all income I make on the side be it a large check or a $20 bill paid by a customer of mine that comes from their cash drawer gets reported on taxes. So technically, I am employed - just self-employed, but since my individual income from building an occasional website is FAR less than $5000/year, I'm not a real contributor to society and my voice in an election is moot.
 
I'm all for REASONABLE benefits (welfare) for those who REALLY need it. My problem is the peeps who DO NOT need it, but steal from the gubmnt and all taxpayers by abusing the system. EBT cards and food stamps are prime examples. EBT cards can be used to buy things that are traded for anything the holder wants, drugs, booze, etc. A friend was pumping gas and had a white girl ask him if he would pay for some gas if she gave him some food stamps worth more than the gas and he said she looked like a strung out coke/meth head and a mother. There is a push to require drug testing for welfare receivers right now, but the usual suspects are crying foul on that. It seems like a reasonable idea to me and would no doubt stop alot of the abuse of welfare and possibly change some peeps lives for the better. It may not be popular and would take hard work and choices, but the welfare program needs to be revised and made more sustainable/efficient.
 
Please explain how she makes less by working more. If she earns an hourly wage wouldnt that be impossible unless those extra 156 hours a year put her in another tax bracket?
tax.png
 
Last edited:
Ron said:
Not to dispute what you are saying...but it is damn near factually impossible with the US tax code. (I said damn near and I'll explain)

Now for the damn near...
There are certain "credits" (Earned income credit and child care credit) immediately come to mind. These are given up to an exact dollar amount. Beyond that they drop off either partially or in full. So it is possible if you were right up to the line you could see a reduction in year end if you passed that credit threshold. These thresholds are NOT calculated in with holdings...hence why they are credits. So you should see no difference in your pay checks.
Click to expand...


Apparently we fall in the damn near category because I'm looking at two of my wife's pay stubs. She is paid every other week. The first check is for a total of 62 hours and it is for $2155.23. The second is for 69.25 hours (of which 6.5 of them were on snow-plan in which she gets an additional dollar an hour). That check was for $2275.41. So, while it is not less than the first check, 7 and a quarter hours worked out to $120.18 of which $6.50 was snow plan money. That works out to $17.16 an hour for those 7 hours when her normal pay rate is 34.65 an hour. Does that seem fair?
 
ManglerYJ said:
Apparently we fall in the damn near category because I'm looking at two of my wife's pay stubs. She is paid every other week. The first check is for a total of 62 hours and it is for $2155.23. The second is for 69.25 hours (of which 6.5 of them were on snow-plan in which she gets an additional dollar an hour). That check was for $2275.41. So, while it is not less than the first check, 7 and a quarter hours worked out to $120.18 of which $6.50 was snow plan money. That works out to $17.16 an hour for those 7 hours when her normal pay rate is 34.65 an hour. Does that seem fair?
Click to expand...


Now you are proving my point. I didnt say it was "fair" or "right"...just that the popular "we work more and make less" line isnt accuate.

So you work more hours and KEEP a smaller % of your income.
That is a progressive tax at work.

I dont agree with the progressive tax system, but you are seeing it in action. Your numbers fit perfectly with what is posted above.

See my next post for a break down
 
Ron said:
Now you are proving my point. I didnt say it was "fair" or "right"...just that the popular "we work more and make less" line isnt accuate.

So you work more hours and KEEP a smaller % of your income.
That is a progressive tax at work.

I dont agree with the progressive tax system, but you are seeing it in action. Your numbers fit perfectly with what is posted above.

See my next post for a break down
Click to expand...

Wait..wuh.. what?!?!

On one hand you are saying it's factually impossible for her to work more and earn less and on the other hand you said, I just proved your point and it's not fair, just the progressive tax system at work?!?!?! So did I prove your point, or did you prove mine?
 
From Medic's numbers above (assuming they are right and assuming you are married filing jointly and assuming these are every 2 week paychecks and we arent talkign about 69 hour single work weeks)

The first $17,850 of income is taxed at 10%.

That works out to $686 per check.

From $17,851-$72,500 is taxed at 15% (that is a 50% nominal increase in taxation rate)
So you paid $68.60 in taxes on the first $686 yet you pay $103 in taxes on the second $686

Her hourly rate, or weather conditions do not factor into the tax rate.

She made $120 extra for working an extra 7.25 hours
 
ManglerYJ said:
Wait..wuh.. what?!?!

On one hand you are saying it's factually impossible for her to work more and earn less and on the other hand you said, I just proved your point and it's not fair, just the progressive tax system at work?!?!?! So did I prove your point, or did you prove mine?
Click to expand...


SHE DIDNT EARN LESS. SHE KEPT A SMALLER PERCENTAGE OF HER EARNINGS.

Working more and earning less would mean her actual paycheck DECREASED.
 
Back
Top