The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

[geezer]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Last week, Mayor Bloomberg was quoted as saying that the taxes from 5,000 families supply 30% of NYC revenue. You have a relatively tiny amount of multi-millionaires supporting a very wide pool of people receiving benefits; and in some cases the benefits are absolutely absurd. There is something like 300 people receiving six-figure pensions merely because they gamed the overtime system right before they retired; there is a major prosecution underway for railroad workers who "retired" on "disability" pensions who show no evidence of disability (one of them competes regularly in triathlons, for example).

New York is really schizophrenic when it comes to the really rich and the really rich benefit packages. It's not safe to make too many generalities.

George Steinbrenner's death alone might have raised $500 million in taxes had there been an estate tax in 2010....while in aggregate it might look like NY pays more than they get; it is probably more realistic to say that a few neighborhoods in Manhattan and Brooklyn pay more than they get while the rest of the state gets more than they pay.

This is exactly the point that is always overlooked by those pushing for a one-size-fits-all central planning approach to the federal budget. The easy-peasy 102% plan the liberals always push for rests entirely on the wrongheaded assumption that every single person in each state makes the same income. Obviously it's not the case. In Michigan, for example, Detroit and its suburbs are worlds apart, economically. Sure, Detroit has most of the state's population and is a big suck-hole of federal dollars collectively. But the suburbs have nothing in common with the city. To lump the whole state into one economic status is mind-bogglingly stupid.

 

[GopherBigGuy911]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/06/why-is-this-video-on-wealth-inequality-from-2012-going-viral/ This is a very interesting video. but it fails to note that income and wealth ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Wealth comes from land and goods owned and things accrued through generations of work. I am a conservative and I believe that business owners should be able to make as much money as they want to. But, I also believe that CEO's and executives of traded companies should only be able to make 10x's their companies average wage/salary. If they want to earn more, then they need to raise that average wage/salary.

 

[Rover]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Usually I charge for my consulting services, so you righties ought to be grateful. Funny how attitudes about self-reliance change when its you taking it in the shorts because of a shift in policy. If we had a situation where about half the Romney states were net donors, and only 1 Obama state was, do you suppose we'd maybe be hearing about this in the right wing press about, oh I don't know...once a hour I figure. Yet when 1 out of 24 conservative states that voted Mittens is paying their fair share there's nothing to see here? Oookaayyyy

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/06/why-is-this-video-on-wealth-inequality-from-2012-going-viral/ This is a very interesting video. but it fails to note that income and wealth ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Wealth comes from land and goods owned and things accrued through generations of work. I am a conservative and I believe that business owners should be able to make as much money as they want to. But, I also believe that CEO's and executives of traded companies should only be able to make 10x's their companies average wage/salary. If they want to earn more, then they need to raise that average wage/salary.

While I think most of us can agree that CEOs make way more than any of us can conceive of them being worth, the 10x thing will never work because they will get what the going rate is through better benefits (stock options, better health care, free use of transportation, etc) without needing to get actual wages. That has been proven time and time again.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

While I think most of us can agree that CEOs make way more than any of us can conceive of them being worth, the 10x thing will never work because they will get what the going rate is through better benefits (stock options, better health care, free use of transportation, etc) without needing to get actual wages. That has been proven time and time again.

Not only that, but the Sarbanes - Oxley Act in 2002 effectively required it to be that way.* Another unintended consequence of a law doing exactly the opposite in practice of what it was supposed to do in theory.







* Compensation in excess of $1 million annually must be "incentive-based" or else it is not deductible. IRC Section 162(m).

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Usually I charge for my consulting services, so you righties ought to be grateful. Funny how attitudes about self-reliance change when its you taking it in the shorts because of a shift in policy. If we had a situation where about half the Romney states were net donors, and only 1 Obama state was, do you suppose we'd maybe be hearing about this in the right wing press about, oh I don't know...once a hour I figure. Yet when 1 out of 24 conservative states that voted Mittens is paying their fair share there's nothing to see here? Oookaayyyy

What is your source on this? The only think I found on expenditures was from 2004, seems awfully old to be using the Obama vs Romney states. I have taxes collected from 2011 but no idea where to find expenditures for 2011, and exam the disparity more.

The jist of the 2004 article I read was that the reason all these "blue states" pay more than they get back is because people get paid more in major metropolitan areas because cost of living is higher and therefore are more likely to fall into higher tax brackets. So the reason that blue states are more likely to be on the negative side of the ratio is because they collect too many taxes there, not that too much money is spent. If we flattened income taxes, the revenue to expenditures in each state would balance out more...

 

[unofan]

Last week, Mayor Bloomberg was quoted as saying that the taxes from 5,000 families supply 30% of NYC revenue. You have a relatively tiny amount of multi-millionaires supporting a very wide pool of people receiving benefits; and in some cases the benefits are absolutely absurd. There is something like 300 people receiving six-figure pensions merely because they gamed the overtime system right before they retired; there is a major prosecution underway for railroad workers who "retired" on "disability" pensions who show no evidence of disability (one of them competes regularly in triathlons, for example).

New York is really schizophrenic when it comes to the really rich and the really rich benefit packages. It's not safe to make too many generalities.

George Steinbrenner's death alone might have raised $500 million in taxes had there been an estate tax in 2010....while in aggregate it might look like NY pays more than they get; it is probably more realistic to say that a few neighborhoods in Manhattan and Brooklyn pay more than they get while the rest of the state gets more than they pay.

Without knowing specifics of what railroad workers you're talking about, you do know that most railroad employees have their own pension system that was grandfathered in, and they neither contribute to or collect social security, right? So why should we care about that in this particular discussion when it is likely there's no public money involved?

And as for your main point, how much income do those 5k families bring in comparatively? I'm betting it's close to or more than 30%.

 

[geezer]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

most railroad employees have their own pension system that was grandfathered in, and they neither contribute to or collect social security

honest? I didn't know that was an option for companies.

Let's try a simple thought experiment to check if you libs' "fairness doctrine" will be worthy of Marx: You want every state to get back exactly what they pay in total, right? Then why not give every individual back exactly what they put in; it's the same concept but refined. Now once we're there, there's no point in having an income tax at all; just let everyone keep what they earn tax-free in the first place, without having to send it back and forth! Problem solved! Bet you love that idea right lefties? (*cut to a liberal reading the geezer Plan in his mom's basement, scratches head, eyes widen, screams in dismay as the realization hits*)

 

[GopherBigGuy911]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

While I think most of us can agree that CEOs make way more than any of us can conceive of them being worth, the 10x thing will never work because they will get what the going rate is through better benefits (stock options, better health care, free use of transportation, etc) without needing to get actual wages. That has been proven time and time again.

Use of transportation is a verified cost of business. As long as the corporate jets are used for business purposes I am good with it, but I would do away with the stock options and better health care, unless it was available to all "employees". I know Walgreen's offers all F-T employees stock options.

 

[unofan]

honest? I didn't know that was an option for companies.

It's generally not. Railroads are a special case. There are a few other random systems out there, though. Some teacher's unions that had preexisting pension systems are exempt from social security, too. There might be a few others out there, but I don't know for sure.

 

[GopherBigGuy911]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

It's generally not. Railroads are a special case. There are a few other random systems out there, though. Some teacher's unions that had preexisting pension systems are exempt from social security, too. There might be a few others out there, but I don't know for sure.

Railroads are pretty much their own governmental entity. They are subject to no one but the feds.

 

[unofan]

Railroads are pretty much their own governmental entity. They are subject to no one but the feds.

My understanding is its run by the feds in a quasi-public system, but its supported entirely by their own paychecks and matching contribitions just like any other company pension. So if there was fraud, the only people being screwed are other railroad workers, not the general taxpayers.

 

[GopherBigGuy911]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

My understanding is its run by the feds in a quasi-public system, but its supported entirely by their own paychecks and matching contribitions just like any other company pension. So if there was fraud, the only people being screwed are other railroad workers, not the general taxpayers.

That is correct.

 

[Rover]

Then why not give every individual back exactly what they put in; it's the same concept but refined. Now once we're there, there's no point in having an income tax at all; just let everyone keep what they earn tax-free in the first place, without having to send it back and forth! Problem solved! Bet you love that idea right lefties? (*cut to a liberal reading the geezer Plan in his mom's basement, scratches head, eyes widen, screams in dismay as the realization hits*)

As I make more money than the average person, sure, but the only problem is how to you parse out law enforcement for example? While we could all arm ourselves we'd still need to investigate crime, maintain jails, etc. Under the state's contribution is capped at say 101% of what it gets back rule, you don't run into the problems your plan does, but you still fund a functioning society. Essentually things that are a collective responsibility (national defense for example) have to be fairly distributed (shipbuilding in Maine, Air Force in CO, Army in NY, etc etc). Not sure how what you're advocating accomplishes that.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Rover, based on 2009 data from http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/ only 4 states don't get back what they pay in and a 5th state gets back what it pays in.
Based on taxes collected and Federal Government Expenditures from the above link here are the "return on investment"

Delaware $0.59
Minnesota $0.68
New Jersey $0.78
Connecticut $0.95
Illinois $1.00
New York $1.01
Nebraska $1.02
Ohio $1.04
Rhode Island $1.06
Arkansas $1.06
Texas $1.13
Massachusetts $1.20
Colorado $1.24
Pennsylvania $1.27
California $1.31
North Carolina $1.34
New Hampshire $1.36
Nevada $1.37
Washington $1.37
Louisiana $1.39
Georgia $1.41
Utah $1.45
Indiana $1.45
Missouri $1.53
Oklahoma $1.54
Oregon $1.55
Tennessee $1.56
Wisconsin $1.59
Florida $1.59
Michigan $1.64
Wyoming $1.66
Iowa $1.67
Kansas $1.70
South Dakota $1.94
Arizona $1.94
Maryland $2.07
Vermont $2.09
North Dakota $2.10
Kentucky $2.15
Idaho $2.16
Maine $2.33
District of Columbia $2.56
South Carolina $2.63
Virginia $2.66
Montana $2.66
Alabama $2.72
Alaska $3.02
West Virginia $3.14
New Mexico $3.35
Mississippi $3.42
Hawaii $3.67

 

[Rover]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

On point from 2011 over last 20 years from The Economist based on Census data:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union


And from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

The good news is three more red states make the cut joining TX. They are GA, NE, and AR (?). Bad news for you is a lot more blue states make the cut! Its like 14 to 4. That means well over 50% of Obama states are paying their own weight (based on a 26 state victory) while 20% of Romney states are. Yikes.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Railroads are pretty much their own governmental entity. They are subject to no one but the feds.

Not necessarily. You are probably right when it comes to commercial railroads; for commuter railroads they generally are run by a state agency or a multi-state agency and their budgets often come from the state DOTs (who in turn might get some money from the feds).

It is usually a nasty cesspool of incestuous kickbacks and blatant corruption from what I've been able to discern.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

On point from 2011 over last 20 years from The Economist based on Census data:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union


And from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

so based on those two sources where did you come up with Texas as the only red state not getting its money back?

economist says that Nebraska, Texas, Georgia and Arkansas all pay in more (1990-2009)
wikipedia says that Nebraska, Texas, Arkansa, North Carolina and Georgia all pay in more (2007)

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

On point from 2011 over last 20 years from The Economist based on Census data:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union


And from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

The good news is three more red states make the cut joining TX. They are GA, NE, and AR (?). Bad news for you is a lot more blue states make the cut! Its like 14 to 4. That means well over 50% of Obama states are paying their own weight (based on a 26 state victory) while 20% of Romney states are. Yikes.

So using the economist stats (19 years of data), you want to claim red/blue based on a 2012 election. That makes so much sense. Not to mention you were previously spouting a lie, but who cares about facts now that I've actually dug into the matter.

 

[Rover]

so based on those two sources where did you come up with Texas as the only red state not getting its money back?

economist says that Nebraska, Texas, Georgia and Arkansas all pay in more (1990-2009)
wikipedia says that Nebraska, Texas, Arkansa, North Carolina and Georgia all pay in more (2007)

That was from a link I posted last year. It had 13 states (approx) as being net contributors. However, as this is more recent and frankly I like the 20 year trend better than a one year snapshot, I'll extend my apologies to the states I left out on both sides of the aisle. Bottom line remains the same however. There is a massive wealth tranfer going on, but its not necessarily wealthy to poor, its successful states to unsuccessful ones.