Cry me a river

[the_idle_threat]

Excerpted from JSO. (Full article here: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=713961)


"I feel middle class. I wouldn't say I was affluent," said Eric Olsen, a human resources professional whose wife stays home with their four children, all under 11. His adjusted gross income was about $143,000 in 2006, much of it from investments. The rebate plan passed by the House would start to phase out checks when a family's adjusted gross income hits $150,000.

The Felerski family had about the same income last year. He is a self-employed manufacturers' representative and she is a medical technician. They have two young children.

"I don't feel we are rich by any means," Matthew Felerski said. "I consider us to be middle income, just working-class people."

Cry me a river, folks. Tell me about how "middle class" you feel when you take home, after taxes, four or five times as much as most of my neighbors here in Milwaukee. On a single income, no less, in the first case.

Suck it up. Maybe you would be happier if your family income was closer to Wisconsin's median---about $60K according to the article. Then you wouldn't have to pay all those awful taxes. Doesn't matter how much people have ... there's always reason to complain about not havng enough.

And the funny thing is, these folks will still fall into the group that gets the tax "rebate," according to the article, and both families admit that they don't plan to spend the money.

[GrnBay007]

both families admit that they don't plan to spend the money.


I see the majority of the tax rebate money being thrown into the economy by the people that probably should be spending the money somewhere else.

I will put mine toward my daughter's braces. Some will say that is putting money into the economy but fact is it would have been paid anyway....just a break for me. My above statement is directed toward people that have debt, yet will go out and spend the money foolishly.

[Jimx29]

what's most annoying is the way it's being hailed as a "tax rebate", when if fact it's not even close to that. It's gift that will end up being taxed.....

[the_idle_threat]

But the gov't wants people to spend the money "foolishly." This is why it's more accurately a remittance rather than a rebate: they want it spent on consumer goods rather than dropped into a savings or investment account or used to pay off debts, so they're giving it to people who are most likely---by need or simply by habit---to go out and blow it, and therefore stimulate consumer spending.

[GrnBay007]

But the gov't wants people to spend the money "foolishly." This is why it's more accurately a remittance rather than a rebate: they want it spent on consumer goods rather than dropped into a savings or investment account or used to pay off debts, so they're giving it to people who are most likely---by need or simply by habit---to go out and blow it, and therefore stimulate consumer spending.

Yes, and that's the sad part. It's like they are taking advantage of the people with no self control...that really should be putting the money toward good use.

[the_idle_threat]

But the gov't wants people to spend the money "foolishly." This is why it's more accurately a remittance rather than a rebate: they want it spent on consumer goods rather than dropped into a savings or investment account or used to pay off debts, so they're giving it to people who are most likely---by need or simply by habit---to go out and blow it, and therefore stimulate consumer spending.

Yes, and that's the sad part. It's like they are taking advantage of the people with no self control...that really should be putting the money toward good use.

I guess I have to disagree with this, because I can't reconcile the ideas of being given free money and being taken advantage of. Many of the recipients of this remittance are receiving a tax "rebate" in addition to a full refund of all taxes withheld during the year, if any were withheld at all. From their POV, it's a gift---same thing as being handed 600 bucks by someone on the street.

If anyone could claim to be taken advantage of, it's the folks who make so much money that they pay the government to give this "rebate" to others who don't pay taxes, while getting no rebate themselves. And although that is true, my point above is that these folks should take a step back and look at the big picture before bitching about what turns out to be such a minor wrong in their world.

[GrnBay007]

But the gov't wants people to spend the money "foolishly." This is why it's more accurately a remittance rather than a rebate: they want it spent on consumer goods rather than dropped into a savings or investment account or used to pay off debts, so they're giving it to people who are most likely---by need or simply by habit---to go out and blow it, and therefore stimulate consumer spending.

Yes, and that's the sad part. It's like they are taking advantage of the people with no self control...that really should be putting the money toward good use.

I guess I have to disagree with this, because I can't reconcile the ideas of being given free money and being taken advantage of. Many of the recipients of this remittance are receiving a tax "rebate" in addition to a full refund of all taxes withheld during the year, if any were withheld at all. From their POV, it's a gift---same thing as being handed 600 bucks by someone on the street.

If anyone could claim to be taken advantage of, it's the folks who make so much money that they pay the government to give this "rebate" to others who don't pay taxes, while getting no rebate themselves. And although that is true, my point above is that these folks should take a step back and look at the big picture before bitching about what turns out to be such a minor wrong in their world.

I agree with your overall opinion. What I am talking about are the people that owe money, possibly on welfare but worked enough hours throughout the year to qualify, basically people that take advantage of the "system" that rather then do something responsible with the money they will go out and blow it on Nike baby shoes or designer clothes for themselves when they would never purchase those things if they had to earn the money for it themselves. Not that spending the money on those things is bad if you don't owe elsewhere.....but so much of this tax rebate that actually does get thrown back into the economy will probably be from those that really should be putting the money elsewhere. I think the Government realizes that.

[Kiwon]

Recipients could act like the Katrina folks did and use the funds for jewelry, liquor, breast enlargements, and for lap dances.

That would stimulate..........uh, the economy.

[the_idle_threat]

You see, that's what the government wants. Consumer spending. 8-)

[pacfan]

But the gov't wants people to spend the money "foolishly." This is why it's more accurately a remittance rather than a rebate: they want it spent on consumer goods rather than dropped into a savings or investment account or used to pay off debts, so they're giving it to people who are most likely---by need or simply by habit---to go out and blow it, and therefore stimulate consumer spending.

Yes, and that's the sad part. It's like they are taking advantage of the people with no self control...that really should be putting the money toward good use.

I guess I have to disagree with this, because I can't reconcile the ideas of being given free money and being taken advantage of. Many of the recipients of this remittance are receiving a tax "rebate" in addition to a full refund of all taxes withheld during the year, if any were withheld at all. From their POV, it's a gift---same thing as being handed 600 bucks by someone on the street.

If anyone could claim to be taken advantage of, it's the folks who make so much money that they pay the government to give this "rebate" to others who don't pay taxes, while getting no rebate themselves. And although that is true, my point above is that these folks should take a step back and look at the big picture before bitching about what turns out to be such a minor wrong in their world.

I agree with your overall opinion. What I am talking about are the people that owe money, possibly on welfare but worked enough hours throughout the year to qualify, basically people that take advantage of the "system" that rather then do something responsible with the money they will go out and blow it on Nike baby shoes or designer clothes for themselves when they would never purchase those things if they had to earn the money for it themselves. Not that spending the money on those things is bad if you don't owe elsewhere.....but so much of this tax rebate that actually does get thrown back into the economy will probably be from those that really should be putting the money elsewhere. I think the Government realizes that.

I think this than safely desricbe the sub-prime mortgage crisis as well. People spending outside their means can't be limited to poor people. The "middle-class" folks, who "earn their money", borrow/spend more than they can afford. Foreclosures are a contributor to the possible recession.

I agree, if you can't afford it, then don't spend it.

[Fosco33]

I've always had a problem with taxes. The actual expenditures of taxes (social services, etc) seem to be used MORE by people who pay LESS into the system. I'm at an age where I don't expect to see a dime from the gov't for Medicare or SS - but I pay plenty into these systems yearly. I'll never use Medi-Cal - but I pay into that system. Since I work in lots of states around the county - I pay into taxes for the 'community benefit' - even though I don't live there!

As a salaried employee, I work tons of hours - I earn my paychecks. In fact there were years where I could have made more working an hourly retail job instead! But instead - I went (and paid) for a university education, took a job that was thankless for years until I moved up the ranks and made a living. But in CA, my 'WI adjusted' salary is right at the average. So tell me why I should pay more for people who use more, work less and I'll go along with it...

Fiscal responsibility is everyone's job - not just the gov't.

I want a fair use system - taxation based on utilization! And I want my money for my family first - then yours. That's why we're in a capitalist republic. And my opinion is just as valid as yours - and the people who you ask, 'cry me a river' have that same right, as well.

[Scott Campbell]

:bclap: :bclap: :bclap:

[hoosier]

Fiscal responsibility is everyone's job - not just the gov't.

I want a fair use system - taxation based on utilization! And I want my money for my family first - then yours. That's why we're in a capitalist republic. And my opinion is just as valid as yours - and the people who you ask, 'cry me a river' have that same right, as well.

Just curious...would "fair use" hold for ALL of the goods and services subsidized by the federal government, including transportation (roads, highways, air), telecommunications, corporations (Walmart, corporate farms, etc.), and so on, or would it just apply to the stuff used disproporationately by the poor?

[Fosco33]

Fiscal responsibility is everyone's job - not just the gov't.

I want a fair use system - taxation based on utilization! And I want my money for my family first - then yours. That's why we're in a capitalist republic. And my opinion is just as valid as yours - and the people who you ask, 'cry me a river' have that same right, as well.

Just curious...would "fair use" hold for ALL of the goods and services subsidized by the federal government, including transportation (roads, highways, air), telecommunications, corporations (Walmart, corporate farms, etc.), and so on, or would it just apply to the stuff used disproporationately by the poor?

All

[Scott Campbell]

I'm with Fosco33. Our current tax structure rewards laziness and underachievement. It's not a good situation - even for those milking the system.

[hoosier]

I'm with Fosco33. Our current tax structure rewards laziness and underachievement. It's not a good situation - even for those milking the system.

Our current tax structure also rewards corporate fatcats (who may or may not be lazy, I have no idea) by giving them preferential treatment. It also favors our car culture by subsidizing roads, highways and gasoline. It's hard to judge who's milking the system and who isn't when people only talk about "entitlement" programs and ignore the fact that income is also affected by government subsidization, and the higher income brackets much more so than the lower. In other words, redistribution doesn't just happen after taxes, it's already happening as soon you or I earn a buck.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Yes, and that's the sad part. It's like they are taking advantage of the people with no self control...that really should be putting the money toward good use.

The rebate is not being sent out for the benefit of the individuals receiving them. It is strictly a device to stimulate the economy.
It doesn't have anything to do with taxes. It isn't supposed to be fair.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm with Fosco33. Our current tax structure rewards laziness and underachievement. It's not a good situation - even for those milking the system.

How does laziness & underachievment get rewarded? This is a bizarre statement, not sure what this means. Do you think the people making $12/hour at home depot are lazy, or scamming the system? Specifically who is getting away with laziness?

The biggest injustice in the whole system is the capital gains tax rate. People who make their income from investment pay a lower tax rate than people who earn their income from wages. And no social security taxes are deducted from capital gains!

[Harlan Huckleby]

I want a fair use system - taxation based on utilization! And I want my money for my family first - then yours. That's why we're in a capitalist republic.

Please elaborate on how this would work. This makes no sense to me. One of the biggest federal expenses, if not THE biggest, is Medicare. Are you going to people people for Medicare? By definition, they are old or disabled, that's the purpose of Medicare

[Fosco33]

I'm with Fosco33. Our current tax structure rewards laziness and underachievement. It's not a good situation - even for those milking the system.

Our current tax structure also rewards corporate fatcats (who may or may not be lazy, I have no idea) by giving them preferential treatment. It also favors our car culture by subsidizing roads, highways and gasoline. It's hard to judge who's milking the system and who isn't when people only talk about "entitlement" programs and ignore the fact that income is also affected by government subsidization, and the higher income brackets much more so than the lower. In other words, redistribution doesn't just happen after taxes, it's already happening as soon you or I earn a buck.

I hate corporate tax shelters and these parent companies hiding money in foreign interests.

The gas tax subsidies most of the cost of transportation - although I'd favor revisiting the flat rates for a mileage/miles per gallon use.

I don't agree with the concept of redistribution per se. Yes, society needs to take care of the poor/elderly/sick to some degree. But I think some social programs need to go (or be better managed from a fiscal standpoint).

[Fosco33]

I want a fair use system - taxation based on utilization! And I want my money for my family first - then yours. That's why we're in a capitalist republic.

Please elaborate on how this would work. This makes no sense to me. One of the biggest federal expenses, if not THE biggest, is Medicare. Are you going to people people for Medicare? By definition, they are old or disabled, that's the purpose of Medicare

Social Security and Defense spending were bigger expenditures than Medicare ($440B in '07 vs $260B in '02).

We pay 2.9% of our salary into Medicare (50/50 employee/company - or 100% for entrepreneurs). That 1.45% isn't just 'given away' by business - and based on the company (relative elasticity of supply/demand) - those costs are passed on to consumers (in terms of cost of goods).

By fair use - I mean analyzing things like the following:
1. Property tax for education - huge disparity based on simple geography
2. Gas tax - using miles driven/MPG to pay for transportation (just as I use planes as my primary means of travel - I pay specifically for security/fuel based on usage).
3. Social Security - (e.g., I give away 7.65% of my salary and won't see a dime!). Why can't the gov't let me save for my own retirement - and let me fail/die if I'm not responsible enough to plan for the future?
4. Paying more as a single man w/o children than a married man with two kids (which situation do you think uses more social service) - the US has one of the largest disparities in this regard in the world! So we incent people to have more kids, why? So there's more working people to pay for social programs for those that came before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)

Medicare faces continuing financial issues. In its 2006 annual report to Congress, the Medicare Board of Trustees reported that the program's hospital insurance trust fund could run out of money by 2018.

The fundamental problem is that the ratio of workers paying Medicare taxes to retirees drawing benefits is shrinking at the same time that the price of health care services per person is increasing. Currently there are 3.9 workers paying taxes into Medicare for every older American receiving services. By 2030, as the baby boom generation retires, that is projected to drop to 2.4 workers for each beneficiary. Medicare spending is expected to grow by about 7 percent per year for the next 10 years. As a result, the financing of the program is out of actuarial balance, presenting serious challenges in both the short-term and long-term.

Part of the cost of Medicare is fraud, which government auditors estimate costs Medicare billions of dollars a year. The GAO lists Medicare as a "high-risk" government program in need of reform, in part because of its vulnerability to fraud and partly because of its long-term financial problems

[Harlan Huckleby]

I am just confused about what you are advocating. You mention property tax - you want to eliminate them? Social Security - OK, you want to opt out. You don't want people to have tax deductions for kids?? OK, a very simple tax system would be a good idea. I have no idea what you are getting at with Medicare.

I think you're just mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore!

[Fosco33]

I am just confused about what you are advocating. You mention property tax - you want to eliminate them? Social Security - OK, you want to opt out. You don't want people to have tax deductions for kids?? OK, a very simple tax system would be a good idea. I have no idea what you are getting at with Medicare.

I think you're just mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore!

Yeup :lol:

The system is way too complex - but that's a truism.

DME Medicare is run (that's medical equipment) is run my the major insurance carriers. I think A/B and maybe C should follow suit. And while Medicare has low admin costs - it needs to be overhauled for fraud and misuse. I'd have to write a 100 pages about it...

As far as property tax - I'm against being taxed for owning land year over year (yes - some state/local/federal tax is needed for fire/police/military - but it needs a limit). I grew up pretty poor - parents sacrificed a lot to send me to private school. But we basically had to pay twice for elementary education. I don't like the fact that kids in downtown Milwaukee and kids in Nicolet area (very close geographically) have such a disparity in opportunity. I think education needs to be privately managed and equally distributed. To pay into the system - I'd take monies being put into other gov't programs.

[Harlan Huckleby]

ya, I agree that paying for schools with local property taxes is nuts. Also, I don't mind school choice, but we do have to keep a commitment to public education. its one of the last shreds that hold the social fabric together.

[the_idle_threat]

And my opinion is just as valid as yours - and the people who you ask, 'cry me a river' have that same right, as well

Fair enough.

Your opinion that you pay too much taxes is just as valid as my opinion that you bitch too much about it as if you're living some kind of hardship, when in fact you're failing to see the big picture that it's a good problem to have.

I can agree with that.