jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (63 posts)

How much should we keep?

  1. Reality Bytes profile image92
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    This question was asked during the last debate.  No one answered it.

    What percentage of a workers income should the worker be allowed to keep?  What is a fair share?

    50%, 60%  what do you think?

    The question was asked in dollars, I have rephrased it because I am interested in those outside of the U.S. as well.

    1. TMMason profile image72
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The Govt can have 10% period.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image92
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for the reply.  10% sounds fair at the Federal level.  Of course the State of residence may also want to wet their whistle.

        1. TMMason profile image72
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          They can argue about how they want to divy it up... 10% is the max they get.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Tsk tsk tsk - the right answer is:

        "He earned the money, he gets to choose how to spend it. And if he wishes to tithe to "the government" he can, but if he chooses not to, then he needn't."

        1. Mighty Mom profile image91
          Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And if he chooses not to tithe the government anything then he forgoes any right to government services, including use of roads, protection from invaders,
          and of course (it goes without saying), participation in that great Ponzi Scheme called Social Security.

          Maybe Texas SHOULD secede and all those who object to paying any taxes should move there and live like the wild, wild west.

          1. Repairguy47 profile image61
            Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            We would live far better than the rest of the country, I love Yankees y'all crack me up. Would you explain to me how Social Security isn't a ponzi scheme? If I opted out and wanted to take the money I paid into it out where would that money come from? Is there an account at the SS office with my name on it? Social Security requires money to be paid into it so money can come out, ask yourself why they always want to raise the age of eligibility? New investors born every minute.

            1. Mighty Mom profile image91
              Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes there is an account with your name on it. You should be getting statements from SS showing your SS wages over time along with how much you can expect each month from SS when  you retire.
              Or, if you want to start collecting right away,that's quite easy to do.
              Go and get yourself disabled. roll

              1. Repairguy47 profile image61
                Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No there isn't an account with my money in it. you don't seem to get this either. But its ok.

                1. Cagsil profile image58
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Do you not pay social security taxes?

            2. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The theory might have worked until legislators noticed all that perfectly good money just sitting around and spent it instead of investing it at a reasonable rate of return. 

              Instead the monies we have contributed earn at about the lowest possible level and are used to finance the pet projects of those same legislators.  It has indeed become a ponzi scheme.

              1. Repairguy47 profile image61
                Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                It sure has but those on the left will never admit it. It would mean admitting government is corrupt. That can never enter into their thoughts its the master they serve.

                1. Paul Wingert profile image78
                  Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  All depend on the services the government offers should determine on the worker's take.

                  1. Paul Wingert profile image78
                    Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You get what you pay for.

    2. lady_love158 profile image61
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If you ask libs they'll tell you workers don't own anything, the government owns all wealth and they will decide how much you should keep based upon whats best for all and whats fair.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        But ask a socialist and they will tell you that the people should own everything and the people should decide what taxes should be paid.

        1. lady_love158 profile image61
          lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Oh I see! I don't own my house or car, EVERYBODY owns them! And government has to provide for all my needs at a price that I tell them I'm willing to pay.... sooo maybe I think I should have it all for free.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You really don't get it do you!

            1. profile image0
              Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              John....you live in the UK.....so you are the one who doesnt get it....we are talking the USA here

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                What difference does it make? Lady love is getting hold of the wrong end of the stick whichever country she is in.

                1. profile image0
                  Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  well not to get into the different political system or geography with you...but it does.....You guys have always thought you were superior even after being reduced to an island sized country.......now your economy is as bad as ours...so how is socialism working for you.....

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    seeing as how we've never tried it!!

                    I postulated an idea to Lady Love, you jumped onto something I didn't say.

              2. profile image0
                Holmes221bposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                True!  The Americans do seem to have much more of a class system than still exists in Europe.  Equality, fairness and the care for the poor or ill in society are considered important in Europe, whilst in the USA, it is greed and the right to bear arms.  This shows that although the original immigrants to the Americas were European, our ideas of fairness have moved so far apart from each other.  Maybe the fact that Western Europe is largely atheistic, whilst America is still Christian is the reason why we have such differing values of morality.  Atheists tend to be more liberal and caring for people in society who cannot care for themselves, whilst American Christians seem to care for themselves and their families, but don't give much thought for anyone else.  I much prefer the liberal caring Western European model to the American one.  Maybe we are divided by a common heritage.

                1. Disturbia profile image60
                  Disturbiaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm amazed at how eventually everything always gets boiled down to christians vs. atheists.

                  1. lady_love158 profile image61
                    lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I know! Right? I've already posted links to studies that show conservatives are more loving, caring, and generous than libs but they keep repeating the LIE that they are the ones more compassionate, when all they care about is their ideology!

                2. TMMason profile image72
                  TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I would pit American Christian generousity against any in the world.

                  America is the first to help anyone... and we give till it hurts... so what-ever on that BS.

                  1. Cagsil profile image58
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Hey TMM,

                    It's not only the American Christian people who give. So, get off the horse would you.

                  2. profile image0
                    Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    right on TM!!!!

                  3. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually not the first, not even second or third but 20th with 0.21 of gross national income. That bastion of socialism Sweden is first with 1.12% of gross national income.

                    Even the French beat you.

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The question is not susceptible to a simple percentage answer for several reasons. First, the tradition in most civilized industrialized countries is that tax percentages are graduated. That is, low income people are required to pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes and higher income people are required to pay a higher percentage.
      A second variable which affects the percentage of earnings people are allowed to keep depends on the cost of government programs voted by their government representatives--for defense, for the courts, the regulatory agencies and for the foolish, unnecessary wars and military actions we have habitually become involved in recent years. The more government programs and military actions the higher the taxes must be in order to keep the budget balanced.

      1. Troppus1 profile image61
        Troppus1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Ditto this...Ralph...our streets, defense, court system, social assitance programs, etc need to be funded.  If you want to keep more, start a business that generates more income. You'll have more tax advantages and can therefore keep more tax dollars. Being an employee of any company means you're most likely taxed the most...

  2. Reality Bytes profile image92
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    Doesn't anyone have an opinion?  I am truly curious.

    What percentage of your income should you be allowed to keep?

    1. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It's obviously a good question, RB.
      Why?
      Because NONE of the candidates would deign to answer it!

      Personally, I think 80% net pay is reasonable -- as long as EVERYONE pays their fair 20% share.
      The problem is (which we all know), only the poor schmucks at the shallow end of the income pool, who have their taxes withheld, pay the full amount.
      The more money you have, the more access you have to "creative" deductions and other tax minimizing strategies -- not to mention the savvy lawyers and accountants who know how to get around the tax laws.

  3. paradigmsearch profile image85
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    The 12K-a-year guy, nothing.

    The 104K-a-year guy, something.

    1. Reality Bytes profile image92
      Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I am asking what we should be allowed to keep.

      So if I am correct you think that a person earning $1000.00 a month should keep 100% of their income.  A person earning $10,000 a month should hand over some of their income.

      How much?  Should they hand over 50%, 60%, 100%?

      1. paradigmsearch profile image85
        paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        There is so much logistics and overhead there. I think there is no dispute that all governments are a fumbling bunch of idiots.

        Graduated tax?

        Flat tax?

        Both would vary with the times.

  4. wilderness profile image94
    wildernessposted 5 years ago

    Government needs money to provide services we ALL demand and use.  Army, roads, dams, fire protection, etc.

    The fairest way is to collect a set amount (10,000?) from every man, woman and child.  We all use it, we all pay for it.

    It won't work of course; most of the country would starve to death.  Second option is to collect a set percentage (10%?) from the same people.

    That won't work either, for the same reason.  The only workable option is to collect a graduated percentage.  I can't see (outside of funding to be given away as charity) any reason we can't start the 10% at perhaps 50,000 for a family of four and work up to maybe 35% at a million.  No deductions, no loopholes - you earn it you pay that portion.  If we want to give away half our taxes as charity those figures will have to go up.  If we want to do social engineering via the tax rates they will have to go up, primarily at the lower levels.  All of which is about what we see.

  5. kateperez profile image76
    kateperezposted 5 years ago

    I like Wilderness's idea.    Graduated percentages.  Under 10,000 a year, 5%, 10,000 to 50,000 7 - 10 %, 50,000 - 150,000  15%, 150,000 to 300,000  20%, and over 300,000 30 - 35%.   That way, as Wilderness says, we all share the load.  We use the roads, we should pay for them.  We are free, we should pay for the military that fights for our freedom.  We have legislators and teachers, and protection (fire, police) we should all pay for them.

    THEN, there can be a sales tax that we all pay fairly on too.  No value added taxes, no capital gains taxes.

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Although I agree on no VAT, I can't see not collecting on a capital gains.  I might except a primary residence but anything else is probably bought and held as an income producer.  Let the tax be the same as everything else.

      I also don't like a sales tax, simply because I don't like the bother and expense.  Let it all come in via an income tax and save the cost of collecting and getting it to the government.

  6. paradigmsearch profile image85
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    So..., flat or graduated?

  7. Cagsil profile image58
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    Since this topic was placed under "poverty"? I guess that depends upon the poverty level income to start with.

    Any income tax that is applied, should be applied with the fore-thought that poverty isn't to be accepted. And, I don't like the idea of giving money to the government, and expecting them to do what is right, because they do not do things that are for the people, and it's high time that they learned that it is actually necessary to do so.

    Which means, before taxes are figured out, there needs to be a new pay scale established for political officials. Their incomes are ridiculously high for the little work that they actually do. They're public servants and most of them are business owners as well. So, there's an inherent conflict of interest.

    As for taxes themselves- again poverty shouldn't be seen as acceptable, so there should be a flat tax rate for anyone living within poverty levels and that rate should encourage people to increase their income to lower their taxes, at the next highest level, after that, it should be a graduated tax assessment.

    For families living at poverty level or under$14,000, (I chose this level, because as it stands, my mother is living on working part-time(64 yrs old) and collecting part-time benefits from social security and her earnings cannot go over $14,120, otherwise they strip her of her checks- example: SS claims to take $1 for every $2 over that amount(meaning if my mother makes $2000 over then they take $1000 from her and that equals one month check, so she would have to go without and possibly not be able to pay her rent-due to the fact that other things are so expensive.) and if the earnings are too high then they simply take back whatever amount they are awarded) at 10% of total earnings.

    Now, that would change, once it goes over that amount and drop to 5-7% from $14000.01 - $25,000 per year. Then increase to 14% from $25,000 - $75,000 per year. Then go up to 21% from $75,000.01 - $125,000 per year. Then increase yet again to 28% from $125,000 - $200,000 per year. Then increase yet again to 35% from $200,000.01 - $500,000 per year and 42% for anything over $500,000 per year.

    As you can see, the increase is based on a 7% points, which would(or could) start on $14,000.01 earnings or at $25,000 per year(I am suggesting that it be broken down 7% at the lower end and 5% at the higher end, so as to encourage people to earn more). The only time it would change is after $25,000.01 and would increase 7% per income bracket.

    Say what you will, but something has to change. wink

  8. profile image0
    Holmes221bposted 5 years ago

    I think it depends on how much the worker is earning.  10% for the lowest earners is a huge amount to take from their salary, whilst for the richest, it isn't even noticed.  I am a firm believer that the more someone earns, the higher the percentage they should pay.  I realise I am a European, and that this idea wouldn't seem fair to someone over the other side of the pond.  From what I have read on here, Americans, whether they be poor or rich seem to believe that the rich should get the breaks, whilst the poor should pay for them.  As a liberal European, this idea is appalling.

    1. lady_love158 profile image61
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You have it all wrong! Everyone should keep what they EARN. If you're smart enough, lucky enough, or work hard enough to become rich, why should you be punished for that? Keep what you earn and pay tax for whar we all need from our government,  and this is the key part, that is gor government to keep us free so we can pursue what ever we believe will bring us happiness and wealth.

  9. profile image0
    SarahPalinposted 5 years ago

    If I am elected, I will see to it that everyone keeps it all dontcha know!!!!!!!

    1. profile image0
      Holmes221bposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      My goodness!  It is Her Majesty Herself.   Hail Queen Palin.

    2. lady_love158 profile image61
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I love you Sarah! Run Sarah, run!!

  10. Reality Bytes profile image92
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    Thank you to everyone for your responses.

    The Fourteenth Amendment:


    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.>>>>>> No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    How can this be true if person A is required to hand over 10% of their income while person B pays 35%?

    Is it because this Amendment requires this from the States and it is not relevant to what the Federal Government can do?

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well I suppose it is done with due process of law.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image92
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Whether state action against an individual was a deprivation of life, liberty or property was initially resolved by a distinction between “rights” and “privileges.” Process was due if rights were involved, but the state could act as it pleased in relation to privileges.

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

        So I guess based upon your post it is a privilege to be able to keep any of one's own income?

 
working