Taxes
 

Gonna be writing checks Wednesday for around $4K. That doesn't count the $5.5K check I wrote today for the IRA, which was necessary to get the other one down to $4K.

I figured the overall rate for the taxes I paid, including, Fed., Social Security, Medicare, state tax, sales Tax, gasoline tax, property tax, and car tags bring the total percent of my taxes to over 35% of my family income. And we are far from even the top ten percent. What was Mitt's total percent - less than 20%? Those job creators sure need protection from taxes, don't they?

Regards,

D-Ray

Less than 14% was the best guess I've heard.

2.5k to the Feds
1.5k to California

I already had close to 12k withheld also.

I'll be visiting the library to do mine this afternoon if my intermittent motivator works. Already know I'll be due a refund though and penalties are based on taxes owed.

Taxes suck.


That is all..

I could care less what someone else is paying for an effective tax rate. The fact that an "effective" tax rate even enters into a discussion is - to me - absurd. Set side for a moment that Mitt's 20% as a dollar amount is HUGE compared to your 35%.

That's not the issue. THIS is the issue:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.wash...Complexity.jpg

The issue is that the average Joe needs a software program or a CPA to figure their taxes out. The average company needs an army of CPA's and attorneys to figure their taxes out. The costs of that alone aren't figured into anyone's equation, but that not really what matters. What matters is that the political class uses the tax code far less as a revenue tool and far too much as a way to wield power. So, when someone says we need to "turn back the clock", I'm all for that as it relates to the absurd, arcane and overly-complex tax code.

Comparing Mitt's taxes? He finally disclosed where he is hiding his billions? As if he actually pays any taxes anyway.


Carl

Unfortunately, we're dependent on the same Congress-critters who created the abomination of the US Tax Code to fix it. As long as they continue to use the tax codes to reward their respective constituencies, there's no chance of it being meaningfully fixed. Hell, they can't even raise the gas tax a few percent to fix the Highway Trust Fund shortfalls.

Americans are spending $153 billion a year to subsidize McDonald’s and Wal-Mart’s low wage workers

This is nothing new but coming around tax time does provide a stark contrast.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/postev...rkers/?hpid=z2

What a country, eh? :(

That's what I was led to believe. :)

Well, there is this "fix":

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/bu...year.html?_r=0

Anyone wanna take bets on how long it will take the owner to rescind this compensation plan? Or on how long the company stays in business?

What? Money can't buy love and loyalty?

What odds are you offering, Mike? ;)

Headline lies. The estimate is that amount subsidizes ALL low-wage workers in the economy, not just those of Wal-Mart and McDonalds. I expect better of the Washington Post.

If the government is paying workers, they should be doing non-profit work.

I bet that three years from now, the company will still be with this plan, and will be 'in the black.'

Most in Congress are super rich....do not count on them to reform a system that rewards them already.

I got a $1700 refund, which I used to pay down debt, from the Feds. I had to pay the state of Virginia an additional $2.

I feel so oppressed.:rolleyes:

Rich people who bitch about taxes can go fuck themselves for all I care. They're a bad joke. A fat man puking after gorging himself. Mr. Creosote complaining about skimpy pate'.

We need leaders that publicly humiliate the whiny, spoiled little gluttonous assholes. Unfortunately, we may never see that beautiful day.

Dave

I know some of you have been waiting for this, so here it is.

www.fairtax.org

:D

.

I'll take that bet.

Done. On 4/16/2018, we check and see if Gravity Products is still paying all workers a minimum of $70,000/year or more, and is operating at a profit as of that date. Except we still must agree as to the stakes. I propose the following:

If you lose, you must post a message on Political Chat, that says "I lose the bet. I was dead wrong, and DonQuixote99 was right--'minimum annual pay of $70,000' at Gravity Payments worked!

I I lose, I must post a message that says: "I lose the bet. I was dead wrong, and Whell was right---'minimum annual pay of $70,000' at Gravity Payments didn't work!

Further, loser must PM winner with a link to the message.

Agreed?

Sounds like an old fashioned duel...I doubt Whell has any "seconds" that will accompany him to the fateful meeting at dawn...;)

The 'satisfaction' either of us may seek is purely symbolic, so I don't think the quarrel here is so serious that we need 'seconds' to discuss the terms of it's resolution. We can tolerate each other enough to do our own negotiating...I think....

Oh I was just kidding....lol

If you're going to have this bet with proclamations at the end, at least make the proclamation accurate and intellectually honest. There is not "equal pay for all" at Gravity Payments.
The article says approx. 70 of the 120 employees will get raises to $70K. That means approx. 50 employees (about 41%) were already making over $70K and will continue to do so.
You aren't going to get your CFO or other execs to take a cut to the same salary an admin person is making. They've invested time and money into getting an education and experience and it's worth something.

I must've missed the part where Gravity said this was an "equal pay for all" scheme. The owner raised the base pay to $70k. Your pinko argument needs more straw, Was.

Gravity didn't say it, but I said it. Was caught me in a goof.

So the bet should refer to 'minimum pay of $70,000 per year,' not equal pay for all. I'll correct my previous post accordingly, so there will be no confusion about the proposed stakes of the 'bet.'

Agreed. :eek:

Are you sure you still want to bet? It's not the utopia you thought it was. He's an evil capitalist who pays some more than others.:eek:

In my opinion, Gravity payments seems to be following the business model that the City of Detroit used a few years back. This is a service business (read middleman) and as such may not have a solid edge over their competition. Certain niche manufacturing companies do, Apple is the foremost example. They can charge what the market will bear as opposed to maintaining certain profitability targets.

This will be good PR for a short period and then their competition will be slamming them in the market place. In any business, payroll cannot exceed a certain percentage of revenues, which is probably why the CEO is cutting his own salary drastically. They may be able to hold on by reducing head count and over working their employees but the model cannot sustain. People will get burnt out, few key people leave and the downward spiral will start. I will bet on it.

Profit sharing is an old and honorable practice. Carl Zeiss famously operated under the Zeiss plan, there was Cadbury and Hershey, and Pella.
Also George Westinghouse when he ran things.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

And there are worker cooperatives like Mondragon Corp.

John