NY Governor orders 9000 people laid off

[JustRalph]

If my math is right, there is 1 State Employee for every 82 NY residents. I wonder how that stacks up to other States? Anybody got an idea?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/03/24/2009-03-24_gov_david_paterson_orders_layoffs_of_890.html


From the article:
Gordon said the governor was forced to make the move after the state's major unions refused to agree to concessions - or come up with a savings plan of their own.

"The governor believes this is a truly unfortunate situation," Gordon said. "It is not where he wanted to end up. He worked very hard to avoid this outcome."

Gordon said the administration has been talking with the unions about concessions since October.

"We tried numerous times to modify proposals to minimize the potential impact on state employees," he said. "All offers were rejected."
Depending on whose numbers one uses, the layoffs make up anywhere between 3.8% and about 6% of the workforce.
Gordon said the governor's office controls 141,000 full-time jobs. The controller's office said there are 232,259 state employees.
The layoffs are not set in stone, Paterson aides said.
The unions can still agree to negotiate a package of concessions that would avert the need for layoffs, Gordon said.
"We informed them we are taking this action and they did not provide any alternatives to help us avoid this," he said.
In his budget plan released in December, Paterson asked union members to forgo their 3% raises due to take affect April 1. The governor also asked employees agree to a one-week deferral in pay that they would get back when they quit or retire.
He had only been seeking 521 job cuts.
Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, who has said the state could shed thousands of jobs to help deal with its fiscal crisis, urged the unions to come to the table.

"These are difficult times and no segment of the state is immune to the harsh reality of the fiscal crisis," Smith said.
"We urge the union leadership who represent the public sector workforce to step up and renegotiate a fair agreement that is consistent with the principle of shared sacrifice all New Yorkers must accept during times of economic distress."

[Tom]

I suspect that us citizens here will not see any decline in services.
( As it is now, we get no service from those union dorks! :D)

[highnote]

smaller gov't is better, right?

[Tom]

Dunno...are they government or are they just anchors? :rolleyes:


YES!!!!!!!!!!
SMALLER IS BETTER (Government, that is....)

[boxcar]

"These are difficult times and no segment of the state is immune to the harsh reality of the fiscal crisis," Smith said.
"We urge the union leadership who represent the public sector workforce to step up and renegotiate a fair agreement that is consistent with the principle of shared sacrifice all New Yorkers must accept during times of economic distress."

Ahh...I like that. BO should step up and encourage everyone to ALSO share the pain -- not just their wealth. All these "little guys" the DimWits have all this sympathy must step up to plate to share the pain that the "wealthy" will feel when their taxes go up. I mean...this is what socialism is all about: It's all about sharing misery. It's all about spreading the misery around a little bit more equally. Fairness in Misery and Sacrifice should be the Socialists' slogan.

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

If the top 10% own 72% of the wealth in this country, shouldn't they pay 72% of the taxes?

Or is that somehow socialism too?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VHNXTBwj80

[Lefty]

Why should the ones who provide jobs be taxed more than the rest of us pctgwise? No it's not socialism it's communism.
ever read this or hear it anywhere.
To each according to their needs. From each according to their means.

[NJ Stinks]

Why should the ones who provide jobs be taxed more than the rest of us pctgwise?

How about because they can afford it? You can't get blood out of a rock.

We have a progressive income tax system here for a reason.

[Lefty]

Ok, i'll bite. What's the reason? And because they can afford it, is a terrible answer.
Lets say you're in a diner. You and the guy next to you order the same burger. You get a check for 3 times his. You ask why, and they tell you that you are able to pay more. Would you shrug and say, that makes sense? Doubtful.

[cj's dad]

If the top 10% own 72% of the wealth in this country, shouldn't they pay 72% of the taxes?

Or is that somehow socialism too?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VHNXTBwj80


FYI- the top 10% (13.5 million) already pay 70.79 % of all federal tax collected by the US gov't.

Seems to me that they're doing their more than fair share

And yes, that is a redistribution of the wealth or "socialism" !!

[Tom]

I think they pay more than 72%

[ArlJim78]

progressive taxes are immoral and unfair. its theft. it punishes achievers, its a disincentive.

[cj's dad]

I think they pay more than 72%

I got it off of the IRS site - of course they're probably lying - isn't Geitner in charge? maybe that lower rate was only if you use turbo-tax :lol:

[ddog]

Why should the ones who provide jobs be taxed more than the rest of us pctgwise? No it's not socialism it's communism.
ever read this or hear it anywhere.
To each according to their needs. From each according to their means.


the problem is they are not .

you have been spoon fed crap and you think it's t-bone.

Do you think J6P had it better in 1900?

[miesque]

The rich and wealthy pay PLENTY in taxes, especially those who make the decision to be residents of NYC. Now I will tell you that I think the IRS and State Tax Divisions are going to be in for a rude awakening once tax returns start coming in for 2008 especially from that segment of taxpayers because of all the red ink accrued over the past year as there are an awful lot that used to pay millions in taxes each year who now have either substantially reduced or negative income for the year.

[NJ Stinks]

Ok, i'll bite. What's the reason? And because they can afford it, is a terrible answer.
Lets say you're in a diner. You and the guy next to you order the same burger. You get a check for 3 times his. You ask why, and they tell you that you are able to pay more. Would you shrug and say, that makes sense? Doubtful.

The two guys in the diner are getting the same benefit - they are both eating the same thing - a hamburger. So they should pay the same for it.

Whereas a person of wealth benefits far more than a person without much wealth. For one thing, there is more to protect. So the person of means pays more to be protected (i.e. the military). Makes sense to me. Another example would be a person who owns a big factory. He needs more security than the Cleaners down the street so he pays more for it.

[Tom]

I got it off of the IRS site - of course they're probably lying - isn't Geitner in charge? maybe that lower rate was only if you use turbo-tax :lol:

Actually, I posted it before I read yours. I was guessing.

[Tom]

Another example would be a person who owns a big factory. He needs more security than the Cleaners down the street so he pays more for it.

And he creates more jobs, takes care of more families, does more for the economy than The cleaner. So you want to punish him for providing far more
to the country than the other guy. Yes, he used more security and yes, he provides more service to everyone.


Suppose both pay 15% taxes. The bigger guy DOES pay more for his added security - much more. What is it about libs and percentages...they just don't get it.

[Tom]

Back to our greedy little governor....by acting like a whore and grabbing up all the stimulus money he could, he has now committed NYS to at least a 14% increase in our budget when that dough run out. With a huge deficit now, he just widened the gap. The guy is a mental midget.

[Tom]

Oh no, more rapid fire posts! Arrrggh..


Just a thought for our dear MM Governor.....is his staff going to be reduced by a similar percentage? Is his pay being reduced? Will teachers get to share this load or hide behind their contracts? Will there a reduction in welfare benefits? Is it fair that they do not have to cut back as well?


Rhetorical questions.....if anything is transparent, it this simpleton of a governor we got saddled with here in NY.......I'd have kept the pervert, frankly. At least had some brains.

[delayjf]

So NJ, if we raise taxes on the top 10% by 1%, would you be happy??

[boxcar]

How about because they can afford it? You can't get blood out of a rock.

We have a progressive income tax system here for a reason.

Exactly! You finally get it. The current tax system is communistic at its core!
Congratulations.

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

And he creates more jobs, takes care of more families, does more for the economy than The cleaner. So you want to punish him for providing far more
to the country than the other guy. Yes, he used more security and yes, he provides more service to everyone.


Suppose both pay 15% taxes. The bigger guy DOES pay more for his added security - much more. What is it about libs and percentages...they just don't get it.

You can't get it if you don't want to get it.

The guy who owns the factory pays at the same exact federal tax rates on the first $65,100 of taxable income he earned in 2008 - as the foreman he paid $65,000 to for the year in 2008. (The max tax rate on $65,000 is 15%.) Then the factory owner pays 25% on the amount he earned between $65,101 and $131,450. (Of course, the foreman doesn't pay at the 25% tax rate because he didn't earn at least $65,101 in 2008.) The tax rates increase from 28%, 33%, to a high of 35% for any taxable income that exceeds $357,700 in 2008.

Obama plans to raise the top rate to 39.6% in 2011 - back to where it was under Clinton. If the owner doesn't think it's fair, he's free to close the factory down, move to another country, whatever he feels he has to do.

Frankly, this fictional guy isn't moving anywhere. He's living the American Dream here. Obviously, this is just my opinion.

This whole worn out discussion reminds me of when NJ raised the state sales tax from 6% to 7% a couple years ago. Most people understood that the state needed more revenue to operate but Republicans cried like crazy! Yep, Republicans were sure this 1% increase in sales tax was going to drive affluent residents (you know - the ones that owned a real nice house in one town and another house down the shore) to sell their houses and head for a more tax-friendly state.

Damn if that really didn't happen. :rolleyes:

In short, Tom, I don't want to punish anybody. I just want everybody to pay their fair share of the cost for the benefits we all enjoy at distinctly different levels.

You can look it up. It's the American Way.

[Suff]

The rich and wealthy pay PLENTY in taxes, especially those who make the decision to be residents of NYC..

Good observation. In fact the top 10% wager earners do pay the lions share of income taxes in America. It is also true that all those wager earners are by and large, Democrats, or live in areas that are dominated by Democratic Policy.

The two coasts, with a sprinkling of the upper Midwest pay all the bills in America. The only redistribution going on is that the Democrat States subsidize the Republican States. Simple truth.

The northeastern states, more specifically those located in New England, along with the West Coast, had the highest median household income. Of the top fifteen states, only Minnesota is located in the Mid-West, while four are in Northeast (New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Massachusetts), three are in the South (Maryland, Virginia and Delaware) and the seven others are in the West. These states hold 90% of America's wealth.

The southern states had, by far, the lowest median household income, with nine of the country's fifteen poorest states located in the South.

Overall, median household income tended to be the highest in the nation's most urbanized northeastern

and west coast states, while rural areas, mostly in the southern and mountain states, had the lowest median household income

News Flash: Republican States pay no taxes.

News Flash II: The only income redistribution going on is the poor of America sucking off the liberals.

News Flash III: High Income pays high taxes, high income is where?

[cj's dad]

News Flash: Republican States pay no taxes.

News Flash II: The only income redistribution going on is the poor of America sucking off the liberals.

News Flash III: High Income pays high taxes, high income is where?

News Flash: Republican States pay no taxes.

you're out of your mind.

News Flash II:The only income redistribution going on is the poor of America sucking off the liberals.

They're the only ones willing to give up their hard earned money.

News Flash III: High Income pays high taxes, high income is where?

apparently not in Florida, where you were when you were calling folks trying to bum money to get home after a drunken spree.

[lsbets]

In short, Tom, I don't want to punish anybody. I just want everybody to pay their fair share of the cost for the benefits we all enjoy at distinctly different levels.

You can look it up. It's the American Way.


Yes you do. You want to steal from others that which you are incapable or unwilling to achieve on your own. You want to legislate the robbery so you can feel good about doing it and use words like fair share so that you can kid yourself into believing there is something just in that. What you want my friend is simply evil and contemptible.

[NJ Stinks]

Yes you do. You want to steal from others that which you are incapable or unwilling to achieve on your own. You want to legislate the robbery so you can feel good about doing it and use words like fair share so that you can kid yourself into believing there is something just in that. What you want my friend is simply evil and contemptible.

FYI, progressive income taxes have been here ever since income tax was introduced in the U.S.

I pay my income taxes just like everybody else. I just don't whine about it. If you don't like our system, too bad for you. There must be a country out there that agrees with you somewhere.

[lsbets]

Good comeback stinky. Once again I am blown away by your reasoning and intelligence. :rolleyes:

[NJ Stinks]

Good comeback stinky. Once again I am blown away by your reasoning and intelligence. :rolleyes:

Let me try this another way. If the flat tax idea is so good/fair and the progressive income tax system is so unfair, name one country that has what you want?

Surely that is a reasonable request, Isbets.

[Lefty]

stinks,we are all in the same circumstance of the 2 eating hamburgers. We're all in the same country with the same opportunities. Get it? I'm not rich because I didn't apply myself enough, educate myself enough and work hard enough. Others did, and those are the ones that provide me with jobs to feed my family. I don't think people that work hard, then risk that hard earned money to go into business should be punished by exorbinate tax rates. And nobody here is whining about paying taxes. We are pointing out the more you punish the rich, the less jobs there will be for the middle class and poor.

[NJ Stinks]

stinks,we are all in the same circumstance of the 2 eating hamburgers. We're all in the same country with the same opportunities. Get it? I'm not rich because I didn't apply myself enough, educate myself enough and work hard enough. Others did, and those are the ones that provide me with jobs to feed my family. I don't think people that work hard, then risk that hard earned money to go into business should be punished by exorbinate tax rates. And nobody here is whining about paying taxes. We are pointing out the more you punish the rich, the less jobs there will be for the middle class and poor.

I'm not disputing most of what you said, Lefty. I have trouble with the word "punish" but that's no big deal. What I think is being missed is the fact that this country cannot prosper if the most affluent are not asked to pay more. It simply doesn't work. Because all Congresses and all presidents since Woodrow Wilson understand this, we have remained a strong and prosperous country.

If the cost of defending/maintaining/building this country wasn't a factor, I would happily agree to a flat tax at 15%. But the country cannot afford a 15% flat tax. The wealth in this country is not spread sufficiently to support such a low flat tax. But if the flat tax was set at 25%, it wouldn't be fair to over half that the country that can't afford to pay 25% of their taxable income to Uncle Sam. So we have progressive income tax rates. It's not perfect but it beats the alternative IMO.

[JustRalph]

Let me try this another way. If the flat tax idea is so good/fair and the progressive income tax system is so unfair, name one country that has what you want?

Surely that is a reasonable request, Isbets.

Try this one........

http://www.heritage.org/press/commentary/ed032403.cfm

or this one

http://www.freedomworks.org/publications/flat-tax-revolution

Thats right......it is Russia........it has been very successful.

There are a few other drawbacks to moving there. But they have proven the success of the flat tax.

[NJ Stinks]

I'm no expert on the Russian economy but the price of oil appears to have a big influence on it.
The excerpt below is from November 2008:
__________________________________________________ ______________

"The Russian stock market is down 70 percent from late spring. The government has burned through more than 20 percent of its foreign-exchange reserves since August. The outflow of capital in October alone was $50 billion. Next year's budget is based on a projected average price for oil of $95 per barrel; now budget planners have to work with forecasts of $50 or lower. Since Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin has said that Russian government spending goes into deficit at $70 per barrel, pressures for spending cuts are starting to mount. Severe reductions have already been announced in housing and education programs."
__________________________________________________ ________

Here's the link:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/17844/

[Tom]

Obama plans to raise the top rate to 39.6% in 2011 - back to where it was under Clinton. If the owner doesn't think it's fair, he's free to close the factory down, move to another country, whatever he feels he has to do.

Uh, I thought we trying to create jobs, not destroy them.
In case you hadn't noticed, jobs are already flying out of here.
Just got notice Monday at work - pack up the tools, prints, get an inventory of parts......all our after-market business is moving to Mexico immediately.
Scores of jobs lost in Indiana ( our former customer) and two at my place.

All for sick liberal vengence.

[Lefty]

stinks, the less you tax the more prosperous this country becomes. Clinton raised taxes.. Bush cut taxes. Which Pres brought in the most revenue to the Treasury> It was, get ready, Bush.

[PaceAdvantage]

It is also true that all those wager earners are by and large, Democrats, or live in areas that are dominated by Democratic Policy.Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't California pretty much broke, and New York not too far behind?

Way to go Dems...

[NJ Stinks]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't California pretty much broke, and New York not too far behind?

Way to go Dems...

PA, at the risk of repeating myself, NJ pays almost $1.61 in federal taxes for every dollar it gets back in benefits from Washington. We do this year in and year out to help prop up all the states that get back well over a $1 for every dollar they send to Washington. (CA gets back 78 cents for every dollar paid. NY gets back 79 cents for every dollar paid.) In all 32 states get back more money from Washington than they actually paid in federal taxes. Needless to say, Blue states are carrying the load.

Blaming the Dems in high income states for that state being in debt is like blaming parents with 3 kids in college at the same time for having to borrow money. :rolleyes:

Oh yea, here's the link:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

[newtothegame]

I'm not disputing most of what you said, Lefty. I have trouble with the word "punish" but that's no big deal. What I think is being missed is the fact that this country cannot prosper if the most affluent are not asked to pay more. It simply doesn't work. Because all Congresses and all presidents since Woodrow Wilson understand this, we have remained a strong and prosperous country.

If the cost of defending/maintaining/building this country wasn't a factor, I would happily agree to a flat tax at 15%. But the country cannot afford a 15% flat tax. The wealth in this country is not spread sufficiently to support such a low flat tax. But if the flat tax was set at 25%, it wouldn't be fair to over half that the country that can't afford to pay 25% of their taxable income to Uncle Sam. So we have progressive income tax rates. It's not perfect but it beats the alternative IMO.

Ok, I am lost here and maybe I am in over my head in this conversation...but, I do have a question (actually several).
1. Do you think its possible to tax the wealthy right out of their wealth? If so, then who will pay those tax increases then? Seems like we need to keep the wealthy , wealthy so that they provide jobs and services to the middle class.
2. Do you honestly think businesses will ultimately pay more in taxes? Sure, they may have a tax hike but, again who ultimately pays this? If you guessed the consumer, you would be right!!!!
3. Someone (not sure if it was you or not) posted earlier that if they (meaning the businesses) didnt like it then they could leave the country. Well the question here is THEN WHAT? We have already as a country lost alot of our manufacturing to overseas. Look where that has gotten us. And now we are willing to say good riddens? Seems like their has to be a better idea.
hopefully you can help with these answers....

[miesque]

Ok, I am lost here and maybe I am in over my head in this conversation...but, I do have a question (actually several).

3. Someone (not sure if it was you or not) posted earlier that if they (meaning the businesses) didnt like it then they could leave the country. Well the question here is THEN WHAT? We have already as a country lost alot of our manufacturing to overseas. Look where that has gotten us. And now we are willing to say good riddens? Seems like their has to be a better idea.
hopefully you can help with these answers....

You indirectly touched on an interesting subject which some are missing, for some time businesses have been speaking both with their feet and dollars as there has been a steady migration of businesses from the North into the Southern states, precisely because of a lower cost structure, including lower taxes. Virginia, for example, is a reasonably prosperous state even though its in "The South" and has been getting favorable rankings for Best States To Do Business and it has a reasonable tax structure and has experienced a lot of growth over the past two decades as a result.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/07/10/washington-virginia-utah-biz-cz_kb_0711bizstates-table.html

http://www.cnbc.com/id/25447843

[Suff]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't California pretty much broke, and New York not too far behind?

Way to go Dems...

What is wrong with you? Seriously. for a 40 year old guy your just to darn unwise. You have been corrected dozens of times. I will correct you one more time with the understanding you will wake up tomorrow and be just as , lacking.:confused:

[Suff]

[QUOTE]
you're out of your mind.


Yes, but not in the way you suggest.




apparently not in Florida, where you were when you were calling folks trying to bum money to get home after a drunken spree

News Flash: Hookers and Crack cost money!


Mr. Angry White Male...

Republican States Contribute nothing to the Federal Government for the running of the United States of America. That is fact, not something that has been massaged into place or taken out of context, or put together by a group with an agenda. Its verifiable data available on the IRS web site and many others.


Let's take a state like South Dakota. If you add up all the money that the people of South Dakota pay in taxes it does not equal the amount of money that the US Government spends in South Dakota.

South Dakota has an expensive federal highway system, South Dakota has large tracts of federal lands, The cost of maintaining the roads and lands is more than what the South Dakotans contribute. This is true of the vast majority of Republican states.

Take a look at South Dakota on this Map. You see that is says $1.49? That means for every dollar the South Dakota tax payers send to Washington, Washington sends back $1.49 So South Dakota is a socialist state according to the nitwits who post here.

Now look the map over and you'll quickly see, Republicans are a huge drain on America. Alabama is a big burden, Mississippi same thing... on and on.

I'm including a link, that NJ stinks keeps posting over and over and no one likes what it says so they ignore it. I don't kid myself that your interested in anything other than blowing off your life's frustrations. AKA Archie Bunker rants, Ralph Kramden rants and so on. But Just the same I gave you the data and at least I did not leave you on the platform when the America train left the station.

[Lefty]

stinks, IBM is taking your advice. They just laid off another 5,000 and are outsourcing more jobs to India

[Suff]

The Tax Foundation’s annual federal tax burden and expenditure study clarifies the geographical patterns of income redistributionthat federal tax and spending policies cause each year. The results of the study have been controversial for years because they show that the nation is not only redistributing income from the prosperous to the poor, but from the middle-income residents of high-cost states to the middle-income residents of low-cost states.


Thanks to a steeply progressive federal income tax, states with higher incomes pay vastly higher federal taxes, payments that are unlikely ever to be matched by federal spending directed to those states. Ironically, most of these high-paying states are the so-called blue states that have generally elected politicians who support a more steeply progressive tax system even though their own constituents bear a greater share of the burden as the code gets more progressive.



All categories of federal taxes, including income taxes on individuals and businesses, social insurance taxes, excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties and all other taxes, are tabulated and the total tax burden of each state is determined. This figure is compared to the flow of federal funds back to each state, bringing the two sides of federal fiscal operations together.



http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf ( complete report)

[Suff]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't California pretty much broke, and New York not too far behind?

Way to go Dems...

OK can you see know what you have been told at least a dozen times over the years. If the Republican States would simply become self sufficient sates like NY and California would be rolling in money. Huge Surplus's!!

The last stat I saw was that 25% of Federal Expenditures are being picked up by these two states alone.

You have been told this over and over and over and over....and for some reason your wacky wild screwed up brain refuses to accept the facts.

That is why you have a board full of lunatics because you allow this insanity to go on, and allow up to become down, and down to become up. Its quite a sight for someone with rational thought process.

For example:

Among Americans making greater than 200K, 58% to 42% they vote Democrat. But over and over you and your group of jugheads , including such luminaries as Dave Schwartz keep perpetuating the myth that the productive part of our society vote for Republicans.... It is not true.

In education your jugheads are equally screwed up.

Among those with a Graduate Degree or better they voted Democrat 62% to 38%. Its overwhelming evidence that the educated class voted Liberal.

But look at states with very low percentage of College graduates, and very low income levels. They Vote REPUBLICAN!!!!


Question?: Who voted Republican?

Answer?: America for DUMMIES

[Suff]

You indirectly touched on an interesting subject which some are missing, for some time businesses have been speaking both with their feet and dollars as there has been a steady migration of businesses from the North into the Southern states, precisely because of a lower cost structure, including lower taxes. Virginia, [/url]

If have a minute look at that Forbes link you posted and take a closer look at the column heading: "quality of life index" . You will note that it is hyperlinked. Click on that and watch how the order of States changes.

[url="http://www.forbes.com/2007/07/10/washington-virginia-utah-biz-cz_kb_0711bizstates-table.html"]http://www.forbes.com/2007/07/10/wa...ates-table.html (http://www.cnbc.com/id/25447843)

Who do you think is moving to China and Alabama? You think its Microsoft? Or a bunch of Bio-techs? Or high-tech firms? Its not, its low wage, unskilled jobs. Most with no or limited benefits. Its nothing to brag about and in the long run the South will remain more like a third world nation and less like Modern America.

[miesque]

Yes, we are just a bunch of backward hicks down here in VA, NC & GA, no global finance, technology innovation or research could possible flourish or even survive in this neck of the woods, we would be starving if not for the great states of New Jersey and California.:rolleyes:

[NJ Stinks]

I don't have much time but I hope to clear something up. What I said was:

"If the owner doesn't think it's fair, he's free to close the factory down, move to another country, whatever he feels he has to do."

It wasn't clear but I was talking about the owner. I meant the owner can move to another country.

The owner will not avoid higher income tax rates by moving his company to another country if he doesn't move out of the U.S. himself. The owner will still be subject to U.S. income tax rates because he still lives here. (The owner can lower his labor costs, etc. by moving his company out of the country. But we were talking about moving a company out of the country because of higher federal income tax rates - not labor costs, etc.)

[lsbets]

[QUOTE=Suff]

Among Americans making greater than 200K, 58% to 42% they vote Democrat. But over and over you and your group of jugheads , including such luminaries as Dave Schwartz keep perpetuating the myth that the productive part of our society vote for Republicans.... It is not true.
[QUOTE]

Your first mistake Suff is assuming that income makes one productive. That would be like equating bluster with courage. Yes Suff, there are a lot of people who make over 200K who have figured out is much easier to be a looter than a producer - that if they perfect the fine art of earning a living off graft and corruption they can make a lot of money. And even though they profit from both parties, they know they can get more for doing less from the Dems. When an economy places more importance on how well you can work the boys in Washington instead of the quality of what you produce, it is doomed to failure, and that is where we are today. A small investment placed with the right liberal northeast Senators reaps billions in rewards, stolen from the American people. And you sing their praises. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[delayjf]

If the Republican States would simply become self sufficient sates like NY and California would be rolling in money. Huge Surplus's!!

I don't know about NY, but CA is hardly self sufficient. This year they are running 42 billion dollar deficient, which is projected to get worse. Nebraska on the other hand balances its budget every year. It will be interesting to see the changes to your percentage figures once the bailout money is factored in.

Without doing an in-depth analysis into you tax data,.looking at tax receipts and Gov spending in percentages only, does not give you the whole picture. In this case the numbers are highly affected by population and can be misleading in the same way crime rate statistics can be misleading. If a small town in Nebraska has one murder, its crime rates soars, but does anyone really believe that small town is now a more dangerous place to live then say NY or LA?? The percentages you quote are also heavily affected by Military spending – as most of the major military bases are located in the Red States.

[ddog]

you have no shot to change it with such a flawed understanding of the process.



trickle down is what the pugs call it, the top guys "produce" enough to keep you in hushpuppies, so be happy and roll back those tax rates on those hard working dudes, after all it costs more and more to buy a rep these days.

how the top guys got to be the top guys is not open to review, that's class warfare.

:lol:

[Suff]

I don't know about NY, but CA is hardly self sufficient. This year they are running 42 billion dollar deficient, which is projected to get worse. Nebraska on the other hand balances its budget every year. It will be interesting to see the changes to your percentage figures once the bailout money is factored in.

.

California is the Big daddy of America.







Wall Street Journal last week,


Despite closing a $42 billion budget deficit through steep cuts and new taxes last month, California now faces a $8 billion budget shortfall by July 2010 because of declining tax revenue, according to a report







Southern California, as defined by those
counties residing south and west of San
Luis Obispo and Kern Counties, pays
approximately 7.6 percent of the nation’s
total federal tax burden, or $145 billion.
Residents of California pay nearly 15
percent of the nation’s total tax burden,
although they make up only 11 percent
of the nation’s households;



How much money do you think is 4% of America's total taxreceipts?

4% is the difference between what California costs and what it overpaid in taxes to make up for the states that do not pay their share?






Federal tax receipts are about 2.5 trillion each year. Give California back 4% of 2.5 trillion, all that money that got sent to Alabama, Nebraska, Wyoming.




Here are some tax facts that caught my eye.







Top Tax paying Counties
Twenty-nine of the top 50 counties lie in
the Eastern Time Zone; while the remaining
21 are split evenly among the
Central, Mountain and Pacific Time
Zones;


In terms of total dollar amounts of taxes
paid, the top three counties are Los Angeles
County; Cook County, Illinois; and
New York County. These three counties
alone pay roughly 8 percent of the
nation’s total federal taxes, although they
make up only 5 percent of the nation’s
households and around 6 percent of the
nation’s population;





Los Angeles County alone pays approximately
$68.2 billion in total federal taxes.
Its neighbor, Orange County, pays
around $27 billion, which is the fifth
highest in the country

Eight of the top 20 counties lie within 60
miles of New York City


Seven of the top 50 counties lie within
50 miles of Washington, D.C.;

Approximately 40 percent of the total
federal tax burden is paid by counties
that make up only one percent of the
nation’s land area—an area roughly the
size of Indiana;

[Suff]

[QUOTE]
Your first mistake Suff is assuming that income makes one productive. That would be like equating bluster with courage.



I do not assume that, I actually assume the opposite. Income as barometer of worth is built into the American culture. I don't worship money, I'm not a free marketer and I don't care how much money somebody makes or what they do for a living.

Yes Suff, there are a lot of people who make over 200K who have figured out is much easier to be a looter than a producer - that if they perfect the fine art of earning a living off graft and corruption they can make a lot of money. And even though they profit from both parties, they know they can get more for doing less from the Dems.


That sounds like one of my liberal rants. I like it.

. A small investment placed with the right liberal northeast Senators reaps billions in rewards, stolen from the American people. And you sing their praises. You should be ashamed of yourself

You can just say Northeast Senator, to say liberal is redundant. But yes, I also agree with your sentiment here as well.

[NJ Stinks]

Ok, I am lost here and maybe I am in over my head in this conversation...but, I do have a question (actually several).
1. Do you think its possible to tax the wealthy right out of their wealth? If so, then who will pay those tax increases then? Seems like we need to keep the wealthy , wealthy so that they provide jobs and services to the middle class.
2. Do you honestly think businesses will ultimately pay more in taxes? Sure, they may have a tax hike but, again who ultimately pays this? If you guessed the consumer, you would be right!!!!
3. Someone (not sure if it was you or not) posted earlier that if they (meaning the businesses) didnt like it then they could leave the country. Well the question here is THEN WHAT? We have already as a country lost alot of our manufacturing to overseas. Look where that has gotten us. And now we are willing to say good riddens? Seems like their has to be a better idea.
hopefully you can help with these answers....

1. No. Back in the 1970's the highest federal income tax rate was rate was 50% on earned income ((like wages) and 70% on passive income (like rental income, dividends). Believe it or not, wealthy people back then still invested in businesses, etc. Of course, back then there weren't as many super-rich people. My opinion is that you are listening to too much Rush, etc. if you believe for even one second that someone is going to lose their wealth because earnings that exceed $357,000 are going to be taxed at 39.6% starting in 2011 (Obama proposal) vs. the current 35% on earnings that exceed $357,000 (Bush rate currently used). It's a shallow argument perpetuated by rich people who want to continue getting richer at the expense of all else IMO. Obviously, many here buy it. I don't.

2. No. Corporations in the U.S. pay peanuts, if anything, in federal income taxes. I won't waste my time looking it up but you can if you think I'm wrong. The reason for this is because just about everything under the sun is deductible from gross income before corporations arrive at taxable income. Most sole proprietorships (somebody owns their own small business) don't make over $200,000 a year so Obama's income tax increases won't affect them at all. Once again conservative propaganda is just that - propaganda. All designed to keep the maximum federal income tax rates down. What you said about consumers paying the ultimate price sounds good but means little IMO.

3. I answered question #3 in post #47 in this thread.

Newtothegame, I don't know which way you lean politically but I'm guessing it's conservative. So you probably don't like/believe my answers but you asked so I answered.

[miesque]

So now we have moved on to the assertion that Corporations don't pay any tax? Corporations paid $300 Billion in income taxes during 2008 net after refunds. Now before anyone jumps in and points out its less then the net amount from individuals, you need to realize that it only refers to C Corporations since S-Corporations as taxed in the same manner as partnerships in that the income flows thorough to the underlying partners and hence are paid at the individual level.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08db01co.xls

[delayjf]

This is not about propaganda, it's a matter of economic theory and the effect of raising taxes on the economy. Only 5% of small businesses make 200k or more, but they produce @ 50% of the national GDP. Over tax them and it will trickle down.

[NJ Stinks]

So now we have moved on to the assertion that Corporations don't pay any tax? Corporations paid $300 Billion in income taxes during 2008 net after refunds. Now before anyone jumps in and points out its less then the net amount from individuals, you need to realize that it only refers to C Corporations since S-Corporations as taxed in the same manner as partnerships in that the income flows thorough to the underlying partners and hence are paid at the individual level.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08db01co.xls

According to your link, corporations paid 13% of the total tax revenue the IRS collected in 2008. Sounds like a bad tip to me. :)

[miesque]

According to your link, corporations paid 13% of the total tax revenue the IRS collected in 2008. Sounds like a bad tip to me. :)

Again, that does not include, S-Corporations, Partnerships, LLPs, LLCs or Sole Proprietorships which account for a rather substantial portion of businesses in the United States because they are pass-through entities and hence are not subject to the double taxation problem that is present in a C Corporation (aka income is taxed at the corporate level and the dividends it pays its shareholders is taxed again at the individual level).

[ArlJim78]

gee suff what a shock, states with higher incomes and lots of rich people pay more in taxes, and thanks to the progressive nature of taxes, they get soaked. of course they loyally support democrats who are in love with the soak the rich mentality, but why do they then whine about not getting their fair share back? are you kidding me? join the tax revolt movement. does anyone think rich people are getting federal benefits commensurate with their tax bill? of course not, wherever you have a dense population of rich people, SURPRISE!, that region is paying out more to the fed's than they receive back. according to Democrats that is Fairness, right?

better yet, start an initiative to make federal expenditures progressive.:lol: the benefits should go to the rich correct? because they pay more? let's see how far that proposal goes.

[newtothegame]

1. No. Back in the 1970's the highest federal income tax rate was rate was 50% on earned income ((like wages) and 70% on passive income (like rental income, dividends). Believe it or not, wealthy people back then still invested in businesses, etc. Of course, back then there weren't as many super-rich people. My opinion is that you are listening to too much Rush, etc. if you believe for even one second that someone is going to lose their wealth because earnings that exceed $357,000 are going to be taxed at 39.6% starting in 2011 (Obama proposal) vs. the current 35% on earnings that exceed $357,000 (Bush rate currently used). It's a shallow argument perpetuated by rich people who want to continue getting richer at the expense of all else IMO. Obviously, many here buy it. I don't.

2. No. Corporations in the U.S. pay peanuts, if anything, in federal income taxes. I won't waste my time looking it up but you can if you think I'm wrong. The reason for this is because just about everything under the sun is deductible from gross income before corporations arrive at taxable income. Most sole proprietorships (somebody owns their own small business) don't make over $200,000 a year so Obama's income tax increases won't affect them at all. Once again conservative propaganda is just that - propaganda. All designed to keep the maximum federal income tax rates down. What you said about consumers paying the ultimate price sounds good but means little IMO.

3. I answered question #3 in post #47 in this thread.

Newtothegame, I don't know which way you lean politically but I'm guessing it's conservative. So you probably don't like/believe my answers but you asked so I answered.

Stinks....you obviously make way too many assumptions about people when they ask questions. In this case, you are "assuming" that I listen to rush. I Do NOT listen to rush as I don't need anyone thinking for ME. You also go on to say that "conservative propoganda is just that-propoganda". Well couldnt the same be said for your left views that you constantly so willingly share here? What I would propose is that we as people, do what we believe in and what is in our best interest. And these are the things that I believe in and are in my best interest......
1. I believe that each person (unless hindered by a disability) should be able to provide for themselves and get their asses off of such programs as welfare. This is a HUGE tax burden to those of us that do provide for ourselves and go out and work on a daily basis.
Now we could go back and forth on freedoms and miltary arguements but lets just say the Freedoms that are given to me as a citizen are slowly being drained away in my opinion by larger and larger government. So do I believe in less government? You bet ya!!! does this make me a conservative? Well I dont believe in living under a "title". I believe as i said earlier in living in whats best for me and my family.

Now to the questions I posed above and your replies...for which by the way I am thankful you took the time...
As to whether a wealthy person can be taxed out of it....well in theory those who have the most will always be the 'wealthiest". Wealth has many definitions depending on the standard which one applies. Hell I would be considered a "have" versus a "have not" compared to a person on public assistance. But trust me....I do not in any way consider myself wealthy. as for taxing a person out of wealth...based on what I just said above...you can tax a person out of being wealthy. The more I have to pay (for someone elses welfare) the less I have for my own family. That is the essence of the arguements here. The U.S can make me less and less wealthy just by applying more and more taxes. In your above answer...taxes for those mention would rise slightly above 4%. What was also the cost of living increase last year? I would imagine that NOt many people obtain a large enough increase year over year to account for the increase in taxes along with the cost of living increases to just stay even. So to say you can NOT tax them out of wealth is far far from the truth in my opinion.....

As for the consumers paying more meaning "little" as you mentioned above...how can you say that??? Every dollar more a consumer spends un-necessarily to a company (that is paying higher taxes), goes somewhere. And its not in the pocket of the consumer. consumers who have less and less ability to put back into the economy...well you see where this arguement is headed. Its not a pleasant sight...economic meltdowns....durable good spending down....healthcare spending down...layoffs...etc etc...

[cj's dad]

[QUOTE=cj's dad] Mr. Angry White Male

Suff;

You met me and you know I am anything but that. Loose as a goose baby and heading to Saratoga again this summer where I am, once again, more than welcome.

How 'bout you ???

[NJ Stinks]

Again, that does not include, S-Corporations, Partnerships, LLPs, LLCs or Sole Proprietorships which account for a rather substantial portion of businesses in the United States because they are pass-through entities and hence are not subject to the double taxation problem that is present in a C Corporation (aka income is taxed at the corporate level and the dividends it pays its shareholders is taxed again at the individual level).

You raise a fair point, Miesque. So I did some research of my own. The IRS has stats on C-Corps )Form 1120 filers) for the year 2005 - couldn't find any year later than 2005 available in the IRS website.

Total Number of Form 1120's filed - 1,799,530

Total Number of Form 1120's showing a profit - 954,726

Total Receipts - $17,930,588,938

Total Deductions - $16,739,670,621

Taxable Income - $1,284,436,869

Total Income Tax after Deductions and Credits - $283,482,034

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05co16ccr.xls

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05co17ccr.xls

I will agree with you that I am talking about Form 1120 corporations above and not S-Corporations or partnerships. But in 2005 there were almost 2M Form 1120 business entities filing income tax returns. Even in 2005 - when things were rather prosperous in the U.S. - all these corporations paid less than $3M in federal income taxes or $157 per Form 1120 return filed for the year 2005.

[NJ Stinks]

Stinks....you obviously make way too many assumptions about people when they ask questions. In this case, you are "assuming" that I listen to rush. I Do NOT listen to rush as I don't need anyone thinking for ME. You also go on to say that "conservative propoganda is just that-propoganda". Well couldnt the same be said for your left views that you constantly so willingly share here? What I would propose is that we as people, do what we believe in and what is in our best interest. And these are the things that I believe in and are in my best interest......
1. I believe that each person (unless hindered by a disability) should be able to provide for themselves and get their asses off of such programs as welfare. This is a HUGE tax burden to those of us that do provide for ourselves and go out and work on a daily basis.
Now we could go back and forth on freedoms and miltary arguements but lets just say the Freedoms that are given to me as a citizen are slowly being drained away in my opinion by larger and larger government. So do I believe in less government? You bet ya!!! does this make me a conservative? Well I dont believe in living under a "title". I believe as i said earlier in living in whats best for me and my family.

Now to the questions I posed above and your replies...for which by the way I am thankful you took the time...
As to whether a wealthy person can be taxed out of it....well in theory those who have the most will always be the 'wealthiest". Wealth has many definitions depending on the standard which one applies. Hell I would be considered a "have" versus a "have not" compared to a person on public assistance. But trust me....I do not in any way consider myself wealthy. as for taxing a person out of wealth...based on what I just said above...you can tax a person out of being wealthy. The more I have to pay (for someone elses welfare) the less I have for my own family. That is the essence of the arguements here. The U.S can make me less and less wealthy just by applying more and more taxes. In your above answer...taxes for those mention would rise slightly above 4%. What was also the cost of living increase last year? I would imagine that NOt many people obtain a large enough increase year over year to account for the increase in taxes along with the cost of living increases to just stay even. So to say you can NOT tax them out of wealth is far far from the truth in my opinion.....

As for the consumers paying more meaning "little" as you mentioned above...how can you say that??? Every dollar more a consumer spends un-necessarily to a company (that is paying higher taxes), goes somewhere. And its not in the pocket of the consumer. consumers who have less and less ability to put back into the economy...well you see where this arguement is headed. Its not a pleasant sight...economic meltdowns....durable good spending down....healthcare spending down...layoffs...etc etc...

At least you gave me credit for answering your questions. :)

At any rate, if we agreed on everything here, what fun would that be? :cool:

[NJ Stinks]

but why do they then whine about not getting their fair share back?

We whined because PA posted this:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't California pretty much broke, and New York not too far behind?

Way to go Dems...

PA doesn't say that and we are not having this discussion.

[lsbets]

[QUOTE=lsbets]




I do not assume that, I actually assume the opposite. Income as barometer of worth is built into the American culture. I don't worship money, I'm not a free marketer and I don't care how much money somebody makes or what they do for a living.


That sounds like one of my liberal rants. I like it.


You can just say Northeast Senator, to say liberal is redundant. But yes, I also agree with your sentiment here as well.

Well Suff, every now and then you remind me of why I once thought you were a pretty decent dude.

I am a free marketer, and I don't care how much people make either. I think an awful lot don't make it honestly, but I bet very few people on here would get my definition of honestly. Perhaps morally would be a better word.

What you say sounded like one of your liberal rants is actually pretty hardcore conservative - not the I'm a Republican running for office conservative type, but the conservatarian type of rant. Not the religious nuts, but the economic and liberty loving type. There's hope for you yet.

[miesque]

You raise a fair point, Miesque. So I did some research of my own. The IRS has stats on C-Corps )Form 1120 filers) for the year 2005 - couldn't find any year later than 2005 available in the IRS website.

Total Number of Form 1120's filed - 1,799,530

Total Number of Form 1120's showing a profit - 954,726

Total Receipts - $17,930,588,938

Total Deductions - $16,739,670,621

Taxable Income - $1,284,436,869

Total Income Tax after Deductions and Credits - $283,482,034

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05co16ccr.xls

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05co17ccr.xls

I will agree with you that I am talking about Form 1120 corporations above and not S-Corporations or partnerships. But in 2005 there were almost 2M Form 1120 business entities filing income tax returns. Even in 2005 - when things were rather prosperous in the U.S. - all these corporations paid less than $3M in federal income taxes or $157 per Form 1120 return filed for the year 2005.

That number is almost $300 BILLION not almost $3 MILLION because the money amount in the spread sheet is in thousands. There is a big difference in $300 Billion in taxes and $3 Million in taxes.

And who ever said that every business/corporation is profitable? How many businesses fail each and every year in the United States? Do you think they were posting positive income and paying taxes if they ended up failing?

[Suff]

[QUOTE=Suff]

Suff;

You met me and you know I am anything but that. Loose as a goose baby and heading to Saratoga again this summer where I am, once again, more than welcome.

How 'bout you ???

I vaguely remember meeting you. It was a while back and I was boozing it up pretty good. So I must admit I actually have no idea about your style. You just showed up on my radar recently when you started posting here often.

Nothing about what I see says loosey goosey?, and you strike me as first class grump if you want to know the truth.

You hang off your kids tit to much for my liking. You tell people to stfu who are gracious people. You struggle to post a simple link, then when PA attempted to explain it to you it was way over your head, very quickly.

Your not loosey goosey, your not to knowledgeable. Your an everyday schmuck. Of course I've only seen you posting here for a couple of months so maybe we just got off on the wrong foot.:D

Republicans pay no taxes was my point. You seemed to know different. I proved you wrong, and that was as easy as crossing a country road.

[miesque]

I basically give up at this stage, if you all want to believe that the average corporation only pays $157 in tax and Republicans don't pay any taxes, more power to you. I hope you wager big and often at the windows as well.

[Suff]

I basically give up at this stage, if you all want to believe that the average corporation only pays $157 in tax and Republicans don't pay any taxes, more power to you. I hope you wager big and often at the windows as well.

Now your implying I am stupid and you want to compete against me in the wagering pools because you feel you have an edge on me?:lol:

I have no clue what your referring to because I skipped over the Corporate tax post because it was not part of my point.

My other point was about republican states, red states. Yet in my last post I used the singular term of Republicans. But rather than rely on the mountains of data I provided you decided you would hang your jacket on the singular term Republican.


You want to know the truth buddy?. I don't give a flying F who pays taxes. I only want to counter the complete idiocy that comes from the keyboards of the everyday posters here. They love socialism as a word, communism they love,, income redistribution they worship.. They love words that they have no idea what the word even means. These guys are the biggest benefactors of income redistribution in this country!!:D
If they actually had to be self reliant they would be living in tents and hunting squirrel.


We are one country, we are all one country. Much of the tax disparity is simple geography and how the country developed. It has nothing to do with politics. The Coasts are the money centers all over the world...

I truly have no care about taxes. I think we pay a decent rate and I have no complaining to do. I live very good for the amount of money I kick in.

But trust me. I don't care. I only do this for fun when the nonsense crawls up my ass and grabs my attention.

[Boris]

According to your link, corporations paid 13% of the total tax revenue the IRS collected in 2008. Sounds like a bad tip to me. :)
Corporations "paid" exactly ZERO in taxes. All taxes paid are factored into the price they charge their customer.

[PaceAdvantage]

This just in:

California and New York, bastions of liberalism, are still broke.

And Suff claims it's because the Fed Gov't is spending too much money on "red" states, money that could be going to Cali and NY? Is that what the argument is here?

Money spent in South Dakota, where Suff readily admits nobody lives, is causing states like California and New York to cry uncle? Really?

South Dakota, ranked 46 out of 50 on the ol' population scale, is KILLING New York and California? North Dakota? 48 of 50. Montana? 44 of 50.

Of course South Dakota and the others take in more than they give out...how could they not? There's NOBODY LIVING in South Dakota! How much is really going to these sparsely populated states, and can it have that much of an impact on all these broke or NEARLY BROKE blue states?

Could there be other reasons why these BLUE STATES are running themselves into the ground?

[NJ Stinks]

I basically give up at this stage, if you all want to believe that the average corporation only pays $157 in tax and Republicans don't pay any taxes, more power to you. I hope you wager big and often at the windows as well.

I just looked at the sites again and you are right, Miesque. All dollar amounts are in thousands. I stand corrected.

I do wager often but not really big. Sorry. :)

[PaceAdvantage]

Hey Suff, here's a link to California's proposed budget:

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/deptIndex.html

Massive, isn't it? My eyes are glazed after only a few minutes.

Now, Cali and Arnie are saying they are facing a $14.8 billion shortfall for the current year out of a $104.5 billion total budget for 2008-2009.

You mean to tell me they can't cut 10-14% out of that massive, bloated budget to meet current fiscal obligations? They have to go begging the Fed for a handout?

All of this is South Dakota's fault? :lol:

You are kidding, right?