OT- CONTEST!!! Guess public sector household earnings

[sdrealtor]

Ummmm…..you comment about my use of line worker reeks of a personal attack.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter] Um, Brian…what do you think “services” are? Do you not realize that in a service industry (as almost all govt entities are), the vast majority of your expenditures are spent on compensation?[/quote]

In my mind public services are schools, libraries, parks, assistance to the poor, etc.. All of those services are being cut.

In Jerry Brown’s own words:

“These are painful reductions – mothers and kids will be getting the same welfare check in real dollars that they got in the ’80s, and the same for the elderly, blind and disabled,”

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/05/BADC1MLEJ6.DTL#ixzz1jpVgEh5G

So we are cutting services in order to pay generous compensations to public employees.

I don’t see the public good being here, nor do I see shared sacrifice. The most senior public employees, who have the most control over our state and local governments, are fighting to keep all of their benefits while services to citizens are being cut and junior employees are being laid-off.

[SD Realtor]

“We are quickly reaching the point where the majority of public funds will be going toward retirement payouts. Already, in places like San Jose and Vallejo, the majority of their city budgets go to public services provided in the past.”

Stop making so much sense pr_dk.

I can already predict the response from CAR. This would all be sustainable if not for those Wall Street thieves!.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk]Of course we cannot come to any final conclusions using sdr’s data point, not without knowing more specifics about the individuals and their jobs (and I don’t want to know more.)

(BTW, “line worker” is a very common term – what a ridiculous nitpick…)

But there is an interesting fact relevant to the number. These folks are making above $250K, the income used in the recent tax and healthcare debates as the threshold for “rich people.”

Accounting for the cost of benefits, their total compensation is probably around $300K – well above the “rich” threshold.

According to many of Obama’s policy positions, these people should pay more taxes, because right now they aren’t paying their “fair share.” (And, BTW, I have supported these positions all along.)

So, for those us that are left-leaning on tax policy, we have to acknowledge that our position is that these people are in fact doing quite well, and should pay more in taxes. The rules should apply to everyone.

So I agree that sdr’s little anecdote makes a point:

People can become “rich” working “line” jobs in the public sector.

That is a red flag, to be sure.[/quote]

Of course they should be paying more in taxes! I’m a firm believer in progressive tax rates. History shows that higher marginal tax rates did NOT “stiffle” economic growth, innovation, business investment, etc. As a matter of fact, our economy has performed best when money (without a debt offset) is flowing freely through the economy. You can’t have that when “the rich” own all the wealth.

IMHO, the most egregious part of our tax policy is the lower tax rate for those who don’t even work for their money. There is something horribly wrong with our country when financial speculators pay a lower tax rate than “line workers.”

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter] Um, Brian…what do you think “services” are? Do you not realize that in a service industry (as almost all govt entities are), the vast majority of your expenditures are spent on compensation?[/quote]

In my mind public services are schools, libraries, parks, assistance to the poor, etc.. All of those services are being cut.

In Jerry Brown’s own words:

“These are painful reductions – mothers and kids will be getting the same welfare check in real dollars that they got in the ’80s, and the same for the elderly, blind and disabled,”

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/05/BADC1MLEJ6.DTL#ixzz1jpVgEh5G

So we are cutting services in order to pay generous compensations to public employees.

I don’t see the public good being here, nor do I see shared sacrifice. The most senior public employees, who have the most control over our state and local governments, are fighting to keep all of their benefits while services to citizens are being cut and junior employees are being laid-off.[/quote]

FWIW, “schools,” “libraries,” etc. are run by *people* (unless you’re referring to the physical structure/new construction — and even then, the money is being used to pay people for their labor…compensation).

As far as welfare payments being similar to what they were in the 1980s…we can weep for them as we weep for all the workers who are still making 1980 wages (or less!), especially in blue-collar jobs. Let’s reverse the wealth disparity and see what happens.

Time to fix our trade and tax, and immigration policies so that companies are not encouraged to import cheap labor and/or export our jobs. The decimation of our job base both increases the burden on governments at the same time as it reduces tax revenue (especially when the richest people are paying so litte in taxes — as a percentage of income) It would broaden the tax base (so “the rich” could stop complaining about “paying all the taxes”), and increase tax revenues, as well as improve the quality of life for America’s most productive people — the workers.

Time to stop letting the richest Americans and corporate interests dictate tax and trade policies. They are sucking us dry.

[UCGal]

[quote=CONCHO]Being rich and having a large income are two different things.[/quote]

[quote=pri_dk]Try explaining that to the IRS.[/quote]

I’m with Concho on this. If you have wealth – you can spend that… and typically your “income” is taxed as capital gains.

Vs someone who has a high income – but spends it all – it’s taxed as income (higher rates).

A person can inherit wealth (not earned by them) and earn modest income. They are wealthy, but they are not a top earner. And if they are a poor investor, they may not generate any income off of the wealth.

Look at Mitt Romney – he’s rich by all standards (270M?) But apparently pays taxes at about a 15% rate. And he claims to be unemployed… although his 370k/year in speaking fees is not insignificant.

Someone making $500k/year in salary pays a higher tax rate than someone earning $500k off of investments. There is a difference.

High income and wealth may overlap, but they are not the same thing.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]IMHO, the most egregious part of our tax policy is the lower tax rate for those who don’t even work for their money. There is something horribly wrong with our country when financial speculators pay a lower tax rate than “line workers.”[/quote]
Don’t forget all the retirees and the many people who actually get money from the government instead of paying any taxes.

BTW, 75% of tax payer pays less than 15% effective tax rate. Only 25% pays more. Most of those in the 25% who pays more than 15% effective tax rate are what some would call “the rich”, those in the 33 & 35%.

Here are some historical effective federal tax rates for all households:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
According to this data, everyone’s effective tax rate have been going down since 1979 except for the top quintile.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]IMHO, the most egregious part of our tax policy is the lower tax rate for those who don’t even work for their money. There is something horribly wrong with our country when financial speculators pay a lower tax rate than “line workers.”[/quote]
Don’t forget all the retirees and the many people who actually get money from the government instead of paying any taxes.[/quote]

They’ve paid taxes all their lives if they’re getting SS.

Not only that, but SS recipients do have to pay taxes if their total income goes over a certain threshold.

If you’re referring to public employees who are now retired; as explained before, the money used to pay their benefits is not “govt” money. It is a separate fund that is paid for by the employees and employers as compensation for their services. They also pay taxes on their retirement income, just as they have paid taxes on their earned income — the very same taxes as those private sector workers who whine about public servants, and they pay a HIGHER tax rate than the wealthiest “investors,” who have sucked this country dry, yet still whine about the retirement benefits of public wokers.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz] . . . . I just met up with an old friend who graduated with the civil engineering degree. He lost his job recently in the private sector, and just got a job in the public sector. Guess what he’s making more then he did in the private sector, a lot more. He rides around a few days a week in a large 40k 4 x 4 Ford that’s brand-new, thanks Katrina for your levee caused freak out And that’s just salary I’m not talking pension here! Wake up CAR we’re getting fleeced, at least my buddy knows that he is riding the gravy train. That’s all I ask of public sector employees, a little gratitude![/quote]

jstoesz, if your “buddy” just obtained a public position (in the state of LA?) he has yet to be “vested” and there is a chasm between his potential for a “fat pension” and his actually being in a position to begin collecting it.

jstoesz, aren’t YOU a “civil engineer?” The State of LA beckons and undoubtedly needs your help. Why haven’t YOU applied to any of those jobs? Perhaps the living conditions there may not be to you or your spouse’s liking or taste??

I’ll leave it at that …. ;=]

LA is the most political state in the country, IMO, especially NOW.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]IMHO, the most egregious part of our tax policy is the lower tax rate for those who don’t even work for their money. There is something horribly wrong with our country when financial speculators pay a lower tax rate than “line workers.”[/quote]

And I agree.

But it also doesn’t much matter.

Most “line” workers pay an effective tax rate of far less than 15% (the capital gains rate.)

Your effective rate is always far less than your marginal rate. Someone making even $100K/year will almost always pay less than 15% of their income in federal taxes.

(Look at the “summary page” on your Turbo Tax PDF printout to see your effective tax rate.)

In order to have an effective tax rate above 15%, a couple would likely be earning more than $200K. Not exactly people who are struggling.

And what about dividends, taxed at 15%? There are lots of old people/retirees collecting them. Why don’t they just “work” for their money?

So the 15% capital gains rate is not as egregiously unfair as it may appear. Nevertheless, I am in favor of a tax policy where all forms of income are treated equally. After all, both labor and cash are forms of capital – they should be treated the same.

But no matter what the tax rates, I an NOT in favor of future tax receipts being used to cover the current shortfalls in public-sector pensions.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]They’ve paid taxes all their lives if they’re getting SS.

Not only that, but SS recipients do have to pay taxes if their total income goes over a certain threshold.

If you’re referring to public employees who are now retired; as explained before, the money used to pay their benefits is not “govt” money. It is a separate fund that is paid for by the employees and employers as compensation for their services. They also pay taxes on their retirement income, just as they have paid taxes on their earned income — the very same taxes as those private sector workers who whine about public servants, and they pay a HIGHER tax rate than the wealthiest “investors,” who have sucked this country dry, yet still whine about the retirement benefits of public wokers.[/quote]
I’m referring to the retirees who actually were able to save money and live off their investment in retirement.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]IMHO, the most egregious part of our tax policy is the lower tax rate for those who don’t even work for their money. There is something horribly wrong with our country when financial speculators pay a lower tax rate than “line workers.”[/quote]
Don’t forget all the retirees and the many people who actually get money from the government instead of paying any taxes.

BTW, 75% of tax payer pays less than 15% effective tax rate. Only 25% pays more. Most of those in the 25% who pays more than 15% effective tax rate are what some would call “the rich”, those in the 33 & 35%.

Here are some historical effective federal tax rates for all households:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
According to this data, everyone’s effective tax rate have been going down since 1979 except for the top quintile.[/quote]

Don’t forget “the richest,” who pay 15% or less.

Yes, tax rates are near historic lows. That’s why some of us get so angry when hearing the weathiest Americans complain about paying taxes. They are wealthier today, and pay lower tax rates today, than they have in many, many, many decades.

As a matter of fact, the last time we saw such low tax rates and such a high wealth/income disparity (interesting to note that these tend to go together) was right before the Great Depression. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]Don’t forget “the richest,” who pay 15% or less.

Yes, tax rates are near historic lows. That’s why some of us get so angry when hearing the weathiest Americans complain about paying taxes. They are wealthier today, and pay lower tax rates today, than they have in many, many, many decades.

As a matter of fact, the last time we saw such low tax rates and such a high wealth/income disparity was right before the Great Depression. Coincidence? I don’t think so.[/quote]
Did you even look at the link I posted? EVERYONE have been paying less effective tax rate except for the to 10%. The data doesn’t support your assertion that the top 10% pay lower tax rates today than they have in many decades. I provided my data, where’s your data to support your assertions?

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]IMHO, the most egregious part of our tax policy is the lower tax rate for those who don’t even work for their money. There is something horribly wrong with our country when financial speculators pay a lower tax rate than “line workers.”[/quote]

And I agree.

But it also doesn’t much matter.

Most “line” workers pay an effective tax rate of far less than 15% (the capital gains rate.)

Your effective rate is always far less than your marginal rate. Someone making even $100K/year will almost always pay less than 15% of their income in federal taxes.

(Look at the “summary page” on your Turbo Tax PDF printout to see your effective tax rate.)

In order to have an effective tax rate above 15%, a couple would likely be earning more than $200K. Not exactly people who are struggling.

And what about dividends, taxed at 15%? There are lots of old people/retirees collecting them. Why don’t they just “work” for their money?

So the 15% capital gains rate is not as egregiously unfair as it may appear. Nevertheless, I am in favor of a tax policy where all forms of income are treated equally. After all, both labor and cash are forms of capital – they should be treated the same.

But no matter what the tax rates, I an NOT in favor of future tax receipts being used to cover the current shortfalls in public-sector pensions.[/quote]

Maybe we have a horrible accountant, but we pay more than 15% even though a large portion of our income (mine) is investment income, much of which is taxed at 15%. Yes, I’m the first one to comment to our accountant about how unfair that is, too.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]FWIW, “schools,” “libraries,” etc. are run by *people* […][/quote]

Reminds me of something Mitt Romney once said:

Many of the “people” that Mitt is referring to are CalPERS/CalSTRS members.

[Author]

Posts