Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics

On Feb 22, 9:08 pm, (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article >,
>
> Lloyd > wrote:
> >On Feb 21, 5:39 pm, (Matthew T. Russotto)
> >wrote:
> >> In article >,
>
> >> Lloyd > wrote:
>
> >> >No, it's ALL taxes. Sit down and do the math.
>
> >> In 2005, I paid 33% counting only income and property taxes (I don't have
> >> detailed records of sales tax or other consumption taxes, they would
> >> add a few percent)
>
> >Then you're obviously not middle-class.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> >Heck, the marginal fed income
> >tax rate for middle class is 28% (you do know the difference between
> >marginal and effective rates, I assume).
>
> Failing to count social security and medicare? They are income
> taxes.
>

Uh no, they are taxes, but not income taxes.

> In fact, my numbers are rather similar to yours:
>
> > Fed income tax -- 14.6% of income
> > Social Security -- 6.4%
> > Medicare -- 1.5%
> > State income tax -- 4.9%
> > Property tax -- 0.9%
> > Ad valorem tax -- 1.0 % (Georgia tax on value of automobile)
> > Sales tax -- 1.0% (using the sales tax tables the IRS provides)
>
> Let's drop your sales and auto tax and add in the hidden Social
> Security and medicare halves.

Let's add in corporate income tax, corporate property tax,
unemployment tax, export duties, etc., then.

>This simply requires recalculating the
> other taxes on a basis of 107.9% of your income.
>
> Fed income tax: 13.5%
> Social Security: 11.3%
> Medica 2.8%
> State Income Tax: 4.5%
> Property tax -- 0.8$
> Total of: 32.9%
>
> How about that, pretty close to my number.
>
> So are you not middle class either?
> --
> There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
> result in a fully-depreciated one.


And not close to the 50% some of the far-radical-right nuts here are
claiming.

On Feb 24, 5:55 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> > "Nate Nagel" > wrote
>
> >>And he's only counting the employee portion of SS so in reality it's more
> >>like 37%.
>
> > Including it is accounting fraud. And as we all know, Fraud is every
> > RepubliKKKans middle name.
>
> How is it fraud? If SS went away today, I'd be making roughly 12% more,
> not 6%. Or, my employer would be making more profit, one or the other.
> Either way, all of it impacts me.
>

If child labor laws went away, you might be making nothing and your
employer lots more. So?

> Oh, that's right, you're an idiot. Thanks for reminding us, yet again.
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Feb 24, 7:24 pm, bill > wrote:
> On Feb 24, 6:56 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
>
>
> > V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> > > "Nate Nagel" > wrote
>
> > >> How is it fraud? If SS went away today, I'd be making roughly 12%
> > >> more, not 6%.
>
> > > No, you would be making the same amount since your employer wouldn't
> > > need to pay you that amount in order to maintain your current
> > > standard of living.
>
> > Well, they couldn't give me a six percent pay cut, especially when they
> > know and I know and they know that I know that they'd be getting a free
> > 6% off the top. Most employees would start looking for alternate
> > employment if that happened (myself included.)
>
> > In fact, it was a similar situation ("promoted" to a salaried position
> > after I'd been putting in plenty of 50-70 hour weeks) that prompted my
> > last job change.
>
> > > Nothing would be passed along to you. Do you think your employer
> > > keeps your stupid ass employed because they enjoy it?
>
> > Yes, I do. They keep me employed because I have not only tangible
> > skills, but customers like me, and the goodwill that I bring to the
> > company by helping out customers adds more value to the company than the
> > cost of keeping me on the payroll.
>
> > Note that nowhere in that previous statement did "standard of living"
> > get any kind of mention. I have no illusions that if my costs of
> > employment rise to the point that I no longer provide a net benefit to
> > the company, that I will be asked to take a pay cut, moved to a
> > different position, or terminated. That's the way businesses work.
>
> > > Ahahahahahahaha.......... KKKonservatives - Dumber than dirt.
>
> > You assume that I am a conservative. Why is that? I have never
> > mentioned political affiliation in any thread in which you've
> > participated. I wonder who you think I voted for in the primaries, and
> > who you think I will vote for in the upcoming elections.
>
> > > "Nate Nagel" > wrote
>
> > >> Or, my employer would be making more profit, one or the other.
>
> > > Your employer would keep the funds, competititon would lower prices
> > > relative to inflation and in short order the economy would stabalize
> > > at a point that maintains your standard of living relative to those
> > > around you. Your wages would fall in absolute terms, and you wouldn't
> > > see a dime.
>
> > > Businesses in AmeriKKKa pay all of the taxes in the country.
> > > Employees pay nothing.
>
> > I hope you didn't pay too much for that degree in economics. And y'know
> > what? You ASSume that wages are the end all and be all of wealth
> > generation which couldn't be farther from the truth. You use your wages
> > to live day to day; real wealth is built by *investing* the little bit
> > that's left over. Saving alone doesn't cut it, at least for most normal
> > people, and those wealthy enough to not worry about such things invest
> > anyway because it would be retarded not to put your money to work for you.
>
> > nate
>
> > --
> > replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel
>
> He assumes that you are conservative because you are showing some
> semblance of economic intelligence. Liberals do not generally do
> that. Therefore, if you have taken economics 101, you must be a
> conservative.
>
> I note that he also has the interesting delusion that the standard of
> living that your pay affords you has something to do with how much
> employers are willing to pay. Again, total BS, the wage/salary that
> employers are willing to pay has to do primarily with the value of the
> goods and services that you produce.
>
> Lets say that the SS tax was terminated on both sides. It now costs
> an employer 6% less to have an employee, and the employee makes 6%
> more. That means that each employee is more profitable to the
> company, therefore, they are more inclined to hire additional people.
> which drives up the demand for workers. That in turn drives up the
> price of workers. At the same time, the 6% pay raise that the
> employees just got enables them to purchase more goods and services,
> which once again, increases the demand for employees, which once again
> increases the cost of each employee. The net result will be that the
> profit margins of each company will be slightly higher, (say 2%) and
> the employees will end up taking a 10% pay raise with less overall
> unemployment. This iss something that anyone who has taken economics
> 101 should be able to figure out, it isn't rocket science.

Of course, the employees are going to demand a greater retirement
package. And all the retired workers of today are going to sue. I
doubt your employer wants that.

On Feb 25, 4:12 pm, Lloyd > wrote:
> On Feb 22, 5:17 pm, (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article >, Lloyd wrote:
> > > On Feb 21, 6:31 pm, (Brent P)
> > > wrote:
> > >> In article >, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> > >> >>> BS. In the USA we are nickeled and dimed for taxes all over the place.
> > >> >>> You have to add them all up. it's at least 50% all said and done.
>
> > >> >>That's just flat-out wrong.
> > >> >>>30%
> > >> >>> hell, that's just state and federal income taxes. Then on top of that
> > >> >>> there are property, sales, phone, gas, natural gas, electric, transfer,
> > >> >>> car, cable TV, hotel, amusement, etc etc etc off into infinity and
> > >> >>> beyond.
>
> > >> >>No, it's ALL taxes. Sit down and do the math.
>
> > >> > In 2005, I paid 33% counting only income and property taxes (I don't have
> > >> > detailed records of sales tax or other consumption taxes, they would
> > >> > add a few percent)
>
> > >> I just added up mine from 2006. I used fed income (including medicare and
> > >> FICA, state income and property. Just the biggies. I counted fica 2x at
> > >> the full 12%
>
> > > Heck, why not count GM's sales and income taxes if you bought a Chevy.
>
> > Parker, you're an idiot. Would you employ someone who wasn't worth all
> > the money it cost you to employ him? Of course not. Your employee's labor
> > has to cover the FULL cost of social security.
>
> Also his property taxes, income taxes, unemployment taxes, profits,
> etc. Are all those part of your taxes too?

YES you moron, all the taxes that are involved in having an employee
come out of *your* pocket. In many cases, they come out more than
once, by increasing the domestic costs of goods production, they make
exports nonviable and hurt not only your pocketbook directly, but the
economy as a whole.

In article >, Lloyd wrote:

> Then I assume you also add into your tax burden your employer's
> unemployment tax, property tax, income tax, etc. Come on, a tax
> somebody else pays? That's just silly to add it in to your taxes.

The cost of my employment is what my labor must be worth at minimum to be
employed. The employer doesn't care who the money goes to only what the
cost of an employee is. If the cost of the employee is more than the
value of the work nobody is hired for the job. The work is shifted to
other employees or just not done. that's the real world. A company that
paid more labor than the results of that labor goes out of business.

> Comes from not living in a McMansion, I guess.

I wouldn't know... I don't have anything close to such a size. they are
built crapy so I wouldn't touch them anyway.

In article >, Lloyd wrote:
> On Feb 22, 5:17 pm, (Brent P)
> wrote:

>> Parker, you're an idiot. Would you employ someone who wasn't worth all
>> the money it cost you to employ him? Of course not. Your employee's labor
>> has to cover the FULL cost of social security.

> Also his property taxes, income taxes, unemployment taxes, profits,
> etc. Are all those part of your taxes too?

So you prove you are an idiot. Good job.

In article >, Lloyd wrote:

>> And he's not being representative on property tax,
>
> It's called living within your means.

So, how long is your commute to work? Your kind taxes the crap out of
everything that isn't an hour + commute away from where the jobs are...

Brent P wrote:

> I am taxed at 35%.

You mean you pay 35% on SOME of your income (the marginal rate). You do not pay 35% on all of it.

Your income tax will start at 10%.

Graham

In article >, Lloyd wrote:
> On Feb 22, 5:27 pm, (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article >, Lloyd wrote:
>> > On Feb 22, 8:51 am, (Brent P)
>> > wrote:
>> >> In article >, Governor Swill wrote:
>> >> > (Brent P) used a stick in the sand
>> >> > to babble
>> >> >>The bottom 50% in the US pays hardly anything in federal income tax.
>>
>> >> > In total dollars? Of course they do! That's why they're the BOTTOM
>> >> > half. But when expressed in terms of percentage of their income, the
>> >> > middle class pays more than poor or rich.
>>
>> >> Read the spread sheet. Did you see how little income it takes to be in
>> >> the top 50%? The top 50% includes most of the middle class.
>>
>> > Did you see the top 50% pay an average 13.84% tax rate?
>>
>> That's just federal income tax lloyd. Duh. 13.84 + 12.8 we are already at
>> 26.6 fica and fed income. Throw in medicare and we are are at aprox. 30%.
>> Thanks for playing.
>
> SS is not 12.8%. Do you see 12.8% on your pay stub? Yes or no.
> And Medicare is 1.5%.

I know how much my labor has to be valued to be employed and that
includes the full cost of social security.

In article >, Eeyore wrote:
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> I am taxed at 35%.
>
> You mean you pay 35% on SOME of your income (the marginal rate). You do not pay 35% on all of it.

I pay > 35% on the heavy hitters. I took dollars paid / income in
dollars.