Printable View
Very simple; government pays its employees without witholding taxes or premiums, pre-tax = post-tax. People who work for the government have no deductables, are not required to report their income from their government jobs.
It's really not so easy to fake being a government employee if the prove consists of being paid by a government agency as an employee. Some complications could occur if people move in or out public service during the year, but these are easily tackled.
What you claim to be the preferable situation is one where government should continue without even knowing who are paid by it? If that is really the case this should be fixed immediately regardless of any other objective you might have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
It has got nothing to do with being centralized or not, it has got to do with decent accounting.
Otherwise I am highly amused a borderline-Republican like you and a Tory like Randblade are defending a principle which just means that more money needs to go through the hands of government :)
Deductions are there because the government wants some people to keep more money than others; are we tossing that all out (ha! good luck with that), or building it into the pay system (shit-tons more work, costs, and risks, no gain over current system)? And what do we do with households with multiple sources of income? Surely they can't pay federal tax rates and take deductions based on their non-government sources alone. More complications!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
It's going to be very easy to try and fake, and with so many different government agencies and payrolls at federal, state, county, city, and occasionally random other levels, it's going to be easy to slip into the system. You're proposing a system without any significant gains, and with a lot of extra risk and required infrastructure. As nice as it'd be to stop some people from claiming the government's doing something that looks a bit silly at first glance, it's just not practical here in the US.Quote:
It's really not so easy to fake being a government employee if the prove consists of being paid by a government agency as an employee. Some complications could occur if people move in or out public service during the year, but these are easily tackled.
Totally missed this until just now.
Simpler than the proposed system, which adds further costs, complications, caveats, and a word for risks that starts with 'c', anyways. Not trying to say that the current tax system isn't already more complicated than it should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Our tax system assumes everyone has to pay and pursues everyone to make sure they pay what they owe. It takes work to allow millions of people to verify that they are in a special class of people who don't need to pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Plus, this kind of stuff would just be an irresistible source of corruption.
And on principle, I don't think it's right that government employees get a free pass on all government services. Just because I'm an underline at the bakery doesn't mean I get free bread.
Uh, Dread, they're not "free". Way to miss the point. Once again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
The argument is: The state gives some people money. And then the same state takes back some of that money afterwards. So the question then becomes why the state doesn't simply hand out less money instead of this back-and-forth.
Simple enough for you to comprehend?
And I do know some shops where in-store purchases by employees are deducted directly from their wages (they even get a discount). THAT is the principle we're talking about. Nobody but you talked about "free" and got their knickers in a twist over it.
Right, because adding those employees tax filings to the already existing tax filings is something that doesn't cost money and manpower to process? It's a bit dishonest to talk about "added costs" and disregard the fact that those same "added costs" also exist with everyone paying taxes - since someone has to process them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
And knowing the complicated nature of tax systems, I'm a bit dubious that it would actually save money.
Why are you always so condescending?
Everyone's tax situation is different. Mortgage interprets deductions, child credits, mansion taxes. Plus there are many types of government workers with their own salary schedules. And we give people salary bumps because of things like degrees, experience, etc.
When everyone's tax situation is different, trying to create a parallel salary scale for tens of thousands of jobs and job levels is maddeningly complex. What are you going to do? Pay government workers more salary when they buy a home because they would have used their mortgage interest deduction to pay less in taxes post-purchase? It doesn't add up.
That's a problem with your ridiculous tax system, Dread, not with the concept per se.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
And I'm condescending because you sometimes choose to make the most harebrained of comparisons.
The cost per added person processed would probably be roughly the same, but then you have to add in the cost of creating, maintaining, organizing, and enforcing the extra separate system in parallel with the original. You could probably call it a wash if we could dump the original system in favor of this one, but we'd still need it for non-government employees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
How do you define "working for the government" though? What about contractors?
That is such bullshit; you are saying here it costs the equal amount for the government to tell the IRS, hey this guy is working for us as it costs them to treat that person as if he's working in the private sector? Khen is right, that is a dishonest argument. All you'd need is a simple declaration (that could be entirely automated from one government agency to the other) for the duration of someones tenure. There is no way that costs more than a fraction of the process that now taxes people in the private sector in order to pay people in the public sector their income + taxes, then withhold those public sector taxes again to finally recalculate taxes due when these public sector workers file for taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
The people sputtering against the simplicity of a such a system in my eyes are doing so out of a misunderstood sense of equal treatment. Because they pay taxes they want public sector workers to pay taxes too. Because they don't want to see public sector workers get preferential treatment when it comes to taxation. What they don't realise is that in order to prevent that percieved privilege they actually have to cough up more for the employment of people in the public sector, not less.
How exactly is abusing a technicality to block passing a law by not being there any more ' immature' than a filibuster?
And if a state has to pay their employees more so they can pay federal taxes, doesn't that just move money from state to federal government?
The whole filibuster thing of course is nothing but institutionalized abuse.
A filibuster is built-in to the procedures of just one body of our government. But the point is to allow our legislators to debate an issue as long as they want until 66% of legislators say they've had enough debate. So if a group of legislators really cares about something, they can prolong discussion without getting shut-down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
This means a filibuster still involves showing up to work and nominally "fighting" your case. By contrast, it's immature to flee the State of Wisconsin because the Democrats are going to lose a vote that matters to the unions that bankroll their elections.
No, you're condescending all the time from the get-go of any discussion. It's frustrating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
The fact of the matter is that almost every tax system has deductions that are based on the choices of tax-filers. You can't exempt a whole class of people from paying taxes when they have those same choices that impact their taxes. It's not as if Germany doesn't have deductible insurance payments, tax-deductible donations, etc. It's actually unfair to government workers to deny them these choices of reducing their tax burden.
But going back to the principle issue, it's really a bad idea for any society to allow a massive chunk of people to be totally disconnected from taxes. Taxes are a civil duty and it's our responsibility to vote on what we think taxes should be.
If the entire civil service gets paid from tax dollars, votes but doesn't actually pay taxes, they will have no connection at all to the source of their salary. They will just be a rabble on the street demanding more salary and endless tax increases because they have no conception of what people are actually paying. Which isn't that far removed from where we are now, but exempting them from taxes institutionalizes it.
Aha. So, they're denied the choice to reduce their tax burden - how exactly does one reduce a "burden" of 0%?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Because I'm using tax deductions to reduce my taxes and increase my income. They don't have that choice -- they have fewer levers to pull to change their financial situation.
You're not reading a thing I say, are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Ah, so the more money you have, the more you can avoid paying taxes. Yeah, sounds like a great system to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Sure that's the point of a filibuster, but it's abused just as bad. Whether you block a vote that has a majority by keeping talking, or by not showing up, its essentially the same thing and both are not the way the rules were intended (I assume the reason for the amount of votes rule is that you can't pass a law by having a vote without the opponents being there).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
There is additional social stigma in actually fleeing your place of work to avoid doing your job, much less fleeing the state entirely. At least the filibuster is actually part of the work the politicians are ostensibly paid for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
That is one of the points Hazir already made, yesQuote:
And if a state has to pay their employees more so they can pay federal taxes, doesn't that just move money from state to federal government?
And this question comes from a country that actually has a Civil Service? Your question is a bit redundant anyway because of VAT regulation the way I know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You're upset I don't address all the silly problems you throw up because some government agencies in your country don't know how to keep books? That hardly is a problem that has any connections with the idea that it is nonsensical for government agencies to withhold taxes on the incomes of their employees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
I'm truly sorry that you Americans appearantly only have incompetents working for your government, but as a Dutch European I am expecting somewhat higher standards. Maybe you guys should start hire people that can figure out basic maths, because no matter which system you use with the idiots you think are working for your government it's all going to end up in a mess.
Err, no. But if you choose to buy a home, have a child, make your home more energy efficient, etc, there are tax incentives in place to reward that. As far as I can tell, this is the case in Germany as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
The filibuster is abused in some respects, but in a sense it's also doing its job. The filibuster is meant to allow a minority to block legislation that it really hates unless the majority can muster 66% to stop the debate and vote on the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
There are a lot of arguments about whether this is a wise parliamentary policy. But as Fuzzy pointed out, it's part of the job in our Senate. The Democratic Senators in Wisconsin (remember, different than our federal senators) are simply not showing up to work and bringing all business to a halt for the sake of their campaign contributors.
So let's get this right, not bringing a law to a vote in the US senate is ok, but not voting on a law in a state senate is evil?
Gee thanks, rub it in why don't ya. :sour:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Well half of the time the reaction to perfectly logical and simple ideas from the US is that your public workers wouldn't be able to add one plus one and therefore it won't work or is too expensive. It really takes an American to claim that the government not doing something would have a higher price tag than the government doing something. (Not be costlier in its outcome that is, but costlier in execution).Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Yes, we have a peculiar penchant for blaming gummint for everything. But not wanting to change campaign finance, how our legislators are elected, or whom they "serve".
This Revolution in Wisconsin is really about a state governor trying to ban collective bargaining (unions) for its public-sector workers.
My name is Yon Yonson.
Finally, a protest sign thats true, no matter which side of this debate you fall on
Since we've focused so much on who "funds" the dems in this mess, how about the other side?
We have? I thought it was just one post pointing out all the people behind the only report you linked were union reps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Dread has shoehorned it into his last two replies :noob:
A few days ago, a Fox News reporter asked a high-school kid something like, "Are you here to protest or testify?" Obviously that's a completely inane question... there must be a .00001% chance that some high-school kid come over there to testify. She answered something like "I don't know!" Terrifying! :bulb:
Here's another thing I found disconcerting: Fox News said that teachers make between $30,000 to $52,000 in Wisconsin. And that is supposed to be unionized pay. In Massachusetts I'd guess they make twice that. Is Wisconsin that back-woods?
Wisconsin's cost of living is much lower than Massachusetts'.
Let's say WI decides to let go of their union-busting proposals. All the public sector workers, like public school teachers, nurses, fire fighters, and police agree to pay more into their pensions and health care. Maybe they even agree to have defined contribution pensions, instead of defined benefits. Maybe they agree to paying full cost for their health care, as contract workers or self-employed do.
Is the state of Wisconsin prepared to raise the salaries and wages of all these public workers, to be on par with what their private sector peers receive?
Next question would be....who are the peers of fire fighters, cops, or teachers? Would they be the volunteer fire brigade, rent-a-cops, or parochial teachers?
And of course, the following questions would be.....who do you want putting out your house fire, or beating back mountain brush fires, and who do you want protecting your neighborhood or town, and who do you want teaching your children?
Do you want them to be paid as low as possible, or highly paid? Do you want them to rely on unions to bargain for their pay and benefits, or can they just be paid well enough to buy their own pensions and health care?
Next questions would be.....how valuable is your home, or your neighborhood, or your childrens' education? If you don't have children, how valuable is having an educated or peaceful youth, that keeps your neighborhood safe, and creates smart health professionals that treats your periodontal disease, and or your bad hips?
Should these things be willy nilly in a nation like the USA, or is there a minimal standard for teachers and students? Are we selling our professional teachers down the river, and letting our youth drown along the way? Do we really only want those who can pay for flotation devices to survive, knowing that means croneyism or favoritism?
Oh yeah, and thanks to the moderators for not giving me WL for all my consecutive posts. My madness really did have a method.....
But I will at least consolidate the posts...I mean FFS edit function. :noob:
It's not clear at all that these changes would put Wisconsin public workers "below" parity with the private sector. They are still paying less than the private sector for healthcare and they are still getting a defined-benefit salary-for-life.
You mods need to do something with your powers. :noob:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Fine, bring them up to parity with private sector workers in salary and contributions. But don't legally ban them from collective bargaining.Quote:
t's not clear at all that these changes would put Wisconsin public workers "below" parity with the private sector. They are still paying less than the private sector for healthcare and they are still getting a defined-benefit salary-for-life.
Which creates an interesting situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
If you halve the income, you more than halve the federal taxes. At 30K they will barely be paying any taxes... at the same time, the state government spends a lot of money on things that are relatively more expensive (i.e.: stay the same in price across state boundaries)... building supplies such as concrete, cars and trucks, other equipment, and possibly health care costs.
I didn't say their cost of living was half or yours, or that their wages were half of yours. Just less. Their state-wide average income is probably within national averages.....maybe $50,000/year or $100,000 per married couple. If they don't pay federal taxes, it's because they have children and a home mortgage. They still pay WI state taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
It seems to me that many people aren't considering some of the consequences of eliminating collective bargaining rights. If you take the rights away for the unions then you have effectively taken the right away from the government as well. If the rights are eliminated and all teachers decide not to go to work one day, who will the government negotiate with in order to get them back? Of course the government could hire all new teachers but do you really think there are that many good unemployed teachers available. It is possible to remove the legal right but it is impossible to stop people from acting collectively; reference Egypt et al.
The 40 year experiment with state workers collectively bargaining has brought us nothing beyond a giant patronage scheme that's also bankrupted our state governments. Pensions and employee healthcare have made them unable to build large-scale infrastructure or really do anything else big and significant.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
FDR, LaGuardia and other elected officials who are icons of organized labor all didn't support state workers using collective bargaining. It was deliberately left out of the first National Labor Relations Act.
Do you really want the schools to negotiate each teacher's contract individually? On the other hand, if you want schools to set salaries and benefits independant of teacher input then I feel you are arguing for hiring lower quality teachers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
edit: See my post above your's.
