In America, at what income level are you paying in more than you are taking out in some form of government welfare?
American Taxes
- Thread starter glen
- Start date
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 25,554
- 4,050
- 126
There is no answer to this question. There are too many variables to consider. For example this income level will change depending on age, number of children, if you go to college, how you invest your money, how you earn your money, disability, sickness, willingness to accept welfare, etc.
For some families may have no income and accept no welfare. Thus in that case, your answer is zero. Other families may have no income and accept thousands and thousands of dollars of welfare - thus zero is not your answer.
For some families may have no income and accept no welfare. Thus in that case, your answer is zero. Other families may have no income and accept thousands and thousands of dollars of welfare - thus zero is not your answer.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 25,554
- 4,050
- 126
Here are some average statistics from the year 2000:
Average income tax paid per person: $3559.
Average welfare paid per person: $4128. This is the sum of social programs, social security, medicare, retirement, and development programs.
Thus the average person nets $569 per year.
After deductions, your family needs about $27,250 to pay $4128 in taxes. If you add a typical $20,000 in deductions then an estimate to your question is $47,250. However every family is different so this number is drastically different for different families.
Average income tax paid per person: $3559.
Average welfare paid per person: $4128. This is the sum of social programs, social security, medicare, retirement, and development programs.
Thus the average person nets $569 per year.
After deductions, your family needs about $27,250 to pay $4128 in taxes. If you add a typical $20,000 in deductions then an estimate to your question is $47,250. However every family is different so this number is drastically different for different families.
<< Average income tax paid per person: $3559.
Average welfare paid per person: $4128. This is the sum of social programs, social security, medicare, retirement, and development programs >>
Only a Democrate can make math work like that.
That sounds like I am slamming you Dullard, but I don't mean it that way. Just give me some more information. Those numbers can't add up.
HomeBrewerDude
Lifer
- Jan 18, 2001
- 14,465
- 1
- 0
<< at what income level are you paying in more than you are taking out in some form of government welfare? >>
I think your question has been answered...at least on a literal level. But in a broader sense, you are asking at what point does a person receive more benefit from the government than they pay in supporting that government. To this issue, we have the reply:
<< Well, the top 50% pay 96% of the taxes. It would stand to reason that the bottom 50% while paying 4% of the taxes are getting FAR more for their tax dollar just in public services alone, welfare or not. >>
I would like to offer an opposing opinion. Namely, I think the wealthy enjoy a better cost/benefit ratio from governement spending than poor people do. Yeah, high earners pay most of the taxes, but they also benefit from government more. They utilize transportation systems, judicial systems, national defense systems, educational systems a great deal more than the average low earner. In fact, these systems make their income possible (i.e. We wouldn't have the economy we have without the national infrastructure that we have).
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 56,710
- 17,210
- 146
<<
<< at what income level are you paying in more than you are taking out in some form of government welfare? >>
I think your question has been answered...at least on a literal level. But in a broader sense, you are asking at what point does a person receive more benefit from the government than they pay in supporting that government. To this issue, we have the reply:
<< Well, the top 50% pay 96% of the taxes. It would stand to reason that the bottom 50% while paying 4% of the taxes are getting FAR more for their tax dollar just in public services alone, welfare or not. >>
I would like to offer an opposing opinion. Namely, I think the wealthy enjoy a better cost/benefit ratio from governement spending than poor people do. Yeah, high earners pay most of the taxes, but they also benefit from government more. They utilize transportation systems, judicial systems, national defense systems, educational systems a great deal more than the average low earner. In fact, these systems make their income possible (i.e. We wouldn't have the economy we have without the national infrastructure that we have). >>
Yet the lower classes use them for next to nothing, and are the largest segment of the population to use the justice system. At any rate, lower classes go to public schools, drive on the roads, use the police/fire department/hospitals, and ride on public transpertation as much, if not more in some cases, as the "rich." To claim the rich use these things more is preposterous.
BTW, we wouldn't have a national infrastructure if it wasn't for the top 50% of wage earners.
<< I think the wealthy enjoy a better cost/benefit ratio from governement spending than poor people do >>
You are sadly devoid of facts...
<< Yeah, high earners pay most of the taxes, but they also benefit from government more >>
And your point is? You'd be hard pressed to prove that...
<< They utilize transportation systems.... >>
They? Please explain...Government funds public transportation at a HUGE loss!
<< ...judicial systems.. >>
Poor people get it free...every one else pays through the nose!
<< ...national defense systems... >>
Are you saying we 'defend' based on income?
<< ...educational systems a great deal more than the average low earner... >>
Ever get turned down for a college loan because your parents earned too much....although they were just getting by?
<< In fact, these systems make their income possible (i.e. We wouldn't have the economy we have without the national infrastructure that we have). >>
Government IS THE MOST EXPENSIVE WAY TO DO ANYTHING! It and it's social engineering stand in the way of more people being self sufficient thay any other reason.
<< In America, at what income level are you paying in more than you are taking out in some form of government welfare? >>
What do you concider to be govt. welfare? All I know is that all I do is pay taxes and what do I get in return? Nothing in the form of welfare. I do get that fine feeling in the bottom of my tummy when I go over a pothole that has not been filled or I get angry that the children that my wife teaches fifth grade to are sorely lacking in the proper background to do simple math or writing or I feel that my govt. is protecting me from some whako out there.......................
I could go on forever but why do you ask?
I don't understand what you are trying to say, AmusedOne. Are you saying people who earn less and therefore pay less taxes deserve less access to public resources? The people who build and work on public resources are in the lower 50%. It's their labor that drives the infrastructure.
I know I pay more than I get back. I receive nothing more than those services that all Americans receive (defense, judicial, etc). It's not necessarily a complaint, but I take issue with Democrats and economic liberals who hold demand-side economics as some panacea for the economy. Reductions in marginal taxes are the only real relief I can receive, so I remain opposed to the Daschle types who would rather wage class warfare than enact policies that grow the economy.
HomeBrewerDude
Lifer
- Jan 18, 2001
- 14,465
- 1
- 0
okay let me try to explain what i am thinking a little more clearly.... let me iterate that this is an opinion, and obviously I haven't included any cited material that supports it. I through it out there as an alternative to the argument that only the poorest of the population benefit from government.
Transportation systems include FAA, Railroads, Highways, etc... All of these systems are used by industry as well as private citizens. High-earners, benefit twice from these systems... both from personal use and through business use.
The judicial system isn't just criminal court, its also civil. Poor people receive free counsel when charged with a crime...other than that they are subjected to the same court costs as affluent folks. My point is that the courts are used by businesses too.
Most people see our defense system as serving to protect our national soverienty. Defending our country is often intwined with defending our national assets. Look at it this way, if another country successfully invaded the US, there would either be a huge out powering of wealth from the US to the conquering government, OR the ability for US companys to profit from international markets would be severely limited.
Educational systems not only provide individuals with a "education", but they also provide an "educated" labor market. The costs of education isn't in providing financial aid (thats just a small fraction of education budgets), its in maintaining learning institutions such as universities, colleges, and public schools. The cost of education shouldn't be placed on just the person receiving the education, but also the organization that benefits from that person's education.
Obviously, some of you think I am off my rocker...I just hope you'll refrain from insulting me while telling me so.
Transportation systems include FAA, Railroads, Highways, etc... All of these systems are used by industry as well as private citizens. High-earners, benefit twice from these systems... both from personal use and through business use.
The judicial system isn't just criminal court, its also civil. Poor people receive free counsel when charged with a crime...other than that they are subjected to the same court costs as affluent folks. My point is that the courts are used by businesses too.
Most people see our defense system as serving to protect our national soverienty. Defending our country is often intwined with defending our national assets. Look at it this way, if another country successfully invaded the US, there would either be a huge out powering of wealth from the US to the conquering government, OR the ability for US companys to profit from international markets would be severely limited.
Educational systems not only provide individuals with a "education", but they also provide an "educated" labor market. The costs of education isn't in providing financial aid (thats just a small fraction of education budgets), its in maintaining learning institutions such as universities, colleges, and public schools. The cost of education shouldn't be placed on just the person receiving the education, but also the organization that benefits from that person's education.
Obviously, some of you think I am off my rocker...I just hope you'll refrain from insulting me while telling me so.
<<yamahaXS>>
I know what you mean.
Lets think about Jeff Bezo or whomever it is that owns Amazon.
Surely he gets more benefit that the average welfare recipient in just the benefit he recieves from the National Highway system.
But, imagine how much he pays in Taxes.
Imagine how many people he employs.
Imagine how many peopel he insures.
I know what you mean.
Lets think about Jeff Bezo or whomever it is that owns Amazon.
Surely he gets more benefit that the average welfare recipient in just the benefit he recieves from the National Highway system.
But, imagine how much he pays in Taxes.
Imagine how many people he employs.
Imagine how many peopel he insures.
HomeBrewerDude
Lifer
- Jan 18, 2001
- 14,465
- 1
- 0
I am not arguing that high-earners don't pay more. I am just arguing that figuring out a cost/benefit ratio of taxes vs services received isn't nearly as simple as counting welfare checks, financial aide checks, and potholes.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 56,710
- 17,210
- 146
<< I don't understand what you are trying to say, AmusedOne. Are you saying people who earn less and therefore pay less taxes deserve less access to public resources? The people who build and work on public resources are in the lower 50%. It's their labor that drives the infrastructure. >>
First, union construction workers are NOT in the bottom 50%. Most make over $30,000 a year to START. Those hot sweaty guys you see on the road laying your pavement aren't the poor boobs you think they are.
Secondly, no, I'm not saying they deserve less access. I'm simply making a point that the lower classes in the US are NOT, by ANY depth of the imgination, "over taxed." UNLESS, one consideres the taxes they pay by proxy from the overtaxing of businesses that is passed on to the consumer, or the so-called "sin-taxes" that punish the lower classes for "bad habits."
But then, these taxes are passed by the liberals who claim they only want to "help" the lower classes.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 56,710
- 17,210
- 146
<< okay let me try to explain what i am thinking a little more clearly.... let me iterate that this is an opinion, and obviously I haven't included any cited material that supports it. I through it out there as an alternative to the argument that only the poorest of the population benefit from government.
Transportation systems include FAA, Railroads, Highways, etc... All of these systems are used by industry as well as private citizens. High-earners, benefit twice from these systems... both from personal use and through business use.
The judicial system isn't just criminal court, its also civil. Poor people receive free counsel when charged with a crime...other than that they are subjected to the same court costs as affluent folks. My point is that the courts are used by businesses too.
Most people see our defense system as serving to protect our national soverienty. Defending our country is often intwined with defending our national assets. Look at it this way, if another country successfully invaded the US, there would either be a huge out powering of wealth from the US to the conquering government, OR the ability for US companys to profit from international markets would be severely limited.
Educational systems not only provide individuals with a "education", but they also provide an "educated" labor market. The costs of education isn't in providing financial aid (thats just a small fraction of education budgets), its in maintaining learning institutions such as universities, colleges, and public schools. The cost of education shouldn't be placed on just the person receiving the education, but also the organization that benefits from that person's education.
Obviously, some of you think I am off my rocker...I just hope you'll refrain from insulting me while telling me so. >>
When businesses ship using roads and other infrastructure, they PAY for that infrastructure though the taxes and fees levied on their trucks, or through the fees they pay to trucking companies that in turn pay fees to the various works departments.
This applies to the rest as well, except education. However, education is primarily paid for through property taxes.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 25,554
- 4,050
- 126
<< Average income tax paid per person: $3559.
Average welfare paid per person: $4128. This is the sum of social programs, social security, medicare, retirement, and development programs.
Only a Democrate can make math work like that.
That sounds like I am slamming you Dullard, but I don't mean it that way. Just give me some more information. Those numbers can't add up. >>
Those numbers were taken from two sources. First I needed to know how many people lived in the United States in 2000. The US Census shows 281 million people in April 2000. I guess we could argue that the census doesn't count everyone, but lets just assume it was correct. Second, I needed to know how much money the government earned and spent total. This was taken from the 2001 form 1040 instructions on page 63.
Total US federal income was 2.025 trillion in 2000 (I rounded this to 2 trillion for easier math). The percent of the total US federal income from income taxes is 50% (page 63). Thus the income tax portion is 2*50% = 1 trillion. There are many forms of taxes, I only discussed income tax. Some jobs have income tax and not other taxes, so this is the type of family I discussed. Other families also have social security tax, unemployment tax, etc. I'm focusing only on the income tax portion. Thus 1 trillion dollars divided by 281 million people is $3559.
Next I looked at the portion of the federal spending that went directly back to the people. I included three of the pie pieces from page 63:
1) Physical, human, and community development: 9%.
2) Social programs: 16%.
3) Social security, Medicare, and other retirement: 33%.
The net amount spent that goes directly back to the people is: $2 trillion* (9% + 16% + 33%) = $1.16 trillion. Divide this by 281 million people and you get $4128.
Like my first post said, you cannot answer your question. If you have a job that takes out more than just income tax, then you pay more than $3559. My job (research assistant) only requires that I pay income tax so this math applies to all families like me.
Families like me who only pay income tax net $4128 - $3559 = $569.
Other families pay additional taxes. I guess your initial post made me think of income tax only. If we include these additional taxes then the average family pays $2 trillion * (50% + 32%) = $6192.
Some people may want to include national defense and law enforcement as "benefits". Thus if we include these, the average family earns well more than $4128. In fact the math is: $2 trillion * (9% + 16% + 33% + 2% + 17%) / 281 million = $5480.
Other people may want to include repayment of the national debt as a "benefit". Thus if we include this benefit, the average family earns well more than $5480. In fact the math is: $2 trillion * (9% + 16% + 33% + 2% + 17%+ 12%) / 281 million = $6334.
Thus using the broadest definition of personal tax, and the broadest definition of benefit the average family will net $6334 - $6192 = $142.
Sorry if you were misled by my $569. Using the broadest definition the average family benefits by $142.
<< Is this another whining thread about people who only get to keep $10M from their $20M salaries? >>
You obviously have not been reading the thread... Its about what a cost benefit analysis regarding tax dollars.
The argument is that per dollar, poor people(<50%) get alot of value given what they pay into the system whereas
the top 50% don't dont get as much out of it.
Some people mentioned transportation, education, judicial systems:
Poor people use public transport more than rich people. Rich people spend money on luxury cars and boost economy
Poor people use public schools, while most rich people I know pay to go to private schools because public schools suck.
Jails are full of poor people so they definitely use the judicial system more than rich people.
Seems like poor people get alot of bang for their buck. If you are poor enough, you get everything for free too!
as far as poor people needing more money, I don't know if it helps them much
if they got less money and more time and coaching from the rich, that would be more helpful, I think
if they got less money and more time and coaching from the rich, that would be more helpful, I think
<< Jails are full of poor people so they definitely use the judicial system more than rich people.
Seems like poor people get alot of bang for their buck. >>
You are saying people sitting in jail get some bang for their buck by being incarserated. Like we are doing it for their own good.
I say we should have flat taxes, because at the end of the day, that is going to change precisely nothing, and it might shut up some right wingers.
If you raise taxes on the lower bracket and lower them on the higher bracket, that just means that companies will have to pay more money to low and mid workers and will lower upper management and CEO salaries to stay competitive. After a while, things will balance out such that the takehome pay of each group will be the same as before, except that lower paid workers will get some dignity, and will start demanding more benefits for their tax dollars. So in the end, the overall taxation level will increase, and takehome pay will go down for both groups. That is just a theory I am developing in my head, and it's making sense to me so far. Feel free to poke holes in it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 17K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
Facebook
Twitter