in 1913 you kept your entire paycheck

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
70,779
13,869
126
www.anyf.ca
We need taxes to subsidize stuff that people would in no way be able to afford, like health care... oh wait... ok, IN CANADA it subsidizes that. :p A world without taxes would be great but they're needed to ensure social programs and infrastructure can function. What I would like to see instead of no taxes, is governments that don't waste so much of our tax dollars and stop raising them every single year. With the amount of taxes we pay, everything should be perfect. The roads should be nice and not full of pot holes and sink holes, the health care system should have next to zero wait time, we should have a huge space program and ton's of other resources etc......... But instead they waste it on stupid stuff that could be done way cheaper and all the programs that taxes are suppose to be for STILL suffer due to lack of funds, despite the ridiculous amount of money that they get from every person combined. Companies know that governments will pay anything thus jack the prices of services and items for governments so it's a vicious cycle. For example any time you hear of a government figure travelling the cost is in the millions. An average Joe going to a vacation in that area would do it for thousands.

Another example is any construction project, a private company will get it done somewhat on schedule and maybe go a bit over budget by like 30%. A government construction project will take 10x longer than scheduled and like 10x the projected price, and then probably get cancelled near completion. What's done will be sold to a private company at a 10,000% loss. That's the kind of shit that has to stop, but that's never going to happen since it's easier to just keep raising the taxes instead.

I actually need to sit down some time and figure out the rate of the tax increase and general cost of living so I can figure out when the breaking point is. At some point I simply won't be making enough money and will need a secondary source of income. Though the house will probably be paid off before that.
 

rh71

No Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
52,844
1,049
126
the real problem for us is the 40% they take from annual bonuses.
 

SSSnail

Lifer
Nov 29, 2006
17,458
83
86
the real problem for us is the 40% they take from annual bonuses.

You can specify how much taxes to take out of bonuses.

Doesn't matter though, it's your effective tax rates that will count.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,904
31,429
146
could you imagine if one day you got your paystub and see every cent you earned as deposited into your bank accountD::eek:? damn the thought of that is mind blowing. think of the purchasing power we the people would have.

And I also worked in a factory polishing rocking horses, the kids worked in a salt mine, and half my family died of cholera by the age of 17. Plus, there was no Stevie Ray Vaughn yet.

what a shitty life.
 

Pocatello

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,754
2
76
Back in those days you have to go to an adult store to rent porn movies on tapes, or sitting in an adult theater with Paul Reubens, no thanks.
 

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,764
347
126
They pay as little as they can and still get the work done.

I can offer my doctor minimum wage. Think she'll show up?

This is, of course, the point. A taxation across the board provides a total non-impact on the rationing power of money excepting in terms of the total capital expenditure worthy of investment for a given return.

No one tries to pay a penny over what they can get away with while obtaining the outcomes they desire. You don't take a penny under what you can earn after accounting for the quality of the job.

In the same world without taxes individuals would make the same income, as that is their bargaining power in the market, and corporations would have more money to spend and be more likely to spend it on employment as the return on investment on utilizing human capital would be better than it is today.


So if taxes were gone one would not obtain a tax-free income.

so taxes means higher wages, sweet what would my pay be if i was taxed at 75% maybe i could buy a brand new BMW 1200RT to replace my current one. :D:D:D:D

Actually, higher taxes would cause no change in your total income over a long-enough period of time for things to even out. It would, though, make you un-employed if you are a 'marginal' employee.


Personally, I had a negative 5% income tax this year... This had zero influence on my willingness to work or my bargaining power in the market: just like a positive income tax does. It did, though, transfer wealth to me for the last time... hopefully for the rest of my life.

Next year i'm looking at AMT forcing me to pay about 10% and 6.5% in medicare/SSI taxes.

but that in no way affects what I can bargain for when it comes to my labor. The only time it works differently is when you are making a minimum wage (either by law, or by union agreement).
 
Last edited:

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Example written in crayon:

You now gross $500,000 for your job.
Your net pay after all federal taxes is $300,000.
This means you do your job in order to acquire $300,000.
All federal taxes go away.
You now do your job for $500,000.
Other people that can do your job were happy to do it for $300,000.
Your company hires one of them to do your job for $300,000.
Your company sends you packing.
You now wonder why other companies laugh at you when you demand $500,000 when they ask you your desired salary.

Jobs at those level of pay are usually acquired through networking and personal contacts, you just don't walk off the street and offer to do it for less and bump the guy making more.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
70,779
13,869
126
www.anyf.ca
Jobs at those level of pay are usually acquired through networking and personal contacts, you just don't walk off the street and offer to do it for less and bump the guy making more.

Sure you do. Capitalism. Companies only care about one thing, and that's minimizing costs. Will shit hit the fan because they got rid of someone with experience and replaced with someone who has no clue, oh hell yes, but they don't care about that. Everyone will just have to figure out how to deliver the end product regardless, if not, someone is getting fired, and it's not the CEO.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
outhouse in this thread:

eklAxNn.gif

Really. I'm not sure what has happened to him but he is really living up to his name lately. RIP...
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
apparently roads did not exist prior to 1913. lol stupid liberal logic

You guys love all or nothing don't you? Do you think the total miles of roadway in 2016 is more, less or equal to the total miles of roads in 1913?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
could you imagine if one day you got your paystub and see every cent you earned as deposited into your bank accountD::eek:? damn the thought of that is mind blowing. think of the purchasing power we the people would have.

Good times! Of course, you lived in a company-owned shack, you worked 16 hour days 6 days a week in unsafe conditions and barely made enough to eat - but you kept it!
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,455
33,160
136
Jobs at those level of pay are usually acquired through networking and personal contacts, you just don't walk off the street and offer to do it for less and bump the guy making more.

Those are completely fictitious numbers. Plug any salary in there you like. It will work the same for any job where there is competition for that job.
 

jlee

Lifer
Sep 12, 2001
48,518
223
106
apparently roads did not exist prior to 1913. lol stupid liberal logic

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/history.cfm
Eisenhower Signs Road Bill; Weeks Allocates 1.1 Billion

The article by John D. Morris began:

President Eisenhower set into motion a record $33,480,000,000 road-building program today by signing the bipartisan authorization bill that Congress sent him Tuesday. Sinclair Weeks, Secretary of Commerce, immediately announced the allocation of $1,125,000,000 among the states for the first year of what he called “the greatest public-works program in the history of the world.”

Morris reported that:

The main feature of the program is a 41,000-mile network of limited-access roads linking 90 percent of all cities with populations of more than 50,000. The Federal Government will distribute $25,000,000,000 among the states over the next thirteen years to meet 90 percent of the cost.

lol stupid internet troll

:colbert:

I could make a far more comprehensive list of what taxes have paid (and currently pay) for, but that seems excessive.
 
Last edited:

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
Even if my income was 10%, we all know damn well that the money isn't going into roads. That is what gas tax are for.


Thats for maintenance retard. someone just posted a link to a funding bill for roads via the federal gov. Do you not read? People in the past paid for things for us and we pay for things for those to come after. No wonder your party is shit, you all think like goldfish about the right now only.
 

mpo

Senior member
Jan 8, 2010
458
51
91
apparently roads did not exist prior to 1913. lol stupid liberal logic
The roads existed. Most of them were not all-weather improved roads that were passable all year.

Up until this time, some cash-poor southern states still allowed the use statutory labor to maintain roads. Yes, in some areas you either had to pay an ad valorem tax for roads. Otherwise, men would have to work on the road crew for a certain number or days, or pay a daily rate not to work.

Some examples:
https://books.google.com/books?id=P...ads&pg=RA4-PA34#v=onepage&q=statutory&f=false