Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/03/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi George, I quite agree with you on everything you write, except the taxpayer detail. I fully endorse the need of public employment and the likelihood of privatising these services resulting in worse services for more money (and probably a crony of whoever is in power getting rich). I absolutely support taxpayers needing to pay for the services they demand. OTOH before money can be spent somebody, somewhere has to earn it, then pay real net tax on it. My knowledge of the US tax system and the difference between federal and state revenues is non-existent, so maybe what I wrote about taxpayers is not true for you, but if one imagines the tax being put into a big pot, from which everything public must be paid, it does not really matter whether the tax is collected locally or nationally the fact is that sales tax, income tax and property taxes all effectively go into the same pot, in varying proportions, and public employees are entirely paid out of it. They are not net tax payers to my way of looking at it. I do not by this mean to belittle their efforts or underestimate the importance of what they do. What I do mean is that however much we want the service they provide we can not have it if our economy does not have a significant number of people in genuine wealth creating employment who are net tax contributors. Who are net contributors, from this perspective? Artists, such as yourself, who create from almost nothing valuable art which people pay for. Anybody who takes a lump of clay and makes a brick, anybody who takes a sheet of steel and makes a washing machine, anybody who takes a pile of bricks and builds a house. The payment received for all these efforts is taxed and is "new" money going into the tax pot. It is this "new" money that allows us to pay for other things, not the money which circulates into and out of the tax pot. This circulation keeps people in work but is unsustainable without the "new" money since the money will dry up otherwise. If nobody is making "new" money nobody can spend it. However much we thing we "need" something. IMHO Frank ----- Original Message ---- From: George Lottermoser <imagist3 at mac.com> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> Sent: Friday, 11 March, 2011 20:58:51 Subject: Re: [Leica] IMGS: check out Keith Wessel's photographs On Mar 11, 2011, at 2:28 PM, FRANK DERNIE wrote: > George, public employees are -not- net tax payers since the tax they > nominally > pay goes straight into their next pay packet, topped up by other real > taxpayers > > contributions. If a public employee was directly paid his after tax income > and > paid no tax, or is paid his nominal income and pays the tax the end effect > is > the same. > All public employees cost taxpayers something I am afraid. > The arithmetic is straightforward. Frank, let us try and frame this within the larger systemic reality. Public services cost taxpayers $$. In order to provide those services we must hire employees, rent offices, purchase equipment, etc. State public employees also "really" pay federal income taxes; they "really" pay sales taxes, gas taxes, and all other taxes; and yes to some degree they also pay a portion of their own salaries in state taxes. In in all cases they qualify as "real tax payers. They also circulate their $$ within the economy. Now let us drop all pretense around public service "employees" and simply get to the heart of the matter. Some people appreciate the services provided by a well regulated government. This would include the mass of people who cannot afford to purchase those services on their own. Other people believe that all services should be privatized. This would mostly be people who can afford to purchase any and everything that desire. Yet others believe even more services should be provided by their government. This would include the absolute bottom in terms of income and resources. And all others believe in one or another proportion between public and private services; according to what they need and/or want in life. Now: If you can afford a private school education you probably resent supporting public education. and the list could go on and on. Whether the state hires employees to provide services to the citizenry or hires private contractors to provide the same services the services will need to be paid for. With out any doubt if we privatize everything those business will run to earn the largest possible profits for their CEO's and shareholders. How does that hold down costs? This is what we see with the insurance companies. NOT THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO DELIVER HEALTH CARE SERVICES. Until people are willing to actually pay a reasonable wage to the people who grow, pick, cook, serve, deliver their food to the super market, clean their homes, pickup their trash, build, maintain and plow their roads, deliver their mail, stand at their store's cash registers, teach or provide care for their children and on and on - in my opinion - we need to provide a modicum of safety, health and education to these, our servants. Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information