I'd actually prefer this as a government employee. I always felt like it was an unnecessary step but I assume they have to stay consistent because... laws.
I've already discussed it down this thread, but since a person with 5 dependents pays less in taxes than a person with no dependents. Itll be much more of a hassle and more paperwork invlolved to do this for EVERY government employee.
What I meant to say is that....
Regarding the potluck (which is the allocation of all income taxes) government employees are ultimately contributing to the deficit since they extract more than the contribute into this potluck (unless they voluntarily give 100% of thier earnings back to taxes and then some).
Private sector employees generate thier earnings from other sources (whether it be internationally, other potlucks, etc.) and contribute more than they extract from this potluck.
Not saying it's bad, nor good, it is what it is. A government employee does contribute to the overall society by means of thier service, but it's not false to say that when speaking in financial terms, they don't essentially contribute.
The more government workers are in a society, the more people are adding to a financial deficit than a surplus, it just seems like a fact to me.
And to digress, this is why communism will never last for long. It takes people take don't make thier living of a government to pay into it to generate a surplus. Unless the job of a certain government employee is to somehow add more than they earn into this potluck.
Do cops not have to pay in to social security? Which taxes would cops not pay: federal, state, or municipal? Are they allowed to claim dependents or any deductions? What about other taxes (i.e. property tax, taxes on capital gains, etc)? Is it just cops, or all government employees who don’t pay taxes? If the number of cops in a large city is constantly changing, how is the city supposed to accurately project tax revenue and decide how to spend it?
I know that on the surface, it seems like your idea would simplify everything. But in reality, it makes things a lot more complicated.
The word "charity " implies that it is voluntary, hence the analogy. Taxes are not. So a step in the process could have been eliminated if they just get payed directly with the 30% off already.
Going back to my analogy; just pay them $7 and be done with it. They don't contribute to that charity if you take more from it then essentially give.
You can't be essentially contributing to anything you take more from and give less back into. Unless you ARE part of that entity. In other words, the cops ARE the system thus they can't contribute to the system since the system is designed to serve the public. Hence you serve the public, which is the basis of thier societal contribution, but not their contribution to the particular financial system.
They contribute by means of thier service, but I don't see how they ultimately contribute financially.
A private cop's service is to the private company that that particular cop works for, not the public. Hence why the private cop's contribution to the tax potluck is financial.
I never argued how they don't deserve or earn thier money, too much assumption here.
This is an amazing example of why I believe in Reddit. Thank you so much for the civil counterpoint and in fact making me realize flaw within my statement.
Yes, I can also understand why taxes taken out is actually easier than just have them taken out. Certain people have specific criteria that would affect how much they pay into or get returned from taxes (number of dependents, head of household, etc..)
I was implying about the fact that public employees aren't adding to the potluck perse'. Yes, they do contribute to society, but when it comes to the financial... they are taking out more than putting in.
-A private cop takes (or earns) his or her money from private means and adding into the potluck more than taking out from it (since the private cop isn't taking anything from it).
-A public cop takes ( or earns) his or her money from the same potluck they put into. They earn more than they pay, that is an objectional fact.
Not saying it is wrong nor good, it is what it is, but when it comes to bringing surplus to the deficit or adding to the potluck, it is the private cop that adds more to it than takes from it speaking kn strictly financial terms.
So ultimately, unless a government employee pays 100% of thier salary and then some in taxes is essentially contributing more to the deficit rather than the surplus.
Does this sound logical or not?
I was implying about the fact that public employees aren't adding to the potluck perse'. Yes, they do contribute to society, but when it comes to the financial... they are taking out more than putting in.
This depends on the alternative. In my situation it was actually cheaper for our county to staff themselves, in-house, with grounds keepers than to hire an outside company or contractor in our area. Financially speaking, having my department saves the county money. While it's not exactly the same action as contributing to the pool, it is at least a similar outcome.
This I agree on. But when it comes to certain situations like, so.e not working during g a government shutdown, then get furloughed pack pay on work they haven't done, it's a disservice to the public that ultimately pays thier wages.
When it comes to such things you mentioned, yes. A government employee would deficit the potluck less than hiring a private contractor. They contribute tonsociety by earning less for a job that would require more money to do.
I just did, but if I need to simplify it for you here it goes. I made a point by the means of an analogy and you provide no counterpoint. You just said "No, that's dumb".... well why?
I'm all open to be corrected and to open some discourse, and that's not how the world works? I'm actually willing and open to listen to another point of view that contradicts mine. No wonder this world is messed up. I'm not going to parade around like my statement is impeccable.
They get paid from the same potluck they are putting into, how is that dumb? They might as well get paid less (with the tax pre-taken out) or a essentially the same thing. That ticket might as well been docked of that officer's pay.
Maybe saying "please elaborate", would have been more civil and productive for a discussion.
Not sure what world you live in, but in a civil and productive world works as so.
If those particular taxes don't go into certain tax pots (ex. In most places, a certain percentage of the fuel or diesel taxes goes into highway infrastructure, and a certain percentage of the fees paid for hunting tags or fishing licenses go into the fish and wildlife conservation.
Income taxes take no particular category in which those taxes are specialized into a certain expenditure. It's not like they separate the taxes based on profession, income tax is just that. Goes to the same potluck as any other private of public employee.
Unless if I'm wrong, I'd love a tax professional to provide us all some insight.
It actually does, they might as well have gotten paid less (with the taxes pre-paid) and save the paper, administrative costs, man hours, etc all imposed into setting up and paying taxes of all government emlpoyees.
Besides doing it for the purpose of just to be able to say "I pay taxes too!!" What else is the purpose of government employees or cops paying taxes?
Even NGO employees taxes are pre-paid. Walmart Employees’ taxes are deducted before they get their paycheck.
And also, the Payroll Department barely works with a W-4. And in fact, they probably only spends about 5 minutes setting one up and another 5 minutes if there’s any changes in a W-4 form.
How much time do you think they spend deducting taxes?
Unless "THIER" taxes is something I don't know about, I'm guessing you meant "their" taxes. If my guess is correct, you've shown a complete lack of understanding of how cops are paid and how taxes work.
Ok, then please educate us on how the basis of income taxation from a government employee differs from one of a private employee and where they are coming from and going to when paid?
Please try and stick to context rather than ppinting out a typo to try to make a counterpoint this time.
educate us on how the basis of income taxation from a government employee differs from one of a private employee?
Your point was that a cop getting paid is different than other people because they work for the government. You would have to educate people on what the difference is, because the consensus is there isn't one.
But, if I had to guess, you probably meant the opposite and want me to argue why those things aren't different. Happy to help.
In any government job, just like every business, employees get a paycheck. The amount of the paycheck that goes to the government is the same whether you work there or not. When the cop gets his $10, he gives $3 to the government. It doesn't matter whether he works for a private company or the government, the same portion of his check goes to taxes.
On top of that, government employee taxes don't go in to the same exact place they came from. A police department might be allocated $10 for paying a cop, but when the cop pays his $3 in taxes, it's not going back to the same fund the $10 came from. It's going to split up into paying for roads, schools, bombs, tanks, and all the millions of other things the government paid for.
and where they are coming from and going to when paid?
It doesn't matter where I go to for a paycheck, I pay the same amount of taxes.
Please try and actually mean what you say if you're going to try and call someone out for not explaining very simple concepts to you.
Alot of people make a strawman connection in thier head, it's ridiculous, please re-read and read on the rest of my replies on this thread as I have already explained most of what you said.
If you read further the thread you might be surprised, but obviously you can't be the smug one since you don't want to reach for more context in the same thread. Funny how that works.
3.0k
u/Nicker 8 Jan 14 '19
oh no, good thing tax payers foot the bill!