Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 36 of 37 FirstFirst ... 2634353637 LastLast
Results 526 to 540 of 543
  1. #526
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    88,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    Yes, I know. They are in the higher income tax bracket and the taxable income is higher. I know it's not the entire income at that new bracket.
    So the problem is that they are getting paid more and thus owe more in taxes? I can't possibly see then how that is a negative. If that were the case, we could fix everyone's tax problems by not paying them anything.
    Think long and hard about why you respond to nonsense. Please!


  2. #527
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hell on Earth- Missouri
    Posts
    12,130
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    Nvm


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Post ninja edit post: You absolutely do pay into pensions.
    GJO- You will never be forgotten. "MORE THAN MINFINITY"!

  3. #528
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    39,507

    Study finds that restaurants raise prices, cut jobs to increased minimum wage

    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo View Post
    Post ninja edit post: You absolutely do pay into pensions.
    I made a mistake and edited. [emoji2373]. No need to correct someone that already corrected themselves. I feel public employee see pensions as a benefit vrs their 401k counterparts. I don’t really know enough to compare them and make any conclusions

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by ewing; 05-24-2019 at 06:37 AM.
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  4. #529
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    39,507
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    So the problem is that they are getting paid more and thus owe more in taxes? I can't possibly see then how that is a negative. If that were the case, we could fix everyone's tax problems by not paying them anything.
    Less is more.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  5. #530
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    88,413
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    Less is more.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I’m not crazy. Am I? It sounds like arguing that you aren’t getting to stay home as many days because your kid is getting better access to health care as though it’s a bad thing.

  6. #531
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    55,416
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    So the problem is that they are getting paid more and thus owe more in taxes? I can't possibly see then how that is a negative. If that were the case, we could fix everyone's tax problems by not paying them anything.
    Because they are only being paid an additional $8K per year, and have to pay $5K into their unions to make the additional $8K, and are taxed at 25% of the $8K (an additional $2K)

    It neuters their pay increases.
    Last edited by Jeffy25; 05-24-2019 at 09:34 PM.

  7. #532
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    39,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    Because they are only being paid an additional $8K per year, and have to pay $5K into their unions to make the additional $8K, and are taxed at 25% of the $8K (an additional $2K)

    It neuters their pay increases.
    I agree the working class carries a heavier portion of the tax burden then they should. Thankfully those with representation get a little more take home, better benefits, and some job security.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  8. #533
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    88,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    Because they are only being paid an additional $8K per year, and have to pay $5K into their unions to make the additional $8K, and are taxed at 25% of the $8K (an additional $2K)

    It neuters their pay increases.
    But to be clear, they get paid more and get to keep after taxes more. So somehow they lose because of the representation...listen if your arguing that they get more money and that’s a bad thing, well boy you’re wasting your time.

  9. #534
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    55,416
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    But to be clear, they get paid more and get to keep after taxes more. So somehow they lose because of the representation...listen if your arguing that they get more money and that’s a bad thing, well boy you’re wasting your time.
    They don't keep more after taxes, that's the entire point.

    Paid $8K more, and are taxed at 25% of that number ($2K) and have to pay in $5K in benefits. If anything, they make $1K more per year on average. It's so negligible that it's not worth mentioning.

  10. #535
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    39,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    They don't keep more after taxes, that's the entire point.

    Paid $8K more, and are taxed at 25% of that number ($2K) and have to pay in $5K in benefits. If anything, they make $1K more per year on average. It's so negligible that it's not worth mentioning.
    by your own calc they do
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  11. #536
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    55,416
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    by your own calc they do
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    They don't keep more after taxes, that's the entire point.

    It's so negligible that it's not worth mentioning.
    And again, this is the base median numbers and are rounded. We can't take anything away with a $1000 difference.

  12. #537
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    39,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    And again, this is the base median numbers and are rounded. We can't take anything away with a $1000 difference.
    So since they take home more based on your median numbers its logical to assumed that overall they take home less?
    Last edited by ewing; 05-25-2019 at 10:18 AM.
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  13. #538
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    11,431
    Unions typically have way more benefits as well than non union shops than just pay one.

    ‘Some 93 percent of unionized workers were entitled to medical benefits compared to 69 percent of their nonunion peers, according to the National Compensation Survey published last year by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The survey represented about 101 million private industry workers and 19 million state and local government employees.

    Unmarried domestic partners — same sex and opposite sex — also had access more often to these benefits if they were unionized. Workers with union representation also had 89 percent of their health insurance premiums paid by their employer for single coverage and 82 percent for family coverage. For nonunion workers, the comparable numbers were 79 percent and 66 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And 93 percent of unionized workers have access to retirement benefits through employers compared to 64 percent of their nonunion counterparts.’

    https://www.bankrate.com/finance/per...on-jobs-1.aspx

    And pay is certainly one of them.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yankees Farm System

  14. #539
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    11,431
    Also let’s not ignore that the tax reform that was passed eliminated employee’s ability to deduct things like union dues as an expense.

    Meanwhile businesses’ can deduct expenses related towards offshoring jobs to other countries.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yankees Farm System

  15. #540
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    39,507
    Where I work they decided to cross train a couple of positions 3 years ago and have those employees take on a each other responsibilities during a reorg. I was in charge of training these people (i do a lot of training at my job). Anyway, these where union employees and they were not compensated in any way for learning new skills. They were not an easy group. My employer would have been much better off offering these people something or creating a new position. If I was given new people I am sure i would had a much easier time training them, if these employees were not unionized I would have had less problems as well. Unions can create problems that should not make us pretend that their members don't benefit
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

Page 36 of 37 FirstFirst ... 2634353637 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •